Yup.RetreadRand said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1300001.stm
The Dragonfly is still used in Guatemala, Colombia, Dominica, Uruguay, Ecuador and other Latin American countries.
-
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
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1300001.stm
The Dragonfly is still used in Guatemala, Colombia, Dominica, Uruguay, Ecuador and other Latin American countries.
Very good site with info on the AT-6: http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/military/at-6_ab/R0816AT-6_LithoUpdate.pdf
It appears the USAF has finally taken a liking to the A-10........
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/070702/1485616.html
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123029281
They did get the "C" model upgrade but ACC still won't fund the re-engine program that has been around since the early eighties (The idea was actually put onto paper before the last A-10 was delivered). The wing building contract was simply out of necessity. Wings are cracking at their stress points and their aren't enough hangar queens and airplanes at AMARC to keep the rest of the airplanes flying.
Note: first units to get upgrade are ANG, which are a totally different animal that "Big Blue" USAF. The "Guard Bureau" is somewhat, if not totally, independent of ACC although they do coordinate as A-10 squadrons span both organizations. Guard gets its independence from totally separate funding line (from Congress and sometimes drives the upgrade initiatives): NGRE (National Guard and Reserve Equipment)....and staunch Congressional support from their respective Congressional supporters. That's why LITENING pods ended up on Guard F-16s (USMC then used the ANG contract to get pods for their F/A-18s). Here's the ANG posture statement for this year related to their A-10s:
The A-10 remains the only Air Force fighter/attack aircraft operating out of Afghanistan today. Six Air Guard squadrons account for 38 percent of combat-coded A-10s in the Combat Air Force. The A-10 is undergoing modification to modernize the cockpit, provide a data link, improve targeting pod integration, and add Joint Direct Attack Munitions capability. Future improvements to the A-10 include a SATCOM radio, an updated Lightweight Airborne Recovery System for combat search and rescue missions, and improved threat detection. Recent conflicts highlighted a thrust performance deficiency making upgrading the TF-34-100A engine a priority.
Note: they put a placeholder in for the engine upgrade so that likely means they are still pursuing it and tying it to Afghanistan ops thereby playing a GWOT card. Now, if the engine busines sis in a certain state represented by the right Congressional delegation, something might happen.
Isn't the AF always trying to get rid of their good loiter time, relatively slow moving airframe to raplace it with the F-16 and eventually the JSF?
Now they want to come up with new plane to do the mission they have a plane for(A-10), but have already said want to replace that plane (A-10) with something that can't do the mission(strike fighters)? In diagram form:
A-10-----replaced by---->JSF------>new, A-10 like plane such as AT-6
Why don't they just embrace to A-10 like the Marines would love to?
Now they want to come up with new plane to do the mission they have a plane for(A-10), but have already said want to replace that plane (A-10) with something that can't do the mission(strike fighters)? In diagram form:
A-10-----replaced by---->JSF------>new, A-10 like plane such as AT-6
Why don't they just embrace to A-10 like the Marines would love to?
And I was aware of above material prior to my post about the modernization of the A-10, but I think we can all agree that for the most part the A-10 has been considered a bit of the bastard child of the Airforce.
Can we perhaps start separate forums for the "I love the A-10" and "I love the F-14" threads that come around every couple of months.
If the Marine Corps wanted the A-10 capability, it would buy a similar platform. It didn't get the A-10 in the first place because the Marine Corps didn't need a tank-buster. Today, it needs a navalized, expeditionary, multirole aircraft. Would it be nice to have a few dozen of these sitting around just in case? Yes. Would that be the best way to spend money? Maybe, maybe not. I just think we romanticize particular airframes a bit too much.
It's funny you mention this. The Old Man's unit (138 FS, 174 FW NYANG) was the test unit for the A-16 program (which actually was going to be the F-16 Block 60 until the program was canceled) back in the late 80's. The idea was to take a current A-10 squadron and transition them into the F-16 all the while developing "FastCAS" tactics. The program failed pretty badly. For one the 30mm gun pod shook like crazy and was inaccurate at best, and it didn't hold too many rounds, nor could you switch back and forth between the pod and the internal gun. They unbolted them after the first day of Iraq1 and went back to the regular 20mm internal gun. Secondly, they just couldn't ID targets moving at 400kts at treetop level. It was taking multiple passes to ID, then another couple to get the target. With the A-10 they could do it all in one or two passes at the slower speed. The A-10 offers much more protection and has much more survivability than the F-16 and they just didn't want to slow down when their only defense was their speed.
I can see the JSF replacement happening in a similar way. The AF has tried to kill the Hawg a few times, and each time they bring it back. From what i can tell, and from what the Old Man says (who has more than 1800 hours in the A-10 and as many in the F-16) the A-10 will be around long after the F-16s and the F-15s have been replaced unless they built a new CAS specific airplane.
Not too long ago they were thinking about a yet another deal to aquire some A-10's. I recalled so of that info going through your neck of the woods in the last proposal I heard about (although from what I know this last one was much less formalized that others have been). The reasons the Marines don't just go and buy something similiar is enough for at least another thread.
I am certainly not married to the A-10. I do like it because it is a jet built for a specific mission, not a jet "built" for every mission.
Above that, though, my issue is when the AF--or anyone-- tries to come up with a new (old) idea and wants an excuse to buy a new plane that might not be as capable as the one it currently has to do this new (old) mission.
But if we were to start "I love" threads for those two aircraft, I could be talked into joining the cult. I once saw a movie with some F-14s that was really cool...
The A-10C update program is almost complete - that airframe will be around for a while:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123029281
Already posted by Flash a few posts ago
Ugh! My bad!
