Why the Marines don't fly the A-10?

[HH-60H]

A-10's are the new Sandy's. When you make it to SERE and if you're lucky, you'll get to work with them in that role. And guess what, Sandy's are providing CAS. They are perfect for the role. Afterall, they were designed to fly low and deal with all the threats that you mentioned. Engines on pods, titanium bathtub, triple redundacies, need I go on.

Huh? A-10 pilots have been Sandy's for years. F-16's are becoming the new Sandy's, I think. You might know this, it wasn't clear in your post, but Sandy quals are for CSAR. In that role they can provide a limited amount of what is technically defined as CAS (i.e. ordinance around the survivor). In the Navy we don't have a separate CSAR lead qual, but crews that are FAC A qualified are also CSAR lead qualed.

 

[ip568]

'Cause you can't get that Air Force smell out of them...

 

[rare21]

'Cause you can't get that Air Force smell out of them...

true, true! they suck because the Air Force flies them, if it were anyone else they'd rock. And i love when they call themselves A-10 nose gunners...gay

 

[Punk]

You are most certainly not caddy manager.

well, I'm glad somebody got it

-60H, by saying the A-10's are the "new" Sandy's, I meant that in context to the discussion of the A-1, but yeah, I've known that the A-10's been doing it for awhile now

 

[HH-60H]

Oh, I hear ya.

 

[Whalebite]

Why are all Rutan's designs twin tail/cannard? I could see using a canard for manuverability, but why the twin tails? It looks kinda usless in that aires design (but Rutan is the man!)

 

[phrogpilot73]

OK, I'm going to elimnate all debate on this subject. The reason the Marine Corps didn't "jump" on the A-10 was because of one thing - ability to operate on the boat. That's it. It would have stronger landing gear, stronger airframe, tailhook, and folding wings. Not exactly small mods to any aircraft. It's a great CAS platform, and the aircrew train to it (unlike the rest of AF aircraft), but it won't ever be in the USMC inventory.

As for the Apache, Chinook, etc... No - They do not fit on the boat. Why? Folding blades, and folding tails. Yes, the CH-53E is big, and yes, the MV-22 is big. However, both can fold their blades/tails/wings. That is why and Apache (with no folding blades) and a Chinook (no folding blades) will never spend a good deal of time operating from a boat. Not to mention that the Apache's tail wheel is so far out on it's boom, that it doesnt' allow you to push the aircraft all the way to the edge of the deck.

As much as we'd love to have it, we'll never have the A-10 because it doesn't fit our expeditionary mentality.

 

[Riper Snifle]

http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/Ages.html

Found a picture of some chinooks on a carrier. This is not to say that they will be fully operational from carriers, it looks like the mission was a one way trip. It is just cool to see any aircraft that normal doesn't go on a carrier do some operations from it. I agree %100 with what Phrog driver previously said.

 

[jamnww]

OK, I'm going to elimnate all debate on this subject. The reason the Marine Corps didn't "jump" on the A-10 was because of one thing - ability to operate on the boat. That's it. It would have stronger landing gear, stronger airframe, tailhook, and folding wings. Not exactly small mods to any aircraft. It's a great CAS platform, and the aircrew train to it (unlike the rest of AF aircraft), but it won't ever be in the USMC inventory.

As for the Apache, Chinook, etc... No - They do not fit on the boat. Why? Folding blades, and folding tails. Yes, the CH-53E is big, and yes, the MV-22 is big. However, both can fold their blades/tails/wings. That is why and Apache (with no folding blades) and a Chinook (no folding blades) will never spend a good deal of time operating from a boat. Not to mention that the Apache's tail wheel is so far out on it's boom, that it doesnt' allow you to push the aircraft all the way to the edge of the deck.

As much as we'd love to have it, we'll never have the A-10 because it doesn't fit our expeditionary mentality.

Absolutely outstanding points...

 

[ChuckMK23]

Absolutely outstanding points...

So how do you explain the OV-10? (granted it's been retired for 10 years..)

 

[ChuckMK23]

true, true! they suck because the Air Force flies them, if it were anyone else they'd rock. And i love when they call themselves A-10 nose gunners...gay

The quality of maintenance - and maintainers the Air Force has is so far and above what the Navy and Marine Corps can muster - that's why.

 

[Brett327]

They are supposedly there to reduce the IR signature of the tailpipe.

Yeah, that's the ticket!:icon_mi_5

Brett

 

[Punk]

They are supposedly there to reduce the IR signature of the tailpipe. Doesn't really make much sense unless you are directly to the side of the aircraft. Doesn't do much good hiding it from the ground.

actually, no, its once again for redundancy

one gets shot off, you got another

 

[Punk]

That sounds more resonable. I thought mine was wrong. I got it off a site that was drescribing Rutan's several aircraft designs, it didn't look too credible.

everything on the A-10 was built with the fact that it was going to take damage in mind

one of the reasons why its so survivable

my XO (Vapor) at VT-6 was a Harrier guy in Gulf War I who took an SA-7/14 (I don't know), he said a huge drawback of the Harrier was the nozzles themselves, unlike a conventional aircraft that would take an IR missle on its tail or such, the Harrier takes them dead center mass

the A-10 was designed to survive such a strike

 

[Brett327]

That sounds more resonable. I thought mine was wrong. I got it off a site that was drescribing Rutan's several aircraft designs, it didn't look too credible.

Yet you decided to put your name on it and post it anyway? This is why people (rightfully) blast you and give you negative rep points!

Brett