A10's to be sold on?

[Heathrow Harry]

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/simgad/7686243773181580658 (http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=L&ai=BH6HKQ3BgVd-pKs-migaRk4CIBZfMwvQEAAAAEAEgADgAWJ_5-Yx3YLuWtoPQCoIBF2NhLXB1Yi0xODkzMDYxMDk3NjI0NTc3sgEUd3d3LmZsa WdodGdsb2JhbC5jb226AQlnZnBfaW1hZ2XIAQLaAWRodHRwOi8vd3d3LmZsa WdodGdsb2JhbC5jb20vbmV3cy9hcnRpY2xlcy9ib2VpbmctZGlzY3Vzc2luZ y1pbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsLWEtMTAtd2FydGhvZy1zYWxlcy00MTI2MDYvqQKIs XU-dva5PsACAuACAOoCFjY4MzEvRmxpZ2h0R2xvYmFsL05ld3P4AvLRHpADjAaY A4wGqAMB0ASQTuAEAZAGAaAGFNgHAQ&num=0&cid=5GgL7dD9wZZPdTFc6JNE7HM6&sig=AOD64_0_SCdnk_q0FAl9NR-2POcPPyP_GA&client=ca-pub-1893061097624577&adurl=http://www.reedbusiness.com/uk/)
Boeing discussing international A-10 Warthog sales - 5/20/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-discussing-international-a-10-warthog-sales-412606/)

Boeing discussing international A-10 Warthog sales

By: James Drew (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/James%20Drew.html)
Washington DC
Source: Flightglobal.com
17:06 20 May 2015

Boeing (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/Boeing.html) has floated the idea of selling refurbished A-10 Warthogs to other nations as the US Air Force seeks to retire the venerable attack airplane.
The company is currently extending the service life of the air force’s A-10 fleet through a re-winging programme, and it recently delivered its 100th modification with more than 70 modifications left on contract.
At a Boeing-sponsored media event in San Antonio (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/San%20Antonio%20International.html), Texas, today, the company’s chief engineer of off-Boeing programmes, Paul Cejas, suggested the US government might pursue international sales of upgraded A-10s. Dozens of A-10s are currently in near-flyaway storage at the air force’s boneyard facility in Arizona, and could be brought back into the operational fleet at any time.


Cejas says he has no exact customers in mind, but Boeing has "begun early discusssions."


“It’s something we would be interested in, but again, it depends where the air force goes with retirements," he says. “If we go that path we would be looking at a modification. It all depends on what the air force does. We have no jurisdiction, and we’ll support whatever they need and we’re positioned for that.”
Congress has long protected the A-10 from retirement, and fiscal 2016 looks to be no different.


Cejas said it would not be fiscally efficient to cancel the re-winging programme this far into the contract, and Boeing would support any potential sale opportunities abroad should the Pentagon and choose to go that route.


Boeing’s current re-winging contract lasts into the first quarter of 2017 and there are options for more upgrades.


Boeing is the closest thing to a prime contractor for the Fairchild Republic A-10, officially called Thunderbolt II. The company owns the technical data package for modification and upgrade, Cejas says. As of March, there were 283 aircraft in the US active inventory.


No other nation currently operates the A-10, called the "best close air support platform ever" by the general in charge of Air Combat Command.

[Cows getting bigger]

Yes please. Three squadrons' worth.

[Phileas Fogg]

Not the prettiest of aeroplanes but a nice piece of kit ... Used to enjoy them giving us a "beat up" at Eastern Radar/Watton of a Friday afternoon back in the good old days.

[barit1]

My interest - other than its superb CAS performance as the infantry's best friend - is also nostalgic. I worked on the engine during its development, and visited Farmingdale to see the #1 X-bird in the shop before its first flight. Kartveli was still on the scene, he thought it looked terrible, but confident with that gun, was a sure winner when deployed! :)

[Mil-26Man]

Some more on it here Boeing touts A-10s for international customers should USAF divest fleet - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/51570/boeing-touts-a-10s-for-international-customers-should-usaf-divest-fleet)

[NutLoose]

Well Barit1, it looked a hell of a lot better than Northrops A9 competitor

http://www.aerofiles.com/north-a9a.jpg

[Brian W May]

I should think ISIS would be in the running to buy a few . . .

[typerated]

Turkey, South Korea, Ukraine?

[rh200]

I should think ISIS would be in the running to buy a few . . .

Why buy??

Just let the iraqi airforce get a few, show up at the front gate in a toyota pickup truck and black flag waving and presto. Yours for free:p

[Octane]

If the Iraqi's were operating A10's, the Toyota pickups with nutters on board wouldn't get near the base gates......

[k3k3]

The A9 looks an awful lot like a Sukhoi Frogfoot...

[Danny42C]

Suggestion from a standpoint of complete ignorance:

How would it be if the EU bought a few, based them in Malta (which is some 187 nm from Tripoli), then turned them loose to fly all along the Libyan littoral to take out anything which looked like a possible "refugee" carrier (always provided there were no signs of occupation !)

The 30mm cannon should be adequate for the smaller craft and a few rockets would be handy for the larger stuff.

But of course ISIS and the people traffickers would probably say their Human Rights were being trampled on, and bring a case before the European Court !

Just an idea.

D. :*

[barit1]

The A-9 looks like a direct descendant:

Bell P-59 Airacomet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-59_Airacomet)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftanks45.tripod.com%2FJets45%2FHistories%2FB ell-P-59%2FXP-59.htm&ei=uSJhVdDaL4vXsAWWzILABQ&bvm=bv.93990622,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNHLux1cAaS2j3jW8yNAzdk2JGwQgA&ust=1432515635106349

The XP-59A wing loading was low enough that to accumulate max flight hours, they'd routinely fly it till the tanks were dry, then glide to land dead-stick on the dry lake bed (now Edwards AFB). Pilots got rather good at managing the approach & landing, then rolling out on the parking ramp.

[Bigpants]

I know let's buy some for our new aircraft carriers...

[Skeleton]

Except A-10's don't have hooks and even if they did the new wonder boats are not being equipped with arresting gear. :ok:

[Brian W May]

Suggestion from a standpoint of complete ignorance:

How would it be if the EU bought a few, based them in Malta (which is some 187 nm from Tripoli), then turned them loose to fly all along the Libyan littoral to take out anything which looked like a possible "refugee" carrier (always provided there were no signs of occupation !)

The 30mm cannon should be adequate for the smaller craft and a few rockets would be handy for the larger stuff.

But of course ISIS and the people traffickers would probably say their Human Rights were being trampled on, and bring a case before the European Court !

Just an idea.

Works for me . . . do we need to vote on it (block voting for UKIP) :p

[MightyGem]

The A9 looks an awful lot like a Sukhoi Frogfoot...
More like the Frogfoot looks like an A9. :=

[pr00ne]

Danny42c,

Or, maybe NATO could use some of the numerous other 30 and 25/27mm cannon equipped aircraft that almost every one of their constituent country air forces have in abundance, rather than buy second hand obsolete slow non radar equipped heaps that the only Air Force that ever bought them has been desperately trying to junk for years?

[Wander00]

Here guv, one owner. low mileage, fully loaded, three month warranty. Give you a good price......

[uffington sb]

pr00ne,

If I were a grunt on the ground, I would prefer an aircraft designed specifically for CAS, armed with a fecking great Gatling gun cannon firing at the bad guys.
They may be slow and obsolete in your eyes, but maybe the Army should have been using them and not the Air Force.

[melmothtw]

pr00ne,

There's more to an aircraft's gun than just its calibre. Your comparing the A-10's to "other 30 and 25/27mm cannon equipped aircraft" shows you don't understand that.

It's boneheaded comments like those that have fed the USAF's myth that the A-10 can be replaced by the F-35 in the CAS role.

obsolete slow non radar equipped heaps that the only Air Force that ever bought them has been desperately trying to junk for years

Thankfully, more informed heads than your own have prevailed every time they have tried.

[Danny42C]

Pr00ne,

Point taken, but sometimes slow is an asset and all that titanium cockpit armour sounds nice to me !

Eyeball works as well as radar when hunting moored rust-buckets along a shoreline in broad daylight (the dog must see the rabbit). And we should be able to get the A-10s at a good price (perhaps Uncle Sam might even donate them to such a Good Cause).

Stiil, just an idle thought !....D


Brian W May,

How did you guess my political affiliation ?.......D.

[pr00ne]

uffington sb,

Really? I think I'd want something that could get to me before I was dead and when it did arrive was all weather capable and could maybe just survive in a non permissive air environment.
Quite WHO delivered the PGM wouldn't really bother me, manually aimed 30mm cannon fire being sprayed about certainly would!


melmothw,

Well, those misinformed boneheads are the two- winged Generals that run the USAF!

Danny42C,
And not a bad idle thought at that! Though slow can be done by the likes of Apache, and the armoured cockpit is not to be sneezed at!

[barit1]

Congress needs to mandate the A-10 be transferred to a force dedicated to protecting the infantry. If the USAF won't do it, then USMC, or else the Army itself. USAF brass has always hated supporting ground troops, going right back to the DHC Buffalo debacle in the 60s.

Incidentally, the flavor of this goes right back to early 1940s. The early P-51s were built on "soft" tooling, slow and inefficient. USAAF wanted to upgrade NAA's tooling but had no budget for it. Congress found money in the "marching Army" budget, but couldn't spend it on a fighter. Thus NAA drew a couple more lines on the plans, called it an A-36 ground attack plane, and won a contract for 500. Of course, that funded the new tooling set, making mass production of the P-51 possible. :D

[barnstormer1968]

Proone
If we get past your comment on what you think you would like to arrive (indicating you haven't been in that position yet) and that it differs massively than those who call for CAS on a daily basis and who are the customer here, what aircraft do you think has a chance of surviving in a non permissive air environment?

Even 20 years ago stealth aircraft were brought down with relatively cheap systems and anything at low level is fair game for dumb bullets.

As a starter, Apache is out of the frame as it's slower than the A10. RAF harriers are out as they were sold. tornado isn't much use as its 27mm gun is no match for the A10s Gatling gun against things like compound walls. F15 doesn't have the accuracy of the A10 for close strafing.

The A10 can operate both day and night, much like many other aircraft, but can't see through cloud just like the other assets available. Radar is no help in deciding if a chap is about to fire an AK or is a friendly local carrying a shovel.

[typerated]

" F15 doesn't have the accuracy of the A10 for close strafing."


I have seen many A-10's miss with the gun and lots of F-15E's hit.

[melmothtw]

I have seen many A-10's miss with the gun and lots of F-15E's hit.


F-15 gun is optimised for air-to-air (shells fired with an upwards trajectory), meaning it has to take a nose-down attitude when firing at close ranges - not ideal when flying at high speed and low level.

Everything about the A-10 is optimised for air-to-ground - no compromises.

[typerated]

Yes I knew that about the F-15/A-10 guns.


But that does not guarantee accuracy on the day for the A-10!


For none armoured targets I imagine there is little to chose in the effectiveness of a strafe pass from either machine

[melmothtw]

I take what you're saying typerated, but the point is that with a magazine of 1,700 rounds (compared to 500 rounds for the F-15E and just 250 for the F-35A) the A-10 won't have to declare itself to be 'Winchester' after only one or two strafing runs.

I'm not a soldier myself, but I'd imagine it is the A-10's ability to loiter long over the battlefield, as much as anything else, that makes it such an effective and popular CAS platform.

As I said earlier, the calibre of the gun is only part of the story.

[rh200]

Everything about the A-10 is optimised for air-to-ground - no compromises.

And thats the point, the powers to be have decided that the compromises are worth it. Another words their battle strategy is such, they are prepared to suuffer the consequences for percieved other advantages.

[melmothtw]

Of course, just because it was built with no compromises doesn't mean it can't fulfil other mission sets

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/a-10-attack-jets-rack-up-air-to-air-kills-in-louisiana-war-game-a2299445b2a4

"Single-purpose? Single-mission? My ass."

I don't think anyone believes (probably not even the USAF top brass themselves) that the A-10 is being axed for any reason other than for financial savings. It has nothing to do with 'battle strategy' or 'perceived advantages' of other platforms.

[megan]

The early P-51s were built on "soft" tooling, slow and inefficient. USAAF wanted to upgrade NAA's tooling but had no budget for it. Congress found money in the "marching Army" budget, but couldn't spend it on a fighter. Thus NAA drew a couple more lines on the plans, called it an A-36 ground attack plane, and won a contract for 500. Of course, that funded the new tooling set, making mass production of the P-51 possibleThe NAA held orders from the British for 770 aircraft (620 paid for by the Brits plus 150 to be supplied under lend lease) prior to the USAAF placing any orders. The Pursuit Board held meetings between 11 and 30 October 1941 and produced a document "Future Development of Pursuit Aircraft" which examined 18 experimental and 8 production aircraft - the Mustang was not among them.

With the reputation of the Stuka in the background, the USAAF planned on using the Vengeance in the dive bombing role. On 4 February 1942, Col. K. B. Wolfe, Chief of the Production Engineering Section wrote, "We will not have a useful dive bomber before March 1943". He recommended cancelling the Vengeance and obtain "a suitable dive bomber, low altitude attack fighter in its place".

NAA was approached and work began on the project 16 April 1942 and testing of the A-36 began 30 May. The USAAF issued contract AC-27396 on 21 August for 500 A-36.

NAA used "soft" tooling throughout, as it enabled them to make rapid modifications, and was a feature of all NAA production at the time. The Harvard NAA built had 2,500 modifications over 25 variants of the first 1,000 aircraft for example.

[barit1]

Having worked extensively in configuration control, I can only express great pity for the maintainers of early Mustangs. One would be lucky to find two identical airplanes, and spare parts must be a nightmare.

[Danny42C]

megan,

Your: "With the reputation of the Stuka in the background, the USAAF planned on using the Vengeance in the dive bombing role. On 4 February 1942, Col. K. B. Wolfe, Chief of the Production Engineering Section wrote, "We will not have a useful dive bomber before March 1943". He recommended cancelling the Vengeance and obtain "a suitable dive bomber, low altitude attack fighter in its place".

This interests me greatly, for Col (soon to be Brigadier) Wolfe's letter (and much else from him) is quoted at length from p.40 onward in Peter C. Smith's 1986 "Vengeance" (which is the nearest thing to a Vultee Vengeance "bible" I've found).

As one of the very few people left who flew VVs operationally, I know a little about their capabilities. Col Wolfe may no doubt have been an excellent production man, but he is confusing two entirely different tactical requirements here.

A dive bomber needs a long dive, as near vertical as possible, to give the accuracy which you buy it for in the first place. It is not - and cannot be - "a low altitude attack fighter". If they wanted a dive bomber, they had one already - the Douglas SBD "Dauntless", which had destroyed all the four Jap big fleet carriers at Midway in two days in June '42 (the first three in 20 mins). The US Army got some, called it the A-24, but did not do much with them AFAIK.

We got the VVs in India/Burma (basically as no one else wanted them). Any ground attacking (which is what Col Wolfe seems to mean by "low altitude attack fighter") was done by (first) the "Hurricane" IIC and "Beaufighter" (4x20mm each), and later the Thunderbolt (6x0.50) and Mosquito (4x20mm), plus 250 and 500-pounders to taste. The A-10 would have been useful, too.

The VV was of limited value in the first Arakan campaign, as the advancing Japs were mobile, widely spaced out, and you could only find them "static" in Akyab. But in the second ('43/'44 "Dry Season"), the 14th Army were pushing them back; the Jap reverted to his standard tactic: dig in deep in a strong point carefully chosen to hinder our advance, and fight to the death (the US Marines knew this all to well, as they had to reduce these redoubts on the Pacific islands by frontal attack, and that was expensive).

Our VVs came into their own. Flying always in "box-of-six", the Army would mark for us, with mortar smoke bomb, such a place which was troubling them. In 30 seconds we would unload on it 12x500 and 12x250s (a total of some 4 tons) of HE, which would go deep into the moist jungle soil and simply excavate the entire site and everything in it.

Up around Imphal/Kohima it was not so simple, as in the ferocious close combat in the last battles, we dare not go for troops as they were so closely intermingled, but helped by destroying roads and bridges which the Jap needed to get up his supplies.

Hope this is of interest.

Danny42C.

[Robert Cooper]

One of the reasons the A-10 was and is so successful, is that it was designed with the help of the greatest ground attack pilot in history: Hans Ulrich Rudel, famed as the "Stuka Pilot". The most decorated German serviceman of the second world war, he was credited with destroying no less than 519 Soviet tanks, a Russian battleship, and they just plain lost count of the gun emplacements, vehicles, barges, and various whatnot that he blew up in 2530 operational sorties.

Rudel was engaged as a special consultant by Fairchild/Republic when the A-10 was being designed in 1972 against the expected Soviet offensive through Germany. And who knew more about stopping Russian tanks than Rudel? His wartime memoirs were required reading for the design team.

Funny how it always comes back to basics.

Bob C

[megan]

Hope this is of interestYour posts are always of the very greatest of interest Danny.A dive bomber needs a long dive, as near vertical as possible, to give the accuracy which you buy it for in the first place. It is not - and cannot be - "a low altitude attack fighter"I think the Colonel had in mind, what in modern day speak would be called, a "multi role" aircraft. The A-36 did in fact perform in all three roles - bomber escort, dive bombing and ground attack. It also had some 100 "kills". The US Army got some, called it the A-24, but did not do much with them AFAIKThey considered them too slow, lacking defensive armament, and unable to operate without fighter escort, so looked at the Vengeance instead. Did you ever come across either of the A-36 squadrons in India Danny?Having worked extensively in configuration control, I can only express great pity for the maintainers of early Mustangs. One would be lucky to find two identical airplanes, and spare parts must be a nightmare.NAA Chief Engineer Lee Atwood had the following to say about production, “Dutch had put a lot of effort and talent into increasing the efficiency of airplane production. Even at high wartime rates of production, parts were made in batches, and it was most unusual to have a machine tool dedicated to making one part, or even to one operation. Many tools, especially for sheet metal parts, were ‘soft’ tooling-using Masonite, plywood, or low-temperature casting materials, rather than tool steel, and were much cheaper if not as durable. However, for the purpose, they were adequate and were made much more quickly and were adaptable to the inevitable changes that came along. Dutch made many contributions to the cutting, forming, and stretch—fitting techniques, but his greatest improvement came from rationalization of assembly and installation processes.

“It was common practice to finish the structural elements, wing, fuselage, etc., and then begin installation of equipment-electrical, hydraulic, armament, instruments, and other items—in the nearly completed structure. In large airplanes, with plenty of access room, this worked reasonably well with few bottlenecks, but in smaller planes, such as fighters and trainers, the final assembly stage was crowded, hectic, and inefficient. Starting with the T-6 series, Dutch required that fuselage and wing structures remain open in sort of half-shell condition until all wiring, tubing, and permanent equipment installations were made and that they be inspected and tested before joining into complete structures. This naturally required that the engineering design provide for this construction process—so it became part of house practice in all models."

This somewhat revolutionary view of production would go a long way toward speeding production of the first Mustangs. In comparison, the Supermarine Spitfire was a very complex fighter to build, and was not really suited for the style of mass—production techniques envisioned by Henry Ford——the creator of the concept. In some ways, the Mustang went together was like a very large model airplane kit, making the type ideally suited for construction in very large numbers.

Dutch Kindelberger put the matter into more perspective when during late 1942 he wrote, “At no time prior to the late 1930s did the quantity of planes in a single contract justify even moderately high tooling costs. Even when the first orders exceeding 500 planes were placed by the British and French in 1939, and by our own government under the National Defense program in 1940, tooling costs had to be held down, simply because it proved necessary to make changes in design to meet changing needs. When NAA passed the 1,000 mark on Harvard trainers for the British and Empire air forces in March 1941, it did not mean that we had produced 1,000 identical planes. Actually, there were 2,500 change drawings made after the first Harvard was produced, and among those 1,000 trainers there were actually more than 25 different models, each varying from the others in some major or minor detail of construction. Yet, NAA shattered every then—existing production record in providing these 1,000 Harvard trainers, emphasizing the fact that we were geared to handle changes without disrupting production. The reason, of course, was flexible tooling.

“When the American aircraft industry was finally given the green light for all—out aircraft production, there was much cost for freezing designs. Then, if ever, existed an opportunity for real production tooling in the aircraft industry. Enthusiasm was high for an air war in which America could utilize its mass production techniques. Many ardent, if misinformed, prophets counted the days until the war would be won.

“Fortunately for the nation’s ultimate welfare, the high commands of our Army and Navy were not stampeded by the popular cry for mass production of frozen designs. Instead, through their respective procurement groups, the Army and Navy called upon the aircraft industry to increase production as rapidly as possible without disrupting the tooling flexibility, which is today paying dividends on the fighting fronts.

“If you have 50,000 parts to make, you can spend $45,000 (90 percent) on tooling, $4,500 (9 percent) on labor, and $500 (1 percent) on material waste and come up with a cost per part of only $1. However, reduce the quantity of parts to 500, and your cost per part becomes $100. Under this condition, it is wise to spend $100 (20 percent) on tooling, $395 (79 percent) on labor, and $5 (1 percent) on material waste. Efficiency suffers, but the cost is down to normal, and tooling and production time are reduced to only a fraction of the time required to build a $45,000 tool and knock out 500 parts.

“In wartime, this formula becomes more complicated. Among the additional factors which must be considered are: Allowable production time in the light of war needs, tooling time, production time, space required by tool, skill required with tool, and adaptability of tool to wartime allocation and flow of materials.

“Even assuming that 10,000 planes of a frozen design could be built, it would be of little wartime utility to be engaged in tooling for the duration. The war is being fought today and can be won or lost with the equipment we shipped to the fighting fronts yesterday. Ask any military leader to choose between 100 combat airplanes in the air today and 10,000 combat planes corroding on the ground when the war is over!"

The Mustang was produced in 11 main variants, with 29 sub types. The B-5-NA sub variant introduced some 67 changes for example.

[barnstormer1968]

Typerated
With ref to post #26
If you were in an armoured vehicle or hiding behind a compound wall which aircraft would you prefer to have safe you, an F15 or an A10?

Bearing in mind one of the above uses depleted uranium rounds I'd also suggest that even if an A10 strafed you and missed you would still be better leaving the area. I know the use of DU is a double edged sword but the 30mm DU round will come inside the compound and kill you whereas the rounds from the F15 will just make a mess of the walls.
It's been a wake up call for NATO that mud walls are proof against 30mm rounds from things like the main armament on AFVs but some 30mm rounds are more equal than others :) :)

I'm clearly not saying the F15 isn't a good CAS platform, but the chaps on the ground know what they prefer to help them out.

I'm sure the USAF top brass will kill the A10 sooner or later using the 'one mission' argument. The fact there are other single mission aircraft on the books never seems to get a mention though :)

[Tinman74]

Slow response speed, need to be on station to be effective, don't get me wrong the sound of that 30mm is reassuring but give me a tonka, F18 or mirage any day.

[typerated]

BS I don't disagree.
I'd retire some other platforms before the A-10
I just didn't understand the comment on gun accuracy (not effectiveness)

[melmothtw]

Slow response speed, need to be on station to be effective,

You could just as easily say that about attack helicopters, or light attack aircraft such as the Scorpion or AT-6 (both of which the USAF is touting as possible future replacements for the A-10).

[glad rag]

Gift then to the US Army...

[melmothtw]

That won't happen for a number of reasons, not least of which is that if the army is operating one fixed-wing CAS platform then why should it not operate all of them?

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, and the USAF isn't going to cede one of its core missions to the army.

[KenV]

pr00ne,

There's more to an aircraft's gun than just its calibre. Your comparing the A-10's to "other 30 and 25/27mm cannon equipped aircraft" shows you don't understand that.

Excellent point. I'd like to add to that. There's more to CAS than just strafing. Strafing is just ONE way to do CAS. There are many more. And with the advent of precision guided munitions (both unpowered bombs and powered missiles) strafing is often a secondary method of providing CAS. So while the A-10 is the premier strafing platform with the capability to use many other CAS weapons, many other aircraft are excellent platforms for those other CAS weapons.

[melmothtw]

Agreed, and with 11 hardpoints under which to hang such precision-guided munitions (compared to 9 for the F-15E), the A-10 has few peers in that regard either.

[barit1]

Megan - Thank you for the great quote. Much more competent than the brief I had worked from.

:)

[Danny42C]

megan,

The A-36 looks to be a very versatile and useful bit of machinery indeed. But in truth I never knew of the type until now. Did they ever try to replace the Allison with the "Packard Merlin", as was done with the P-51 Mustang, from which it was derived? Seems to be the: "...dive bomber, low altitude attack fighter..." of Col Wolfe's wish list. Maybe he was not as confused as I at first thought!

Wiki tells me that the Army Air Corps had them only in Dinjan (Assam). A rough calculation shows this to be some 250nm N and 120nm E of Khumbirgram, (EDIT: Faint boyhood memory of Pythagoras works this out out as 302 miles),which was as far North as we got in Assam, so it was understandable that we knew nothing of them and never came in contact.

As for the VVs, it seems an intricate story, but briefly, they came in two guises: the A-31 and A-35. The essential difference was that the A-31 had zero angle of incidence (the AAC wanted nothing to do with them, but asked for a redesign with a 4º angle - which made it a better aircraft but a worse dive bomber - and it had a 0.50 Browning in the back, replacing the 2x 0.300/0.303 Brownings in all the earlier Marks) . Then they turned that down, too, and never used it operationally.

They were mostly palmed off (L/Lease *) to all and sundry. The RAF got the lion's share of the A-31s (VV Mks.1-III, plus some Mk.IVs [A-35] which went to UK for conversion to TTs). The Aussies got Is and IIs, and Mk.IVs, but AFAIK, only we (in Burma) and they (in New Guinea) operated the Is and IIs. (and nothing else). I believe the Free French got some IVs in N.Africa, others went to Brazil.

All gone now save one (the Camden Museum specimen), which the Museum stoutly maintains to be a Mk.I, whereas it is manifestly a Mk.IV (see the huge 0.50 in the back!) Chugalug and I spent quite some time on this Thread long ago, investigating the beast.

* Not all - we actually bought the first few batches (@ $68,000 ea.) before L/Lease kicked in.

Danny42C.

[topgas]

Up around Imphal/Kohima it was not so simple, as in the ferocious close combat in the last battles, we dare not go for troops as they were so closely intermingled, but helped by destroying roads and bridges which the Jap needed to get up his supplies.

Danny, slight thread drift, but I would like to thank you on behalf of my late stepfather Col (later Brig) Hugh Richards, who was Garrison Commander during the battle. As you know, it was so finely balanced that any action to disrupt the Japanese attack could have swung the result. Sadly he didn't talk much about it and I didn't at the time know what questions to ask.

[megan]

Did they ever try to replace the Allison with the "Packard Merlin"Hi Danny. No, in fact the low altitude people preferred the Allison, as it had better fuel consumption and was a far more robust engine than the Merlin. In fact, when the production switched to the Merlin version, there was an attempt by some to keep the Allison version in production, but to no avail. The RAF were still operating Allison versions in the European theatre right to the end of the war.

Should you like to send me a PM with your email address I can send you a lengthy report re the Allison in the low level role (USAAF report based on the RAFs experience).

[Danny42C]

megan,

Many hares running now! If they were happy with the Allison, then well and good. But in the NE Burma/China theatre you had to take into account the "Hump" (the Ta Liang Shan range - 18,000 ft. and lousy weather on top). The Merlin would be a much better engine for that (and what's all this about the Allison being more reliable than the Merlin? - you'd raise a few hackles with that!) And, to anticipate the next question, the GMC product (Merlin 266 in the Spit XVI) was reckoned to be every bit as good as the Derby one.

And it is nice to hear the Nakajima Ki-43 "Oscar" being given some credit at last. So it could dance round the A-36 just as easily as it did round the Hurricane IIC - what's the use of 4x20mms if you can never bring them to bear? - (it was not until we got the Spitfires out there that we could deal with them on equal terms).

Almost unknown at the time, and quite forgotten now, this terrestial cousin of the more well known and glamorous marine "Zero" was just about as good. Fortunately, the Jap Army Command out there could think of nothing to do with it except to send it on "hit and run" LL opportunity-target raids (rather like the FW190s in UK post BoB). If they had only lifted their eyes to the skies, they would have seen richer pickings - boxes of six lumbering VVs slowly climbing to 12,000 en route to do them mischief.

Just one pair, properly handled, would be enough to take out all six VVs in short order, as we'd decided to stick together under attack, (rather than break out in all directions, dive for the deck and run home). The three "Bettys" en route to Calcutta one night stuck together in this way (in the vain hope of beating him off) when F/Sgt Pring found them with his Beaufighter, so he got three kills in 15 seconds and a well-earned DFM. Luckily for us, the idea never occurred to the Jap Army, so I'm still here.

Thank you for your kind offer, but as I already have more reading to catch up on than time left, I must regretfully decline.

Danny42C.

Ars longa, vita brevis.

[KenV]

deleted due to post to wrong thread.

[KenV]

Agreed, and with 11 hardpoints under which to hang such precision-guided munitions (compared to 9 for the F-15E), the A-10 has few peers in that regard either.

The Super Hornet has 11 hardpoints if you count the wingtip stations. And the BONE can carry WAY more than the A-10 AND it has better endurance. The point is, the CAS equation is far more complex and includes far more variables than just which has the best gun system and/or the most hardpoints. Sensors, comm systems, datalinks and more also come into play. I think its short sighted to assume that USAF would have to abandon CAS if they get rid of the A-10.

[melmothtw]

All fair points KenV, though I'm not sure you can count wingtip stations for the CAS role - and, of course, the A-10 has 1,700 rounds of depleted uranium 30 mm to back up what's carried on the 11 hardpoints.

What you say about 'sensors, comm systems, datalinks and more' is all valid. The A-10 is no different from any other aircraft in service though - if you don't invest in it, it will drop-off the capability curve. The fact that Boeing is offering to modernise the platform for potential international operators shows that they at least see a future in the airframe.

The BONE (not heard it called that before) is a very different aircraft designed for a very different mission, though that doesn't detract from its CAS capabilities.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the USAF won't be able to do CAS without the A-10, I think the point is that they'll not be able to do it as well. Retiring the A-10 will be a retrograde move, notwithstanding the CAS-capabilities of other platforms in the inventory.

[Rotate too late]

Been underneath both when they dropped through my level! I'd reiterate the point that sometimes precision isn't what's needed. A place called murder wall needed hoofing and actually to lay down the area with PWay from BONE B-one (geddit?) was not as effective as the 30mm strafe 20 minutes later. Area weapons still have a place, it's not the corner of the wood I wanted, it was the whole f-ing forest!!! I'm still struggling to see why we lost 500 pound dum bombs then immediately put pave ways into the mix doing the same job for more money....as for Brimstone!! :rolleyes:

[megan]

and what's all this about the Allison being more reliable than the Merlin?That's what the RAF told the USAAF Danny. The report goes to some length explaining the whys and wherefores. Too lengthy for here.

[Heathrow Harry]

there si also the question of costs - some of those precison weapons are seriously costly - whereas 50 or so shells ..................

The question is wo would be interested AND be allowed to buy A10's .....

Israel maybe, Poland, Turkey, Saudi, S Korea looks about the limit to me

[West Coast]

Add in many who are a short drive away from a mechanized army such as the Ukraine...

[Danny42C]

megan,

Wiki tells me much more than I previously knew before about the P-51. Seems that it was first built on contract for the wartime British Purchasing Commission (like the Vultee Vengeance), and later adopted by the USAAC. We called it the "Mustang", and used it for the low and medium level roles to which it was restricted by the limited height capability of the Allison engine.

The installation of the "Merlin" in the P-51B/C transformed it into a world-beater; its pilots reckoned it as good as (or better) than the Spitfire (hotly disputed by the Spitfire people - I cannot comment as I never flew a Mustang - but then, as an old Spitfire hand, can anything be better than a Spitfire?) Though I must admit that its much longer range made it far superior as an escort. (Was it Goering, who in the last days in Berlin said, that when he saw the "red noses" of the P-51 escort over Berlin, he knew the war was lost!) The P-51D, with the Packard Merlin, was just the icing on the cake.

"That's what the RAF told the USAAF, Danny". Their informant was talking through his hat, IMHO. Which British aircraft ever used them? (if you count out the original batch).

Danny42C.

[Wander00]

For true story on the P51/Merlin read biography of ACM Sir Wilfred Freeman

[megan]

Their informant was talking through his hatDanny, I'm afraid I was at cross purposes in talking about Allison engined aircraft rather than the A-36 in particular. The Brits never used the A-36, other than one test aircraft given them. Wing Commander Peter Dudjeon a former Mustang1/1A CO performing "Rhubarb" raids was the man.Seems that it was first built on contract for the wartime British Purchasing CommissionYes, actually the British wanted to buy more P-40s, and asked NAA to licence build them, but NAA came back and said they could build a better aircraft, with the Mustang being the result. The British paid the hard coin to have the aircraft designed, built, and bought 620 prior to lend lease kicking in. Without the British there would have been no Mustang.

The Mustang was to replace the P-40 in the low level role with the Army Cooperation Command, so the performance of the Allison was no handicap. The Spitfire was the Air Ministry designated high altitude fighter.what's all this about the Allison being more reliable than the Merlin?More robust Danny, not more reliable. The RAF removed the automatic boost control on the Mustangs. This allowed a sea level full throttle 72", rather than the take off 45.5" or 56" war emergency. And they ran at 72" for up to 20 minutes in combat. The bearing life was 1,500 hours vice 5 to 600 hours on the Merlin.

Mustang racers at Reno invariably use Allison connecting rods in their Merlins. They have a much larger cross section, and a better bearing design than the stock Merlin rods. These Merlins are putting out as much as 3,600 HP at 140 to 150".

[Danny42C]

megan,

Your: "More robust Danny, not more reliable. The RAF removed the automatic boost control on the Mustangs...etc." Point taken ! But then, I believe the Spitfires were then built for an expected service life of six months, so it would make no sense to put in an engine designed to run forever.

And:

"These Merlins are putting out as much as 3,600 HP at 140 to 150". (Inches Hg?). But for how long?

On the "Gaining a RAF Pilot's Brevet...." Thread (Advt: currently in the doldrums on Page 2 of "Military Aviation") two of my old Posts may be of interest as relevant:

P.354/#7076: "Finally they overrode the ABC ("pressing THE Tit"), giving +9lb (say 48in) - IIRC - and sat back. It ran for 72 hours more before it blew up. Or so the story went". (These would be Merlin IIs and IIIs, '40 vintage, so a bit before the A-36's time)

P.157/#3131: "One of my (Mosquito) rides was a little too exciting for comfort. Half way down the runway on take-off, at full power, the auto boost limiter on the No. 2 failed. The sudden surge of extra power on that side swung the nose hard left just as we were leaving the ground, and although the vet pulled the offending engine back at once, we were left heading for the Fort, now far too close to dodge. It looked as if my short and not particularly glorious career was about to come to an abrupt end".

Happy days! :ok:

Danny42C

[KenV]

The BONE (not heard it called that before) is a very different aircraft designed for a very different mission, though that doesn't detract from its CAS capabilities.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the USAF won't be able to do CAS without the A-10, I think the point is that they'll not be able to do it as well.

Which is basically my point. CAS is a mission, not a platform. Some platforms excel in some CAS mission scenarios and others in other mission scenarios. USAF is pretty unique in that it has multiple platforms to perform the various CAS missions (and so far, we haven't even touched on C-130 and other gunships and armed UAVs in the CAS role). And yeah, shooting a 30mm is cheap compared to shooting a Maverik missile. But JDAMS are pretty cheap too and very effective in the CAS role and getting more and more effective. And fielding and maintaining an entire fleet of A-10s just so you can shoot "cheap" bullets when you have many other CAS capable platforms may not be a cheap solution in the overall scheme of things.

[West Coast]

Cheap and effective or not is for someone else to argue. What I'd like is for someone above three star level to tell the truth, that the replacement isn't as effective, as measured by the guy on the ground. If its the A-10s time to go, so be it, however a little truth would go a long way.

[KenV]

Cheap and effective or not is for someone else to argue. What I'd like is for someone above three star level to tell the truth, that the replacement isn't as effective...

"the replacement?" There is no single "replacement" for the A-10. Instead, there are multiple fleets of multiple types of aircraft, including drones, helicopters, various tactical jets (including and not exclusively the F-35), gunships, and heavy bombers that can ALL be very effective in various CAS scenarios.

[Tourist]

I'd be interested to know what the cost-per-dead bad guy is across the platforms. I'm betting that the A-10 is slightly cheaper than the B1 or in fact any other platform other than maybe the Apache?

Actually, I'd bet that the Apache is not cheap just simply because helicopters aren't rather than due to the weapons systems used.

[Turbine D]

Original quote by West Coast: Cheap and effective or not is for someone else to argue. What I'd like is for someone above three star level to tell the truth, that the replacement isn't as effective, as measured by the guy on the ground.

The Air Force A-10 fighter, according to the Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Mark Welsh, is the best close-air support aircraft in the world, yet he’s determined to retire hundreds of them — the entire fleet — to the desert. Why? Despite this reality, the close-air support mission — the only mission for which the A-10 was designed and the primary mission for which its pilots train — has always been of secondary importance to the Air Force leadership which views air superiority, tactical and global strike (bombing), strategic airlift and aerial refueling as more important. Therefore, support of the development and acquisition of the service’s three core modernization programs: the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter; the next-generation tanker, and the Long-Range Strike Bomber.

Simple as that.:rolleyes:

[fltlt]

Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Herndon, Virginia, has been awarded a $33,500,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for engineering support. Contractor will provide evaluations, analysis, repair designs and testing to support the requirements for the A-10 Structural Integrity Program. Work will be performed at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, and is expected to be complete by April 28, 2020. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. No funds are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the contracting activity (FA8202-15-D-0001).

[West Coast]

can ALL be very effective in various CAS scenarios.

Can they be as effective? I could hang dumb bombs on a helicopter and it could be "effective" if it breaks the will or kills the opposition. I'm hoping for a higher standard.
I look forward to the feedback after a drone does a show of power run down the valley.

[barnstormer1968]

West Coast.
You may be wasting your time with the effectiveness debate :)
Other platforms may well be more accurate, cheaper to fly, be faster, carry more weapons etc etc but that may have no bearing on how their effectiveness is measured on the ground as I'm sure you know.

If the blokes on the ground know an A10 makes the baddies keep their heads down or run away then that is the added value that money can't buy, and high tech systems can't replace.

[Rotate too late]

Barnstormer,
Couldn't agree more, I will always look at it from the point of view of the "customer" and over the course of 10 years in that ****hole it was always AH/A10. I appreciate the job done by others but they never came close. If this is the end of A10 then I doff my cap, I'm not convinced by the cost argument against something like JSF but I am WAY down the food chain and bow to those in the know. But, for my money, when I look at airframes that have been going for far longer, I'm sad to see it go. It worked FACT.

[tdracer]

Meanwhile, over at the government department of the "Right hand not knowing what the Left hand is doing", Boeing's contract to manufacture A10 re-wing kits was recently renewed...


Yet retiring the A10 is about "saving money" :ugh:

[rh200]

Boeing's contract to manufacture A10 re-wing kits was recently renewed...

Would it not be that until every thing is down and commited, the other department has to go on regardless and assume, hence possible being caught short.

Inertia in systems can be a tricky thing.

[LowObservable]

rh200

It would seem to be an inertia issue in that case.

The A-10 issue comes down to a few basics, I think.

F-16s, F-15Es and F/A-18s can do effective CAS today, as long as they have a targeting pod (these have advanced greatly in the last 10-15 years) and the right weapons.

The A-10 has advantages - persistence and a large air-to-ground-optimized gun. In some circumstances its low-speed handling and reduced vulnerability to groundfire are important. On the other hand it can't do lots of things that other aircraft can.

How many A-10s does the AF need? Probably not 300. However, as large and as inflexible an organization as the AF is, it's hard to scale down costs with the fleet number.

The other side of the problem is that the AF is now getting an accelerating stream of F-35s - big, complex aircraft with poor (its fans say "maturing") reliability and an automated logistics system that doesn't work. But if the AF doesn't feed the training pipeline now, with experienced MX people who can soon be instructors, it may find itself in a couple of years with a metric :mad:ton of F-35s with appalling readiness numbers. The F-16 force is already feeling the pain.

Chopping A-10 releases a bunch of people who can either be assigned to F-35 or fill the gaps on F-16.

[GeeRam]

"That's what the RAF told the USAAF, Danny". Their informant was talking through his hat, IMHO. Which British aircraft ever used them? (if you count out the original batch).

The RAF had plenty of Alison experience to tell the USAAF that, with 18 x squadrons of Tomahawk/Kittyhawk in NA (plus a further 4 x RCAF, 3 x SAAF & 2 x RAAF sqns)

[Danny42C]

GeeRam,

A very palpable hit ! Mea Culpa ! Obsessed with my own problems "Up the Jungle", I quite forgot the little contretemps in the N. African desert which was going on at the same time.

Only connection with Allisons in our neck of the woods would be Col. Claire Chennault's "Flying Tigers". And, post-war, our original AN-CPN4 GCA kit came with an Allison powered generator set, but I was told we couldn't afford the spares for it, so had to send the Allisons back and put in a rotary converter from our domestic supply instead (much quieter, anyway).

Thanks for the correction !

Danny.

[Davef68]

Danny, I'm afraid I was at cross purposes in talking about Allison engined aircraft rather than the A-36 in particular. The Brits never used the A-36, other than one test aircraft given them.

The RAF used a few in Italy (Borrowed form the Americans) for recon purposes as well. The RAF tac rec squadrons really liked their Allison Mustangs and only replaced them because replacements were running low.

Regarding the A10, the USAF is finding out what the RAF did a few years ago - salami slicing numbers of arframes does not produce significant cost savings, but removing an entire type from the inventory does. If another type can do the job to an acceptable standard (even if not as well) then that's teh way to go.

[Rotate too late]

Sorry Dave, I absolutely disagree, "acceptable" doesn't cut it when soldiers lives are on the line. They deserve the absolute backing of those that send them into bad places to do a tough tough job. That includes the support of world beating equipment. We in the British army have tried acceptable and we've been found out....

[Robert Cooper]

Couldn't agree more RTL. Spot on:ok:

Bob C

[Cows getting bigger]

Meanwhile the UK is rapidly approaching a decision point regarding the WAH-64D :hmm:

[rh200]

Sorry Dave, I absolutely disagree, "acceptable" doesn't cut it when soldiers lives are on the line. They deserve the absolute backing of those that send them into bad places to do a tough tough job. That includes the support of world beating equipment.

Whilst a noble sentinment, the vast majority knows that is not what happens in reality. Every thing we do has a trade off, cost benefit analyisis. Always has, always will be.

[Turbine D]

Original quote by Davef68:
If another type can do the job to an acceptable standard (even if not as well) then that's teh way to go.
B-1 Stealth Bomber "Friendly Fire" Strike Kills 5 US Soldiers In Afghanistan

If all the US Joint Chiefs of Staff were cluster together in a hell hole and needed CAS, do you think they would choose the B-1, an F-15, an F-16 (all of which use smart bombs that are sometimes dumb) or a CAS A-10? According to you, they would choose the B-1, acceptable standard, except for these 5 US soldiers.:\:mad:
Original quote by rh200:
Whilst a noble sentinment, the vast majority knows that is not what happens in reality. Every thing we do has a trade off, cost benefit analyisis. Always has, always will be.
Lives in the field are cheap when you are sitting in the DOD or MoD comfortable offices reviewing the numbers, eh?:E

[junior.VH-LFA]

Hasn't the A-10 strafed quite a few friendlies.. ?

[Rotate too late]

Mate, you're absolutely right, of course, there have been blue on blues, I knew personally one of the fusiliers involved in Gulf 1, I also know AH drivers that have been involved, mistakes happen and I wouldn't pretend otherwise, but, to be clear, CAS is not a skill that can be switched off and suddenly back on, when doing missions in Herrick I would always nag my oppo to look out the window! SA is what ultimately will help those that need you to be on the money. As I've said, if A10 goes fine, but it's a mistake.
And ref trade off, I'm not a mug, i know it happens, but I flew Lynx in Iraq, and adequate would be over selling how pathetic That airframe was, I then flew a world class bit of kit for a while and just loved being able to help people, no better reward than saving guys and gals with the right equipment. It can be done. It just needs some balls.

[Stanwell]

RTL,
You expect to find balls amongst those who ultimately make the decisions - politicians? Good luck.
Sorry to appear cynical, but certain first-hand experiences during the Vietnam debacle are responsible for that.
Hindsight is also helpful when forming opinions.

[NutLoose]

Interesting film

Fighter Pilot University :: A-10 Replacement? (http://www.fighterpilotuniversity.com/wtfo/10-replacement)

[Danny42C]

I see "Bulwark" has "rescued" another thousand (to be offloaded with a single ticket to Calais each ?)

And the next thousand have their tickets booked and waiting for the next ship.

As this now seems to be a regular transit route into Europe for (potentially) all the peoples of Africa (and beyond) with a laudable wish for a better life, and a money-spinner for the travel agents (ISIL), might a better idea be to choke it off at point of embarkation.

Anybody with a better idea ? :confused:

D.

[NutLoose]

I see they are now getting offshore then sending out distress calls so we now go and collect them, saves the bloody smugglers having to do their job.

Personally, I would tow them back to Libya, or use the landing craft to return them, until you do start returning them to the departure point and that gets around the camps that they will be returned and not make it to Europe, the situation will never improve.
Those returned are not going to make the trip again as their monies will have been used the first time, and the fact they will be returned will put off others

[Danny42C]

GeeRam (#73) and Davef68 (#75),

On second thoughts, my dash to don the dunce's cap (#74) may have been premature ! Of course we used them, but all the "....Hawk" tribe were as American as Old Glory * (or "motherhood and apple pie"). AFAIK, the Allison pistons were never fitted to a British aircraft design.

(Note *: if you want to explain our Monarchy to an American, just tell him that it is to us what the "Stars and Stripes" is to him. Most will "get it" at once).

Generally, on the contentious business of "Blue on Blue", the definitive answer was given at the time of the Falklands war by an Army spokesman on the BBC: "There has never been a war in which this has not happened", and, I venture to add: "And never will be". (Infinitely regrettable, but true).

Danny42C.

[barit1]

junior.VH-LFAHasn't the A-10 strafed quite a few friendlies.. ?

Really? The airplane did it all on its own?

No, it was the pilot. And the pilot perchance received faulty intel, faulty targeting data. In which case he could have been flying a Spad (either WWI or Vietnam vintage) or an A-36 or AH-64 when the friendly fire happened.

[Danny42C]

Topgas,

I would like to say a belated "Thank you" for your kind remarks on the "A-10s to be sold on" Thread (your #47 of 28th May).

One of our attacks on the Jap L.o.C. at Imphal was unique, as it was the only one in which individual success could be attributed. Let me explain:

The VV tactical formation was a box-of-six, this went into echelon starboard 30 secs before the dive, then "follow-my-leader" in some 5 sec intervals, dive and bomb. In solid jungle, the leader bombed a spot marked with a mortar smoke-bomb by the army, but in this instance he was visually targeting a narrow hill road traversing a steep hillside, which the Japs were using to resupply. But our forward troops were near enough to observe results through binoculars, though they did not need to mark any particular spot on the road - any big hole would do.

Normally, the leader's bombs throw up such a cloud of dust and smoke that No.2 simply bombs the centre of the cloud, and all the others have to do the same, but each time the cloud gets bigger and the bombing less accurate. But here the angle of the slope was such that a small lateral error (for obviously we bombed along the line of the road) would be magnified by the slope so that the individual bomb flashes could be "marked". 1 to 5 missed the single-track road, some narrowly above (which would at least bring down a few tons of earth, but which can be quickly cleared), or harmlessly below.

No.6 (modesty forbids), more by good luck than good judgment) put his two 500s and one of his two 250s into the road, making a hole which would need weeks to repair (and the Japs did not have weeks). The Army passed their warm congratulations back to 110 Sqdn at Khumbirgram.

You can't lose 'em all ! :ok:

Danny42C

[megan]

AFAIK, the Allison pistons were never fitted to a British aircraft designTechnically correct Danny, but the P-51 was designed to fill a British contract, the Brits paid for that, the development and purchased some 600 aircraft prior to the US sitting up and taking notice. The Brits also provided the Meredith system for the cooling system, and a Brit aerodynamics' chap sorted out the overheating problems. So, could be said the design was a joint US/Brit, even if the Brit contribution was minor in the scheme of things. Oh, and Allison engine of course. Without the Brits the aircraft would not have existed.