Meet A-10 pilot Capt Campbell...aka "KC" or "Killer Chick"

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Link to article about her

A-10 Website with link to shots of a warthog with damage from a SAM and link to other stuff as well.

Link to newstation video.

Large chunks of her plane shot away, the hydraulic control system dead, Air Force Capt. Kim Campbell pushed and pulled at a backup set of manual controls, struggling to keep the anti-tank aircraft from crashing as it limped away from an ambush over Baghdad.

Landing finally in the safety of a coalition air base in southern Iraq on Monday, Campbell was greeted with applause, relief and awe. Maintenance personnel gawked, took photos, and clapped ``Capt. K.C.'' on the shoulder.

But stateside, her father, San Jose Councilman Chuck Reed, was moved to tears.

``I cried,'' Reed said Tuesday. ``It's been a roller-coaster day. Most days, pride wins; some of the time, fear wins. Today, the pride is still winning.''

Campbell, who called her father shortly after her return to the air base, also told him in a later e-mail that ``It's been a rough few days for the A-10,'' and referred him to a Web site with photos of the damaged jet.

``I had no idea that her aircraft was shot at so badly,'' Reed said. ``There are hundreds of bullet holes.''

Campbell, who is assigned to the 23rd Fighter Group from Pope Air Force Base in North Carolina, was flying over Baghdad in her A-10 ``Warthog'' on Monday when she received a call for assistance from troops on the ground. On her way back after the mission, Campbell told an Air Force reporter, she felt an abrupt jolt as something struck her aircraft. Warning lights started to flash on her cockpit panels.

``The plane rolled left and pointed at the ground, which is not a comforting feeling over Baghdad,'' Campbell told the Air Force Times. ``The jet wasn't responding to any of my control inputs.''

The A-10's hydraulic systems were damaged, disabling the flight controls, landing gear and brakes among other critical systems, including part of the plane's stabilizer.

But the manual flight controls continued to work.

For one tense hour, crew members at the air base and other A-10 pilots anxiously awaited Campbell's return. Emerging from the murky morning skies, Campbell landed her battle-scarred A-10 nearly perfectly, the Air Force Times reported.

The A-10, which flies lower than other warplanes to support ground troops, is armed with a seven-barrel Gatling gun and Maverick anti-tank missiles. Campbell had assured her father in a recent e-mail that her Warthog is ``a durable and reliable plane.''

``That is a classic understatement,'' Reed said, noting the damage to her plane seen in a photo on a Web site for A-10 pilots.

The images show dramatic damage to the jet's rear, which was bullet-riddled and pocked by Iraqi fire.

Reed received a phone call from his daughter at 1:30 a.m. Monday, shortly after she had returned from her mission.

``She was OK and wanted to let us know that before we started to see stuff on the news,'' Reed said. ``She couldn't tell us what had happened or where she had been. But she said she was ready to go back.''

Tuesday evening, Reed checked his home e-mail to see if there were any messages from his 27-year-old daughter. He checks for her messages every day. In her message Tuesday, Campbell wrote: ``It's been a rough few days for the A-10, but we're here doing our job of helping our guys on the ground when they need it most. . . . I have to say that I'm very thankful to be flying the `Hawg.' ''

Campbell, a 1993 graduate of Piedmont Hills High School in East San Jose, was deployed to Kuwait about a month ago, her father said. At the start of the war, she flew at least two missions a day over Iraq.

According to the Pentagon, there were 114 active-duty female fighter and bomber pilots in the U.S. military in 2001, and 7,735 male fighter and bomber pilots. Women have been permitted to fly combat aircraft in the U.S. military since 1993.

Last year, Campbell flew 20 combat missions in Afghanistan and had experienced enemy fire while patrolling Iraq's ``no-fly zone.''

``I think the A-10s are getting shot at on every mission,'' Reed said. ``I hope she's not in Baghdad every day.

``But that's her job, and she'll do it. As long as those guys are on the ground, she'll go.''
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
That is a great story. She was very fortunate to be flying the toughest plane in the Armed Forces... those things are awesome.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Kenazo
It's too bad they want to phase the A-10 out in favour of the JSF.

I don't think the JSF has the toughness needed for close ground support roles. It may be more stealthy but stealth doesn't matter when you are dive-bombing...
 

Kenazo

Lifer
Sep 15, 2000
10,429
1
81
I agree, but it is part of the Armed force's plan for the JSF. It's to replace the F-14, F-18, F-16, A-10 and I think there were a few other planes it's slated to replace as well. We'll see if it actually happens, but that was the plan.
 

aznparty

Member
Aug 9, 2002
70
0
0
Originally posted by: Kenazo
I agree, but it is part of the Armed force's plan for the JSF. It's to replace the F-14, F-18, F-16, A-10 and I think there were a few other planes it's slated to replace as well. We'll see if it actually happens, but that was the plan.

Makes more sense that way. Why go through the headache of keeping all these different planes each doing one or two specific job when you can have 1 that does all? More cost effective, more efficient, easier to train pilots, less parts problems etc.
 

BuckNaked

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,211
0
76
Originally posted by: aznparty
Originally posted by: Kenazo
I agree, but it is part of the Armed force's plan for the JSF. It's to replace the F-14, F-18, F-16, A-10 and I think there were a few other planes it's slated to replace as well. We'll see if it actually happens, but that was the plan.

Makes more sense that way. Why go through the headache of keeping all these different planes each doing one or two specific job when you can have 1 that does all? More cost effective, more efficient, easier to train pilots, less parts problems etc.

My feelings that a weapon platform designed to meet the needs of a specific role, will outperform a 'one size fits all' design most, if not all, of the time.... Prior to the Gulf war, I believe there was quite a bit of talk of replacing the A-10 with a CAS version of the F-16, an idea that was scrapped after the A-10 success in Desert Storm... and the A-10 wasn't even fully capable of operating at night!

I think in the past, some of the brass in the AF have always been infatuated with 'Fast Movers' over planes such as the A-10, regradless of how well it performs in its intended role... Hopefully there attitudes will change with the continued success of the A-10.

Dave

 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
76
Originally posted by: Kenazo
It's too bad they want to phase the A-10 out in favour of the JSF.


They originally planned to phase out the A-10 after the first Gulf War in 1991.

It was designed during the cold war and saw no real combat experience, thus they felt it was time to retire the design in favor of something newer. But when the Gulf War came around and they saw how effective it was, their decision was changed. It proved its utility in combat and showed itself to be more than fit for the role it was designed for.

I read that it was originally planned to be replaced by F-16's filling the role, since during testing it was showed that the F-16 could handle the job. But during the mayhem of actual combat in the Gulf War, the F-16's proved to travel too fast to accurately let the pilot figure out what was going on on the ground... when people are shooting at you, you don't think as clearly as you do in tests over a practice range. And with the slow speeds involved in enemy fire, the F-16's proved to be too fragile. Many A-10's came back littered with bullet holes, missing sections of the wing and with an engine shot out. Yet they kept coming back. The lightly armored, F-16 was more suseptible to damage from small arms fire, and when you shoot out an engine, that's the only engine it has.

The A-10 now is expected to stay in service until 2028.
 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
76
Originally posted by: aznparty
Originally posted by: Kenazo
I agree, but it is part of the Armed force's plan for the JSF. It's to replace the F-14, F-18, F-16, A-10 and I think there were a few other planes it's slated to replace as well. We'll see if it actually happens, but that was the plan.

Makes more sense that way. Why go through the headache of keeping all these different planes each doing one or two specific job when you can have 1 that does all? More cost effective, more efficient, easier to train pilots, less parts problems etc.

There is no plan now to replace the A-10 with the JSF. That was the thinking several years back, but those plans have changed.

Like the saying goes, "A jack of all trades is a master of none"

We have the budget to allow for specialized aircraft that outperform the competition in all respects. Sure, you can make an aircraft that does everything, but it won't do everything well. And when you're in combat, you want to have the advantage over your enemy in every specific function.
 

Loralon

Member
Oct 10, 1999
132
0
0
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: aznparty
Originally posted by: Kenazo
I agree, but it is part of the Armed force's plan for the JSF. It's to replace the F-14, F-18, F-16, A-10 and I think there were a few other planes it's slated to replace as well. We'll see if it actually happens, but that was the plan.

Makes more sense that way. Why go through the headache of keeping all these different planes each doing one or two specific job when you can have 1 that does all? More cost effective, more efficient, easier to train pilots, less parts problems etc.

There is no plan now to replace the A-10 with the JSF. That was the thinking several years back, but those plans have changed.

Like the saying goes, "A jack of all trades is a master of none"

We have the budget to allow for specialized aircraft that outperform the competition in all respects. Sure, you can make an aircraft that does everything, but it won't do everything well. And when you're in combat, you want to have the advantage over your enemy in every specific function.

I'm a bit out of touch with current plans, but what you're saying makes sense. It never made sense to me to replace the A-10 with the JSF. Given the environment A-10s operate under, aircraft like the F-16 and JSF(F-35) would be far too susceptible to AAA. Having said that the various iterations of the JSF should be excellent replacements for the: F-16, F-14, F-18, and Harriers.
 

RyanM

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2001
2,387
0
76
Realize that she'd probably full well kick your ass for calling her a "chick."

Now THAT'S hot. ;D
 

Kenazo

Lifer
Sep 15, 2000
10,429
1
81
Originally posted by: MachFive
Realize that she'd probably full well kick your ass for calling her a "chick."

Now THAT'S hot. ;D

check out those vid clips @ the top of the thread. She calls herself "Killer Chick"

 

RyanM

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2001
2,387
0
76
It's really simple math, I guess.

Hot woman + ace pilot + thousands of rounds of DU AP armor at her disposal + doesn't mind being called chick = NUCLEAR
 

LethalWolfe

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2001
3,679
0
0
The A-10 is wonderful feat of killing power and redundancy. It was built/designed around it's gatling gun. It has triple redundant flight control (fly-by-wire, hydrolic and mechanical) and the engines are deisigned to take direct hits (into the blades) and/or "injest" debry from the plane w/o missing a beat. Those planes are just f'ing bad@ss.


Lethal
 

ABErickson

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
570
0
76
The A-10 doesn't have any other crew? I know that's pretty much what the article says/implies, but I find that hard to believe.
 

BuckNaked

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,211
0
76
Originally posted by: Big Al
The A-10 doesn't have any other crew? I know that's pretty much what the article says/implies, but I find that hard to believe.
yep, just one person on board....

 

Kenazo

Lifer
Sep 15, 2000
10,429
1
81
There is no plan now to replace the A-10 with the JSF. That was the thinking several years back, but those plans have changed.

Like the saying goes, "A jack of all trades is a master of none"

We have the budget to allow for specialized aircraft that outperform the competition in all respects. Sure, you can make an aircraft that does everything, but it won't do everything well. And when you're in combat, you want to have the advantage over your enemy in every specific function.

I was under the impression as well that they had decided against replacing the A-10 w/ the JSF, however in this month's "AirForce" magazine, (the one that is the journal of the air force association) They wrote:

"The F-35 will replace the F-16, A-10, older F/A-18s, and Marine AV8B's"

The only way i could see this plane going slow enough to perform a tank attack role would be if they would use the STOVL version so they could just "hover" while firing away. However, why not just use helicopters then?