FA+
Shop
3462 submissions
A-10 Funnies 18
Anybody whos taken their dog to the dog park knows that its usually a friendly affair where their pet gets to mingle with others. Occasionally you get a scrap going on, hackles and teeth, growls or barks.
And occasionally the one bitch in heat that all the other intact males quickly notice.
Why can't aircraft be the same way? Though the jets would have the advantage over the twin engine bug smasher in speed. Imagine if it was a Learjet?
And
OldTiger knows that tankbusters are exceptionally maneuverable. But can they outmaneuver a Harrier?
And occasionally the one bitch in heat that all the other intact males quickly notice.
Why can't aircraft be the same way? Though the jets would have the advantage over the twin engine bug smasher in speed. Imagine if it was a Learjet?
And
OldTiger knows that tankbusters are exceptionally maneuverable. But can they outmaneuver a Harrier?
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1100 x 476px
File Size 176 kB
Listed in Folders
Stealth does you no good in the ground attack role when you are close to the ground. They knew the F-35 was going to be a bottomless money pit.... That's why the politicians and a couple of generals pushed it on the armed forces as a do all airframe. Don't you wonder why the Air Force canceled the Ground Attack testing between the A-10 and the F-35? A couple of the retired Air Force test pilots that live here talked about there impressions of the A-10 and F-35... They all like the A-10, they thought very poorly of the F-35. When I asked about the ground attack role they laughed. One of them wondered how many pilots would have to die before they gave up on the idea of using it for ground attack.
The truth is the F-35 was out dated before it went into production. What was it 25 years from start of the design to production? China has a F-35 clone that is faster and lighter, they did it in five years i think it was. Russia also has an F-35 clone.
The truth is the F-35 was out dated before it went into production. What was it 25 years from start of the design to production? China has a F-35 clone that is faster and lighter, they did it in five years i think it was. Russia also has an F-35 clone.
It's tragic, that authoritarian regimes can obtain such technological developments, which are supposed to be kept with the upmost secrecy.
One good thing I see from it, is that it shows how such "equipment" can be made cheaper, which shows how rigged the arms industry is, prices are marked higher than the rightful amount just to enrich the pockets of those who manufacture such stuff.
Likewise, one good thing I can say for authoritarian regimes like Soviet Russia, Revolutionary China, Cuba and North Korea, is that they don't waste money and resources on fanciful gear and weapons, when something that costs a dime a dozen to manufacture/repair/replace does just as good a job.
==
Like what
redbear1158 said, the only reason why the defense contractors push for using stuff like the F-35 despite the high cost and inherent flaws, is because they want to gorge themselves on Uncle Sam's money. The lives of the men and women in the Army, Marines, Navy, Coast Guard and Airforce be damned and expendable in their greedy eyes.
Why do you think there was such a push for the M-16 rifle during Vietnam, despite it's jamming and feed issues, when more reliable firearms were available?
One good thing I see from it, is that it shows how such "equipment" can be made cheaper, which shows how rigged the arms industry is, prices are marked higher than the rightful amount just to enrich the pockets of those who manufacture such stuff.
Likewise, one good thing I can say for authoritarian regimes like Soviet Russia, Revolutionary China, Cuba and North Korea, is that they don't waste money and resources on fanciful gear and weapons, when something that costs a dime a dozen to manufacture/repair/replace does just as good a job.
==
Like what
redbear1158 said, the only reason why the defense contractors push for using stuff like the F-35 despite the high cost and inherent flaws, is because they want to gorge themselves on Uncle Sam's money. The lives of the men and women in the Army, Marines, Navy, Coast Guard and Airforce be damned and expendable in their greedy eyes.Why do you think there was such a push for the M-16 rifle during Vietnam, despite it's jamming and feed issues, when more reliable firearms were available?
Well, there is a slight difference in why Russia or China have cheaper cost planes, they will shoot you if you don't work as a slave for building and developing it, you don't even get a bowl of rice!
Some of the money, (95% for the first seven years then 75% forever afterward) charged for each plane goes into the pocket of the Democrat responsible for the bill to go through Congress for the appropriation to build each one. This looks all rosy on the surface because it goes into the Democrat's reelection fund. But IF they don't use ALL the money for their reelection the rest of it goes directly into their bank account one year later. This why everything costs so much and the price never goes down. So actually each plane is not one million dollars it is $250,000 dollars after seven years! Boeing or Lockheed or whoever builds it gets 5% of the one million per plane in those first seven years, kept quiet because the Democrat party would have a second civil war on their hands if the public knew about how they make money!
Another part of the money goes to the Lobbyist that shmoozed the other Congressmen to get the one Democrat's bill through Congress.
And lastly a portion of each plane goes in fees to the designing company that originally took out the patent and eventually will sell it to the US Government after they have recouped their losses from paying the real designers of the plane, (who were all cheated out of the money they were supposed to get, by the son of the owner of the company).
The M-16 story is identical.
FDR would have been crucified in 1940 had it become public that he forced Japan into attacking Pearl Habor where all the WW1 era battleships and old pre-WW1 cruisers were, but none of the new cruisers, destroyers or aircraft carriers. I think it was called the Peterson plan it had 14 points on how this was done, starting with cutting off sales of fuel (US) and rubber (Dutch). FDR then sold all the outdated tanks and ordinance to Britain and Soviet Russia to get rid of them all. Then built a 15 foot tall badly designed tank with a manual transmission making it impossible to get out of 1rst gear in the sand, and a cannon that did not have a gyroscope mounted gun mount so you had to stop to fire accurately! And be armored in only an inch of armor when all the tanks of the Germans were three inches thick.
FDR made money of his allies before going to war, he actually wanted to attack Germany first but had to wait until Japan joined the Axis, and they attacked us first, to say his political career and that of the Democrat party. I'm pretty sure 95% of the Lend-Lease money found its way into FDR's pocket.
Some of the money, (95% for the first seven years then 75% forever afterward) charged for each plane goes into the pocket of the Democrat responsible for the bill to go through Congress for the appropriation to build each one. This looks all rosy on the surface because it goes into the Democrat's reelection fund. But IF they don't use ALL the money for their reelection the rest of it goes directly into their bank account one year later. This why everything costs so much and the price never goes down. So actually each plane is not one million dollars it is $250,000 dollars after seven years! Boeing or Lockheed or whoever builds it gets 5% of the one million per plane in those first seven years, kept quiet because the Democrat party would have a second civil war on their hands if the public knew about how they make money!
Another part of the money goes to the Lobbyist that shmoozed the other Congressmen to get the one Democrat's bill through Congress.
And lastly a portion of each plane goes in fees to the designing company that originally took out the patent and eventually will sell it to the US Government after they have recouped their losses from paying the real designers of the plane, (who were all cheated out of the money they were supposed to get, by the son of the owner of the company).
The M-16 story is identical.
FDR would have been crucified in 1940 had it become public that he forced Japan into attacking Pearl Habor where all the WW1 era battleships and old pre-WW1 cruisers were, but none of the new cruisers, destroyers or aircraft carriers. I think it was called the Peterson plan it had 14 points on how this was done, starting with cutting off sales of fuel (US) and rubber (Dutch). FDR then sold all the outdated tanks and ordinance to Britain and Soviet Russia to get rid of them all. Then built a 15 foot tall badly designed tank with a manual transmission making it impossible to get out of 1rst gear in the sand, and a cannon that did not have a gyroscope mounted gun mount so you had to stop to fire accurately! And be armored in only an inch of armor when all the tanks of the Germans were three inches thick.
FDR made money of his allies before going to war, he actually wanted to attack Germany first but had to wait until Japan joined the Axis, and they attacked us first, to say his political career and that of the Democrat party. I'm pretty sure 95% of the Lend-Lease money found its way into FDR's pocket.
Personally, I say the Chinese can have the F-35.
"Hey look what we stole from the Americans! Look at this awesome new jet!"
"Yeah! Let's put it into production only make a small tweak so it's not a carbon copy. That means we won't get in trouble!"
"Yeah! That will show those Americans!"
One Month Later
"These jets are garbage! They fall out of the sky if their computers crash! We're losing pilots! They are more loud and obnoxious than a North Korean Dictator! The software is garbage on them too! WTF, it's like we designed and built it ourselves!"
"Hey look what we stole from the Americans! Look at this awesome new jet!"
"Yeah! Let's put it into production only make a small tweak so it's not a carbon copy. That means we won't get in trouble!"
"Yeah! That will show those Americans!"
One Month Later
"These jets are garbage! They fall out of the sky if their computers crash! We're losing pilots! They are more loud and obnoxious than a North Korean Dictator! The software is garbage on them too! WTF, it's like we designed and built it ourselves!"
For starters, although at one point there was talk about replacing the A-10 with the F-35, right now they're replacing older F-16s.
As for why it was even being considered, the A-10 airframe is old. The manufacturer, Fairchild-Republic, doesn't even exist any more, and it's not like you can just zip on down to the local Auto Zone for replacement parts.
Also, the 'hog's loiter time isn't actually all that long, nor is the range all that great. The F-35 (which BTW is replacing F-16s, not A-10s, though the latter was proposed at one point) can go farther and get there faster, and with a slightly larger payload as well if using external mount points (which will, mind you, interfere with the reduced radar visibility that's one of the purposes of the design, though even "reduced stealthiness" is still not as much a neon sign as the A-10).
In spite of being a fan of the Avenger cannon, it's overkill for light targets, and not that effective against modern tanks (even the T-62 was hard for it to crack from some angles, and that's an ancient tank design). The 25mm cannon on the 35A model works better than the Vulcan on F-16s, and is still more than sufficient for killing anything short of a tank in ground attack.
Mind you, I'm not particularly a fan of the F-35 in general, but it was probably the least-bad option given the shitshow that is the US military hardware procurement system.
As for why it was even being considered, the A-10 airframe is old. The manufacturer, Fairchild-Republic, doesn't even exist any more, and it's not like you can just zip on down to the local Auto Zone for replacement parts.
Also, the 'hog's loiter time isn't actually all that long, nor is the range all that great. The F-35 (which BTW is replacing F-16s, not A-10s, though the latter was proposed at one point) can go farther and get there faster, and with a slightly larger payload as well if using external mount points (which will, mind you, interfere with the reduced radar visibility that's one of the purposes of the design, though even "reduced stealthiness" is still not as much a neon sign as the A-10).
In spite of being a fan of the Avenger cannon, it's overkill for light targets, and not that effective against modern tanks (even the T-62 was hard for it to crack from some angles, and that's an ancient tank design). The 25mm cannon on the 35A model works better than the Vulcan on F-16s, and is still more than sufficient for killing anything short of a tank in ground attack.
Mind you, I'm not particularly a fan of the F-35 in general, but it was probably the least-bad option given the shitshow that is the US military hardware procurement system.
The STOVL version of the F-35 is the B model that's going to the USMC. Also, by "loiter" I mean stick around the battlefield waiting for someone to call for support, not hover in one place.
As for what replaces what, The A-10's official name may be "Thunderbolt II", but it was never to be a replacement for the P-47, which was retired from service long before anyone was considering the A-10 design. It did take the role of the Skyraider, but wasn't a direct replacement, given that it was Army while the A-1 was Navy.
Regarding the ability to take abuse, no aircraft in any service's inventory can match the A-10 in that, but that didn't stop the F-16 (which is also an older design, though its manufacturer is still in business, with newer versions being built/supported for non-US air forces) from being used pretty well as a ground support aircraft. Toughness also can only go so far, especially in conflicts where there isn't such a disparity between opposing forces as there are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Against a peer or near-peer opponent (which are admittedly somewhat thin on the ground at the moment, though China is working hard on that, and one needs to be careful about assuming there will never be any other kind of war environment) something as slow as the A-10 even at full speed isn't going to fare so well no matter how heavily it's armored.
As for what replaces what, The A-10's official name may be "Thunderbolt II", but it was never to be a replacement for the P-47, which was retired from service long before anyone was considering the A-10 design. It did take the role of the Skyraider, but wasn't a direct replacement, given that it was Army while the A-1 was Navy.
Regarding the ability to take abuse, no aircraft in any service's inventory can match the A-10 in that, but that didn't stop the F-16 (which is also an older design, though its manufacturer is still in business, with newer versions being built/supported for non-US air forces) from being used pretty well as a ground support aircraft. Toughness also can only go so far, especially in conflicts where there isn't such a disparity between opposing forces as there are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Against a peer or near-peer opponent (which are admittedly somewhat thin on the ground at the moment, though China is working hard on that, and one needs to be careful about assuming there will never be any other kind of war environment) something as slow as the A-10 even at full speed isn't going to fare so well no matter how heavily it's armored.
Well, if you want toughness, there was a B-17 that managed to fly home, even after suffering a mid-air collision with a Messerschmidt BF-109. Named the 'All American' it got a new tail and a new emblem of a puppy praying on the back of a damaged aircraft. It truly was coming home "On A Wing And A Prayer."
http://www.aviation-history.com/boe.....g/b17tail.html
There was also the the story of 'Ye Olde Pub' the B-17 that was riddled with bullet holes and limped home on one working engine during the 'Charlie Brown, Hanz Stigler' incident in which a German Luftwaffe pilot took pity on the crew of the bomber and escorted them out of hostile airspace, back to friendly airspace, before heading for home.
https://dirkdeklein.net/2016/08/20/.....-pub-incident/
There are many other B-17 planes that got torn up but managed to make it home, though I also suspect it's the slower speed that helps put less stress on the airframe so a piston driven aircraft would be less susceptible to holes punched in it, than a faster jet powered craft.
But back to the aircraft in question. The A-10 was purpose built to be ground support. It wasn't a plane that was armed, it was a massive gun that has a plane built around it. As for availability? There are plenty of them, last I checked. Also, I don't see why we can't keep making them in other factories or with other companies. The F-35 may be faster, but it's hardly stealthy. I've heard both of the fly overhead. The A-10 you hear clearly. The F-35 rattles windows. Also, if it weren't for the bank of computers on board, the F-35 would fall out of the sky.
I say, until Russia or China or other countries have vastly superior planes, then we should build a better plane. Otherwise, leave the F-35 on the shelf or in the prototype stage. It's clearly not ready for the battlefield.
http://www.aviation-history.com/boe.....g/b17tail.html
There was also the the story of 'Ye Olde Pub' the B-17 that was riddled with bullet holes and limped home on one working engine during the 'Charlie Brown, Hanz Stigler' incident in which a German Luftwaffe pilot took pity on the crew of the bomber and escorted them out of hostile airspace, back to friendly airspace, before heading for home.
https://dirkdeklein.net/2016/08/20/.....-pub-incident/
There are many other B-17 planes that got torn up but managed to make it home, though I also suspect it's the slower speed that helps put less stress on the airframe so a piston driven aircraft would be less susceptible to holes punched in it, than a faster jet powered craft.
But back to the aircraft in question. The A-10 was purpose built to be ground support. It wasn't a plane that was armed, it was a massive gun that has a plane built around it. As for availability? There are plenty of them, last I checked. Also, I don't see why we can't keep making them in other factories or with other companies. The F-35 may be faster, but it's hardly stealthy. I've heard both of the fly overhead. The A-10 you hear clearly. The F-35 rattles windows. Also, if it weren't for the bank of computers on board, the F-35 would fall out of the sky.
I say, until Russia or China or other countries have vastly superior planes, then we should build a better plane. Otherwise, leave the F-35 on the shelf or in the prototype stage. It's clearly not ready for the battlefield.
I've had my eye on the Sukhoi 25 ("Frogfoot") for a while now. It's like a cheaper version of the A-10.
Chances are, may not be able to get a pilot's license in my lifetime, so I found another outlet.
The roar of a motorcycle engine. Boxer Twin, Straight Inline, and especially V-Twin.
Chances are, may not be able to get a pilot's license in my lifetime, so I found another outlet.
The roar of a motorcycle engine. Boxer Twin, Straight Inline, and especially V-Twin.
Sure, it's expensive to get a flying license for either plane or helicopter. But the employment/income opportunities for such skills are huge.
https://work.chron.com/average-comm.....ary-11855.html
https://upperlimitaviation.edu/heli.....-can-you-make/
Even now, I remember from my time studying aboard in America, as to the programs available in a good quality institution that allow for fixed-wing and rotary piloting vocational training. I was shocked as to how easier it was to become a pilot in America, compared to Singapore.
https://www.greenriver.edu/students.....on-technology/
And then there was an "Aviation History" class I took, where I learned that you didn't have to be a military pilot to learn to fly a fighter jet, and that there were ample opportunities to be a military reserve fighter pilot while having a professional civilian career, such as in the Air National Guard.
It rubbed a very sore spot in my life, where I was unable to become a Singapore Air Force pilot due to my eyesight and lack of educational qualifications. Along with being made to do menial labor as a conscript.
==
Thankfully, I was able to get a motorcycle license in Arizona.
Even while stuck on a worthless pile of sand called Singapore, when riding on the highway, I feel free.
https://work.chron.com/average-comm.....ary-11855.html
https://upperlimitaviation.edu/heli.....-can-you-make/
Even now, I remember from my time studying aboard in America, as to the programs available in a good quality institution that allow for fixed-wing and rotary piloting vocational training. I was shocked as to how easier it was to become a pilot in America, compared to Singapore.
https://www.greenriver.edu/students.....on-technology/
And then there was an "Aviation History" class I took, where I learned that you didn't have to be a military pilot to learn to fly a fighter jet, and that there were ample opportunities to be a military reserve fighter pilot while having a professional civilian career, such as in the Air National Guard.
It rubbed a very sore spot in my life, where I was unable to become a Singapore Air Force pilot due to my eyesight and lack of educational qualifications. Along with being made to do menial labor as a conscript.
==
Thankfully, I was able to get a motorcycle license in Arizona.
Even while stuck on a worthless pile of sand called Singapore, when riding on the highway, I feel free.
well actually to be able to fly commercially it is another 10 grand as per the information of a pilot of a twin-engine plane I met who could not have a commercial business in even flying hunters to Idaho, because of the extra $10,00.00 required by the FAA.
So if you want to start a business flying and are the pilot, it will cost one new Harley then another ten thousand if you want to fly jets. Flying a four-engine commercial plane is one million dollars, they require you to learn how to land after 911!
Wow, you are in Singapore!? can you get a good deal on the Chery? You know; the car that China engineered to NOT have western left-hand threads (right-hand threads and 22 threads per inch with locking nuts on the torqued ones) on all the bolts so that three consecutive left-hand turns the right side wheels far off the car due to centrifugal force? (I'm a toolmaker Journeyman Machinist).
So if you want to start a business flying and are the pilot, it will cost one new Harley then another ten thousand if you want to fly jets. Flying a four-engine commercial plane is one million dollars, they require you to learn how to land after 911!
Wow, you are in Singapore!? can you get a good deal on the Chery? You know; the car that China engineered to NOT have western left-hand threads (right-hand threads and 22 threads per inch with locking nuts on the torqued ones) on all the bolts so that three consecutive left-hand turns the right side wheels far off the car due to centrifugal force? (I'm a toolmaker Journeyman Machinist).
Even if you get a good deal on a car price, you still would have the "Certificate of Entitlement" to deal with. Drafted by fucking vampires.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certi.....of_Entitlement
https://www.onemotoring.com.sg/cont.....n-bidding.html
You yanks have it good when it comes to vehicle costs, which is one of many reasons why I want to emigrate there. But alas, only those with college degrees and job offers will get greencards. Guy like me who sucks at academics doesn't have a chance.
===
You're a tradesman huh? Lucky you. I also like working with my hands, particularly where electrical/electronics and automotive mechanics is concerned. Right now, I'm trying to digest the material on Udemy concerning CNC machining.
Problem is that after getting my degree from the United States in 2017, the only work I was able to find was menial, unskilled labor. My country seems to prefer immigrants instead of it's own citizens when it comes to white-collar jobs. And even if I was employed in blue-collar labor, I wouldn't get any respect/decent pay at all, being an Asian country obsessed with academics and all. And paper qualifications too.
At this rate, I'll never fulfill my goal of being a American automotive entrepreneur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certi.....of_Entitlement
https://www.onemotoring.com.sg/cont.....n-bidding.html
You yanks have it good when it comes to vehicle costs, which is one of many reasons why I want to emigrate there. But alas, only those with college degrees and job offers will get greencards. Guy like me who sucks at academics doesn't have a chance.
===
You're a tradesman huh? Lucky you. I also like working with my hands, particularly where electrical/electronics and automotive mechanics is concerned. Right now, I'm trying to digest the material on Udemy concerning CNC machining.
Problem is that after getting my degree from the United States in 2017, the only work I was able to find was menial, unskilled labor. My country seems to prefer immigrants instead of it's own citizens when it comes to white-collar jobs. And even if I was employed in blue-collar labor, I wouldn't get any respect/decent pay at all, being an Asian country obsessed with academics and all. And paper qualifications too.
At this rate, I'll never fulfill my goal of being a American automotive entrepreneur.
Actually, (i don't know where it is inside the US Government, but I KNOW it is there) is a little-known opportunity for foreigners like yourself to get a $300,000.00 loan from the US government to start a business! With Donald Trump being President he would (happily) add you to the list of foreigners that legally enter the country to contribute to the economy! You have thirty years to pay the money back. (Rest assured all the Democrats will hate you since you are a business owner and they hate anybody that wants to work and not live off the government's dime!)
This is ONLY offered to foreigners who start a business in America, I cannot get this loan from my own government.
So then you'd be a Yankie too Just apply for permanent citizenship through the immigration system instead of the illegal method of breaching the border, while there in your own country, create a market plan for your business, apply for the loan where-ever it is, (immigration might know, but the Department of Commerce most likely), and open an electronic auto parts shop and custom installation garage.
My experience with CNC is this it is regulated to which machine you can program on, all the others usually use the archaic system THAT manufacturer used since most of the machine shops in America have machines that are nearly 100 years old. M codes are new, but not all machines including a Fanuc 4400 centerless grinder are compatible, most are not compatible.
Others like a Walters grinder using five axis are unable to be run using M codes, you HAVE to learn Walters proprietary CNC. A lot of other machines are also Proprietary. I only know CNC on the Walters grinder since I worked in a tool making shop, so I know how to set up the Walters to cut one flute at a time on a drill or reamer.
Everything else uses carbides, or in more ancient shops you cut your own tool using a grinder to make a cutting tool for the engine lathe.
Oh, one more thing try to get a location in an area on a map that has a lot of yellow in it compared to other places, and try to get the northeast corner of an intersection these are the best places to start a business, anywhere else and it will be a struggle!
This is ONLY offered to foreigners who start a business in America, I cannot get this loan from my own government.
So then you'd be a Yankie too Just apply for permanent citizenship through the immigration system instead of the illegal method of breaching the border, while there in your own country, create a market plan for your business, apply for the loan where-ever it is, (immigration might know, but the Department of Commerce most likely), and open an electronic auto parts shop and custom installation garage.
My experience with CNC is this it is regulated to which machine you can program on, all the others usually use the archaic system THAT manufacturer used since most of the machine shops in America have machines that are nearly 100 years old. M codes are new, but not all machines including a Fanuc 4400 centerless grinder are compatible, most are not compatible.
Others like a Walters grinder using five axis are unable to be run using M codes, you HAVE to learn Walters proprietary CNC. A lot of other machines are also Proprietary. I only know CNC on the Walters grinder since I worked in a tool making shop, so I know how to set up the Walters to cut one flute at a time on a drill or reamer.
Everything else uses carbides, or in more ancient shops you cut your own tool using a grinder to make a cutting tool for the engine lathe.
Oh, one more thing try to get a location in an area on a map that has a lot of yellow in it compared to other places, and try to get the northeast corner of an intersection these are the best places to start a business, anywhere else and it will be a struggle!
Comments