This is what oversite failure looks like, the F35

[PingSpike]

I think a big problem in general, is that military leadership changes everyone 2 to 3 years. And every new person thinks they have to "do something" to paid their resume. No one likes putting on their resume "After I took the job I realized the previous leadership had done a good job, and in three years I managed to not fuck it up."

That doesn't even seem like a problem a problem specific to military or aviation. Its just an American problem, maybe any everywhere problem. Nobody values maintaining anything really, its all about the list of awesome new shit you did. And if its not awesome, well at least its different.

Its why software developers are always sure the answer is always to throw away a battle hardened code base and start over from scratch.

 

[fskimospy]

By the time any modern aircraft is in dogfight range, it's already dead.
But damnit did someone (marines I think?) want a cannon on the F35

If I'm not mistaken the cannon is for close air support, not for shooting at other aircraft.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

If I'm not mistaken the cannon is for close air support, not for shooting at other aircraft.

"hey guys! aircraft strafing the ground looks really cool in WW2 movies, we need that!!"

 

[IronWing]

"hey guys! aircraft strafing the ground looks really cool in WW2 movies, we need that!!"

It is the sole justification for the A-10.

 

[Fenixgoon]

It is the sole justification for the A-10.

in defense of the A10, it is very good at that. a gun mounted to an airframe.

 

[Zorba]

in defense of the A10, it is very good at that. a gun mounted to an airframe.

You mean an airframe mounted to a gun.

Hell of a lot cheaper shooting something with a cannon than dropping a smart bomb on it.

 

[feralkid]

I'm sorry folks, I misread the title; thought it was a thread about overbite failure...

 

[Leeea]

It is the sole justification for the A-10.

To be fair, it is a pretty good justification.

 

[skyking]

It is the sole justification for the A-10.

Ahem

Not only do they pack and deliver a mind boggling array of ordinance, but they can loiter for much longer in the theatre. Those high bypass fans sip fuel compared to the fast jets.
If you want to check actual gun usage, they flew many missions without firing a round in Iraq.

 

[Zorba]

Ahem

Not only do they pack and deliver a mind boggling array of ordinance, but they can loiter for much longer in the theatre. Those high bypass fans sip fuel compared to the fast jets.
If you want to check actual gun usage, they flew many missions without firing a round in Iraq.

The biggest problem with the A-10 is that it is owned by the Air Force and not the Army. If it was owned by the Army it wouldn't be getting replaced with F-35s.

 

[Ajay]

"hey guys! aircraft strafing the ground looks really cool in WW2 movies, we need that!!"

Geez, don't be so cynical. As pointed out, there are very practical reasons for gatling guns on close air support aircraft. Raining down lead, or deplete uranium bullets on an advancing enemy line has a stalling effect. At the same time, said aircraft can use visual inspection during that runs with targets to designate for precision bombing, cluster bombs etc. to take out tactical assets in followup runs to degrade the enemy forces to the point that they need to retreat. Mechanized weapons and transport vehicles are shredded and rendered useless. So, the Marines have a valid point to make. I do think making an F-35 variant for the marines was one of the stupidest ideas I've seen (maybe the idea of making a Navy variant of the F-111 was worse, not sure).

 

[IronWing]

Mea culpa.

I thought the biggest problem with the A-10 is that it is already paid for. While maintenance and parts are a nice business, the Congressional military industrial complex likes shiny new things.

 

[Ajay]

Mea culpa.

I thought the biggest problem with the A-10 is that it is already paid for. While maintenance and parts are a nice business, the Congressional military industrial complex likes shiny new things.

Yep, and the Air Force doesn't really like to spend their money on supporting the Army. Pricks.

 

[hal2kilo]

It is the sole justification for the A-10.

How much does a Hellfire missile cost? Sure you only need one. How much is does a depleted uranium round from an A-10 Gatling gun cost. I assume that's the only comparable weapon that can do the damage to tanks that an A-10 can. I love A-10s, not wild about vaporize depleted uranium being spread all over the place. It's quite toxic.

 

[pauldun170]

We use the A-10 to shoot up soft targets.
In order to for an A-10 to safely fly around and use its guns to go around and "show of force the fuck out of insurgents wearing sandals, we need to wipe out the Airforce and air defense system of whatever country.
So from the outset, A-10's need things like F-35s\F-16's\F-15's\F22s\Super Hornets and dozens of supporting platforms just so it can fly.
THEN they need to assess whether manpads are a threat in the area just so it can fly.

Once all that's been taken care of, we are sending an A-10 to go do what Super Tucanos that cost 5 bucks an hour to fly can do. Or you can be cool like the Marines and just have Super Cobras hang out with you.

The A-10 is overkill for what is currently doing and useless in a real conflict until all the pricey planes make it safe for it to fly.
Beginning of GW1 was a bit of a reality check in that early on A-10's ended up being forced up into higher altitudes and using Mav's until they could stop worry about anti aircraft weapons writing off airframes.

It's a cool plane and all, but its supposed to be about the mission. We are using the A-10 for a mission that cheaper platforms can do and existing platforms already do.
It's basically a mascot now that we keep around for sentimental reasons.
Fortunately it's cheap BUT with all the talk of defense spending even the cheap stuff counts

 

[skyking]

Come on Paul. Super tucanos can be taken down by Small arms fire at a distance. You can't compare apples to oranges that way.

 

[pauldun170]

Come on Paul. Super tucanos can be taken down by Small arms fire at a distance. You can't compare apples to oranges that way.

Ok. Screw Tucanos.

Drones. Apaches. Super Cobras. Shit every other country uses for the a10 mission of fauncy COIN operations.
F16s and hornets , even though they get there faster are pricey pieces to be spending on people wearing nike tshirts. I'd argue that even the a10 is overkill for the work we have it doing.

 

[hal2kilo]

Ok. Screw Tucanos.

Drones. Apaches. Super Cobras. Shit every other country uses for the a10 mission of fauncy COIN operations.
F16s and hornets , even though they get there faster are pricey pieces to be spending on people wearing nike tshirts. I'd argue that even the a10 is overkill for the work we have it doing.

Well, unmanned is another story entirely. Costs an enormous amount of money to keep the pilot safe in the plane.

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598324403623936002

that doesn't look good

 

[NTMBK]

We have to fight them Russians and keep troops in Europe. C'mon man, get with the 1980's.

Well this post aged poorly

 

[brycejones]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598324403623936002

that doesn't look good

From the way it was bouncing around before that happened I'm guessing someone f'd up.

 

[skyking]

yes I'd say something was not set in the cockpit or ground controls properly.

 

[Zorba]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598324403623936002

that doesn't look good

Looks like it came unlocked. Probably towing without the lock pin in, which is a no-no.

Antiskid braking on tugs can also create a resonate frequency in landing gears, probably what is causing the "bouncing" which likely lead to the unlocking. When high speed tugs were first coming out, there were several instances of tug exciting natural frequencies on NLG on commercial aircraft. I saw one tug that was completely destroyed with both operators hospitalized by a 777.

 

[iRONic]

Looks like it came unlocked. Probably towing without the lock pin in, which is a no-no.

Yep, turn limit pin either sheared or wasn’t installed correctly.

I pushed back a 727 on the run up ramp back in the day and the same thing happened… It just happened to be in Louisiana and the mains rolled and sunk a foot into the mud.