Mystery Buyer for A-10s
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 тра 2024
- What country is looking at buying A-10?
Every Monday at 8PM ET, Mover (F-16, F/A-18, T-38, 737, helicopter pilot, author, cop, and wanna be race car driver) and Gonky (F/A-18, T-38, A320, dirt bike racer, author, and awesome dad) discuss everything from aviation to racing to life and anything in between.
Send your voice message for the show: podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh...
Looking for a good book? www.cwlemoine.com
Kids Coloring and Activity Books!
www.amazon.com/stores/author/...
Want to create live streams like this? Check out StreamYard: streamyard.com/pal/d/56844703...
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Views presented are my own and do not represent the views of DoD or its Components. - Розваги
Canada. They saw the age on the airframes and were "wow, these are brand spaking new!"
hey we need to replace our Snowbird Demonstration Team, why not a fleet of A-10s? They are 30 years younger than what we have now :)
XD
Would fill the gap in the RCAF for the brigade in Latvia until the CF-35A comes online.
Actually they would be great for Canada. You have to take into account that they are being given new wings by Boeing and Canada could join in that program. Not likely happening though.
PUT PONTOONS ON EM THEY'LL FLOAT TOO.!.! CALL'EM "SNOW- HOGS" THAT'LL FLOAT MY BOAT. OH, CANADA>...*_°
WISH I COULD GET SPAKED.... 🔱⭐🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
The highway patrols will finally have their a-10 so those 'speeding enforced by aircraft' can be true.
Or it could bring a whole new meaning to being Swatted...
😂
That was done with the AH-64 image 20 years ago. An oldie but a goodies. 👍
RIGHT! lol. So terrible.
dont mess with texas !
South Korea and Poland.
Gotta love Poland's enthusiasm.
Give them to the Marines. After all, they’re used to do so much with so little for so long that they can do anything with nothing forever.
Much as I would love to see that, the Marine Corps purposefully rejected a Super Hornet purchase, at the expense of greater risk to legacy Hornet crews, to maximize our F-35 procurement. Current USMC leadership is full speed ahead on divesting anything irrelevant in the opening phase of a war with China. 20-years ago USMC might have said yes, but now I think the answer would be a hard no.
There’s one issue with the Marines flying A-10s. These aircraft can’t operate from Amphibious Assault ships and Aircraft Carriers. So this aircraft doesn’t fit their requirements.
@@user-pj3ch8ou2h Henderson Field on Guadalcanal and other Marine Corps Air Stations over the decades aren’t Carriers. They’ve flown plenty of Aircraft from land bases.
@@lesliepaulkovacs6442 Marines aircraft at Henderson Field were F-4F Wildcats and SBD Dauntless which were flown there from aircraft carriers.
@@user-pj3ch8ou2h And what Carrier are the Marines C-130s flying from today?
Poland wanted a this type of craft. They almost built a modern type of their own the PZL-230 Skorpion
Just googled that.
That's one hell if a plane! 😅
US citizens should get first dibs.
Right and since taxpayers already paid for them, they should be given away to US citizens.
@@everypitchcounts4875
But I'm curious which citizens would get it if so. Feel like they might be sitting in very wealthy people's garages.
I completely agree with you about the hatred of the A-10 by the Air Force brass.
so how do you think the Big Brass fund their retirement accounts?
They are not wrong. Ukraine won't even ask for them.
@@oculosprudentium8486 How?
@@noahway13 obviously by ordering the purchase of new equipment and new projects.
See also the congressional hearings of how a simple bag of bearings that goes for $10 was sold to the Air Force for $50,000
i can completely understand the hatred. Its a charismatic aircraft, but lets face it.
It did good work in Afghanistan where there was essentially no credible surface to air threat.
In desert storm 6 of them were shot down and several more damaged. I think that was among the highest loss rate of any fixed wing AND its fighting style lends itself to friendly fire - which it did.
The kicker is really trying to justify keeping it. Its old, its maintenance costs are going up and combat experience and testing showed its gun - the only thing it has that other aircraft dont - isnt actually any good for killing tanks. The mission it was supposed to do. The rounds dont penetrate modern armour. The majority of its tank kills with the gun werent kills. They just claimed they hit them so it must be a kill. The actual tank kills were performed using AGM-65's - a missile other platforms carry.
So basically in summary,
Its out of date, its vulnerable to manpads which are everywhere now, its gun doesnt destroy tanks and to be useful you need to have an out of date, ill equipped enemy force like north korea, its most useful weapon is carried by other less vulnerable platforms and its becoming more andmore maintenance heavy.
its soaking up money which would be better spent elsewhere.
I retired in 2014 but I was in Army Aviation since 1986. The Air Force didn't want the A-10 in the 80's. The Army was asking congress to give them the A-10 but the Air Force didn't want to give up the budget to go with them. It would also go against the agreement between the Air Force and the Army for the Army to only have rotary wing attack aircraft.
When the A-10 was being designed in the late ‘60s the SA-7/Strela-2 was not being fielded in huge numbers, the heavy deployment of it and its more capable successors literally rendered the tactics the A-10 was designed around obsolete the moment the first one left the assembly line. “Big gun go brrrrrrrrrt!” Is really cool fighting illiterate goat herders, not so much against a comparable combined arms force with a coordinated air defense umbrella.
@@kmrtnsn Yes but our soldiers have been fighting those "illiterate goat herders" for the past 23 years and the A-10 covered their a$$ better than any other fixed wing aircraft. The Air Force loves to dogfight and the A-10 doesn't do that well. This is the real reason the Air Force hates the A-10 even though the last significant dogfight the US was in was during Vietnam 40 years ago.
Either the Army or the Marines, but congress must force the AF to give the budget to go with them.
I remember that.
@@who2u333 exactly. 👍🏻
It may be just scuttlebutt, I've heard there are a USAF grandfather, father, and son B52 pilots who all flew the same bureau number airframe during their careers.
Bureau numbers are a Navy thing. USAF uses tail numbers. Yes it is true.
Friend of mine was a 3rd Gen Buff pilot. He flies another Bird now but his Father and Grandfather all flew the Buff and I would not be surprised the same Aircraft.
That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. My Dad ended up finding the tail number of a plane he accidently dropped a radio box through the horizontal stab while in Thailand. We were at an airshow when I was a kid. You could still make out the patch that was put over the hole where the box went right between the ribs. Plane flew a demo IIRC, but that was like... 30, 35 years ago, www
yeah I think I saw a vid with a B52 pilot stating that he'd flown the same plane that his grandpops and then his pops had flown - maaan thats almost a family heirloom
I dont want to brag, but I just found a hell of a deal on a bunch of A-10s on Marketplace LOL
That thumbnail got me! Only Bobby Bolivia would make quite the crazy Warthog sale deals like this. (RIP Bernie Mac)
Could be a stopgap measure to beef up the ADF here in Australia, also there'd be less worry about security protocols---could give us more diverse options
A10s would be incredibly good in Australia
@@GetBuckAU In a combat environment which is forever changing,the A10 could re-invent itself
Anti ship interdiction for the RAAF (ASM and Torpedos) for naval and commercial shipping or anti drone operations or small craft operations with extra guns pods fitted (30mm+). or converted to unmanned systems
A-10 is only a survivable if it's side enjoys air dominance. That might be a thing of the past in peer to peer conflicts. Drones controlled by the troops on the ground might be the best support for troops on the ground.
Hey M&G, love your show. Unfortunately you and most of the posters are not very in touch with ground pounder CAS preference. Several decades ago I was a system engineer who worked directly with the USA to test and deploy early precision weapon systems.
What the Army now requires even more is responsive, precision ordinance on target ASAP. No CAS army-to-flyboy chain of command to slow things down, no A-10 'ground loiter' delay, no requirement for certified FAC to direct the fixed wings away from friendlies.
First came AH-64 with Hellfire. Then hand calculators and later GPS made 'dumb' 155mm shells more accurate on first round. Smart rounds (Excaliber, GMLRS, GLSDB, Hydra 70 and more) are now the standard; one phone call/message and ordnance is in the air.
Fixed wing CAS is still good for less time sensitive targets further behind the line of contact, using JDAM, SDB, Paveway etc. Long range ATACMS/PSM are retiring the A-10s just as much as other issues.
Arrgh, forgot to include organically controlled, cheaper 'suicide' drones.
Remove the gun, convert them into ISR, EW, and light strike drones. Reuse the guns to build Goalkeeper CIWS systems on trailers for base defenses. Drone conversions could also be used to hunt down enemy mobile air defenses using decoys such as MALD and weapons such as HARM to bait and strike anything that turns on radar.
Removing guns , for goalkeeper 👍 works …
Making A-10 Drones 😂 is wacky & useless with Better cheaper, faster, stealthy options currently available now.
Like the MQ-25 derivatives 👍
@@ProfessorFickle There are drones with better capabilities in a variety of ways. But none that are more durable than A-10. Also, the air frames already exist, reusing them as drones is cost effective. Stealthy drones serve a different purpose and have different set of strengths and weaknesses. A vast variety and quantity of drones is better than a more limited set and inventory.
@@stupidburp: a-10 made to drones are not cost effective, maintenance hours per flight hour is bad compared to drones .
USAF was re-winging A-10s. Not sure how far they got. I think the original wing design had an upper skin that was slightly too thin. I think they discovered this in the late 1970s. Aircraft manufactured after that date have a thicker upper skin from the factory. When USAF began re-winging A-10s, I think the tails previous to that date got first dibs on the new wings. Believe it or not, one of the challenges from an airworthiness perspective is that many of the parts used manufacturing techniques that no one would use today for a similar applications. Think things that would have been dropped forged like structural wing fittings. Today, many manufacturers have gone CNC (subtractive manufacturing) or 3D printing (additive manufacturing) to make the same part. All of that has to go back through airworthiness. At least officially. In a war or for anyone other than the US, you probably just do it.
It was certain tail numbers thay had the "thin" wing. I remember driving up and down the line checking the wing serial number data plates for confirmation.
Every jet got new wings and the program finished some time ago. There's an Air Force Times article that has the details somewhere.
Boeing did the re-wing contract.
It was like 240 wing sets.
My guess is Poland.
yup
Good one.
South Korea makes sense too give it's proximity to their closest adversary still running, primarily, legacy SAM systems that the A-10 was designed to combat.
I literally came here to post that.
That would be awesome
I bet the army would love the A-10's rather than hope that a solitary B-21 is orbiting somewhere in theater?
I thought the A10s reputation was a myth and it’s a big piece of junk irl.
@@carlosandleon
Sssshhhhhh let em dream
1) Poland 2) Finland 3) Ukraine.
It's so Poland.
1979 I worked at the Fairchild-Republic factory where in a cordoned-off area they ha a forward fuselage of a tandem seat two cockpit A-10 ..an all-weather, night strike a/c. But AF brass went years later for a sexy fast jet…F-15 Strike Eagles. If the AF brass can’t see the Thunderbirds flying it then they don’t want it, no matter it’s capabilities.
1:16 More like the Su-25 Frogfoot (or Grach), the Su-24 Fencer is basically an F-111 analog and copy.
If you're gonna copy an aircraft, cant go rong with stealing an Aardvark.
@@dubiumguy Especially if you want to go take out factories, bunkers, Tab-V's and armored formations in the dead of the night.
SU25 is more like a Rusky version of A-37 rather than A-10 IMO.
@@nevisstkitts8264 A-37 is a COIN aircraft, so no. Also look up the YA-9 that competed against the YA-10.
@@nevisstkitts8264: SU-25 is a copy of American YA-9 .
YA-9 and YA-10 competition was Also observed by the Russians not just the Pentagon.
Not a copy of the A-37 😂
There were major structural issues I heard about years ago. Wings needing structural service on the older airframes. Every airframe has a lifespan.
I could totally see USAF fighter mafia being too proud to let A-10 continue service in any air force, with how much time and emotional investment they've put into trying to kill what they dont understand.
Fighter Mafia wanted the A-10, they like to take credit for it. They were all for cheap and plentiful aircraft rather than high tech. It's the regular USAF that doesn't like them.
@@apparition13 ironically, the cheap plentiful fighters is what will likely happen with drone warfare.
@@Jeff55369Its easier to justify cheap platforms when they dont require crew bloodbaths yeah.
The A-10 pilots are incredible. I read and article about the ground pounders who urgently support while their A-10 guardian angels were tanking and while one of them was sucking on a boom he heard the ground guy (FAC?) giving the wrong coordinates to the B-52 which would have dumps his load right on top of the friendlies. The A-10 guy while tanking worked out the correct coordinates for the drop and save a lot of friendly live that day. Bloody amazing that he could do that *and* remain plugged in. I am sure all the Keyboard Kommandos know how easy it to to get plugged in and get filled up with the liquid that turns into noise.
Incredible talent sitting in those _bang seats_ and the airforce just want to throw it all away. Their ego just won't allow it to be transferred to the Army. Do you remember the 💩 storm when the Army got assigned the rotary machines and how the air farce fought it and what the compromise was. Anyone would think the airfarce was in hostilities with the other branches of the US military. 🙄
FWIW, I am a big Viper fan and would love to have spent even an hour in one. Also like the -Cessna- Skyhawk _Scooter_ as well; another Incredible hotrod for it's time.
Sad, but true.
Like the Bobby Bolivia reference!!!
You have to have pilots to fly these things so what jets do you give up to replace with A10s
Always thought that the air force should've sold those to the marine corps, at least that makes sense in my uneducated opinion.
Only problem is it is not a carrier aircraft. But the marines don’t have the aircraft restrictions of the army limited to choppers. Frankly that rule should be tossed with an exception added for support aircraft and bring back a limited army air corps. Leave fighters and long range bombing to the Air Force but the ground forces should be able to develop and use a close support craft. The relationship of the army and air force is much like the navy and marines. Both ground forces dependent on the Navy or Air Force for transport and close air support.
No way, marines would impregnate it.
I found Lazer Pig's video on the A-10 informative, and agree it's not all that.
the brass are the only ones that want it gone, anyone who has maintained it or flown it or been saved by it loves it.
The US Marines and US Army have both tried to buy them off the USAF, but the Air Force won't give up the close air support role that much.
A-10 might make an excellent anti-landing craft platform for Taiwan.
Not a lot of MANPADS in the Taiwan Straits. Plus air defense on PLAN ships will presumably be busy with fast movers, cruise missiles, etc.
A10s can feast on Ro-ros, cargo ships, etc that make up the rest of the flotilla. Taiwan likely has fewer concerns about letting AI fly them, so not as much of a concern about putting them up in contested airspace.
Makes sense for Poland
Ukraine's A 10 alternative is Su 25 not Su 24
Poland seems the most likely. They already fly US aircraft but could use additional CAS assets…especially ones that excel at anti-tank.
The A-10 is like the Ju 87. Fearsomely effective when unopposed, yet suffered huge losses when faced with a near peer oppenent.
A-10s can still take a furious hammering and still limp home compared to other aircraft..
@@265justystill doubt they could take a PL-15 to the face
@@Formula1st Name me another plane that could.? 😂
The A-10 was designed to fight a (near) peer war ...
@@265justy the point is the best way to counter modern anti air threats is to not get hit, rather than to try to survive a hit
i would be surprised that isreal did not want the A-10.
the A-10 can be upgunned by adding gun pods.
then you could use the 30mm for tanks and the smaller calaber guns for infintry or small boats.
If they wanted it, they would have bought it a long time ago.
They already have the new version of the a 10 in service
Considering the A-10 came about because of lessons learnt from the Vietnam War, kinda ironic if Vietnam bought the plane.
Would be a nice asset for the air national guard and/or the marines
I have heard people say the Apache is the preferred aircraft for close air support
Not the same
@kevinblackburn3198 Right, an Apache can loiter for longer time periods and doesn't need to keep making passes
Apache is less likely to cause friendly fire incidents. Better situational awareness of the ground. Better precision in strikes instead of BRRrrrrttt.
Gun on a turret to fire in any direction instead of just straight ahead.
Wide variety of missiles and rockets available, including some new ones with relatively long ranges.
They should be building new A-10s.
The production line was closed 40 years ago.
And as a French we should build more Leclercs...but like the A-10 we lost the ability to build them decades ago :(
No, we shouldn’t.
And Sopwith Camels. Those were great in their day too.
Build new ones as drones with ISR and EW pods instead of guns. For low level wild weasel and electronic warfare.
Wonder what kind of 30mm supply deal is involved
i was wondering in todd nos also i just watch 6 videos on the war now i understand more when was in grade school.
The company I work for did a feasibility study and has seriously considered buying surplus A10s for firefighting.
Oh how I wish we would....
That would work very well for spotting and leading in aircraft but I very much doubt a private company would want the operating costs of such an aircraft
@QALibrary we were going to use it as a tanker. Operational costs are pretty on par with all the other ex-civilian airliners we converted. Plus the TF34s are great engines.
As an Air Force veteran, the logical buyer is Poland 🇵🇱. The problem with this aircraft is that it is susceptible to enemy missiles. Air superiority is required for it to survive on the battlefield. Poland has the capability to secure the needed operating environment.
South Korea 🇰🇷 would be a second choice. But I don't think it would be the best fit for the threat it faces.
Id put my money on south korea. North korea is the main enemy i would assume to have outdated armour that is still vulnerable to the A10's gun, fewer radar guided AAA and SAM threats and i doubt the army is carrying around manpads unless russia is supplying them. MAYBE china would if it smelled a conflict. Given russia is begging North Korea for ammo i doubt it currently.
What’s the point of secret purchases considering that the first rollout on the apron would be reported by the aviation nerds?
Give them to the USMC.
Rework the landing gear to be grass field capable.
For what? It’s wings don’t fold and you can’t fly it off of an LHA/LHD so what good what it be?
@@kmrtnsn Why would the wings need to fold to fly off improvised grass fields?
@@Hatredy11 If the MEU can’t take it with the aboard ship with all the other aircraft what good what it be? The Corps has changed, if it can’t float or fly it’s gone.
@@Hatredy11 It’s why the Broncos went away in the 90’s (besides being old), they did nothing that couldn’t be done with a ship deployable plane or helicopter.
Canada is looking to replace our snowbirds from the Tutor... image a fleet of A10s :)
For ground support. The US Marine Corps could do a lot worse! Canada could use these for coastal defence.
Romania was talked about online.
Don’t worry, they’ll fill the hole with those militarised crop dusters 😑
Lol
Those are specifically for the AFSOC, who looked at but didn't want to take over the A-10Cs as they're generally ill-suited to their armed overwatch requirements. They needed CAS / precision strike / ISR with an extremely long loiter time, and less noise than low bypass turbofans. All the contenders in the competition had been turboprops for that reason. The loiter time with 720 gallons of internal fuel is better than 8 hours.
Youre saying that like the A10 is actually filling a hole at all. The reality is even in desert storm the A10's were getting shot down and not actually killing very many tanks, it couldnt fight at night and the very famous friendly fire incident didnt do it any favours.
The a10's roles were reduced and other platforms were filling the hole the A10 wasn't ABLE to fill. The f111 killed WAAAY more tanks, could fly day and night and had no losses to the threats that the A10 were so vulnerable to.
Its 2024. The style of fighting the A10 was designed for would now be a complete gauntlet run through manpads and radar guided surface to air threats.
Despite the total lack of tail wheel training capability.
@@goodshipkaraboudjan Ummm, adapting to a tail dragger is NOT that hard. The SkyWardens are all going to be dual-seat/dual-control so it will not be difficult to train up the pilots flying for the special operations community. Plenty of instructor pilots with security ratings who are ex-navy, marine, army or air force who could be contracted to do it.
The A10 should have been an army plane at the word go.
In the ancient novel Red Phoenix by Larry Bond, the ROKAF has A-10s.
If anyone would buy an entire fleet...it would be the UAE .... Since they decided to buy all excess planes that were replaced by the F-35
The US Army should buy it!!!
It would have been great if it was the RAF!
Drones will be the A-10 replacement
Thay are already.
QA-10 optionally manned conversions can replace A-10 with little cost and the technology already exists for other military aircraft such as QF-16.
The A-10s should be converted into drones and upgunned with more machine guns and the turret from the Apache. Perfect anti-dron/anti-cruise missile platform, plus anti-vehicle.
Where did all the OV-10 Broncos, Cessna A-37 Dragonfly and O-2 Skymaster go?
They weren't fast enough for the white scarf fighter mafia, whose mantra is, if it can't do BVR air combat we don't want it. Worked on the OV-10 in SEA, perfect air to ground coordinator airplane, with a modicum of small unit ground fire support. As usual, North American always made a good airplane! Last time I saw a Dragonfly was a South Vietnamese A-37 land on a Thai highway, while fleeing Operation Frequent Wind. Problem was there was a creek bridge (with railings) on the road, about a foot narrower than the A-37's wing plus tip tanks. Took them right off, leaving cracks and tears in the wing tips and bag fuel tanks. Thai police wanted it off the road, and the pilot wanted to get to Don Muang in Bangkok, so we hooked a fuel truck, stuffed a ton of rags in the wing tips, filled it while he started it, last we saw was him taking off, and was told he landed in Bangkok, successfully. Oh Well.
Firefighting for the OV-10 and O-2
Many T/A-37 went to 2nd tier allied nations
The OV-10 was even used in Syria ... to be replaced by cropdusters
The A-37s retired around 1989/1990. The O/V-10s retired between 1991 and 1992. Quietly they appeared back at SOCOM around 2012/2013. Spoke to a Bronco pilot during an Op at NAS Oceana. The Hornet pilot who we were shadowing had never seen one or heard about him.
The Broncos came back against ISIS. Only for a year, maintenance is too expensive.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Yes the pilot we spoke with who was a Flying Staff Sergeant was joking about needing a bake sale for funding. Aside from the NASA OV-10,I hadn't seen one in years. That was back in 2013.
You would think US SOCOM would want to keep these.
They actually may make a lot of sense for South Korea. They have will have air supremacy in short order over the Norks. And presumably the Norks don't have a lot of manpads? Their biggest concerns are artillery and hidden, mobile missiles which would be obliterated with the 30mm gatling gun on the A-10. And they would need a *lot* of aircraft (or drones) to chase down all of the Norks artillery quickly enough to minimize damage to Seoul.
Although another option could be to use the A-10's as a drone aircraft. Something the USAF should look into as that would eliminate the reasonable concerns about survivability. After all if you have a choice between sending it to the boneyard or putting in some cheap gear to turn it into a drone, the latter would seem to be the better option.
Apache is a better option for South Korea because of the short distances involved and flexibility of the platform.
A drone conversion however would be a great option. I have been suggesting the same for a while now.
I would not get rid of all of them!
as a former 11b the a10 is the only option for cas
I had more fast jet and PGM support, that worked👍
I would guess that the Philippines would be very interested in the A10.
Warn out by USA standards. Imo it only make sense for counter insurgency . So really only Egypt make sense.
that would work but the country's money wise is a basket case and the running costs of an A-10 are not cheap - but they could use them to try and reopen the Red Sea
The thunderbolt isn’t going anywhere it’s gonna stay in our inventory for a long, long time. There is no aircraft that can compete.
A10 really needs air superiority to fly safely - F16s leading / doing air to air would make room for a few missile trucks behind / cleanup crew
New Zealand Air force a worthy up grade to our non existent airforce 😂
You have a couple of spitfires if China invaded NZ 😂🇦🇺
What did you do with the 10 SkyHawks Australia sold to you 30 years ago? Thats why you can have anything nice 😂😂😂 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
@cameronhickey7771 they are museum exhibits if there are any still around.
The ATF wanted to have A-10s back in the 90s.
Michael Dorn use to fly one and the military forced him to sell it back. Hard to get the ammo for that beast and if arms removed need some weights for the nose. It was designed to retain case to avoid unbalancing the plane. Another mistake by the brass replacing reliable work horses with the latest hot rod with decades of bugs to work out to keep them employed on the contractor side.
Yes, it makes sense that Worf would fly a A10...
The jets get replaced because they cost too much money for the value they bring. As jets get older, the cost to keep them in the air goes up, along with the man hours of maintenance. Congress forces the Air Force to maintain these fleets, which means the money and manning that could be going to modern aircraft is tied up keeping aging jets barely air-worthy. There's a reason the FMC rate across all fighters is low, and it's because maintenance squadrons are undermanned for the ops tempo the Air Force demands of their pilots. With maintainers freed up from working old jets, they can be sent to shore up manning in other squadrons which will keep the newer jets flying in a timely fashion.
They're reliable workhorses because the owner won't stop pouring money in, refusing to accept that it's time to let go.
LOL...on which dippy reddit did you read that?! Michael Dorn has never owned or flown an A-10. He's flown on VIP rides with the Blue Angles and Thunderbirds in the backseat in a similar way to how Tom Cruise and others were filmed for the Top Gun movies, but the only single seater jet he's owned was an F-86 Saber. He also owned a T-33 Shooting Star at one point but that's a two seater and currently owns a N.A. Sabreliner.
@@DeeEight He did indeed own one for a time and he had his A10 painted blue. It has been years but there were even films done on it. Wish I remembered the name of the show. I think it was around the timeframe he was doing DS9.
The a 10 has been obsolete since the 80s it’s different from the b 51 because nothing can carry that amount of payload still. but for close air the a 10 is outclassed by an Apache in every way.
there are going to Côte d'ivoire in west africa !
Makes perfect sense for Taiwan, because they can be converted to AI piloting like the F-16, and they could trash the hell out of Chinese troop transports from wavetop heights. As for being worn out, they wouldn't make more than a few flights, because the first day will determine whether the PRC gets enough troops ashore to take the island or not. South Korea makes sense too, just because Lil' Kim's air force makes the A-10 look futuristic.
What are the timed out parts? You can do life extension with NDT.
B52 comes to mind
@@kevinblackburn3198 yeah exactly, it all depends on what’s timed out. If it’s landing gear or something they might have to get creative, but sheet metal just requires plenty of elbow grease.
Convert to drones and the airworthiness cert becomes easier.
ok, hear me out... A 10 drones!
From a 13 year 12c,19d,11b........ YES we need new A-10s. HOG 2.0 . All composite?
All composite would solve a lot of the fatigue issues but it wouldn't solve the obsolete design problem of its just not very good in contested airspace. They really picked the wrong aircraft fifty years ago as a thinly veiled bailout of Fairchild. Northrop's YA-9 beat it in the actual A-X competition but Northrop wasn't in danger of collapse. People love to point out the armor this and redundant that, but the RCS is huge and its an easily detected and shot at aircraft from any direction. Its also slow, and has major airspeed limitations when it comes to ferry flights and air to air refueling. The top speed, with 3 external tanks, is 250 ktas. To get the 144 A-10s to Saudi Arabia in 1990, they flew them out a squadron at a time, accompanied by several KC-135s, who's had to do a formation dive from altitutde to connect the boom nozzle properly and refuel the plane TWICE each just to cross the atlantic. It took them about 14 hours for each ferry flight across, in a plane with a shitty autopilot and wearing a diaper. An F-35 can cross with only one refueling with a sophisticated auto-pilot and about 6 hours in the air.
How much is the asking price on a gently used Skypig?
Asking for a friend
I’ll take one
One of those private fighter companies?
US coast guard or Philippines could use the A-10 for maritime patrol in the Pacific & it could even carry anti ship missiles like NSM. It could also be turned into a electronic warfare platform or massive kamikaze drone carrier. If anything it can be used as a MALD decoy-carrying arsenal ship.
The air force does not like the A-10 because it does not come with a golf course.
Some Brrrrrrtttt here in Australia would be a nice addition
Surely those would have helped with the you guys emu war right?
It's the rabbit war you don't hear about.. Evil creatures. 😂
I think Taiwan 🇹🇼 and South Korea 🇰🇷 could benefit strategically the most, South Korea would have a definite advantage in maintenance.
Taiwan could use A-10s as a pushback force to any land invasion force that made it to the beach, as long as their air defenses are still functioning as a whole type situation.
We Swiss take them. We can operate them out of our secret mountain airfields. 😉
Slow enough to do CAS and Sandy/Rescort but not fast enough for the pointy nose blue falcons to think of it as sexy. Can't recall how many times F16 or F18 Sandy lost track of where our package as they supported us from up on high. Perhaps QA champion Boeing has lobbied to sell a Pseudo CAS aircraft based on the SAAB T7A given the massive FMC rate of the F35.
These planes are being given new wings by Boeing but the cost of the F35 is making leadership to unload the A10s even if still worth keeping
I strongly feel that the A-10's should stay in our military. Yes we should rebuild these A-10's I'm all in. Let's pray selflessly that they stay in our military flying.
ObViouSley it's SkyNet who wants to buy up the Warthogs, because the movies show they were the major threat when they try to take over da whirled.
Baltic countries or Finland would make sense to me.
Poland would make a lot of sense. But I am a bubble head, what the heck does a bubble head know anyway.
The A-10 can't survive in that airspace if the SU-25 can't.
Dude, titanium cockpits, redundancy systems galore, and great pilots keep the a-10 going..... su-anything can't handle American anything.@AKlover
I can say that it is unrealistic. We have a lot of other expenses and priority purchases for our army. If we buy anything, it will be either another F35 or F16.
@@brightlord-ov7cm In Desert Storm, the A-10s had to be pulled out of the daily rotation in just 2 weeks. About 69 had been hit. Two shot down. The fleet was full of holes. It was a disaster.
@donwyoming1936 if it was such a disaster how come we won desert storm in such a short period of time? I'll give you a guess, bunker buster technology came into play.
Thanks!
John thanks for the support!
Why did the A10 succeed in afghanistan. Because the USAF or US Navy with there F15, 16, 18, 22 and 35 provided air superiority. The Apache does the exact same job as the A10 and can fly lower and slower then it.
I don't think it would be Poland. Few years ago we have been researching possibility to buy more used F16s from European countries that are replacing them, but it turned out it is not worth the cost. And the lifetime of such jets was estimated at top of 10 years or smth similar. So why A10s now? Doesn't make sense. I think we would buy more F35s in the end.
I think that it could be a South/Central American buyer
The A-10 just isn't gonna hold up in a near peer fight. They already did a study during the cold war on that. The European fleet of A-10s were expected to be annihilated in 6 months of fighting. They brought in the F-35 to fill that capability gap. Sending pilots on one way trips. Seems like a huge waste. A-10 was great against an insurgency, but won't last in a conventional fight.
South Korea makes the most sense considering the threat. The DPRK has, at best, legacy IADS, that were taken into consideration when the A-10 first came on the scene. And with it's unrivaled ability to turn ground targets into so many damaged spare parts, it would be ideal against the DPRK's artillery batteries along the border.
Oh my golly what bull crap. All A-10s that didn’t get the new wing upgrade are already being cut up and the rest will head for Davis-Monthan Air Force Base beginning October 2024 for storage - get over it.
The Air Force NEVER gives up their toy's willingly. They built the Valkyrie to replace the "Aging" B-52 the prototype is still air worthy and sitting in a hanger. Then they built the B-1 to replace the "Aging and Outdated" B-52 fleet STILL FLYING! with even more upgrades planed. Then they Built the B-1 to replace the aging B-1B and the B-52! BUT WAIT!! We have upgrades for those planes so we can't retire them yet because the upgrades and stuff make them cheap and effective still fly for decades NOW we have the B-21 Raider to replace them all!!! Like the F-22 was supposed to replace the aged F-111 Nighthawk and F-15 that was supposed to be replaced along with the F-16 that is "Obsolete" in the modern age!!! GIVE ME A BREAK! F-111's STILL flying...the F-22 retirement is getting pushed back because they figured out how to make it cost effective to fly and they have all kinds of upgrades for it!! Like how do you retire the scariest thing in the sky? The Raptor is NEVER going anywhere....ALL OF THESE PLANES AND THE A-10 ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE!!! They will get more money for A-10...put HARMS on it to make it even more scary. They have nothing to replace it with and I think every Army and Marine Vet who owes their life to the A-10 would march on Washington if they tried to retire it.
It was the Federal Reserve Bank they need to deliver more fiat money at a high rate of speed. Loaded with USB sticks full of CBDC an go BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTT
LOL!
Hey, get rid of the A-10 and bring back the Sky Raider. Gee Whizz, leave the A-10 alone.