-
-
blogroll
- A Soldier's Perspective
- Ace Of Spades
- American Soldier
- Ann Coulter
- Attack Machine
- Bill Ardolino
- Bill Roggio
- Black Five
- Blonde Sagacity
- Breitbart
- Chicagoray
- Confederate Yankee
- Day by Day Cartoon
- Euphoric Reality
- Flopping Aces
- Free Republic
- Frontier Web Design
- Hot Air
- Hugh Hewitt
- Ian Schwartz
- Instapundit
- Jules Crittenden
- Little Green Footballs
- Matt Sanchez
- Michael Fumento
- Michael Yon
- Michelle Malkin
- Military.com
- Missiles And Stilletos
- Move America Forward
- Mudville Gazette
- Pass The Ammo
- Protest Warrior
- Roger L. Simon
- Sportsman's Outfit
- Stop The ACLU
- TCOverride
- The Belmont Club
- The Big God Blog
- The Crimson Blog
- The Daily Gut
- The Drudge Report
- The PoliTicking Timebomb
- The Pundit Review
- Veteran's Affairs Documentary
-
3 Responses
Respond now.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
THE A-10 story
The $300 million [A-10C] program gives the Warthog two new glass multifunction color cockpit displays, along with a digital stores management system that allows pilots to control weapons through computers. Also, a new grip and throttle, which incorporate a number of buttons and switches to control various functions, will allow Warthog pilots to command most of the aircraft’s functions without taking their hands off the throttle and stick.
The power supply onboard the aircraft also has been increased to manage the new weapons the fighter will employ — the Joint Direct Attack Munition and Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser …
Finally, the PE (precision engagement) program provides the fighter with a fully integrated targeting pod capability to deliver the smart weapons. A-10Cs can carry up to six Joint Direct Attack Munitions and Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers.
The upgrades give A-10 pilots an “unbelievable” increase in situational awareness, along with a reduced workload, said Maj. Trey Rawls, a pilot with Eglin’s 40th Flight Test Squadron who commanded the aircraft during its first flight last week. He spoke with ITAF Jan. 24.
Air Combat Command is aiming to begin deploying in 2007 only A-10Cs to combat theaters. The entire active-duty, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve A-10 inventory of 356 aircraft is scheduled to receive the upgrades.
Not bad for a plane that Air Force generals have been trying “to kill it from the moment it was born,” as Slate’s Fred Kaplan notes.
Why the antipathy? To understand that, “one must go back to 1947, when the Air Force broke away from the Army and became an independent branch,” author Robert Coram explained in a 2003 New York Times op-ed.
“Strategic bombing,” which calls for deep bombing raids against enemy factories and transportation systems, was the foundation of the new service branch. But that concept is fundamentally flawed for the simple reason that air power alone has never won a war.
Nevertheless, strategic bombing, now known as “interdiction bombing,” remains the philosophical backbone of the Air Force. Anything involving air support of ground troops is a bitter reminder that the Air Force used to be part of the Army and subordinate to Army commanders. For the white-scarf crowd, nothing is more humiliating than being told that what it does best is support ground troops.
Until the A- 10 was built in the 1970’s, the Air Force used old, underpowered aircraft to provide close air support. It never had a plane specifically designed to fly low to the ground to support field troops. In fact, the A-10 never would have been built had not the Air Force believed the Army was trying to steal its close air support role — and thus millions of dollars from its budget — by building the Cheyenne helicopter. The Air Force had to build something cheaper than the Cheyenne. And because the Air Force detested the idea of a designated close air support aircraft, generals steered clear of the project, and designers, free from meddling senior officers, created the ultimate ground-support airplane.
It is cheap, slow, low-tech, does not have an afterburner, and is so ugly that the grandiose name “Thunderbolt” was forgotten in favor of “Warthog” or, simply, “the Hog.” What the airplane does have is a deadly 30-millimeter cannon, two engines mounted high and widely separated to offer greater protection, a titanium “bathtub” to protect the pilot, a bullet- and fragmentation-resistant canopy, three back-up flight controls, a heavy duty frame and foam-filled fuel tanks — a set of features that makes it one of the safest yet most dangerous weapons on the battlefield.
“When the first Gulf War was being planned in 1990, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, the chief of U.S. Central Command, had to fight the Air Force to send over a mere 174 A-10s for his use,” Kaplan writes. “Yet in the course of the war, those A-10s knocked out roughly half of the 1,700 Iraqi tanks that were destroyed from the air… Even the Air Force brass had to admit the planes had done a good job, and they kept them in the fleet.”
“A-10’s may be ugly in the air, but when you’re a grunt under fire and you call in air support, when that ‘Hog’ flies over the dunes at low level, there is nothing more beautiful,” one Defense Tech reader said.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:41 pmHe LOVED them!
April 30th, 2008 at 9:22 pmThe A-10 is a capable, tough, muther. I remember shortly after the the Gulf War the Pentagon tried to push a ground attack version of the F-16 on the air force as a replacement for the A-10. They claimed that the A-10 took a beating. That’s bullshit. I think they lost 10 airframes and unfortunately two pilots.(If I remember correctly.) When compared to the damage they did to enemy, the loss of the A-10’s was a bargain. The grunts in the field complained bitterly and many A-10 units were saved. Surviving Iraqi tankers should have been asked their opinion of the Warthog.
May 1st, 2008 at 6:38 am