M14 Forum banner
21 - 40 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,256 Posts
Wasn't it the USAF that sent F-4's into Vietnam without a gun because in the "new" air war a gun on a jet wasn't needed, that 'winders and such were all that was needed? That didn't work out so well as I recall. And, the M14 was "replaced" by the M16 as our main battle rifle and then we had to dust off the M14 for use in "the sandbox" cause the M16 didn't fit the need. We seem to do this to our selves over and over again. Sometimes "old" is good because it works. Are all the "bugs" worked out of the F-35 now?
If Uncle Sam needs a storage facility until a time comes that he may need to bring the Warthogs out of retirement, I have a place to park one or two A-10s for storage, will even even keep the dust off and the parts lubed by flying 'em around the pattern on a regular basis.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
The USAF never liked the A-10. It was forced down their throat. Congress used it as they normally do and got as much pork as possible, hence the under powered engines. The AF creed is high and fast, sexy aircraft. Everything the A-10 is not. One earlier commenter correctly noted the only real armor is the titanium bath tub the pilot sits in, but he did not mention all the redundant systems that have proved themselves repeatedly in combat. There were efforts by the army to take over the A-10 but the AF would have none of this. When the A-10 is retired there will really not be a replacement. When the ground fire was heavy in Iraq the helicopters turned around and had to call in the A-10s which came in and devastated the Iraqi anti-aircraft defenses in short order.

Some of this history is presented in this article.
https://www.historynet.com/the-warplane-nobody-wanted.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Wasn't it the USAF that sent F-4's into Vietnam without a gun because in the "new" air war a gun on a jet wasn't needed, that 'winders and such were all that was needed? That didn't work out so well as I recall. And, the M14 was "replaced" by the M16 as our main battle rifle and then we had to dust off the M14 for use in "the sandbox" cause the M16 didn't fit the need. We seem to do this to our selves over and over again. Sometimes "old" is good because it works. Are all the "bugs" worked out of the F-35 now?
The same folks who HAD to prove how obtuse they were by taking the guns off of modern warships after WW2 to make some sort of snobby "point" about "how much we reject outdated gun philosophy in naval warfare", just to drag heavy cruisers and battleships back form the mothballs for shore bombardment? Asinine political showboating and boasting in the State capital, with the same results. Instead of focusing on making a better military, they were parading around the State capital culture trying to be hip and cool with the new trends. "Anti gun" was super cool post WW2, and it was more important to be anti gun than pro military.

Get your steel toed boots on, boys, we have another pariah to kick to death!

Certainly, I can see with aircraft that as they age they do eventually warrant replacement. They aren't a machine gun, or a T55 or Centurion tank, even some worn out old ships are easier to keep running. Replacing the A10 because of cost maintenance issues is understandable, as others have posted. The B52 is strangely unique in its ability to justify itself for potentially a century.

But, also true is the problem with the bois at the capital, doing strange bizarre things to make asinine points that.... have no point. Missiles will never replace 6 inch naval guns, or 155mm towed guns, or dogfighting canons on aircraft. Sometimes, potentially far too often, we are more concerned with the new shiny offerings than what actually works. We re supposed to buy the new thing simply, purely, 100% "cuz its new therefore better hurrr". Attitudes of concerning oneself with lynch mobs and defining yourself by what you hate and are against rather than defining yourself as objectively seeking to be the most effective and pro military we can be. Bashing battleships may be super mondo cool on the hill, but it doesn't do us a damn bit of good. We need to be focusing on the new designs and ideas that will carry us forward, not wax about Toronto and Pearl Harbor and talk about "HO BOY WE SHOULDA SAW THAT COMING HA HA". We need to focus on better infantry, not mock bayonets. A negative culture.

Maybe the A10 isn't worth the money and effort. But the criticisms of the people in charge being obsessed with new and shiny, and especially hateful towards what is old and proven (and still NECESSARY), are not unbased. Rather they are very legitimate indeed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,216 Posts
There were efforts by the army to take over the A-10 but the AF would have none of this.
If the AF doesn't want them and the Army does then they should let the Army have them.GI2
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
4,807 Posts
I just saw a blog on 50 amazing facts about the A-10. Very interesting, and there were a lot of things about the A-10 that I didn't know. Very well designed aircraft for what it was intended for, CAS. It can carry a larger payload that the weight of the plane, self, sealing fuel tanks, landing gear that don't fully retract so they can land even if the landing gear is damaged and won't extend, so there is minimal damage to the aircraft, redundant hydraulic controls, and even if both systems fail, the plane can be controlled manually.

The aircraft is designed for ease of maintenance so it can be quickly repaired and back in the fight. And the design allows it to use a very short runway, so it can be deployed very close to the battlefield.

Here is the link to the 50 Amazing Facts on the A-10.
https://thegrizzled.com/a-10-thunde...faulthomepage&utm_term=TB warthog desk 1026 B
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,256 Posts
I just saw a blog on 50 amazing facts about the A-10. Very interesting, and there were a lot of things about the A-10 that I didn't know. Very well designed aircraft for what it was intended for, CAS. It can carry a larger payload that the weight of the plane, self, sealing fuel tanks, landing gear that don't fully retract so they can land even if the landing gear is damaged and won't extend, so there is minimal damage to the aircraft, redundant hydraulic controls, and even if both systems fail, the plane can be controlled manually.

The aircraft is designed for ease of maintenance so it can be quickly repaired and back in the fight. And the design allows it to use a very short runway, so it can be deployed very close to the battlefield.

Here is the link to the 50 Amazing Facts on the A-10.
https://thegrizzled.com/a-10-thunde...faulthomepage&utm_term=TB warthog desk 1026 B

I've always thought the A-10 would do a super job of a firefighting tanker, plus that thing would look some kind of badass in a red and white air tanker paint scheme.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
I just saw a blog on 50 amazing facts about the A-10. Very interesting, and there were a lot of things about the A-10 that I didn't know. Very well designed aircraft for what it was intended for, CAS. It can carry a larger payload that the weight of the plane, self, sealing fuel tanks, landing gear that don't fully retract so they can land even if the landing gear is damaged and won't extend, so there is minimal damage to the aircraft, redundant hydraulic controls, and even if both systems fail, the plane can be controlled manually.

The aircraft is designed for ease of maintenance so it can be quickly repaired and back in the fight. And the design allows it to use a very short runway, so it can be deployed very close to the battlefield.

Here is the link to the 50 Amazing Facts on the A-10.
https://thegrizzled.com/a-10-thunde...faulthomepage&utm_term=TB warthog desk 1026 B

I've always thought the A-10 would do a super job of a firefighting tanker, plus that thing would look some kind of badass in a red and white air tanker paint scheme.
^^^^^ this!!! Lol, that would be awesome!! Heck, dont they still use DC-3's? If not, none the less, they had a VERY long working life in one way or another. Why not other well thought out designs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,256 Posts
^^^^^ this!!! Lol, that would be awesome!! Heck, dont they still use DC-3's? If not, none the less, they had a VERY long working life in one way or another. Why not other well thought out designs?
They pretty much grounded all of the old big tankers after the rash of accidents in the mid 2000s, I'm thinking the PV2 Neptunes were the last radial engine tankers taken out of service and now the heavy tankers are almost all jet or turboprops ... with a slew of contracted SEATs (Single Engine Air Tanker) doing the job now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
The cost of reproducing parts can be astronomical. Several year ago the government put out a contract for 450 M14 op rods. They ended up costing about $1600 each.
Dang, I missed another money making scheme! I was ready to make them for $1500 each! Where's my lobbyist when I need him?
Man, I just cant for the life of me figure out how the US is in debt!!! Lol. Yet they think they can fix the cost of healthcare and college? Go figure? Unreal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,779 Posts
The cost of reproducing parts can be astronomical. Several year ago the government put out a contract for 450 M14 op rods. They ended up costing about $1600 each.
The highest historical contract for operating rods since 1990, in FEDLOG is $178,200 for 450 in 2005, but it came down to $300 each in 2007.

Granted that's still almost 8X what they paid in 1984.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,779 Posts
Dang, I missed another money making scheme! I was ready to make them for $1500 each! Where's my lobbyist when I need him?
Make them? You don't have to make anything.

You buy them surplus from DRMO, stick them in a barn for fifteen to twenty years, then sell them back to the government for 10 to 100X what you paid for them....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
I was in the air force and love the a-10's along with c130's They both do their job well. Maybe some air reserve units will be blessed with the a10's? My buddy was a tank mechanic in Iraq during desert storm and traveled as support with the tanks. He said the a10's hit enemy convoy's and decimated them and their cannon blew holes in the roadway. He got to go into some destroyed enemy tanks to look at the destruction. He said, "I'm glad I wasn't in there". Sadly he has minor radiation sickness from the depleted uranium the rounds use in them. I saw him at the VA , he was there for monitor of his radiation problems. Shiny new isn't always the answer comparing a shiny new M4 to a beleaguered M14 but it's also the same with aircraft. Some decision makers need to brush up on history and keep the beleaguered items for future use, or demachine gun the m14 and sell the rifles to patriot's of America..,....pipe dreams are nice to think about once in a while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
I was in the air force and love the a-10's along with c130's They both do their job well. Maybe some air reserve units will be blessed with the a10's? My buddy was a tank mechanic in Iraq during desert storm and traveled as support with the tanks. He said the a10's hit enemy convoy's and decimated them and their cannon blew holes in the roadway. He got to go into some destroyed enemy tanks to look at the destruction. He said, "I'm glad I wasn't in there". Sadly he has minor radiation sickness from the depleted uranium the rounds use in them. I saw him at the VA , he was there for monitor of his radiation problems. Shiny new isn't always the answer comparing a shiny new M4 to a beleaguered M14 but it's also the same with aircraft. Some decision makers need to brush up on history and keep the beleaguered items for future use, or demachine gun the m14 and sell the rifles to patriot's of America..,....pipe dreams are nice to think about once in a while.
That's sad about you friend, I Hate hearing stories like that, hopefully his VA is good to him, those guys deserve the best!!

When I was looking into Military Service, my dad (served Air Force, then Reserves and Naval Int EOD) told me, "whatever you do, dont EVER go in a tank, they are rolling coffins with small exits." He must've seen things like your friend saw. He was pretty adamant about it.
 
21 - 40 of 50 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top