| Warthog Territory Forums https://warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| Let's talk engines shall we? https://warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6273 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 05 Jun 2004, 23:04 ] |
| Post subject: | |
It is often mentioned that new engines are way up on the wishlist for the Hog. I understand they'd make it climb, dive and accelerate faster, but how much would they affect top speed? Perhaps most importantly, how much increase in top speed would be too much? Just curious, thanx for humoring me. 
"O stranger passing by, go tell the Lacedaemonians that here, faithful to their bidding, we lie" Epitath of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae |
|
| Author: | Type 7 [ 05 Jun 2004, 23:09 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> It is often mentioned that new engines are way up on the wishlist for the Hog. I understand they'd make it climb, dive and accelerate faster, but how much would they affect top speed? Perhaps most importantly, how much increase in top speed would be too much? Just curious, thanx for humoring me.
"O stranger passing by, go tell the Lacedaemonians that here, faithful to their bidding, we lie" Epitath of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> IMO, the only engines we can refit the jet with, without some major structural or CG issues, are ones similiar to what we have now. Specifically the GE CF-34 commercial version of the TF-34 (now used on some regional airliner jets.) It would buy us an extra 2500 or so lbs of thrust per side, which would (serious WAG here) gain us maybe another 50 knots top speed. But being a turbofan, we'd still lose available power as we climbed. Fuel efficiency would still be good, though. I did hear rumor that some form of the GE 404 was being looked at, but I haven't anymore info on that. Just mu opinon. Edited by - type 7 on Jun 05 2004 10:09 PM |
|
| Author: | majormadmax [ 06 Jun 2004, 02:34 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I thought we already badmintoned this around in a different thread? We’ll know soon enough once Coach or another of the 40lb brainstems rolls in, but since you asked… Seriously, is top speed a priority? The A-16 (spit spit, thank God it's <img src=icon_smile_dead.gif border=0 align=middle>) was conceptionalized because of its ability to get to the battlefield quicker, but look at what a failure that project was (I know, it wasn't just a speed issue). Fuel consumption would be more important, allowing for longer loiters (sts). Cheers! M2 |
|
| Author: | Thud [ 06 Jun 2004, 08:55 ] |
| Post subject: | |
There's some engine information here: http://forum.a-10.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5859 And some info regarding the top speed issue here: http://forum.a-10.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3199 With the Hog, the biggest hurdle to get over is the fact that the wing is thick and has a high camber (camber is the amount of curvature of the wing when viewed from the side of the aircraft). However, these are two important factors in the Hog's ability to yank and bank so well when she's heavy and slow. ~Thud Edited by - Thud on Jun 06 2004 07:56 AM |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 06 Jun 2004, 13:52 ] |
| Post subject: | |
as I understand it the new engines are a done deal for platinum pig. <BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> World News & Analysis USAF Maps A-10 Upgrade Plans Aviation Week & Space Technology 05/10/2004, page 36 Robert Wall Washington An A-10 engine enhancement gets green light from USAF 'Platinum Pig' Under orders from U.S. Air Force leaders to map an extensive upgrade for the A-10 attack aircraft, service planners are devising ways to finance those steps without having to cut the inventory of ground-attack aircraft. USAF officials during the past year have realized they will continue to operate the sturdy A-10 beyond 2020 and, therefore, will need to upgrade it to maintain combat capability. The Warthog is expected to remain in service until at least 2028. EARLIER THIS YEAR, Air Force Secretary James G. Roche said some A-10s would be retired to free up money to upgrade the rest of the fleet. But Air Combat Command (ACC) representatives are trying to avoid the quid pro quo, largely because the 356-aircraft inventory would fall below long-term force structure needs, suggested Lt. Col. Robert Brown, ACC's director of operations, tactics and weapons for the A-10. An alternative solution would shuffle maintenance to free needed money, says Lt. Col. Marcus Quint, an Air National Guard adviser to ACC on A-10 issues. All required maintenance would be performed, but some actions that were scheduled for convenience to be done concurrent with A-10 upgrades would be delayed until they are due, he added. Given the annual appropriations cycle, the move could generate enough money to spend on upgrades. The first A-10s are supposed to reach the end of their service life around 2017. The enhancements would be above the already funded Precision Engagement activities, which update A-10s avionics and represent "the most important and largest combat improvement in [the A-10's] history," says Lt. Col. Robert Silva, chief of A-10 requirements at ACC. It adds a hands-on-throttle-and-stick feature and integrates targeting pods. The Litening pod currently in use was fielded quickly and uses merely a Maverick missile interface that provides only limited functionality; eventually A-10s would also use the Lockheed Martin Sniper pod. A-10s operating from Bagram AB, Afghanistan, highlighted the need for a more powerful engine.Credit: USAF TSGT. BRIAN DAVIDSON The aircraft also will be able to deliver GPS-guided weapons such as Joint Direct Attack Munitions; the 250-lb.-class Small-Diameter Bomb will likely follow. Furthermore, Precision Engagement includes two color multifunction displays, a digital stores management system and an increased power supply. The enhancements should be completed in 2009. THE FIRST INCREMENT of the next round of upgrades--formally called Precision Engagement Plus, but also referred to as Platinum Pig, Superhog and Silver Sow--is slated to be funded in the Fiscal 2006 budget being drafted now. General Electric will overhaul TF34-100A engines with a new fan and upgraded internal components that can withstand higher operating temperatures. The TF34-100Bs would allow A-10s to carry 5,000 lb. more payload on a hot day and deliver a 5,000-ft. ceiling increase for operations above 20,000 ft. It would also slash by 30% the time it takes to climb to 20,000 ft. from 10,000 ft., and reduce pilot exposure to surface threats, notes Silva. Aerial refueling operations would improve because the A-10 would fly faster and higher. The development program should be complete around 2008, with installations to run over 4-6 years. NOT FUNDED, but a candidate for Precision Engagement Plus, is the purchase of more targeting pods to outfit at least every second aircraft. Silva also suggested that pilots would benefit from having "blue force" identifications displayed in a helmet-mounted cueing system, which would be coupled with the targeting pod to ease combat identification and curtail incidents of fratricide. USAF also wants more training systems to overcome shortages in the A-10 community. The unfunded items will probably not receive funding until at least 2008. Another high-interest item is improved protection against infrared-guided missiles, both missile warning and countermeasures gear. A-10 planners are drawn to the Tactical Directed Infrared Countermeasures (Tadircm) system, a podded, laser-based countermeasures device the Navy is developing. ACC wants to avoid using expendables because they require a large logistics infrastructure. Raytheon and the Air National Guard have been in talks about using the company's Comet pod, which dispenses pyrophoric material. Quint described Comet as a potential near-term option but not the long-term solution. IN THE MEANTIME, USAF is mulling interim upgrades such as adding communications to connect A-10s to ground troops. Eventually, the A-10 is supposed to receive the Joint Tactical Radio System, the Pentagon's new software programmable radio. But planners don't want to wait that long. A bridge solution may be a so-called smart color multifunction display that provides the processing to implement the Situational Awareness Datalink connection between pilots and ground terminal area controllers. Another option is an electronic keyboard, which some USAF officials favor because they could retain the equipment and put it to other use when Precision Engagement Plus is completed, while the smart multifunction display would merely be replaced. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Author: | chili_kerch [ 07 Jun 2004, 06:59 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sitting here talking to my A-10 engine guy he was telling me that there is no way that the jet will go with the GE CF-34 due to the fact that it would require a basic refabrication of the existing engine mounts. The times they tried to use them the kept breaking engine mounts on the jet and basically had to go back to the drawing board for the idea of upgrading the engines. Why they would want to is beyond me any way, how fast do you really need to go when you use your ECM capabilities the right way. If the shit isn't broke don't fix it!!!!! Chili |
|
| Author: | Thunderstruck [ 07 Jun 2004, 09:36 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> <snipped to keep the stupidity factor to a minimum> Why they would want to is beyond me any way, how fast do you really need to go when you use your ECM capabilities the right way. If the shit isn't broke don't fix it!!!!! Chili <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> If you don't know shit, just keep your pie hole shut! ATTACK! |
|
| Author: | Hogpen13 [ 07 Jun 2004, 09:40 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I love it when new people hit the boards!! <img src=icon_smile_question.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/bounce.gif border=0 align=middle> <img src="http://www.warthogpen.com/bs/sig1.jpg" border=0> |
|
| Author: | Yojimbo [ 07 Jun 2004, 10:46 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<img src=newicons/idea.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/icon_hog.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/anim_bannana.gif border=0 align=middle> |
|
| Author: | prkiii [ 07 Jun 2004, 11:01 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I love it when new people hit the boards!! <img src=icon_smile_question.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/bounce.gif border=0 align=middle> <img src="http://www.warthogpen.com/bs/sig1.jpg" border=0> <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> took the words right out of my mouth... <img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/70th.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/Mav_shot.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/25.jpg" border=0> |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 07 Jun 2004, 11:02 ] |
| Post subject: | |
LOL "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction" Ronald Reagan |
|
| Author: | Lil Hitler [ 08 Jun 2004, 00:06 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<img src=newicons/Whatever_anim.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=newicons/anim_cussing.gif border=0 align=middle> ==== You can run but why die tired. ============================ |
|
| Author: | chili_kerch [ 08 Jun 2004, 00:35 ] |
| Post subject: | |
"If you don't know shit, just keep your pie hole shut!" Thunderstruck.....Just thought I would let you know I do know my shit!!!!! I am sitting here working these F#&King awesome jets every day in an incredible OT&E world developing the newest latest and greatest things on the airframe and every day I realize how dumb pilots can be when they are flying and having to explain over and over how the jet really works. So for you to respond that I don't know my shit is a farse and you can stick it for all I care but don't you dare tell me I don't know anything cause I could run laps around your happy ass when it comes to the technical expertise of the greatest airframe to come into the Air Force existence FAG!!!!!! Chili |
|
| Author: | chili_kerch [ 08 Jun 2004, 00:43 ] |
| Post subject: | |
My last post was not a strike to any pilots out there so don't be pissed at me about the pilot crack.....was just trying to explain that as an active maintainer on this jet day in and day out I do know a thing or two about the jet.....I love pilots and the job they do. It is just as a maintainer I see some really stupid write-ups from them that really makes me scratch my head when the things work right......HOG DRIVERS are the best adn bravest in the world!!!!GIVE THEM THE GUNS BOYS! Chili |
|
| Author: | Type 7 [ 08 Jun 2004, 01:03 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> "If you don't know shit, just keep your pie hole shut!" Thunderstruck.....Just thought I would let you know I do know my shit!!!!! I am sitting here working these F#&King awesome jets every day in an incredible OT&E world developing the newest latest and greatest things on the airframe and every day I realize how dumb pilots can be when they are flying and having to explain over and over how the jet really works. So for you to respond that I don't know my shit is a farse and you can stick it for all I care but don't you dare tell me I don't know anything cause I could run laps around your happy ass when it comes to the technical expertise of the greatest airframe to come into the Air Force existence FAG!!!!!! Chili <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Maybe he was joking? I don't know. Anyhow, not all the pilots are dumb....though I've seen my share of nitwit pilots, mind you. Everyone makes mistakes, though. At Osan one night, I taxied out to last chance and was marshalled in.....crew chief asks who launched me out? I say it was XXXXXXX, he shines his flashlight over to one of the weapons guys that's rolling up a beat and battered grounding cord that I'd apparently dragged all the way from my spot. LOL. It was good, though, since it negated the 6-pack I already owed this same CC for the maps I dropped in the side of the ACES II between the seat and the right console that he had to fish out.<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> One time in Afghan, one of our senior pilots (let's say Top 2) RTBd and informed the CC that the jet was Code 3 for FOD "something loose under the seat clanging around....maybe in the white area." CC climbs up the ladder to take a look, and comes back up with the pilot's M9 9mm and exclaims "is this yours sir?"<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> One time, a CC sold me down the river....in a funny way. I'm working as SDO at the ops desk. An SrA CC comes in and asks who the pilot for 165 was? I look at the schedule and find out it was the boss, why do you ask? The CC holds up a DTC and two pencils that were left in the holder and on the right console. Funny thing was, we'd just gotten a "get your heads out of your ass" speech about making sure we don't leave stuff in the cockpits, otherwise it'll be out butt and we'll owe drink to the CCs. Apparently, alot of stuff had been getting found during postflight as well as when the jet went in for phase. Thoroughly pleased to hear that the boss had f%cked-up, I tell the SrA that I haven't seen the boss yet....he was probably still at maintenance debrief and that the SrA should "find him and have him report to my office in a correct military manner, since I'll need to counsel him on his apparent lack of attention to detail." Unbeknownst to me, the boss HAD come in and I missed him...in fact, he was standing in scheduling which was right next door to the duty desk. Immediately after I finished telling the CC what I told him, a voice from scheduling barks "Captain XXX....why don't YOU report to MY office in a correct military manner, so we can discuss your lack of situational awareness....." IMMEDIATELY, I mean it didn't take one second, and the SrA CC got a "oh sh!t!" look on his face, exclaimed "I don't need any beer" and immediately turned and ran out of there....leaving me holding the proverbial bag! After my ass chewing for my sarcasm, I leave the boss's office, only to find teh SrA in the next room trying to listen through the wall. LOL! "Thanks for leaving me flailing in the wind there XXX!" "Well sir, I don't think there was anything I could've done to save you...and it'd be better for one of us to have gotten away so there'd at least be a witness!" I got some more funny stories.....I'll just have to take a day to remember many of them. One thing I never understood as a pilot is when going through the hot pits, why the ground crew couldn't slap on 6 more BDUs? Edited by - type 7 on Jun 08 2004 12:31 AM |
|
| Author: | JMF422nd [ 08 Jun 2004, 02:35 ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is in replay to Boomers post on potential upgrades to the A-10 and its engines. It seems to me that your post seems to jump from one issue to another. First your talking about money being freed up for PE, then the post jumps to a Precision Engagement Plus, then it jump into new engines. This leads me to belive that the quote was severaly cut and pasted leaving out much IMHO. If there is a link to the site where you read the article I wouldn't mind reading it. Also you seem to have confused "Suite II Plus" with what you called "Precision Engagement Plus". Maybe you should clarify what your interpretation of the Air Forces plans as to PE and later with new or improved engines. On anthoer note why would TEMS/ADR come back during one of the PE sprials if we were going to ditch the current engines? Just a question though since, as a pilot and all, you know all about the new engines. Specs Make Better Lovers |
|
| Author: | Hogpen13 [ 08 Jun 2004, 06:05 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Telling a pilot why he doesn't need new engines is like a pilot telling a maintainer what test equipment he needs to fix jets. <img src="http://www.warthogpen.com/bs/sig1.jpg" border=0> |
|
| Author: | Hogpen13 [ 08 Jun 2004, 06:15 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> On anthoer note why would TEMS/ADR come back during one of the PE sprials if we were going to ditch the current engines? Just a question though since, as a pilot and all, you know all about the new engines. Specs Make Better Lovers <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Because TEMS has proven to be a very effective maintenance tool and ADR is a must to maintain the ASIP and FSMP through the life of the A-10. <img src="http://www.warthogpen.com/bs/sig1.jpg" border=0> |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 08 Jun 2004, 11:23 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> This is in replay to Boomers post on potential upgrades to the A-10 and its engines. It seems to me that your post seems to jump from one issue to another. First your talking about money being freed up for PE, then the post jumps to a Precision Engagement Plus, then it jump into new engines. This leads me to belive that the quote was severaly cut and pasted leaving out much IMHO. If there is a link to the site where you read the article I wouldn't mind reading it. Also you seem to have confused "Suite II Plus" with what you called "Precision Engagement Plus". Maybe you should clarify what your interpretation of the Air Forces plans as to PE and later with new or improved engines. On anthoer note why would TEMS/ADR come back during one of the PE sprials if we were going to ditch the current engines? Just a question though since, as a pilot and all, you know all about the new engines. Specs Make Better Lovers <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Nope,I read it in Av-Week, then went to thier site and posted the story verbatim. The publishing data is right at the top for you to go look up. Your argument aint with me. As I recall there is a pic missing out of the middle of the story, but that's because Av-Week doesnt allow remote linking of pics. "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Author: | JMF422nd [ 08 Jun 2004, 12:23 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hogpen the TEMS/ADR is a mod to the current engine monitering system. There would no reason to modify this system if new engine were going to be implemented. Yes new engines would be a great assest to the A-10. Yes the A-10 desprately needs more efficient engine at altitude and yes there are engine very similar to the TF-34 in the civilian market but I would still bet my paycheck that none of us will see new engines on the A-10. It won't happen. Av week is wrong. I'm not aurging the need for them, just that it will propably never happen. Specs Make Better Lovers |
|
| Author: | Hogpen13 [ 08 Jun 2004, 13:28 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Hogpen the TEMS/ADR is a mod to the current engine monitering system. There would no reason to modify this system if new engine were going to be implemented. Yes new engines would be a great assest to the A-10. Yes the A-10 desprately needs more efficient engine at altitude and yes there are engine very similar to the TF-34 in the civilian market but I would still bet my paycheck that none of us will see new engines on the A-10. It won't happen. Av week is wrong. I'm not aurging the need for them, just that it will propably never happen. Specs Make Better Lovers <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> JMF422rd, I know well what TEM/ADR is and what the system is used for. Did you read my post above or do you just not know what ASIP/FSMP is? I meant the (a) TEMS/ADR system will still be required even if we get new engines for ASIP/FSMP. Did anyone read Boomers post closely? We may get "new" engines by using the basic TF-34 and replacing internal componets (IE fan trubines..) to incress thrust. This would solve a lot of issues with hanging a real new engine on the Hawg. <img src="http://www.warthogpen.com/bs/sig1.jpg" border=0> |
|
| Author: | JMF422nd [ 08 Jun 2004, 14:25 ] |
| Post subject: | |
We seem to be going in circles here. Replaceing intral compontents of the exstisting engine is a far cry from replacing the engine as a system. Replacing the enigne would require many other modifications to the aircaft to include the mounts, monitering systems, integrating with current avionics, and intergrating with the T-Quad. Not the T-Quad will be a lot easier to deal with after Suite III changes it to solid state but we would be scraping plans for the IEPU and other various Suite IV mods would go back to the drawing board to get new engines. It won't happen in the hogs life time. Now if your talking about TCTO's to the current TF-34's on the airframe to make the thing more effient, that might happen and it would be great for the A-10. Itergrating such changes would also be relatively painless comparded to the daughting thought of changing the engine in its entirety. Most of the proposels and scuttlebut I hear say that any TCTO's being done will be for fuel effientcy and engine life. There also may be plans to replace many of the APU's parts with civilian spec part as a cost savngs plan. None of these proposals will make the jet fly faster. I did read your post and I am intimately familiar with ASIP's, VGH, FSMP, and other more temporary systems useing during mods. I also personally added the first IEPU to OT&E aircraft and delt with the TEMS/ADR integration the first time around. Next it may also be intragted with the CDU and possibly added to the bus. These kinds of plans would not be made if the engine was going to change. |
|
| Author: | prkiii [ 08 Jun 2004, 14:29 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> We seem to be going in circles here. Replaceing intral compontents of the exstisting engine is a far cry from replacing the engine as a system. Replacing the enigne would require many other modifications to the aircaft to include the mounts, monitering systems, integrating with current avionics, and intergrating with the T-Quad. Not the T-Quad will be a lot easier to deal with after Suite III changes it to solid state but we would be scraping plans for the IEPU and other various Suite IV mods would go back to the drawing board to get new engines. It won't happen in the hogs life time. Now if your talking about TCTO's to the current TF-34's on the airframe to make the thing more effient, that might happen and it would be great for the A-10. Itergrating such changes would also be relatively painless comparded to the daughting thought of changing the engine in its entirety. Most of the proposels and scuttlebut I hear say that any TCTO's being done will be for fuel effientcy and engine life. There also may be plans to replace many of the APU's parts with civilian spec part as a cost savngs plan. None of these proposals will make the jet fly faster. I did read your post and I am intimately familiar with ASIP's, VGH, FSMP, and other more temporary systems useing during mods. I also personally added the first IEPU to OT&E aircraft and delt with the TEMS/ADR integration the first time around. Next it may also be intragted with the CDU and possibly added to the bus. These kinds of plans would not be made if the engine was going to change. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Well...I'm to far "our of the loop" to know...but...just because a current MOD is happening doesn't mean that it won't "go away" so to speak...if a contract is awarded & begun, it has to finsh....same thing is happening with the F-15s right now...won't go into detail, but lets just say lots of Depot work is happing now for nothing because it will be replaced soon...oh well...so is the way of the government... <img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/70th.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/Mav_shot.jpg" border=0><img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/25.jpg" border=0> |
|
| Author: | JMF422nd [ 08 Jun 2004, 14:41 ] |
| Post subject: | |
YOur right it wouldn't be the first time the USAF has switched gears. But from where I sit I just don't see it ever happening. Though I'd love to see some new engines and I'm sure our enginetroops would also love it from a maintainabliity standpiont. But again I just don't see it as fesable. Only time will tell if I'm right but I'd bet a six pack aginst anyone who say well see the new engines. |
|
| Author: | Coach [ 08 Jun 2004, 17:29 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think we are confusing whether we "want" new engines or we "need" new engines. In my view, there is a lot of want (cool, nice to have) out there and not much need (mission requirement). So far, I don't see a lot of evidence that the current TF-34 is not reliable or that it prevents the A-10 from meeting any of it's assigned missions. We don't have holes on the flightline, we don't loose aircraft due to engine failures and the TF-34 has a good track record in terms of reliability. Sure, it has some shortcomings, but nothing that can't be planned around. There is nothing, in my opinion, on the horizon for the A-10 that is worth 50-70 aircraft of A-10 force structure. Nothing, not PE, not Litening, not SADL, not engines. If we give up that kind of force structure, the entire community will be dead. You can talk all you want about the composit/associate squadron plan, but if they cut that much out, the aircraft will become unsustainable and will be mothballed. You might be able to find many faults with the A-10, its slow, it has problems at altitude and hot temperatures, but no one will ever scoff at a target area after the Hog gets done. That kind of DEMONSTRATED CAPABILITY will be long gone if the money grubbers get their way and boneyard 70 Hogs to pay for whatever new bell and whistle someone dreams up. The money probably won't even go to the Hog anyway, just more for the Ramptor slush fund. My $.02 Coach |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|