I have piloted a lot of airplanes and helicopters...I was very lucky to be in the right place many, many times. I have stick time in T-2's, A-4's, two rides in an F-4, lots of S-3 time, P-3 time, T-45, T-34, TC-4C, KA-6, lots of back seat F-18 rides with a stick in my hand. I even have a one time good deal in an F-14. I think a few more.

The helo list is long and distinguished.

Through all of that: I wish I had gotten my float plane quals, kept my commercial tickets, etc...the little things.

But there is nothing I would have rather flown than the A-10. Maybe it is the grass is greener thing, but I don't think so. What I loved about the H-60 is that I had 3600SHP at my disposal to go see things very low and sorta fast.

A-10: Very low, very fast. The best of the best.

Helicarriers!!! SmileWavy

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/...20131024215211

The A10 is overkill UNLESS you want a pilot that is willing hang low and slow to cover your 6 on the ground.

It seems to me, when it comes to close air support, overkill is just about right.

I'll tell you what, hearing close ground support coming in, especially the A1-E's 18 cyl. roar, brought many a tear to the toughest.
No such reality as "Overkill" right then!
.

Great play on words there.

A previous poster was talking about the A10 being overkill. My point was that I wonder if they would say the same thing they needed the ground support.

I am right with you on that Joe.

Shame that the people buying the equipment don't listen to the ones using it more. That critter is purpose built to do the job. One big hammer is better than three little ones.

I think that the T-6 and A-29 would not be selected because there are single engine. The Scorpion, looks good so far, but untested.

Anyone else see where we had a pair of OV-10 Bronco's flying around in Syria recently as a test? I think that they flew quite a few missions. Do I remember correctly that they are going to refurbish/upgrade some more and use them?

Oh, you've done it now... you mentioned the OV series....

I few on these as the "technical observer" while I was in the US Army:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1471611782.jpg

We knuckled under to AF politics in the early '60s losing fixed-wing aircraft capability under ground maneuver control. The boundaries should have been altitude/air space--not equipment type. The Army should be responsible for low-level airspace in their area operations (non-oxygen flight 10,000 feet and below) and the AF should control airspaces from 10,000 feet up--which is above MANPADS SAM range--to space and from ground level to space where the Army is not in control to execute ground warfare. The U.S. Army should be able to buy/use whatever aircraft types it damn well thinks is best to get the damn job done--and win wars and save men's lives.
- MUDFIGHTERS: BRING BACK THE CACTUS AIR FORCE!


More Mohawk propaganda:
OV-1 MOHAWK
The OV-1 Mohawk Remembered Firsthand: The Mohawk's Marathon Saga | Defense Media Network

I read that too. I believe they were just testing the platform at the time, I don't think there was going to be any large scale operations with the Bronco.

I had one of these when I was a wee lad...the Cobra Rattler. It was the bad guy's plane, and was clearly based on the A-10, with some modifications (VTOL the most obvious of them).

https://latimesherocomplex.files.wor...970b-600wi.jpg

I have read/heard that they have some nasty single engine characteristics.

Three little hammers with laser guided rockets, longer on-station time, and higher fleet utilization due to reduced maintenance requirements isn't half bad either. The reality is that a lighter duty aircraft can spend more time in loiter, carry an equally lethal payload that is also more accurate, cost less to purchase, and cost less to operate. You don't need a 30 mm cannon to take out a Toyota pickup, and in a populated urban area you can't use it due to collateral damage. You can, however, use a laser guided rocket.

There have been multiple proposals to refurbish retired OV-10s. Unfortunately it's just about as expensive just to develop a new airplane. I think there are a few foreign nations still operating them.

Remanufacturing any aircraft type model series in numbers is a fools errand.

I managed two programs that started out as refurb/reman programs. We ended up building new both times.

It is nearly impossible to estimate a coherent budget aircraft by aircraft. I've tried.

The most expensive component of any reman program is "touch labor", people putting their hands on the aircraft. Like rebuilding an old Porsche, the disassemble, modification and reassemble of aircraft is touch labor intensive and very hard to predict. Building new is a breeze.

The term is "over and aboves" in contracting; what we planned for and what actually occurred from the baseline: That is where reman program go ballistic.

uh-1y
ah-1z

edit: for some reason, Pelican software won't let me put those in all caps.

Jacob, I still have that Cobra plane to this day.

Bill

I guess all we shot was Toyotas in Iraq. America's military might is not based on just barely enough to get by.

Less cost to purchase and operate? What color is the sky in your world? The A10 is far less expensive on both counts.

Does your replacement have the triple redundant systems to keep the thing in the air and can it protect the pilot from 50 mm fire? If not you can kiss your air support goodbye since the AF is only interested in protecting itself and not the Army (one reason I think the AF doesn't like the A10: they have to take care of troops instead of being glamorous high tech jockeys with cool toys.

Can you take out the enemy with your friendlies 20 meters away?

Years ago, BMW had a TV ad where they bragged that all the other cars compared their stats to a BMW. They then said something to the effect of "why not just get the car everyone wants to be like?".

Sorry, but your basis of capability is 25 years ago. Nothing we have fought since has been like Gulf War 1. As for cost per flight hour you are just blatantly wrong. Most modern military aircraft, including the A-10, spend more time in maintenance than they do in flight.

First of all, cheaper is not better. It's just cheap.
Seond, you've totally ignored the issue of protecting the pilot, redundancy of critical systems, and accuracy.

Repair cost is more than time. High tech parts are far more expensive. Cost aside, wouldn't you want to put your butt in the plane that will get you back home? Would you want the pilot to be able to spend more time (because he is safe) and have better accuracy doing support to your son on the ground? Let's exaggerate to make a point. We can drop a nuclear bomb with pinpoint accuracy but the weapon in not going to discriminate between the enemy and your son 20 meters away.
Show me real stats on an aircraft that can do what the A10 can do to the enemy AND protect our servicemen on the ground and in the air at the same time.

Sorry but per your argument we would be losing aircraft regularly in our recent wars. We aren't because the ground to air defenses of our current enemies are rudimentary at best. Beyond the "golden bb" scenario there is very little threat to any of our aircraft when operating in a counter insurgency scenario. As for the rest, sorry you are out of your league. Did you know that the AT-6 had armor for the cockpit and critical areas of the aircraft? Did you know that the AT-6 and A29 have simple pushrod based flight controls that are simpler and more reliable than the hydraulic systems on generally every military aircraft? That they can spend 3-4x more time on station without needing to refuel? That modern precision guided weapons are exponentially more accurate than the 30 mm gun on the A-10? That the AT-6 actually used the mission system from the A-10 as well as sharing most of the communication and datalink capability? I'm thinking probably not.