[simpits-tech] A-10 replacement

Rob Hommel rhommel at tacoma.net
Mon Feb 23 21:12:51 PST 2004 

I think that the folks hanging the signs around their necks saying things
like Secretary of Defense and such are fighting the last war, like
politicians always do. The stealthy characteristics of the Comanche are
going to be substituted with the unmanned capabilities and low costs of the
Predator program. The Comanche program is nearly 20 years in review and
never adopted. There has been approx. 8 billion dollars spent on the program
and after the cancellation and money still owed to contractors on the
project the costs will still be in the neighborhood of 12 billion dollars.
Tell me that the politico's can't spend money and produce nothing.

The withdrawal of the A-10 and the substitution of the F-35 VSTOL for ground
support role is another failure of the military and the politicians to see
the long term benefit of proven weapons platforms vs. voter gains. The
military saw the writing on the wall from the other Washington and looked
for the best alternative. Politicians need to feed the voters jobs when the
cry goes out this is the only way they have to feed it by creating
government jobs. So where do you suppose the jobs will be created, given
that the F-35 is an international project with work being done in several
nations? When do you think they will even have a F 35 VSTOL platform that
will function. As has been pointed out the JSF has only one engine and has
fewer options to perform the job than the A-10. Where do they find these
politicians, did we really vote them into office? I think not. The only
thing nice I have to say about the JSF is that it will be a fairly easy
aircraft to build a sim of with an all glass cockpit.

Two bad decisions in two days, if you made that many bad decisions in the
same period of time you would be looking for a new job. Anyone want to hire
Donald Rumsfield, I wouldn't take him if he was available.


off my soapbox, still peeved.

Keep 'em Flying
Rob Hommel
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Brogley" <mikebrogley at ieee.org>
To: "Simulator Cockpit tech list" <simpits-tech at simpits.org>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [simpits-tech] A-10 replacement


> Along these lines (air platform acquisition):
>
>
>         Army Leaders Recommend Canceling Comanche Helicopter Program
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2004/n02232004_200402237.html
>
> (Dunno if anyone was building a simpit of one of these - woulda been
> pretty cool.)
>
>
> Chris Crowley wrote:
>
> >The real crime is going to be the cost. This is the worst
value/performance
> >point ever. The A10 could take it is cheap to maintain. The JSF is going
to
> >be very expensive and costly to maintain. Just look at the engine. A
single
> >engine pushing 40K plus thrust with extremely high temps. Not as
survivable
> >as the dual engine A10 either. Nor will the JSF have the punch of the
A10.
> >Its sad and its all about politics.
> >Chris
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Mike Brogley [mailto:mikebrogley at ieee.org]
> >Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 2:35 PM
> >To: Simulator Cockpit tech list
> >Subject: Re: [simpits-tech] A-10 replacement
> >
> >
> >That's exactly why - The Air Force is in the Gee Whiz business. There
> >are only two institutional constituencies in the USAF - strategic
> >bombers and fighters. There is no structural support for other missions
> >like recon or non-heavy mud-movers, and CAS is an even more specialized
> >form of moving mud, with the requirement to coordinate and be careful
> >where you drop things. The institution was about to obsolete the A-10
> >before the first Iraq war in 1991, but it did so well (and the F-16s
> >with the 30mm gun pod supposedly going to replace them did so poorly in
> >that role) that they were forced to keep (and -gasp- even spend budget
> >money upgrading) them.
> >
> >Now they have a chance to argue that they need a common airframe for the
> >sake of economy of operations, plus they get to counter the
> >deployability issues with the STOVL (not VTOL) performance of the F-35
> >(and btw increase their airframe buy), with the plus that they can
> >finally get rid of that damn dedicated Army support airplane that
> >doesn't fit with their corporate culture.
> >
> >What's laughable is that the real reaction to assigning the CAS mission
> >to something that can't loiter due to it's supersonic fuel consumption
> >(and the lack of tankers) will be moving CAS to long endurance armed
> >UAVs, so instead of having USAF pilots working from an A-10 cockpit,
> >they'll be working from a shipping container looking at a monitor
> >remotely flying a maverick-loaded predator _prop_plane_.
> >
> >--
> >Mike
> >
> >Steve Wilson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Load 'er up with Mavericks and let loose.  Frankly, I wonder why,
> >>though.  The A-10 is only 1/10th as geewhiz as the F-35, and likely
> >>far better armored considering the VTOL version's need to stay light.
> >>We don't need another supersonic tank killer.  Like the DC-3, the
> >>C-130 and the B-52, with the Warthog they achieved near perfection for
> >>the role and created the best possible tank killer.
> >>
> >>Steve W.
> >>
> >>    ----- Original Message -----
> >>    *From:* Justin Messenger <mailto:jjmessenger at yahoo.com>
> >>    *To:* Simpits-tech at simpits.org <mailto:Simpits-tech at simpits.org>
> >>    *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2004 10:53 AM
> >>    *Subject:* [simpits-tech] A-10 replacement
> >>
> >>    > The USAF has announced an intention to aquire
> >>    > a quanity of the VTOL version of the F35 JSF
> >>    > to replace the aging A10,  in the CAS role.
> >>    >
> >>    > Source;  Janes Defence.
> >>    > MC
> >>
>
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >--
> >
> >
> >>    Do you Yahoo!?
> >>    Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailtag_us/*http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools?tool=1>
> >
> >
> >>    - Read only the mail you want.
> >>
>
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >--
> >
> >
> >>    _______________________________________________
> >>    Simpits-tech mailing list
> >>    Simpits-tech at simpits.org <mailto:Simpits-tech at simpits.org>
> >>    http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
> >>    To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the
> >>    above page.  Thanks!
> >>
> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Simpits-tech mailing list
> >>Simpits-tech at simpits.org
> >>http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
> >>To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above
> >>
> >>
> >page.  Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Simpits-tech mailing list
> >Simpits-tech at simpits.org
> >http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
> >To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above
page.  Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Simpits-tech mailing list
> Simpits-tech at simpits.org
> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above
page.  Thanks!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004

More information about the Simpits-tech mailing list