-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Return of Turboprops to CAS role?
- Thread starter aircav06
- Start date
What company is going to build all-new tooling to construct A-10s?
If nobody ever mentions the words "A-10" and "Marine Corps" in the same sentence again, it'll be too soon.
It's never going to happen. Just like the combination of "Charlie Sheen" and "sobriety." Just accept it for what it is.
It's never going to happen. Just like the combination of "Charlie Sheen" and "sobriety." Just accept it for what it is.
Yes it is well known that the A-10 is more heavily armored than a tank, is completely invincible, and can carry any combination of 100 GP bombs plus 40-50 Mavericks and scores of Zunis. Its 30mm cannon unleashes armageddon at the rate of 100,000 rounds per minute, with each round equaling the destructive force of a supernova. All we need to do is find a company to build new ones from scratch only just make it carrier capable or STOVL capable as well, and do it for less than a new one cost in 1994 dollars. I am on board with this plan.
True, true, true. But not as it should have been, once upon a time.
OV-10G+ was drilling holes in the sky over Fallon yesterday.
You forgot that production facilities have to be located across at least 350 congressional districts in 42 states.
yeah, was just clearing 31L when I heard them call for taxi. Kind of wanted to ask to taxi back to the hold short just to have a look
There's a lot of wants and wishes here. I know lowflier knows this, but for others reading, aircraft have requirements documents that say what they need to do. The requirements document is what the US Navy is paying for. Anything that's not listed in the requirements document is a nice to have or a community wish. The requirements documents are generated by the Community RO on the OPNAV staff based on operational needs, threat statements, etc.
As an interesting data point, the 60H also had issues with cracks during their early years as well. The cracks were fixed just like they were for the 60S and the 60H went on to be an asset for the fleet.
The 60S fits on the decks it's required too per NAVAIR processes. Margin of error isn't a requirement and hard is authorized. While I've heard of a few tailwheels in the nets and ranged on combing, it's pretty much always been to human error than anything else. If you're in a position that you may put the 60S' tailwheel in the nets then you're probably in a position where you would have put a 60B/F/H stinger in the nets which probably means you gooned up your approach and you're in the barrel or you're a hamfist.
RAST wasn't a requirement for the 60S since it was meant to be used from USNS, LHD, and CVs. Would it be nice to have? Sure, but now you're talking requirements creep, which is how we get big bloated acquisition programs you've maligned before.
Inherent? The legacy cabin is smaller because of the larger internal capacity. The Navy traded flexibility for internal capacity.
My info on cracks is dated, but the tailwheel didn't cause the cracks. The 60L didn't crack despite the same tailwheel position. The crack issue was a much larger and more complicated engineering problem than the tailwheel. Last I had heard was that the cracks were caused by cyclical loading and unloading of the load beams from mission requirements to include vertrep, lots of bounces, and autos. As phrogloop has mentioned, the crack problem was solved through the appropriate application of engineering solutions. While the cracks were an issue in the 60's early years, they never killed anyone and the fleet was never downed.
As an interesting data point, the 60H also had issues with cracks during their early years as well. The cracks were fixed just like they were for the 60S and the 60H went on to be an asset for the fleet.
Cracks were fixed. Did it suck when it was being fixed? Absolutely, but the fleet managed. Blade fold is a constant for all 60s. It's a complicated system that needs TLC. If it's properly maintained it works.
One of the reasons the 60S replaced the 60H was because there were deficiencies in that airframe that caused mission impacts. And the 60H was getting old. Imagine if we hadn't have acquired the 60S and instead the 60H had been allowed to whither over the past 10 years like the USN Phrogs that were loosing an engine per day across the fleet. Tired iron is tired. There's only so much upgrading and strapping on cool new gadgets that can be done before the airframe and dynamic components give up.
I think the point is that this aircraft seemed to be a hand me down. Did the Navy develop a set of requirements before deciding that the Blackhawks fit the bill? Did the Navy decide that it needed a bigger cabin or did it just retroactively justify its decision to have less gas? I don't know.
