End looms for US Air Force's 'Warthog' ground-attack jet
Black Hawk for sure.
Racedo
Given the Marines emphasis on expeditionary warfare, an aircraft that needs a host airport to operate at doesn't fit the model. As the Marines return to esatblished doctrine and move the Marine Corps away from being just another land army as it was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan the focus in aviation is towards expeditionary. While convential capabilities will still exist, the focus is looking towards the NEO roles along with day 1 capabilities. I know the Marines did informally look at the A-10 decades ago, but it never progressed as it would have been a case of doctrine bending to adopt the plane instead of the plane complimenting the doctrine.
Given the Marines emphasis on expeditionary warfare, an aircraft that needs a host airport to operate at doesn't fit the model. As the Marines return to esatblished doctrine and move the Marine Corps away from being just another land army as it was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan the focus in aviation is towards expeditionary. While convential capabilities will still exist, the focus is looking towards the NEO roles along with day 1 capabilities. I know the Marines did informally look at the A-10 decades ago, but it never progressed as it would have been a case of doctrine bending to adopt the plane instead of the plane complimenting the doctrine.
Isn't that a different class to what we were talking about
with the A-10 and the Apache ?
with the A-10 and the Apache ?
Given its speed, stealth and height there was no real enemy given Warsaw pact really didn't have capacity for building something with single aim of bringing it down. They not build something with such a low % of achieving its aim.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
galaxy flyer wrote:
The A-10 -1 (flight manual) specifically stated that a manual reversion, single-engine landing hadn't been tested and may NOT be possible. It recommended ejection, which should have done in 0197's case.
Are you looking at an early edition of the -1?
Mine states:
Manual Reversion Flight Control System.
The MRFCS is an emergency system for use when dual hydraulic failure is impending or has occurred. The mode is adequate for executing moderate manouvers and for safe return to base and landing.
The A-10 -1 (flight manual) specifically stated that a manual reversion, single-engine landing hadn't been tested and may NOT be possible. It recommended ejection, which should have done in 0197's case.
Are you looking at an early edition of the -1?
Mine states:
Manual Reversion Flight Control System.
The MRFCS is an emergency system for use when dual hydraulic failure is impending or has occurred. The mode is adequate for executing moderate manouvers and for safe return to base and landing.
Given the Marines emphasis on expeditionary warfare, an aircraft that needs a host airport to operate at doesn't fit the model. As the Marines return to esatblished doctrine and move the Marine Corps away from being just another land army as it was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan the focus in aviation is towards expeditionary. While convential capabilities will still exist, the focus is looking towards the NEO roles along with day 1 capabilities. I know the Marines did informally look at the A-10 decades ago, but it never progressed as it would have been a case of doctrine bending to adopt the plane instead of the plane complimenting the doctrine.
There are scenarios during which the Marines will likely be the only force or represent the majority of combat forces in place, NEO as an example. If it can't operate off the boat, the Marines are moving away from it as they return to doctrine. By the boat, I don't mean a CVN, thus the emphasis on the F-35 and its (alleged) capabilities. Last I checked, the A-10 isn't a sea going aircraft.
If your inference is the Marines won't go alone on an Iraq sized operation, you're correct. However one must understand how Marine expeditionary forces are organized. With that understanding one recognizes that the basis of operations comes from the MEU'S level composition as the building block around how larger operations at the MEB and MEF levels are organized.
At the basic MEU level, the plan is for the Marines to provide most if not all of the combat element and that mindset continues further up the ladder at the MEB and MEF level. Any additional capabilities when the baloon goes up such as the A-10 is great, but only replicates capabilities in place.
There are MEU's floating around the world's oceans composed and sized for immediate action at whatever hotspot kicks off tomorrow. The immediate nature of such operations doesn't allow for the logistical, political and diplomatic efforts required to get an aircraft like the A-10 in theatre.
If your inference is the Marines won't go alone on an Iraq sized operation, you're correct. However one must understand how Marine expeditionary forces are organized. With that understanding one recognizes that the basis of operations comes from the MEU'S level composition as the building block around how larger operations at the MEB and MEF levels are organized.
At the basic MEU level, the plan is for the Marines to provide most if not all of the combat element and that mindset continues further up the ladder at the MEB and MEF level. Any additional capabilities when the baloon goes up such as the A-10 is great, but only replicates capabilities in place.
There are MEU's floating around the world's oceans composed and sized for immediate action at whatever hotspot kicks off tomorrow. The immediate nature of such operations doesn't allow for the logistical, political and diplomatic efforts required to get an aircraft like the A-10 in theatre.
Mother of God - that VW picture really puts the GAU in perspective.
West Coast, not knowing much about the Marines, are you saying that for the A-10 to fit in with the way they fight, it'd either have to be carrier capable, or be able to self-deploy from austere airstrips?
West Coast, not knowing much about the Marines, are you saying that for the A-10 to fit in with the way they fight, it'd either have to be carrier capable, or be able to self-deploy from austere airstrips?
Tartare
Not meaning to sound flippant, but yes and no. The Marines have and will continue to take advantage of the A-10's capabilities. The A-10 however would never have Marines written on the side of it.
Not meaning to sound flippant, but yes and no. The Marines have and will continue to take advantage of the A-10's capabilities. The A-10 however would never have Marines written on the side of it.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m not sure folks appreciate the size of the GAU-8 30mm round. While I was stationed at Eglin AFB they were testing new nylon bands around the bullet. I got a dummy round that I have kept with me. Below is a picture to give some idea of the size.
A large pointy thing (does it come with batteries)That goes off with a bang, with some disposable towels and a mug of tea.......Ann Summers could market that!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bevo
Very nice indeed and also probably quite rare to have in a collection
The "driving bands" (the plastic parts) that swage down really do reduce wear
on the barrel with such a high rate of fire weapon.
Very nice indeed and also probably quite rare to have in a collection
The "driving bands" (the plastic parts) that swage down really do reduce wear
on the barrel with such a high rate of fire weapon.