Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Warthogs in Afghanistan

  1. #1
    Propellerhead Guest

    Question Warthogs in Afghanistan

    What on earth took so long to send the A-10s?

    It seems that they've had suitable airfields for awhile and if one weapon was suited to help our boys out it's the "airplane no one wanted."

    Any insights Randy?

    Rob

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    880

    Default

    There are a number of reasons that A-10s were not initially sent to Enduring Freedom. The biggest, though, was a combination of a lack of suitable bases to fly them from and the "adequacy" of the Navy jets and B-52s dropping GPS-guided s. While the Bagram airbase and the airport at Khandahar were good places to land airplanes, until lately they weren't really suitable to "base" jets there. I guess you can chalk it up to logistics, I suppose....maintenance facilities, tent cities for all the crew, pilots, and maintainers, etc. It was easier to just let the carrier-based jets and the BUFFs out of Diego continue with the good work they were already doing.

    Operation Anaconda showed that there was a bigger need for real CAS capability, hence the speeding up of putting Hogs in theater.

    The DoD is pretty slow to change it's course of action once the "warplan" is decided, and Hogs weren't part of the original plan. Also, the AF is still getting it's arms around being able to operate in extremely forward deployed locations with minimal support in place...that's something that the Marines are a little more used to doing on a regular basis.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    reno
    Posts
    573

    Default

    speaking of the naval aircraft's adequacy, the f-14 has actually dropped more s on afghanistan than the f/a-18, super hornet or regular hornet. why? range, the f-14 has almost twice the loaded range the super hornet does and can carry just as much ordinance.

    can someone please tell me why we're spending money on a plane that is being outclassed by a plane a decade older, half again heavier? both the a-6 and the f-14 do their jobs better than the f/a-18 could ever dream of doing as far as i'm concerned, the f-14 is a better fighter/er, the a-6 a better er. i just don't understand how we could get rid of a design that worked (a-6) for a plane that doesn't have it's range or load capability.

    what's more is the f-14 still has room to expand, if you read the february issue of flight journal a retired admiral commented on just this subject.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    880

    Default

    "i just don't understand how we could get rid of a design that worked (a-6) for a plane that doesn't have it's range or load capability."

    That's because you're not a Congressman. These are decisions made by people FAR outside the tactically-knowledgeable decisionmaking train. In addition, there are MANY outside political influences on these decisions that have no bearing on what's best for the job.

    Welcome to good ol' bureaucracy!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    8,299

    Default

    Originally posted by Randy Haskin
    Welcome to good ol' bureaucracy!
    LOL Randy.. when they gonna scrap that POS Eagle you're drivin' and give ya one of those spiff new F-22 jobbies

    Just kidding with the POS thing too!! I love the Eagle.. They burn up the sky over my house daily on their trips in and out of Kingsley.. Besides.. the F-22 ain't got a back seat so the gib can hold the stick for ya while ya take the nice pictures!

    Wayne

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    880

    Default

    "so the gib can hold the stick for ya while ya take the nice pictures! "

    Speaking of which, here's a shot taken last week.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	rockets on tanker.jpg 
Views:	562 
Size:	28.9 KB 
ID:	33  

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    8,299

    Default

    Originally posted by Randy Haskin
    "so the gib can hold the stick for ya while ya take the nice pictures! "

    Speaking of which, here's a shot taken last week.
    Speaking of which.. is that as hard as it looks???

    Shortz

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    reno
    Posts
    573

    Default

    good point randy, but i would think it would cost less to either rebuild or start making a-6's again than to create two new aircraft.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Originally posted by AAFO_WSagar
    Speaking of which.. is that as hard as it looks???
    Well, yes and no. I used to think that taking gas was one of the toughest things I had to do as a fighter pilot. These days, it's not such a big deal. To be honest, it's really all a matter of practice.

    While flying Operation Noble Eagle protective CAPs after Sept 11, I'd have to tank several times during each mission -- often at night and/or during bad weather. I could count on two hands the number of times *in total* that I'd taken gas from a tanker in a couple hundred hours of flying the F-15E -- I wasn't really all that good at it. Out of necessity, though, I got pretty decent at being "on the boom".

    Now, it's not that big of a deal. It's no different than flying formation with any other airplane, except the other airplane is just A LOT bigger!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	p3250051.jpg 
Views:	532 
Size:	22.9 KB 
ID:	34  

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    8,299

    Default

    Originally posted by Randy Haskin
    Now, it's not that big of a deal. It's no different than flying formation with any other airplane, except the other airplane is just A LOT bigger!
    The reason I ask.. the few times I've flown in formation flights, as passenger, of course <snif> there is significant motion between the airplanes.. actually amazing at times how you can watch a line of airplanes.. (the formation at Oshkosh for the start of the demo race was a good example) one plane would be going up, the next down and all the way down the line it seemed to be that way.. (makes it really tough to try to get a good formation shot when that happens!)

    What we usually see when we watch an airplane booming on the tele is pretty still air and never night.. how in hell do you stay on top of all that motion in turbulence, especially at night.. ?

    I note there is some "slack" in the boom extension but geez.. Tried it in a sim once and it was harder than hell... in smooth weather. Just can't imagine doing it with all the bobbing that happens in chop..

    Wayne

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •