• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A-10 Warthog

No one cares about the F-18 anymore.
It saw it’s last action in TopGun Maverick
The Navy/Marines still do and they have long range "glide bombs" in the way of AGM-158C and AGM-84 Long Range Anti-ship missiles and Anti-ship cruise missiles which are more suitable for their type of conflict than the GBU-39B. That's what we get for buying a Navy aircraft rather than an Air Force one. The weapons development goes in an entirely different direction.

🍻
 
The Navy/Marines still do and they have long range "glide bombs" in the way of AGM-158C and AGM-84 Long Range Anti-ship missiles and Anti-ship cruise missiles which are more suitable for their type of conflict than the GBU-39B. That's what we get for buying a Navy aircraft rather than an Air Force one. The weapons development goes in an entirely different direction.

🍻
Even the Super Hornets’ time is coming.

Honestly IMHO (as a non aviator) the Super Tomcat concept made a lot more sense than the Hornet.

I would have preferred the RCAF get the F-15 over the F-18, and even now I think 48 F-35 and 72 F-15EX would have been the better bang for the buck.
 
You wont get too many people saying otherwise, Kevin. But at the time of the decision/competition, the F-15 was a lot (really a lot) more expensive than the Hornet and had fewer "Canadian" benefits attached to it. The real competition, because of price point, was between the Hornet and F-16 Falcon - and the Falcon lost over the disquiet of having a single engined airplane patrol the Arctic as part of Canada's NORAD obligations.
 
Even the Super Hornets’ time is coming.

Honestly IMHO (as a non aviator) the Super Tomcat concept made a lot more sense than the Hornet.

I would have preferred the RCAF get the F-15 over the F-18, and even now I think 48 F-35 and 72 F-15EX would have been the better bang for the buck.
I don't have enough knowledge to defend the F-18 or even compare it to the F-15 series beyond what Wikipedia says. But I was around when we bought the F-5 and got to ride in a two-seater on my FAC course so all that I can say is that the F-18 was a definite step up. The only good thing I can say about the CF-5 was that we built it mostly domestically.

🍻
 
Even the Super Hornets’ time is coming.

Honestly IMHO (as a non aviator) the Super Tomcat concept made a lot more sense than the Hornet.

I would have preferred the RCAF get the F-15 over the F-18, and even now I think 48 F-35 and 72 F-15EX would have been the better bang for the buck.
The F-15 of the early 80s was a pure A/A fighter. The E wasn’t produced until 1988 and even underwent some OT&E during the Gulf War. That was a non starter as we needed a multi-role aircraft.
 
The F-15 of the early 80s was a pure A/A fighter. The E wasn’t produced until 1988 and even underwent some OT&E during the Gulf War. That was a non starter as we needed a multi-role aircraft.
Non North American usage yes, but the Israeli’s had been bomb trucking the F-15 long before the idea of the E was a twinkle in the eye. They did bombs runs with it in 1978 only a year after fielding A’s.
Now I don’t think it was ideal, but as we see from the E and now EX, it is clearly a fantastic platform for the role due to its power, range and payload.

My belief is generally nothing is a good Jack of all trades. Having one airframe might be the ‘easier’ option, but I don’t think it’s the best, especially due to the insignificant quantity of airframes that Canada buys. However when one looks at what the F-15 platform morphed into, if McDD had been paying attention earlier the platform would have done a hell of a lot better for Canada than the Hornet of one was locked into a one platform setup.
 
Another example of an old weapons system being upgraded and applied where it can dominate locally




For all those contemplating resurrecting OV-10s and Cessnas for stooging around an active air space - a twin engined aircraft with redundant systems and a titanium bucket to sit in doesn't sound like such a bad option.

Especially if it has 11 hardpoints with a capacity of 7.26 tonnes and a 30mm gatling gun as a reserve capacity.



Air Force 2100

B52, C130, A10, CH-47
 
The Navy/Marines still do and they have long range "glide bombs" in the way of AGM-158C and AGM-84 Long Range Anti-ship missiles and Anti-ship cruise missiles which are more suitable for their type of conflict than the GBU-39B. That's what we get for buying a Navy aircraft rather than an Air Force one. The weapons development goes in an entirely different direction.

🍻

I think the key element is the greater the range and precision of the stand off weapons the less anyone needs to concern themselves with stealth and manoeuverability of the launch vehicle.

That means the launch vehicle can fly slower, higher and pulling fewer gs - longer lives for the air frames - with or without pilots.
 
The Navy/Marines still do and they have long range "glide bombs" in the way of AGM-158C and AGM-84 Long Range Anti-ship missiles and Anti-ship cruise missiles which are more suitable for their type of conflict than the GBU-39B. That's what we get for buying a Navy aircraft rather than an Air Force one. The weapons development goes in an entirely different direction.

🍻
At least we didn't go with the F-14 when that option came up.
 
Looking at all these posts.
F-18, F-15, F-16, F-14, A-10 ( I love the A 10 ugly and more ugly) , it would not have mattered the RCAF would have still been flying one of those models well past the best before date. Canada is famous for buying once every other generation for major defence purchasing.
Sea Kings, Leo 1, 5/4 chevy, C-130 ( flying them then put them in museums only to grab parts from later) , the Navy ( how many years are they behind in purchases?) . Simple things like a side arm, 1940 something surplus or weapons embargo could not deliver, here army you use them.
( Only reason the Canada government let the LAVs leave London for the Middle East was because Export Canada already paid for them and the Canadian Army could not use them in the numbers produced,. That is another story or theory )

Canadian government will buy the next air frame, 10 to 15 years down the road look at what it will take to keep it flying for another 10 -15 years and cost it out. Then delay that project till the airframe is closer to 20 years old, then update it and modernize it so it can fly another 15 to 20 years then we have another 30 to 40 year old fighter to look at replacing, and then delay that for 10 years. Forbes has a story that they assuming the F35 will have 66 year life cycle. ( So they are looking at massive upgrades over the next 40 years )
The Five Most Important Facts About F-35 Fighter Sustainment

So if you join the air force today get right in to Jet flying at 25 ( pipe dream i know) You will fly the F18 for another 5 years) then never get promoted out of your cockpit, never get a desk job. Fly your entire career. Retire at 55 from flying. Have a kid or two some point during your career and he or she becomes a fighter pilot. He or She could be flying the same airframe for their career ( 20 to 30 years) if the life cycle is 66 years. Be the family jet s
Crazy I only B52 crews thought like that.
Just my thoughts this morning ( good thing I do not drink coffee)
 
More A-10 Fanzine stuff


The A-10 costs about US$6,000 per hour to operate. By comparison, the F-35 costs $36,000 an hour and the F-16C around $22,514 per hour.

According to Reuters, the MQ-9A number is about half that of the A-10 and a 10th of an F35.

They cost about $3,500 per flight hour, compared to about $8,000 per flight hour to operate, for example, an F-16, according to General Atomics. According to the Air Force, for $56.5 million they can purchase four MQ-9 aircraft with sensors, ground control station and a satellite link.
 
Well if nothing else it tells us that tilt rotor availability is ass...
Good thing we just adopted another one :rolleyes:

IMG_1138.jpeg
 
A-10 survives SAM. RTB.
And no, it's not her.


“It wasn’t until my flight lead filled me in that I knew what I was flying with,” she said. “There were hundreds of holes in the fuselage and tail section and a hole about the size of a football in the back horizontal stabilizers. The A-10 was designed to take damage like that, so I was able to fly the hour home, and I made the decision to land it in the hopes that the plane would be able to be flown again.”

Due to the extent of the damage, Campbell’s plane never flew again. But because she chose to land it instead of ejecting, maintenance was able to repurpose much of the plane for other aircraft repairs.


Campbell returned to flying the next day, supporting a search and rescue mission to locate a downed A-10 pilot near Baghdad.
 
Back
Top