a-10 warthog?

ok really dumb question does the a10 have rubber coating on it to reflect radar?? if so why not put that on all planes??

..........There is a great software development....called a Search engine....you might wish to try it......

devilwasp, don't be rude to him. He might of searched and not found it. If you're going to post, post something constructive. You'd also find out, the second part of it was a general question - one that could be hard to find out from a search engine yet somebody on this site might know it.

www.a-10.org...
www.fas.org...
www.af.mil...

Try those sites for info. Don't know if it has them. I also don't know why all don't.

The A-10 does not have a rubber coating; and given the amount of the stuff hanging off of it, including its two engines and stores pylons, it is about as non-stealthy as an airplane can be these days.

Yeah, the RCS of the A-10 is huge, about as large as a F-15 I believe.

But one heck of a powerful machine...

It does have IR signature reduction features though, that's why the engines are up high with the exhaust coming out over the horizontal stabilizer, to mask the exhaust heat from shoulder launched SAMs. At the time it was designed, the primary battlefield SAM threats were all IR guided.

xmotex, true; and the AH-64 Apache, which often operates in the same environment as the A-10, has the same problems with IR seekers. This is why the exhaust of the two T701s feed into separate plena called "black holes" which mix the exhaust with ambient air to lessen the helicopters' chance of being defeated by an IR seeking missile.

The A-10 Thunderbolt II is my favorite airplane of all time. Although it isn't as fast as an F-14, or as stealthy as a F-22, or as astheticly pleasing as most aircraft, it does it's job and does it very well. It can take a beating and keep on going.

wasnt it nicknamed the tank buster for its arsenal of weapons??

Actually it is nicknamed warthog the original name is thunderbolt 2

Originally posted by hitman132436
wasnt it nicknamed the tank buster for its arsenal of weapons??

its`nicknamed `tankbuster` for that great big gun that the aircraft was designed around

A-10 Thunderbolt II - nicknames: Warthog, Tankbuster, Flying Bathtub.

Not sure if there are more, probably are.

To me - as an airman stationed at Biggin-Hill during the 70's, when they first arrived in the UK - the A-10 Thunderbolt II was an airborne terror!

The very shape of it, built around the 'infamous' GAU-8 30 mm Gatling gun, the long upturned wings, huge armoured fuselage with even 'n-word' turbo-fan engines that are almost silent! WOW!

When the A-10s had landed and were parked up on the apron, I had a chat with one of the pilots who said they were an absolute joy to fly, could turn on a dime and you could throw it about the sky all day, with half of it hanging off!

Up close, and to touch, those six 30 mil barrels look huge. So big, so dark and so cold. Hard to imagine that a few rounds can open up a tank like a hot knife through butter.

I once had the opportunity to whitness a firepower demonstration at 'The Bowl' in Warminster, Wilts.

The highlight was two passes by an A-10 Thunderbolt II. Using a'slow' rate of fire - i.e 1200 rounds per minute, the pilot quickly destroyed a couple of burnt out hulks but on his second pass, he really opened up.

Selecting the highest rate of fire (then 7500 rpm) the pilot devastated an area about 100 metres long and about 50 wide. The firing sounded like one long rasp but lasted only a couple of seconds.

This demonstration was carried out in pouring rain, with a very low ceiling and cloud base, with pinpoint accuracy!

What a pity the GR1 Harriers could not fly. Something to do with adverse weather.

But why oh why are they replacing the A-10s with F-16s?

They arent replacing the A10 with the F16. iirc it will be replaced by F35's

Okay Tomcat ha.

I'll ask the question again.

Why oh why, are they replacing an excellant air to mud weapons platform with ultra-high level, sophisticated, specialist aircraft costing millions, if not billions of dollars?

In modern air to mud combat or ground support as we Brits call it, you need an aircraft that can deliver a massive payload whilst it can take and eat punishment caused by Triple 'A' or hand held, shoulder fired AA missiles.
The A-10 is designed to do this in spades!

Why fix something that aint broke? Why not just redesign the avionics and install computer and software.

Could it be because the US arms industry wants bigger and better at greater cost and these aircraft just look plain 'sexy' whereas the Thunderbolt II is butt ugly?

I agree the A10 is old but i think it can only be replaced by a plane with similair charataristics. How would a stealthy A10 like plane do on the battlefield?

Originally posted by hitman132436
wasnt it nicknamed the tank buster for its arsenal of weapons??

The A-10 Warthog got its name 'tankbuster' [aka: the Flying Gun] for one reason and one reason only: The AN/GAU-8a 30mm Avenger seven-barrel gatling gun!

Hellfires are an afterthought.




seekerof

You guys are losing your touch!! I have been checking this thread out for days, and not one PIC!!! Do I have to do everything myself?













And lastly: Feeding the Beast




[edit on 18-3-2005 by skippytjc]

The A10 uses mavericks not hellfires