Jump to content


Photo

A-10: Not Dead Yet


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#41 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,127 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 07 October 2014 - 2148 PM

But Mutti did establish Europa Germanica. And she did not need nukes. Only the filthy English have not fallen in line.


  • 0

#42 Charles

Charles

    Junior Member

  • Validating
  • PipPip
  • 1,103 posts
  • Location:Highland's of Scotland
  • Interests:AFV, Military History

Posted 10 October 2014 - 0949 AM

But Mutti did establish Europa Germanica. And she did not need nukes. Only the filthy English have not fallen in line.

British old bean, British.

 

Charles


  • 0

#43 Brian Kennedy

Brian Kennedy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,856 posts

Posted 10 October 2014 - 1918 PM

I'm 41 and my father flew A-10s. It's pretty crazy how long the 70s era USAF planes have lasted.
  • 0

#44 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,645 posts
  • Interests:Design,Strategy,3D &Gfx

Posted 11 October 2014 - 1510 PM

 

From Robert M. Gates, Duty:

 

What I didn't tell the president [Bush 43] was that I believed the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after Bush 41 had left office in 1993. Getting Gorbachev to acquiesce to a unified Germany as a member of NATO had been a huge accomplishment. But moving so quickly after the collapse of the Soviet Union to incorporate so many of its formerly subjugated states into NATO was a mistake…. U.S. agreements with the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to rotate troops through bases in these countries was a needless provocation…. Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching. The roots of the Russian Empire trace back to Kiev in the ninth century, so that was an especially monumental provocation. Were the Europeans, much less the Americans, willing to send their sons and daughters to defend Ukraine and Georgia? Hardly. So NATO expansion was a political act, not a carefully considered military commitment, thus undermining the purpose of the alliance and recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests. (pp157–58)

 

 

Typical cretinism of deference to thugs of leftists extraction by US diplomats that already cames from WW2, so the Ukraine and Georgia etc don't have national interests?

It is always amusing to how the narrative setting and debate framing changes to pure imperialist reasoning when Russia is part of a stuation. Suddenly the opinion of free countries that in every other situation would have been considered and the ethical position of liberty defer to imperial rights of Russia over neighbors.

The wants of Poland, Ukraine, etc don't matter. They don't even exist.


  • 0

#45 bd1

bd1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:estonia

Posted 11 October 2014 - 1523 PM

deleted


Edited by bd1, 11 October 2014 - 1523 PM.

  • 0

#46 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,328 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 11 October 2014 - 1543 PM

Do I smell dope?


  • 0

#47 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,213 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 12 October 2014 - 0345 AM

It's the exact opposite Stuart. Modern warplanes are designed to be in service for insanely long periods of time. Their predecessors were never intended to and by and large (exception B-52G/H) didn't. Replacement cycles back in the 50s were of the order of 3-5 years. Now a new frontline fighter is expected to have a service life of 40. For the F-35 it could be over 50 years!

 

http://www.bloomberg...r-u-s-says.html

 

It seems highly unlikely that technological advances won't overtake the F-35 long before its airframe life expires.


  • 0

#48 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,127 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 12 October 2014 - 0421 AM

Durable tech is....durable.


  • 0

#49 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 12 October 2014 - 0533 AM

Of course, no need to burn up premium stuff to pacify 3rd world savages.  And second rate gear is still far better than no gear for supporting the crunchies.  S/F....Ken M


  • 0

#50 Olof Larsson

Olof Larsson

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 12 October 2014 - 0730 AM

 

It's the exact opposite Stuart. Modern warplanes are designed to be in service for insanely long periods of time. Their predecessors were never intended to and by and large (exception B-52G/H) didn't. Replacement cycles back in the 50s were of the order of 3-5 years. Now a new frontline fighter is expected to have a service life of 40. For the F-35 it oculd be over 50 years!

 

http://www.bloomberg...r-u-s-says.html

 

It seems highly unlikely that technological advances won't overtake the F-35 long before its airframe life expires.

As a design, yes. But how long did any of the original block F15s or F16s last? Even the F18C seems progressively to be withdrawn in preference to the E and F. Assuming of course the F35 doesnt replace it in turn. Compare and contrast with how long some of the century series lasted. Or indeed, the EE Lightning. Those were new builds, they were in many cases original builds back in the early 60s. Ditto Shackleton and Nimrod.

 

The only way the F35 will last that long is if they keep building it. Which means they will as like withdraw early airframes early to justify replacement. As we saw with Harrier, single engine (which is what it really is) carrier aircraft suffer high attrition rates anyway, so as far as justification for continued production, they got it made.

 

There, that should get the debate going. :)

 

 

And how long did F-4A's, B-52A's, Valiant B.1, Lightning F.1A,

Buccaneer S.1 and Vulcan B.1 last in service?

 

In many cases less then a decade.

For the B-52, it was only when they got to the 7th itteration,

that they got an aircraft that "lasted forever".

 

 

What was/is the attrition level for A-4's, A-7's, F-8's, Super Etendard and so on,

compared with contempoary twin engine CATOBAR aircrafts?

 

My guess is that the Harrier suffers far more from being STOVL, then from having only one engine,

as the slightest damage or malfunction to the engine or nozzles,

should make recovery to a STOVL-carrier very, very hard, if not outright impossible.


  • 0

#51 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,213 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 12 October 2014 - 1106 AM

This is getting interesting! :)

 

OK, for the B-52A, F-4A and Buccaneer S1, see my comments about 50s jet combat aircraft not being intended to last in service. Whether they were made so  that they ultimately could or not is another matter of course, as the B-52H (and the G before it) evidence. 

 

There seemed to be a relatively sudden switch to making aircraft last longer and I'm not sure what, other than economics, caused it. Now the F-4A was only built in tiny numbers (45) and I'm only aware of it serving in one squadron and they were mostly used for test and evaluation, so it may not have made economic sense to recycle it into later versions as happened with the F-4B, 228 of which were converted to F-4Ns by 1978. Only 24 Lightning F-1As were built and I guess the same was true for that version. Interestingly F/A-18Cs that have used up their airframe hours have been replaced in some squadrons by upgrading F/A-18As that had airframe hours left - the result was the F/A-18A+ which I believe is still in service.


  • 0

#52 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,776 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 12 October 2014 - 1807 PM

The thing about those long-lived '50s designs is that there is nothing newer that could do the job significantly better, especially those built for missions that weren't particularly hard on airframes, such as large aircraft.  While fighters may not have lasted as long, the larger bombers and transports hang on because it's still considered cheaper to refurbish than spend much more on new designs that do the same jobs.


  • 0

#53 ScottBrim

ScottBrim

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Location:Kingdom of Gammaraybia

Posted 13 October 2014 - 1156 AM

Chris Werb: .... It's the exact opposite Stuart. Modern warplanes are designed to be in service for insanely long periods of time. Their predecessors were never intended to and by and large (exception B-52G/H) didn't. ....

 

 

The airframe life of the earlier models of B-52 were largely consumed from being on continuous flying alert.  The B-52G models were showing their age too, but should have been kept and refurbished.  However, Merrill McPeak and his fighter mafia decided otherwise.
 

Stuart Galbraith:  The only way the F35 will last that long is if they keep building it. Which means they will as like withdraw early airframes early to justify replacement.

 

IMHO, the F-35 program will never reach its originally projected full-rate production level. It will instead continue forward with a series of slowly expanding low-rate production blocks, producing airframes at horrific unit costs. 

 

The way things are shaping up, we will witness a situation in which previously constructed low-rate blocks of F-35s are sequentially retired much earlier than planned because they are either deficiently designed and constructed relative to extant requirements at the time of their early retirement, or else they are otherwise judged to be unsuitable for combat action because of advances in emerging IADS and A2/AD threats where previous blocks are judged too expensive to modify.  
 
Given that the F-35 program is immune from cancellation regardless of how poorly it performs, this kind of situation could go on for another thirty years or more.  (I'm not being sarcastic here, it is what I honestly expect will happen.)  
    
Just for another example of how the F-35 program's technical and programmatic complexity affects its airframe unit costs, I read that DoD has now issued a $263,000,000 contract to LM for modifying Norway's version of the F-35 to carry a braking drogue chute. That adds roughly $5 million to the unit price of a Norway-purchased F-35A.

Why that much money for a seemingly simple addition? Does the F-35A's airframe have to be modified to handle the additional stresses of a drogue chute? Does the modification affect the F-35A's stealth characteristics?  If those kinds of revisions to the airframe are needed, why wasn't provision for a drogue chute included in the A Model's basic specification from the very beginning?    


Edited by ScottBrim, 13 October 2014 - 1204 PM.

  • 0

#54 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,150 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peek-a-boo, I'm behind you.
  • Interests:Wholesome stuff.

Posted 16 October 2014 - 0221 AM

Given that the F-35 program is immune from cancellation


Comanche is very jealous....
  • 0

#55 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,645 posts
  • Interests:Design,Strategy,3D &Gfx

Posted 16 October 2014 - 0909 AM

The thing is that today doing something new is much more expensive - and time waste-  due revolutionary ethos of technology ideologues and also the amazing amounts of bureaucracy.

 

 In short doing something new needs always to be a revolution to be worthwhile, can't be just incremental, or just cheaper, or just a bit better.


  • 0

#56 BJE

BJE

    Member

  • TestGroup
  • PipPip
  • 323 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 18 October 2014 - 0522 AM

The big thing is that the shelf-life of electronics isn't measured in decades. That is the main reason that modern equipment - be it a car or a night-vision device - will be replaced. A 1950 car on the other hand is a mechanical beast and can be kept running far longer.

So F 35 might be flying in 2040, but most of it's internal systems will not be the same as in 2020. It will simply be easier and cheaper to replace system than to try to keep spares such as processors that are 20 years old. An engineer called it "modify instead of repair".
  • 0

#57 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,261 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 19 October 2014 - 1746 PM

 

Given that the F-35 program is immune from cancellation


Comanche is very jealous....

 

There is a certain twisted brilliance to leaving the USAF, USMC, RAF, with literally no realistic alternatives that would be suitable in the long term. They even managed to get the Navy involved, thanks in part to their many previous failures (A-12, NATF, A-X).


  • 0

#58 Ozarks

Ozarks

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 November 2014 - 1526 PM

Actually modern cars are far more durable. In the 1950's most 100,000 mile cars were considered finished while modern cars typically last at least twice as long. Today people don't buy new cars because the old one is worn out. They buy to get the accessory upgrades and new decor.

 

What I have always wondered about is why no A-7 were ever made available for foreign sale. The Falklands may have turned out differently if Argies had A-7 instead of A-4.


  • 0

#59 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,623 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 04 November 2014 - 1601 PM

Greece, Portugal and Thailand operated the A-7, though they were bought second-hand from US stocks. The last Greek ones were retired only a couple days ago.


  • 0

#60 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Reading, Berkshire
  • Interests:Too many to list all, but include military, economic &technological history. And cycling.

Posted 04 November 2014 - 1834 PM

What I have always wondered about is why no A-7 were ever made available for foreign sale. The Falklands may have turned out differently if Argies had A-7 instead of A-4.

IIRC there were attempts to export it before it went out of production, but they were unsuccessful apart from the first sale to Greece, which was of new aircraft. Greece later bought additional A-7s secondhand.

 

The Portuguese & Thai A-7s were all ex-US.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users