Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

Article title

Shouldn't the article's title be changed to reflect the merger between Lockheed Martin and Fairchild Republic? It would be more accurate. Jak474 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Uh, when did this merger/acquisition happen? -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

22 April 1996.American474 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, only a two year wait for a reply! - the aircraft was built well before Lockheed Martin were involved so the article should not be renamed. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Roger, and sorry; been really busy with school. American474 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jak474: Lockheed Martin didn't even exist in 1994, the merger not occurring until 1995. Fairchild Aircraft continued to exist past the point, and eventually went defunct in 1999. - BilCat (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, LM purchased the remains of Fairchild Systems in its purchase of a division of Loral Corporation in 1996. Fairchild Systems was descended from Fairchild Camera and Instrument, which had long been separate from the Fairchild Aircraft company, which included Fairchild Republic. - BilCat (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank you for the update, I didn't realize Lockheed Martin acquired Fairchild republic, although I have had fleeting inquiries of what happened to the A-10 manufacturers, anyhow, if Lockheed wasn't involved in the production at all , I can't see adding it in would serve any purpose, if anything at all it would just be misleading. But that's just my thoughts, and kudos for answering a 2 year wait on a question!TomaHawk61 (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, the previous post(s) say that Lockheed Martin acquired Fairchild Systems unit from Loral Corporation in 1996, not Fairchild Aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

HOG UP and Wing Replacement Program

Following the decision in 1992 to keep the A-10 in service, should it be "a" decision instead of "the"? Furthermore, who made the decision? Shouldn't there be a bit more additional background info about the decision???--Now wiki (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Since it a specific decision (to keep aircraft in use) 'the' seems totally appropriate there, imo. More detail on this does not seem that important. There can't be that important as my books that cover the A-10 don't mention any specifics on that or don't mention it at all. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:MOS says to use direct language, not euphemisms

The lead states that the A-10 engages armored vehicles and tanks. That sounds like a euphemism. WP:MOS, in "Words to watch", at WP:EUPHEMISM says the "...word died is neutral and accurate; avoid euphemisms such as passed away...civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage." Based on my reading of the article, it seems the A-10 fires the autocannon or missiles or uses bombs against armored vehicles and tanks.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call "engage" a euphemism. Military jargon? Perhaps. At any rate, it seems "engaged" has been replaced by "attacked" - which is a more direct word. Seems like a good compromise to me. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WP:JARGON would be more appropriate, as it's technical language, but that would be nitpicking a nitpicker. :) I'm also not certain "engaing" always means to fire weapons, as it can involve trying to maneuver into a firing position, but not achieving it. - BilCat (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Nitpicking, part II...: ) ....The lede currently says, to paraphrase, that the A-10 provides support against enemy forces. Describing what a titanium-armoured combat jet with a 30mm autocannon/missiles does as providing support seems to like a potential euphemism. I acknowledge that the expression providing support may be a correct military expression/term. But WP isn't a military encyclopedia.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point re: engaging...it does probably mean more than just attacking targets. The A-10 has a range of other roles while airborne---besides attacking.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting sources regarding MTOW

The current version of the article cites a maximum takeoff weight of 51,000 pounds, which is supported by the af.mil Fact sheet. However, USAF TO 1A-10C-1 (2 April 2012, Change 10) (The A-10C flight manual) states on page 5-12 (Section V, Operating Limitations, Weight Limitations):

"The maximum gross weight for towing, taxiing, takeoff, and landing is 46,000 pounds."

AND:

"The maximum in-flight gross weight is 51,000 pounds."

Which should be reflected in the article? M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The first weight above is the max takeoff weight while the second (operating) weight is mainly limited by the max landing weight. These are different quantities. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Short description

Another editor (Fnlayson) reverted an edit (diff) I made to the article's short description, explaining that "text [was] removed without clear reason." Fnlayson is correct. I apologize for not providing an explanation. I created this section to (belatedly) explain my reasoning.

I edited the short description to (a) shorten the description from 72 characters to 49; and (b) remove duplicative information, viz., "Fairchild Republic". My reasoning is based on the guidance contained in Wikipedia:Short description#Content. Short descriptions are in some ways counterintuitive. I have found myself reviewing that Content section several times to make sure I'm writing a decent short description. Here are a few of the points from the Content section that are relevant to the present discussion:

• The short description should be as brief as possible. A target of 40 characters has been suggested, but this can be exceeded when necessary.
• The short description should focus on distinguishing the subject from similar ones rather than precisely defining it.
• The short description is intended to be used in conjunction with the article title, and should be written as though it follows the title. Duplication of information already in the title is to be avoided.

I defer to other editors re: whether or not the current short description should be changed. // Btw, I think the gist of the current short description is one of the best I've seen: "single-seat, twin turbofan engine attack aircraft".   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. Seems like that length guideline should be repeated at Template:Short description if it has been stable for a while. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Excellent point. I suggested a copy edit to the Template page, including adding the length guideline: Short description talk page.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Query re sources

The article states: "The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds.[60][64]". Source 60 is "Donald and March 2004, p. 18" and source 64 is "Jenkins 1998, pp. 47, 49". Why aren't the titles of the books given? Does anyone know the titles of the books in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.5.172 (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Both books are listed under "Bibliography" by author. BilCat (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A-10 background and the Cessna A-37

Howdy, casual observer here, wondering if any of the cited sources on the A-10 discuss the Cessna A-37 Dragonfly. My understanding—from personal connections and casual reading, definitely not WP:RS—is that the USAF pursued the A-37 largely as an interim stopgap measure to staunch A-1 attrition and address shortcomings in the A-1's capabilities until a better aircraft (the A-10) could be developed, and in this respect, the A-10 also replaced the A-37 in addition to the A-1. I realize that the A-10 is a much more capable aircraft designed with a far greater emphasis on survivability than the A-37, but as I understand it, the Super Tweet was never the aircraft the USAF really wanted—it was the aircraft they could get cheap and in large numbers, right away, and there was a war on. Seems to me that this topic would be a worthy addition to the article and I'm surprised it's not addressed already. Pardon my ramblings. Carguychris (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a big stretch to connect the A-37 to the A-10. I looked at three of my books on the A-10 and they mainly mention the A-1 Skyraider and other attack aircraft like F-105 and A-7. I have not found a mention of the A-37 in these books. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

With regard to the claimed involvement of Sprey and Burton

I suppose I should have explained my reasons for editing the previously added information first. My reasons for the edit was because the part about Pierre Sprey's involvement in the A-10's development was outdated since it was added in 2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II/Archive_2#Pierre_Sprey) and more information has since come out that made Sprey's claims questionable and contradictory. I apologize for not notifying anyone that I was editing the article and I should have discussed it first. AardvarkSleuth (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It is possible for several things to be true eg 1) that Sprey (and others) had opinions on attack aircraft that were provided to the military 2) that other engineers have significant contribution to design 3) to the extent that Sprey's contribution is overstated and 4) other designers contribution is understated.

But what we really need is some solid referencing on the subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Disputation of section "A-X program" Pierre Sprey's involvement

I've noticed several others have already attempted to make this change but it was been revoked on the grounds that the admins are under the impression the Wiki page is being troll bombed, or words to that effect.

I wish to dispute the mentions of Pierre Sprey used in the section "A-X Program". Pierre Sprey is one of the more infamous members of the "Fighter Plane Mafia" a group with a reputation for inserting themselves into various historical events regarding the development of United States Military Aviation projects between the 19050's and 1980's for media attention. There is no historical evidence that Pierre Sprey was ever involved in the A-X program, he was not a member of Fairchild's branch of Republic Aviation at Long Island who designed the A-10, and at the time the A-10 was being conceived Sprey had already left the Pentagon in order to pursue a career as a record producer. The A-10's lead designer was Alexander Kartveli.

The sources currently cited in the article's current form that make the claim of Sprey's involvement are the Biography of John Boyd, one of Sprey's best friends and fellow member of the Fighter Plane Mafia, and the book by James Burton "Pentagon Wars" a book who's factual accuracy was debunked over 20 years ago, and is now largely considered a work of fiction. These sources have no historical value and would not be accepted in any other serious publication.

I request that these citations be noted, that the article either remove references to Sprey's involvement and the sources which claim so, or that the dispute be acknowledged in a separate section of the article.

Malcious (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

I second this, as there is no proper citation, rather a simple "Coram 2004", with no link. 100.36.155.231 (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I've flagged instances of "Coram, 2004" for needing page numbers. I found a preview version of the book online and it's hard to tell if the things claimed are not found in the book because 1. it's not shown/searchable in the preview, or 2. phrased such that simple searches can't find them (or I guess 3. not in that book) GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested theres about four copies of Boyd on archive.org. It reads more like a hagiography in parts (the author says in the introduction that he spoke to Boyd's "Acolytes" including Sprey) but no indication its reliability is dubious. A-X project discussion is across pages 235-237 (and there's not a lot of text on those pages) GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say it is troll bombed, but this does seem to be getting a lot of attention in the last few days for some reason. We need sources. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

NoReformers (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), SneakyStephano (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), 50.90.211.22, and perhaps Malcious (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) all appear to be the same person, so I don't know that it qualfies as "a lot of attention". The article history and this section bears the link, which is just too coincidental. As to the merits, I don't know, I'm a bit more concerned with the monkey business. {{checkuser needed}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I might have found the source of the attention, 7 months ago a YouTuber did 2 videos on the A-10 and why he didn't think it was a good plane, but the first of the 2 videos just turned into a video on how Pierre Sprey wasn't involved and is actually a lier. One of the things mentioned was the artical and so it likely brought attention. This is just a theory though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.220.2 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be concurrent with the effort to prove that Alexander Kartveli designed the A-10. TMK, he was retired by that time, as I recall no mention of his name in the reliable sources I have on the A-10, or on any reliable aviation sites. BilCat (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I'm going to go with  Inconclusive (no comments on IP, etc.) If you want to know more as to what that means, NoReformers is on a static IP that I trust on geolocation. SneakyStephano is on a different continent and on the same extremely common device, and no proxy checks indicate a VPN, etc., but it is in a region I tell new CUs not to trust without behavioural evidence confirming geolocation because of the advent of peer-to-peer proxies and historical lack of reliability of CU data from that area. So in short, NoReformers has a known location. SneakyStephano has no technical indications of using a proxy, but based on experience with ISPs on Wikipedia, I cannot confidently say I trust the CU data on this ISP. Use your judgement and feel free to issue blocks regardless of socking if there's disruption that warrants it (I know you're an old-hand, but that is my standard line in cases like this, without making judgement on the merits of said blocks.) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work. Likely, we are looking at meatpuppetry or a combination then. The coordination is too exact to be coincidence. I'm not going to break out the ban hammer just yet, but if the tag teaming keeps up, then I'm likely. But again, it isn't a lot of attention like it seems. The best thing, as 331dot points out, is to get sources. We just don't need the monkey business to get sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I meant "a lot of attention" relative to the topic- in my opinion at least(I was passing by) but I agree with everything said here. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

As one of the people who did that, I can say I did a foolhardy action, partly because I didn't know about talk pages. I have no intention of repeating it as that will go nowhere. I can say that I have no idea who the other users are.