You don’t crate 'em.
You take out the engines, the electronics, the weapons, and the fluids and gases and such.
And then you park 'em in the desert.
That was my impression, watching them at an air show in the 80’s or 90’s at Selfridge AFB in MI. (I got to hold a pole with a ribbon to another pole that a biplan flew under, whee! Shawn somebody…)
The Warthogs were lovely to watch: giant and slow but graceful and deadly. Slow motion air ballet. But they looked like they’d be real easy targets, so they’d only be effective after air superiority was established, and even then they’d fall prey to ground-to-air missiles like Patriots. Or perhaps even a bazooka!
Well, something you THINK you can ignore. I believe it was touted to be the strongest known force.
Everybody loves the A-10, including me. Everybody loves '57 Chevies, too. But there are a number of reasons that (a) everyone is not driving one and (b) that GM isn’t still rolling them off the assembly line.
I sort of wonder how badly the Army/Air Force/Marines need an A10 when helicopters can likely do much similar jobs, as well as being flexible enough to do many others. It seems the A10 sadly is a one-trick pony.
What’s the advantage of the A10? Faster, longer range, bigger artillery? How urgent is any of those in relation to modern warfare? I hope your air bases, where you are able to launch helicopters, are not that far behind the front lines. Modern self-guided missiles and drones can probably be as effective at tank killing.
Seems to me that the only job the A-10 is best at is destroying battalions of obsolete Soviet hardware. It’s done that job admirably in Iraq and Libya. But the US army isn’t really short on ways to destroy T-72s.
Helicopters, drones, and strike fighters are all a lot more versatile.
If the beef against the A-10 is that it’s not survivable enough in a 5th Generation anti-air environment, doesn’t that apply a lot more to helicopters? And non-stealthy drones, for that matter. Though I’m sure an armed version of the, e.g., RQ-180, is floating around somewhere… I seem to recall AH-64s getting their ass handed to them during the opening stage of OIF whenever they tried the deep strike thing.
Reading blogs and articles devoted to public-source military commentary, it seems to me that helicopters are much preferred to fixed-wing aircraft by infantry calling for CAS, whether it’s an A-10 or a F-16/F-15E/B-52. (AC-130s are supposedly great too, but they can only be flown at night, and because there aren’t many of them, they’re usually too busy supporting the secret squirrel guys in JSOC.) Is that due to an inherent superiority in the platform—helicopter vs fixed wing—or due to the fact that AH-64s are flown by Army personnel and are therefore more in tune with the needs of CAS than the other aircraft, which are flown by the USAF?
You have to go see the airplane grave yard outside of Tucson, Arizona sometime
that will break your heart … or the one at Edwards in California for passenger planes.
Just be glad we didn’t need them for anymore wars and that we had a military budget when they were built.
Time moves on … I wonder if they had a two seater for training purposes that could be saved for airshows?
Actually, military technology is heading the opposite way. Weapons that can take out helicopters are becoming more common so there’s a growing move away from helicopters. This is one of the main reasons why the Army wants those A-10’s.
A helicopter or AC-130 has eyes on target constantly and can deliver weapons fire with great precision at the drop of a hat. An attack aircraft, especially a single-seater, can’t devote anywhere near as much attention to the ground situation, can have difficulty identifying and engaging targets independently, is likely to have significant delays in engagement as well as less accuracy when it does engage, and may very well also have less time on station.
It’s really an issue of scale. The attack aircraft are operationally far more versatile, but it’s understandable why the guys on the ground in the thick of it would be more concerned with what it means to them than what it means to theater command.
In what way would an A10 be less vulnerable than a helicopter, especially if it makes a pass and then spends time flying away to turn around for another pass, sowing it’s nice warm target butt to the heatseeking missiles while all it’s targetting is doing nothing, and pointed away from the action.
The only advantage is that it would be long gone if the missile was short range. But while “long gone” it cannot engage.
Plus, helicopters can hide behind hills and mountains.
As lots of VVS helicopter pilots found out in Afghanistan, so can guys with MANPADS.
True, but in in that game of hide-and-seek, an Apache still has an advantage over a Warthog.
The Warthog is good on chessboard battlefield like the Fulda Gap. It’s lost in 3-dimensional terrain.
I had a Warthog poster on my wall in college. Love those ugly, slow but supremely-effective-at-what-they’re-designed-for planes, and will be sorry to see them retired.
Q:
Do any of the choppers use the 20MM cannon shell that the Thunderbolt uses in it’s Gatling gun?
Do they routinely send in Thunderbolts solo? Helicopters?
An F-35 has to show it’s butt sometime also. Sent in solo?
Spookies are also vulnerable to any danger just to the outside of it’s circular flight path.
As the grunt digging a hole as fast as I can, I want them all to be there at once.
I am much more interested in the make up of the pilot than I am of the type of machine he is flying…
Will the rear command be willing to risk an Multi billion dollar aircraft to try to save any group of 7 or less E-5’s? Once a week for 3 months? Losing one F-35 each month and losing one out of three pilots? Other two bailed out & were rescued after being protected by Thunderbolts for 3 hours until a chopper could get there?
One answer fits all? I think not.
The AH-64 Apache uses this 30mm cannon and the AH-1 Cobra uses this 20mm gun.
The F-35 will not be operational for a few more years – it’s only showing its butt in test and training right now.
Understanding your question is looking into future conflicts, but there have been rather few losses of fixed-wing aircraft in the last decade. This was probably the most serious aviation related incident in terms of aircraft (not troop) losses.
The A-10 uses a high-velocity, high rate of fire 30 mm cannon, and it fires armor-piercing depleted uranium slugs. The AH-64 on the other hand has a 30 mm chain gun with lower velocity and rate of fire, and fires more general purpose explosive/armor piercing ammunition.
The only job where the A-10’s cannon is superior is at destroying battalions of obsolete Soviet tanks. Lighter vehicles are vulnerable to the AH-64’s cannon, while IIRC the A-10’s cannon would have a hard time killing modern tanks.
I am sure there are hundreds of grunts that wish they had never used them (A-10’s) when the helios are so much better.
What information or experience are you using to make your absolute statement above?
Why is it taking so long to mothball them if it is so obvious that they are useless today?
Links to Wiki for cost to build info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache
https://www.google.com/#q=Cost+to+build+A-10+Thunderbolt
2 man crew vs I man crew.
I know of nor heilo that is as hard to knock out of the air as is the A-10.
Range & loiter time?
They are going to drop them (A-10’s) sooner that later & with the total draw down that is being pushed now, we will have to depend on Russia for protection now anyway. ←* snark / sarcasm for the impaired.*
Who, specifically, said A-10a are “useless” today?
And does it take a 30mm cannon to knock down a straw man?
That is how I read/understood this statement Ravenman… How do you interpret it?