Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

BL755 integration

Does anyone have a source that the BL755 CBU was ever integrated on the A-10 other than in Hunting Engineering marketing material? Riddley 00:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there was anything more than a test fitting. I checked the Jane's Air-Launched Weapons listing for the A-10 and there's no mention of the BL-755. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Replacement

Hm... seems like the A-10 could get completely replaced by raptors. Considering Raptors are pretty damn agile, not to mention they feature those vulcan guns that were actually designed to shoot through tanks. The A-10 also features this, however it only falls under 'support' like many ppl already seemed to mention.

A-10's have also existed much longer, which explains the fact that they exist at all. These are all only based on assumptions from what I've read, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.92.95 (talk • contribs)

• The F-22 Raptor's Vulcan cannon is smaller caliber (20 mm) and is actually meant for air to air combat. Currently, they intend to replace the A-10 with the F-35. High speed jets aren't the best choice for ground attack CAS where the targets are much slower. The USAF experimented an attack version of the F-16 called the F/A-16 and its speed was 1 drawback that ended the trial. -Fnlayson 02:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• They are doing upgrades to the A-10 to keep it going for several years to come. Supposed to be until 2028, as I recall. -Fnlayson 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Every now and then the USAF gets the idea that one aircraft can replace many different types of planes, i.e. the F-111 was supposed to replace almost all the fighters and bombers in the inventory. Of course it did not. I would not be surprised if the A-10 is like the A-26 Invader or the B-52. A plane that due to it's unique design and tough construction flies until it can not fly anymore.204.80.61.110 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Another consideration is sturdiness. What other plane can be hurt as badly as an A-10 and keep flying? Paul Koning 15:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Every now and then the USAF gets the idea that one aircraft can replace many different types of planes," actually, in the case of the F-35 it was Congress and the DoD deciding to roll several programs into one. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

With the F-111, it was Secretary Robert McNamara and the DOD that pushed it. Fnnny thing is, the F-111 was supposed to replace the F-4, among many others, which was the closest thing to a joint-service multi-role fighter the US has ever had. - BillCJ 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"The USAF experiemented an attack version of the F-16 called the F/A-16 and its speed was 1 drawback that ended the trial." Almost all versions of the F-16 have a ground attack capability. In fact, most U.S. versions can carry wide range of conventional ordance, comparable to the F/A-18 or the F-15E.Stanleywinthrop 15:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure where that quote comes from, but the F/A-16 was specially equipped with a 30 mm cannon.[1] -Fnlayson 15:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but your origional statement implies that the current F-16 doesn't do ground attack--which is falseStanleywinthrop 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but the article states that a "ground attack" version of an F-16 was cancled. The reference clearly refers to a "close air support" version of the F-16 and not a "ground attack version", and I changed the article to reflect as such. The irony is, even though this close air support version was cancled, the F-16 has engaged in close air support (CAS) in every major conflict (for the U.S.) it has flown in, up to and including present day operations in Iraq. Your definition of ground attack is skewed. Ground attack can be many things, including CAS, but also things such as interdiction, where high speed can be very much an advantage for a ground attack aircraft, to help avoid defenses.Stanleywinthrop 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I was leaving out air interdiction. -Fnlayson 16:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Boeing Awarded $2 Billion A-10 Wing Contract

ST. LOUIS, June 29 -- The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) has been awarded a U.S. Air Force contract worth up to $2 billion between 2007 and 2018 for engineering services and the manufacturing of 242 wing sets for the Air Force's A-10 fleet. ... from [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.144.210 (talk • contribs)

• Don't copy and paste whole articles. That's a copyright violation. Here's Boeing's release on this Boeing Awarded $2 Billion A-10 Wing Contract. That's already mentioned in the article too. -Fnlayson 22:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 July 28/Articles for details. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Why not ask here first? They deleted the article. The info could have come from the same place. -Fnlayson 21:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've restored it - the external site is definitely a copyvio of us! --Rlandmann 22:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. There are parts of this article that need to be referenced better though. -Fnlayson 22:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture?

is much better than

don't you think? the first one shows it in much more detail, and it is so beautiful. You can see the hardpoints, the weapons, so much more clearly than the second pic. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 03:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• The first one doesn't show all the aircraft and the shading is better in the 2nd one. -Fnlayson 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur, plus the second one doesn't have the distracting polka dots. I agree there are better pictures than the second one, but the first pic isn't one of them! - BillCJ 03:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the first one to the Operational history section. The article is getting full of images in the lower half or so. -Fnlayson 03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pierre Sprey

"Thanks. I just added a reference for the Boyd book. -Fnlayson 15:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)" Since we are using the Boyd book for a reference can we add the fact that Pierre Sprey played an important role in the A-10? I find no mention of him in this article. In fact, I believe he was the one who distributed the copies of the above mentioned book to designers. I no longer own a copy of the book, can some one look up the relevant pages?Stanleywinthrop 15:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Durability Citation

Under the section on Durability, I removed the request for citation involving the aircraft being referred to as "a flying tank". Such citation requests are frequent on wikipedia, and frivolous. One needs only to spend a second or two looking for "Flying Tank" and "A10" on google to verify the obvious. CameronB 19:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "one" does not have a second on Google to do so; one could be reading an offline version of Wikipedia, or one may not wish to spend time reading the idle chatter of military enthusiasts on random websites. If this is widely-enough used that it deserves a mention in the article then it should be referenced. If not, it's original commentary and has no place here. Chris Cunningham 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

This page could use one of those but for some reason I cant edit it? Heres a few things

• A-10's were seen in the movie Jarhead multiple times and most of all the friendly fire scene.
• A-10 LGB and Maverik armed aircraft can be use in the game Operation Flashpoint, GOTY and Elite for Xbox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace keeper II (talk • contribs)

Popular culture sections aren't very useful unless the reference itself defines the subject (for instance, the Swingline stapler from Office Space). Otherwise, they're just dumping ground for bored teenagers to add random movie sightings. Chris Cunningham 18:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

↑Excellent point. Couldn't have said it better myself. –Gravinos ("Politics" is the stench that rises from human conflict.) 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What about at least mentioning computer games and documentaries about the Hog? I remember Sierra had a A-10 simulation once in their program, the A-10 has also a very good model in Lock-on. A plain: "Hey I have seen it in a movie for 0.25 seconds" list is not really useful, but a section about the media with focus on the A-10 could be good and useful. 134.169.36.49 13:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Simulators can be OK if the A-10 is the only aircraft featured or the main one. Games and such where the A-10 is one of many are not significant and notable. See WP:MILMOS#POP for policy on this. -Fnlayson 13:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Errors????

It has been a while since I flew the Hog, but 180 knots??? Not in my lifetime, unless you are talking IAS at high altitude. Corner velocity is 325 KIAS. We operated at 250 KIAS when low level off of established low level routes due to FAA regs, but when on LLRs, it would be 300 - 325 KIAS.

As for gun firing rate, I know there have been osme mods, but it used to be slectable 2100 or 4200 rounds per minute.

TCarraway 08:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My copy of the flight manual says that TO 1A-10-1059 deleted the "low" setting and changed the firing rate to a fixed setting of 3900 rounds per minute. Paul Koning 01:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• It'd be good if you could use that manual or something else to reference the firing rate. I've seen editors change from 4200 rd/min to 3900 and back again. I've left that alone since I didn't know for sure which was right. Thanks. -Fnlayson 04:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Paul Koning 10:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Paul, I noticed that you adjusted the number of Mk82s from 10 to 18 with the max speed remaining at 450 knots. Could you double check whether that is what the manual really says or is there a different max speed for the two load-outs? Given the added weight and drag, I’d expect a lower top speed than for the 10-bomb load. TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's interesting. I did check carefully and that's what it says. There are some differences between the two cases: the 18 bomb load has limitations on stick deflection while the 10 bomb load does not.

I wonder if it might be interesting to give some details about the loading charts, or if that's going into deeper detail than is appropriate. Paul Koning 10:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! Sometimes it is easy to lose track when several changes are being made. Not having the manual to examine, I can't say whether there might be something worth working into the text, but I doubt that something like a section devoted to loadings is needed. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 00:31, 3 October 2007

(UTC)

Haxxploits (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Hey guys... the range on the GAU-8 is 5 miles... why does it keep getting changed back to 1?

Carrier based?

Can these guys land/take off on a carrier? Seeing their limited range, it would be hard to get to the core of Iraq without a friendly airbase ( which I doubt they had ) without a carrier somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.158.176 (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the A-10 is not carrier-capable. These aren't deep-strike aircraft either, so long range isn't usually needed. They are designed to operate from austere forward bases close to the front lines. Also, remeber the US military relies heavily on aerial refueling. Even carrier aircraft refuel at least once, and often 2 or 3 times, per sortie. This was especially true during operations in Afghanistan, which is several hundred miles inland.

As to range, remember the CAS figures are for a 250nm "radius" (one-way, then up to almost a 2-hour loiter time, 10 minutes in combat, and 250nm back to the base. The A-10 is very fuel efficient compared to jet fighters, even modern ones. It's designed to be based close to the action so it can get there quickly when called upon, and to loiter around for hours if needed, depending on how far it is from the forward bases.

Finally, there USMC uses the Harrier II for CAS work, and those are carrier-capable, tho they hardly ever operart from the supercarriers as they don't need catapults or arresting gear. They operate regularly from the Navy's amphibious assault ships for these types of missions, and then put to shore from small airstrips and pads to be even closer. - BillCJ (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Maximum / VNE

How come maximum speed is 833 km/h and never exceed speed is 832 km/h? I guess it's wrong. Marcos [Tupungato] (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• They are both listed at 450 knots, so neither is automatically wrong. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My revert of 71.158.181.131

I just reverted 9 edit sessions by User:71.158.181.131 with the rollback feature. As these were not vandalous edits, I need to explain the problems with his edits. Many were defintely qestionable, and some involved the insertion of non-encyclopedic parenthetical comments. None of these additions were sourced in anyway, and thus I did a wholesale revert, rather than trying to sort through the myriad changes made. I honestly don't believe any on f the edits made were an improvement. - BillCJ (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• There's a lot of background and early history to the A-X program. It'd be easy for that area of the article to grow immensely without controlling it. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)