> 1 <
| Author | Message |
HAWG64
 
|
2007-07-28 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
Recently The USAF upgraded their A-10 Warthogs. LCD displays in the cockpit, and new weapons are some of the upgrades it got. I think this is a great thing, because the A-10 is such an effective weapon. I think this upgrade will help it be more effective, and also make it more survivable.
|
| Author | Message |
Mustang 51
|
2007-07-29 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
Its kind of funny... A couple of years ago i read a report which stated that the USAF as considering the retirement of all A-10's... Due in part to the AH-64's effectiveness in the gulf and the inhernt risk in air to air combat with another fighter.
The artical stated that in the meeting all of the generals came to the conclusion that you can replace a grunt aircraft... Their is nothing like it in the entire USAF arsinal or in the pipe line to replace it. Yes, the aircraft is rather slow comparied to modern jets but is has some great qualitys to offer to the battle feild comander... 1, being that it has a long flight time over target, 2. can linger and put a substanciale amount of ammo on target. 3. it can take the hits aswell as it delivers the punishment. In the artical it also mentions the remaining B-52 will remain in service for the forseable future.. There is no plans in the works for another long range bomber.. but they are to be maintained in service for the foresee able future due to constant up keep and maintance of the entire fleet. They then go on and say that the A-10 should be allowed to stay in active service with the modern jet fighters that are flying to day. Plus... What aircraft to day can you pull the trigger and you have one of the worlds biggest guns at your finger tips..... :wink |
| Author | Message |
Davion38
|
2008-11-07 GMT-5 hours
|
Quote ac-130 gunship for one. :wink. also, i am am A-10C Avionics Craftsman and i do not think that the C-model was a well thought out plan. i work on the A-10 and i know for a fact that most of the systems dont work as advertised. i dont understand why they would want to change a good thing. why make the A-10 JDAM capable? its not a high altitude bomber, its a CAS aircraft. i think that they should have just stuck with the old systems or do what some of the reserve bases did make the A-10A+ models. just swap out the TVM with a MPCD with ARC-210 UHF/VHF radios and SADL and everything would be great. there is nothing more dangerous than a wounded mosquito |
| Author | Message |
31 Bravo
See my 36 Photos 
|
2008-11-07 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
Because now it can drop precisioun guided munitions without having to fly low and expose itself to enemy fire. You can support infantry and other ground units flying at 30,000 feet too.
|
| Author | Message |
Davion38
|
2008-11-07 GMT-5 hours
|
Quote thats if an A-10 can get that high. there is nothing more dangerous than a wounded mosquito |
| Author | Message |
31 Bravo
See my 36 Photos
|
2008-11-07 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I can't see why it wouldnt, It's service ceiling is 45,000ft. It seems that everyone is going for precision strike more than anything now. Cost, collateral damage etc. Also safer for aircrew.
|
| Author | Message |
Davion38
|
2008-11-10 GMT-5 hours
|
|
i have never seen an A-10 that i have worked on get to 45,000ft. i dont think that the tf-34 engine would like being that high
there is nothing more dangerous than a wounded mosquito |
| Author | Message |
31 Bravo
See my 36 Photos
|
2008-11-11 GMT-5 hours
|
|
The TF-34 or it's civilian version the CF-34 and its on quite a few aircraft for example one i know is the Bombardier Challengers (service ceiling 41,000 ft). The US Navy S-3 Vikings also has the GE TF-34 and it's service ceiling is 40 or 41,000 ft.
Service ceiling by the way is the altitude density that an aircraft (in clean configuration), and at maximum engine power can produce 100 feet per minute rate of climb. So yes the A-10 wouldnt need to go to 45,000 feet. I personally think that the ability to deliver armament stores with that high precision is awesome 
|
> 1 <