Picture of the day
- Thread starter jwhc
- Start date
Is there a more "Bad Ass" aircraft flying today? A Warthog is the last aircraft I'd want to see if I was on the other side. I've read the pilots call their "Ready Room" the "Pig Pen".
One left!
Because the USAF does want to be in the CAS business, they are run by fighter jocks and CAS is a subordinate role not a independent service role. The argument goes back to ww2 when the army made them carpet bomb Normandy in support of the army rather than bombing Germany as the air corps felt they could win WW2 by bombing alone.
Because it works, it is reasonably priced, does the job it was designed to do better than any other aircraft currently in that role, it's butt ugly, and lastly but the real reason......... billions of dollars can be made by the military-industrial industry of the US, to develop something new, pretty, and high tech; that won't even do the job half as well, for ten times the price per unit.
The Zoomies are biased towards fast, high performance fighters. The thinking is that if you don't have a high performance fighter jet, you don't have an air force. When money gets tight the air force resorts to eating it's young. Everything will go before the fighter jet.
What does the bottom symbol represent?
Donny Fenn1
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- East Kootenays
fighter sweep? it's a broom, if my model making days are correct
Because the Germans had a better vehicle recovery system, and because in North Africa they usually ended up in possession of the battlefield when the shooting stopped.
And that was due to the fact that Guderian, Rommel and most of all Hilter, listened to the British armoured warfare theorists of WWI and the 20s and 30s, while the cavalry types who dominated the British high command between the wars hated them and their ideas and drove them out of the Service or marginalized them as far as possible.
And speaking of Pz.IIIs, the long 50mm was introduced at Hitler's personal insistence, over the objections of the Heereswaffenamt. Yes, they had military bureaucrats too!
Puerile inter-service rivalry and egotism all wrapped up in shiny paper they call "doctrine" and "lifecycles" would be my guess. Who wants to fly support for the pongos?! We're stars, we win wars by ourselves...etc., etc. Besides, 30mm ammo is cheap compared to guided missiles which are far more profitable for defence contractors where old generals go to fade away on a few hundred grand a year.
And if that's a landing wheel sticking half out of its sponson, I hope it's a solid core tire!
Last edited:
Maybe strafeing ground troops?
Remember the German, Ju 87 Stuka was a great ground support aircraft until the opposition chased away or occupied their fighter cover.
I am unaware of the A-10 Warthog engaging enemy fighters.
The US has a fighter school and I would imagine they tested out the A-10 against the current fighters.
I am unaware of the A-10 Warthog engaging enemy fighters.
The US has a fighter school and I would imagine they tested out the A-10 against the current fighters.
The assumption is that A-10s will operate in favorable air superiority situations, or at least in conditions of air parity. To date the US has always enjoyed an unchallenged air superiority situation, altho both A-10s and attack helicopters would have needed to operate in whatever conditions existed in a NATO vs USSR confrontation. The huge numbers of Soviet armor demanded it and the army has no monopoly on dying.
During the 1991 Gulf War A-10s did shoot down 2 Iraqi helicopters using the 30mm cannon.
The A-10 operates below the air to air fray and is highly maneuverable at low altitudes which gives it a good chance of avoiding enemy air. It's main threat is from air defence guns and missiles at low altitude. That's why the operational concept against Soviet armor saw them being used in connection with attack helicopters, artillery and other means of supressing enemy air defences.
Exactly !
That certainly has the kind of 'stupid' look to it, that the brass hats would probably apply on behalf of their greedy masters to justify their 'decision'. The A-10 was not designed to be a fighter, it was designed for 'close air support' of ground troops, under protection of air superiority. I wonder how well the current crop of fighters would do, put down 'in the dirt' with the grunts, in the 'close air support' role. Same kind of 'stupid' brasshat logic.
Last edited:
- Location
- Richmond, BC
IJN Musashi
Last edited:
- Location
- Richmond, BC
Looks like IJN Nagato, possible after the war when she was towed for nuke testing?
Last edited:
