WT Forums

Dice, I was talking to our new flight chief this afternoon, (you know him from Moody, Sgt Savoy), he has a great picture of the NAW A-10 on his computor desktop, and so we got to talking about it, and he said how there were 2 and the first thing I thought was "oh by here we go, I know this horse has been beaten to death on the forum" about of how many there were... Anyway, I was at warthogpen a little while ago to make sure I was on the right side of the discussion, (I was) and I read you said
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Note - I have my own opinions, and I've heard a lot of the rumors on why the AF didn't buy the NAWs aircraft, if you ever want to talk about it, or hear some of the rumors, feel free to come to the forums and we can discuss it there.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

So what's your opinion/rumors of why the AF didn't buy the NAW?


There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand Binary, and those who don't.

Mainly because they didn't want the A-10A in the first place and were planing on flying it a few years and quitly pushing her to the boneyard, so why buy more! This would have required twice the number of quilifided pilots/WCOs/maintaince so would have driven-up the cost of operating the aircraft, something the AF sure didn't want. There is also the fact the aircraft was so "simple" to fly the training factor was not needed.

Also a radar/FLIR equipmented A-10 would complete, and God forbid, do better than the "new" F-16 Fighting Falcon (and then unknown and fund hungrey F-117) they were pushing to sell to other contries. Also put cutting-edge tech. like a radar pod (which was left off the A-10 desigm for a reason)and FLIR on the A-10, you know that was laughed at in a few meeetings. Remember this is just MHO based on documents and books I've read.



Ugly But Well Hung





Edited by - Dice-man on Jan 15 2005 05:32 AM

If I can expand on what Dice said;
The NAW-10 was an unsolicited proposal by FRC in an attempt to keep the company from going belly-up, FRC had nothing on their plate after the production run of 700 or so aircraft. The Air Force looked at the concept, yawned, and pointed out the original Statement of Need was for a simple, survivable and cheap aircraft capable of operating from unimproved runways with minimal support. The NAW-10, other than the runway piece, was none of that. Also, the very idea of a CAS aircraft providing all that's required of an aircraft today was totally foreign..remember, this was the 70's-early 80's and much of the high tech stuff hadn't even been invented. Those that actually flew the one and only NAW-10 complained it was underpowered and wouldn't turn worth a crap. The final nail was the astute observatioin that "great, we've got an aircraft that can fly in all kinds of weather but it has no anti-icing". FRC attempted to beat that argument but the only way they could get that feature was to steal bleed air from the engines, adding to the underpower problem. FRC finally gave up on the concept, tried to sell a T-37 replacement and when that failed, closed their doors forever. I think the reason everyone thinks there were two NAW-10's goes back to when FRC was trying to interest the Air Force in buying more airframes. The company built a mock-up, made mostly of wood but it looked real..as I recall, it even had a couple of "meet your maker in a Martin Baker" seats. Everyone assumed this was a flyable aircraft (I think they scabbed the front end to an actual fuselage) though when I first saw it I thought to myself "wow, I didn't think it was possible to make this thing any uglier but they did" which didn't help their sales pitch. Add to that the money problems in the Air Force (the aircraft delivered to the Guard didn't even have a VHF AM radio installed and many were delivered without complete RWR systems) and you can figure out the NAW version didn't stand a chance.

OLD Chief

Dont want to steal a thread btu as an ex-navy seat mech I take great offense to the Martin-Baker ditty. There has to be a reason that they picked it for the F35 over the Aces II. And I think that you could run the numbers and see that the Martin Baker seats have a much greater survivability rate than other seats.
You can go back to the original topic now that I have thrown in my two cents.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

Hawg166, I think the statment about the Martin Baker is not about it's operational capablity, but more so it's ability to go off at the WRONG time. I've heard stories my whole career about how bad the seat was and the number of mechanics that had been killed by them. However I've only witnessed one and that was enough to convince me. The poor guy was changing the batter under the seat of the F-4 and it went off.

capche-capche da - we go forward together

Faugh ah Ballaugh -Clear The Way-

_________________


Faugh ah Ballaugh ~ Clear the Way

I wasnt really mad, I just like to hijack threads.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

In case anyone is interested, there is one for sale on eBay (well, 1:32 scale, of course)...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 33422&rd=1

Still, nice description of the N/AW-10!

Cheers! M2

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>However I've only witnessed one and that was enough to convince me. The poor guy was changing the batter under the seat of the F-4 and it went off. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


Lil Hitler, we have to know. I've been trying to figure who you are because of us being in the 55th at the same time. I was also at Nellis with the 55th when this happened. I remember the day that happened. I taught at Tech School and used to tell my students that story.

Go Ugly Early !
No body's ugly after 2:00 A.M.

_________________
Go Ugly Early!
Nobody is ugly after 2 A.M.

Hogmender, I know we where there at the same time, I used to crew 0170, then worked debrief for a year and after that moved over to 1990. Worked swing shift most of the time and was in "B" Flight cause you can't spell Team with B but you can spell bite me. If you worked swings and ever hung around after work on a friday night I know we've had to of had a beer or two together. I PCS in/around 1994 to moody.

capche-capche da - we go forward together

Faugh ah Ballaugh -Clear The Way-

_________________


Faugh ah Ballaugh ~ Clear the Way

I love you all dearly but I have to tell you that you have been duped. There are no batteries in a Mh-7 martin baker seat. Martin Baker seats do not have batteries they are entirely mechanical unlike the ACES II or the Stencil seats in the early Harriers and Corsairs. And I have again succesfully hijacked a thread.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

I never had the time to admire the ride of an Aces 2....Both times <img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle>

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

Hawg,

Not in the seat UNDER the seat....

capche-capche da - we go forward together

Faugh ah Ballaugh -Clear The Way-

_________________


Faugh ah Ballaugh ~ Clear the Way

Well, since my original question was answered, I don't care that the thread was "hijacked." That kind of stuff just makes it more interesting. I'm sure a thread wouldn't have been started just to discuss ejection seats. I like that "meet your maker in a Martin-Baker." Never heard that one. I have heard, however, "Martin-Baker Widow-Maker" A friend of mine on the U-2 told me that thing is way weird. It has like 7 pins!? And they're not even all the same like the ACESII. It blew my mind when he told me Crew Chiefs dont even pin the seat, that egress does.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand Binary, and those who don't.

HAWG166 the battery they are refering to is the aircraft battery. The F-4 had in a WAY strange place in the backseat.

"face it....perhaps your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others!"

Old Chief, good points and thanks for the insight, sounds like you may have been in the A-10 community back "in the day".

Ugly But Well Hung

You guys are a little(prob alot) confused here. the f-4 g batt is in the rear cockpit on the right side of the rudder peddels behind a kick pnl and circut breaker pnl. the acft at nellis was 561 crew chief was roland adams. anyway he and montie rians were changeing the batt. roland was in the seat. while changing the bett the circut breaker pnl ended up uder the seat. after changing the batt roland lowered the deat seat to reinstall the kick pnl. the bottem of the seat hit the exposed wires on the back of the cb pnl and and set the rocket motors off. roland was ejected landed on top of the vert stab then the ground, died on the way to hosp. monty (was on the intake)
blown to the ground with sever burn damage from head to toe. lived and saw him in 2001 crewwing f16s. I was staioned with the 561 at nellis when this happened.
now that is a highjack

get muddy

Edited by - koobster on Jan 16 2005 07:16 AM

I bow to your superior hijacking abilities. And there is a good story for the Warthogpen Dice. <img src=newicons/anim_bow.gif border=0 align=middle>

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Old Chief, good points and thanks for the insight, sounds like you may have been in the A-10 community back "in the day". <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yeah Dice, I'm older 'n dirt..was also at Farmingdale the day the sling broke as they were moving what is now 78-0641 onto the flatbed to take it to Hagerstown..think that one is now at WG. It has always flown a half ball out and has special rig procedures in the 95. The old SM-ALC tried to fix it and it almost ended up atritted during the FCF.

OLD Chief

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The NAW-10 was an unsolicited proposal by FRC in an attempt to keep the company from going belly-up, FRC had nothing on their plate after the production run of 700 or so aircraft.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Sure it was an unsolicited proposal, but submitted just to keep from going belly-up? That is pretty harsh. It was simply a business opportunity to leverage the basic capabilities of the A-10 airframe into other roles. It was unsuccessful in finding customers, as many derivatives are. There are as many F-15 and F-16 derivatives that were rejected as were accepted.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The Air Force looked at the concept, yawned, and pointed out the original Statement of Need was for a simple, survivable and cheap aircraft capable of operating from unimproved runways with minimal support. The NAW-10, other than the runway piece, was none of that.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes most of them yawned because they were aware that the Lantirn system was in development which would provide better (that is what they said) capability using the F-16. My biased recollection is that the Nav/Targeting pair of pods alone (not including aircraft mods to carry it) exceeded the cost of an entire A-10 so that tended to consume all the available money for that mission. They had commited the USAF to Lantirn, and as a practical matter, could not fund a competing system too.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Those that actually flew the one and only NAW-10 complained it was underpowered and wouldn't turn worth a crap.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Also a rather harsh statement, but one the A-10A (and almost all other bomb hauling jets) seem to overcome. It is hard to see why the NAW was more lacking in that department that the "A". When flown at the same gross weights, they should be pretty close. I had some contacts in loads/aero/flight test at the time and they did not mention this difficulty. On the other hand, maneuvering performance was not part of what they wanted to demonstrate. They concentrated on the Night Attack stuff. I do remember the discussion that the pilots liked the extra directional stability that the tall fins provided.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> The final nail was the astute observation that "great, we've got an aircraft that can fly in all kinds of weather but it has no anti-icing".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Final nail? That was a deliberate economy going in to the project to keep it affordable. NAW meant Night Adverse Weather, not Night All Weather. Everyone understood the distinction, and it still allowed operations to be conducted for 80-90% of what an all weather aircraft could do. For my education, do F-16s or F-15Es have an anti icing capability?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>FRC finally gave up on the concept, tried to sell a T-37 replacement and when that failed, closed their doors forever. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You make it sound like the T-37 replacement (the T-46) was also an unsolicited proposal. I beg to differ. The T-46 was a detailed answer to a detailed requirement written for a real need. We won that job because we had the better concept and the best engineering team to accomplish it. We made some mistakes, but as far as I'm concerned, the government just changed their mind and put the money somewhere else. Ten years later, they ended up with a turboprop that had much more development trouble than we had. The Navy T-45 also had many more troubles than the T-46, but I digress. We completed three T-46's and flight tested them for a year. Even though we had other products in production (F-4 aft ends, C-5B gear pod fairings, SF-340 wings, 747 flaps) many of them were going to end soon, and the plant was not a viable business anymore. It didn't help that there was a "Palace coup" in the top management of Fairchild. The outcome of this was an electronics guy took over they company and proceeded to liquidate all the aircraft manufacture assets at bargain basement prices.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The company built a mock-up, made mostly of wood but it looked real..as I recall, it even had a couple of "meet your maker in a Martin Baker" seats. Everyone assumed this was a flyable aircraft (I think they scabbed the front end to an actual fuselage) though when I first saw it I thought to myself "wow, I didn't think it was possible to make this thing any uglier but they did" which didn't help their sales pitch.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The only thing I can remember that remotely meets this description is the T-46 mock-up, except that the size is way off. Also, I do not think there was a Martin Baker seat that was ever engineered for any Republic product. Pre A-10 jets (F-84's, F-105) had Republic proprietary seats. The A-10 had Escapac's first, then ACES-II. The T-46 had Aces-II. Maybe foreign sales proposals had MB seats in the drawings, but I can say that no M-B seat installation was ever engineered at Republic between the years of 1973 and 1987. Grumman, however, used them exclusively.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

Ho boy, here we go..

First, it's nice to see company loyalty still exists, even after almost 25 years, and I mean that sincerely.

My statements weren't meant to be harsh, just business as usual in the world of government contracting. If the same situation existed today, the company would have been bought out and swallowed up. Unfortunately, mergers and buy-outs werent' in vogue in the 80's, at least not to the degree they exist today.

Since you were obviously a player, you had to know the Air Force really wanted nothing to do with the A-10. It wasn't fast, it wasn't sleek, it didn't have an afterburner or a dragchute and it certainly wasn't pretty..no calculus involved in figuring that out. Why else would the Guard and Reserve end up with a brand new airframe? That had never happened before and, despite what some people said about increased tasking and visibility of the reserve forces, it was really just an attempt to make the red headed step child go away. Dice said it in the first response to this thread..quietly send it to the boneyard..and they almost succeded. A lot of good airframes ended up as maintenance trainers or stuck on a pole at the gates for lack of a relatively inexpensive upgrade. How many people would like to be able to get those low time airframes back? How many times has the idea to get the ones in involatile storage flying again been bought to the table?

You make some good points about the F-16 and F-15. Think back..how many recruiting posters featured the A-10? It was always the lawn dart. Remember all the meetings trying to get things done to the A-10? If it didn't cost much, if anything, fine. If it involved dollars, it just wasn't going to happen.

How much did a new Hog cost back then? Six million, give or take? Anyone want to do the math and figure it out in today's $$? Still a bargain if it cost twice that amount. FRC got it right with the Hog, it just took a war or two to prove it. They not only got it right, they got it right the first time around.

As far as it being underpowered, that argument exists to this day. Of course, if you strapped a couple of Atlas 5's to the old girl, there would be those who'd complain it's still underpowered. Oh, yeah, the seats? You mean Martin Baker didn't make the Escapac? Hey, I'm a pointy head, all I knew is they weren't an ACES II.

Hog bashing used to be great sport; funny, you don't hear much of it today.

OLD Chief

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>For my education, do F-16s or F-15Es have an anti icing capability? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It's been a number of years since I worked the F-16 but the only anti-icing I remember is an anti-ice probe in the intake. I don't remember anything anywhere else on the aircraft except for the poor crew chief in the bucket of the deicing truck.

capche-capche da - we go forward together

Faugh ah Ballaugh -Clear The Way-

_________________


Faugh ah Ballaugh ~ Clear the Way

now mudd with two rides in the aceII should we take it you spend the tax payers dollars well <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> I am glad your ok, but physiologically how much did those rides take out of you. I have heard of pilots loosing an inch due to spinal compression is this fact or urban legend.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>For my education, do F-16s or F-15Es have an anti icing capability? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


I can tell you that E models do not.

Go Ugly Early !
No body's ugly after 2:00 A.M.

_________________
Go Ugly Early!
Nobody is ugly after 2 A.M.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>For my education, do F-16s or F-15Es have an anti icing capability? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


I can tell you that E models do not.

Go Ugly Early !
No body's ugly after 2:00 A.M.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The only anti-ice system on A thru E model F-15s is for the Windshield clearing system, anti-ice system. I just looked it up in the -06. They also have various aoa probes that heat up to prevent ice build-up...we always have guys burning themselves during ops checks in the ops check phase of Depot, they forget they are working on a real ACFT at times....

<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>

_________________

I thought he was talking about airframe anti-icing?

Go Ugly Early !
No body's ugly after 2:00 A.M.

_________________
Go Ugly Early!
Nobody is ugly after 2 A.M.