Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

Key West Agreement of 1948/Pace-Finletter MOU 1952

Shouldn't there be some metion of the USA Key West Agreement of 1948 in the article? This agreement basically said that the Air Force would get control of fixed-wind aircraft carrying offensive weapons, while the Army was limited to rotary-wing aircraft carrying offensive weapons. This explains why the Army has not been able to field a fixed-wing anti-tank aircraft, such as the A-10; and why the Air Force was given an aircraft that it really did not want, prefering fighter/attack planes such as the F-4, F-15 and F-16. With the Air Force wanting to replace the A-10 with the F-35, there could be an argument between the Air Force and the Army if the F-35 will suit the Army's needs for close-air support, the way the F-35 is supposed to serve the needs of the Air Force, Marines and Navy. In 1990, the Congress talked about transferring the A-10 to the Army and the Marines, but, the Air Force agreed to keep the A-10 in service. Since the Air Force is planning to replace the A-10 with the F-35 in 2025, the Army might feel that they should be able to field their own fixed-wing close-air support aircraft; the same way the Marines have their aircraft and are not dependent on the Navy for air support.204.80.61.110 (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Another document that basically said that the Army could have attack helicopters, but, not fixed-wing, close-air support aircraft was the Pace-Finletter MOU 1952. This agreement, which expanded upon the earlier 1948 Key West Agreement, has kept the Army from having their own fixed-wing aircraft with offensive weapons, (unlike the US Marines), and kept the Army dependent upon the Air Force for that type of airplane. This was a big problem in Vietnam, where the F-4 Phantom II just wasn't very good in the CAS role. It could be a very big problem in the future, if the F-35 replaces the A-10 and a fighter/attack, multi-mission plane just isn't as good in the close air support role as aircraft designed from the beginning to be a CAS anti-tank plane.204.80.61.110 (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Thunderbolt and lightning (image)

If you can get past that pun, I have a great image for your use, if anyone wants it: http://militarytimes.com/frontline/index.php?date=2009/10/23, high-res: http://www.whiteman.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/091020-F-2616H-001.jpg. Use {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The image is on Commons at File:A-10s lightning bolts.jpg now. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thunderbolt crash in Germany of 1988

I don't know if anybody of you ever heard about it, but on December 8th of 1988, one of two A-10s in a drill for low altitude flight crashed into a house, killed 6 people and injured 50 more. Someone could add that... for those of you speaking German, here's a link about the crash and its consequences: http://www.betrachter.de/flugzeugabsturz-in-remscheid/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.150.106.249 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

One could add at least a interwiki link to this article: 1988 Remscheid A-10 crash. That said, today, another A-10 crashed in the Eifel, near the city of Laufeld (related article; in German).--Jack-ONeill55 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added a link to the article (that I wrote a few years ago) under 'See also' today The Seventh Taylor (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

External copyvio

Just a note to potential reviewers: having looked over the history of the article, it appears that this external site is using Wikipedia's material and not the other way around. The giveaway is the Rudel mention, which has existed in this article in various forms but was inserted in its current format in this edit. Note that if it had been copy/pasted from an external source it probably wouldn't have misspelled "its". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the issue that the external site is not identifying its source material as from Wikipedia? It seems that there is a preponderance of Internet sites that use Wikipedia information but in nearly all cases, there is either a link to the original Wikipedia article or a clearly stated note indicating that it is a derivative of the original Wiki article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC).

Chris C identified that the fiddlersgreen.net site copied this article. Therefore this article is not violating that site's copyright. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup. It is problematic that the site in question is not fulfilling its GFDL/CC obligations, but in practice this isn't something which I believe requires the involvement of WP's legal counsel at this time. The more important issue is that the article is not speedy failed for GA (and that parts of it are not summarily deleted) due to a mistaken assumption that parts of it were copied from an external reference. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That site (fiddlersgreen.net) puts up a lot of text sent to members via email and I can see that for expediency, they simply find information and "slap it onto the 'net." I do find it disingenuous that their website is copywrit while they have possibly purloined the wiki article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A-10 replacement by the F-35?

Can we get a source on the quote "The A-10 is expected to be replaced by the F-35 in 2028 or later." near the top of the article? As far as I know, these are two aircraft which serve entirely different functions (Multi-Role, as opposed to close air support). 69.40.32.64 (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The replacement part is cited in the article at the bottom of the Operational history section (current ref. #15) and does not need to be cited again in the Intro per WP:Lead. Admittedly the reference is 3 years old and plans can change. But that's the most recent thing on what will replace the A-10. I have not seen anything official on the Air Force changing to some other replacement aircraft. Too far out, I guess... -Fnlayson (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want more (and newer) sources, you've got some here (Wired), and again here (New York Times), and even more here (Business Week). -SidewinderX (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had not checked media outlets like those. By official, I meant from the DoD, Air Force or maybe the Air Force Assoc. The F-35 is to replace the A-10, but won't be a true replacement, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, no, it won't. While the F-35 might technically be replacing the A-10, I bet we'll find that UAVs will do most of the work. Nothing like an airplane that can orbit over the battlefield for 12 or 24 or 36 hours, just waiting for someone to ask for help. -SidewinderX (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Most probably. And hopefully each is armed with a cannon too. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, it seems the US air force is trying to do with the F-35 what was attempted with the M14. They're trying to replace everything with one weapon. Doesn't seem to me like it will work out too well, given the previous track record for such attempts (The FG-42 wasn't a good 'multi-role' weapon either) 69.40.32.64 (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That has been going on for years. The USA military often tries to do too much with one weapon, (a "one size fits all" idea). Look what happened in the Korean War, when the F/P-51 Mustang (with it's liquid-cooled engine) was used in the close air support role, while F/P-47 Thunderbolt (with it's air-cooled engine) was left back in the states. Many F-51 Mustangs were shot out of the sky by ground-based anti-aircraft weapons. Something, the durable F-47 Thunderbolts probably would have survived in greater numbers, just as they did in WWII. The way to solve the problem of the Air Force wanting to replace the A-10 with the multi-mission F-35 is to transfer the A-10 to the US Army (similar to the Marines who have their own mix of fixed-wing and rotatary-wing attack planes) and bring an end to the Key West agreement of 1948. The Air Force had wanted to replace the A-10 with F/A-16 (an F-16 with a 30mm gun pod attached), and that was shown to be a bad idea by the NY Air Force National Guard in Desert Storm (1991). "The more things change, the more they stay the same". 204.80.61.110 (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Stupid ideia from some F-35 fanboy. The A-10 is subsonic, have large wings, armour and etc with a purpose, purpose that you cannot fill with a supersonic ligth figther. One F-35 doing the job of a A-10 is like one corvette trying to do the job of a truck.200.189.118.162 (talk)

Improvements needed

Currently this article is not B-class and not ready for GA review. It has several paragraphs that need referencing. I've started on this, but probably do not have sources to cover the color schemes/markings and some other detailed content. Reword or remove text as needed to cite. Help where you can on this. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Making progress. Thanks Nigel. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Full referenced

This article is referenced thoroughly now. This has taken a couple years with the efforts of several editors. Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me, fixed one DAB link to firewall. My spell checker set on US spelling is saying that redesignated should be re-designated (with a dash), it picked nothing else up. Might be some non-breaking spaces missing, no biggie. My only other thought is that there are either too many images or they need spreading around, two section headers are displaced due to images in my browser (Firefox) and the text is 'sandwiched' between pictures in places, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it just has too many images, many cannon ones. I'll try spreading them out first, then maybe remove some. I thought US spelling did not use a dash after 're'. I'm not sure. Will have to check.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's picking it up in both 'languages'!! I did wonder if there was a better image for the infobox but it does seem to be the best one available, I know it has been shuffled a few times already. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary reckons no dash: redesignate. Happy with that, spell checker needs an update!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hans-Ulrich Rudel

The statement "Input on the design was later provided by famed World War II attack pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel" with a reference to Coram's book page 235 is not right.

According to Coram p.235, "Sprey insisted that everyone on the A-X project read Stuka Pilot, Rudel's wartime biography..."

So Rudel's input was passive, rather than actively solicited as is implied. 85.211.33.242 (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. It is corrected now. I thought this had been fixed before. -fnlayson (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A-10 Armor penetration rating

The stated armor penetration in the wiki article is in error. While the 23mm round is a 'real' Russian round, just the A-10's windscreen glass canopy is resistant to armor piercing rounds up to 23mm. But the tub armor itself is resistant up to 37mm, and some 57mm. Cite: http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/a-10/a-10.htm I made an edit, but that edit was also in error. I'll instead let the one who rightly reversed my edit and directed me to the talk channels fix the original content. 184.12.132.209 (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The article text already mentions the bathtub armor was tested up to 57 mm. None of this is related to the 25 mm rating in your edit though. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, my previous edit was in error. The snippet I'm specifically talking about reads: "The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds.", when in fact it should read: "The canopy glass alone has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire, while the 'tub' armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 37 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds". In all honesty, I'm not familiar with how to properly format the citations, so I figured I'd leave that to someone else. Just correcting information. 184.12.132.209 (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The text is based on several books. The bathtub 23 mm/57 mm wording is covered by 2 book references. These are more reliable sources than milavia.net, which looks to have little or no peer review. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And likewise, peer review on the book sources is impossible, considering that they're both un-named and so absurdly obscure that no one could possibly verify the information within. 184.12.132.209 (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10.htm [This looks like the info src from the Milavia.net] 184.12.132.83 (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Don't read too much into the unknown, a simple check of their reference section should tell us something instead of you doing the guesswork. From the looks of it, both could have gotten their data from the same source. That much I can tell. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

DCS: A-10C in notable appearances in media

I think the DCS: A-10C Warthog flight simulator game may be notable enough for inclusion in the notable appearances in media section. The game has a very impressive amount of detail, realism and a 600+ page manual. Take a look at the game's website. Thoughts anyone? SCΛRECROW 04:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hardly considered notable; nearly all gameboy, fanboy and cruft entries are routinely culled. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC).

A-10 Warthog could serve until 2040

Here is a link that states that the A-10 Warthog might be serving until 2040.[[1]]. The longer the unique, designed from the ground up for the mission of close air support, A-10 Warthog serves, the better as far as I am concerned. Replacing the A-10 with the F-35 is bad an idea as the plan of replacing the A-10 with the A-16 was. Keep the A-10 flying until it cannot fly anymore, like the A/B-26 Invader, the B-52, and the C-130.204.80.61.110 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Bennett Turk