• 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

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

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.
 
'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
 
You are most certainly not caddy manager.

well, I'm glad somebody got it :p

-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
 
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!)
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: E5B
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...
 
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.
 
ghost119 said:
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
 
ghost119 said:
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
 
ghost119 said:
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
 
Back
Top