Possible A-10 Paint Schemes

[digger]

Easy guys...sharing knowledge is good, but let's not get testy with each other. Seems there has been a lot of heat on the board the last few days..let's let it cool off.

[Birddog]

I have to step in here to defend the A-10 a bit, I'm sorry digger.

In what reality? Given their druthers, the USAAF was going to send all the 'Hogs to the Davis-Montham boneyard and replace them with more, new-model -16s but Congress nixed the idea.

Congress nixed the idea because of it's superb performance over the F-16 in the first Gulf War in its mission role. They realized that the F-16 can't bring to the battlfield what the A-10 does in its role.

If the 'Hog outsells the -16, why is it only America that flies the A-10 but there are what, 50+ countries flying the Falcon?

There was a deal that was going to be made with Turkey for the purchase of a number of A-10s but the deal fell through because Turkey couldn't afford an A-10 program. Since the Gulf War and the performance shown the US has pretty much nixed the idea of selling the A-10 to other countries. Why give someone else one of your best weapons? The F-16 is a cheap weapons platform that many countries can afford. The A-10 isn't.

The 'Hog was designed to kill Warsaw Pact tanks - exactly how many has it killed

Killed quite a few Warsaw Pact tanks in the first Gulf War and it has killed a few in other areas.

Oh, and given the A-10's involvement in several friendly-fire incidents, I would be careful telling everyone how it excels at what it's designed for... for a bird that has to get so up-close and personal, that is not a good record.

This is a touchy subject and I don't think this is the proper place for this. My sympathies and prayers go out to those involved in this tragic incident. In war many tragic mistakes are made. Communication seems to always be at the root of the cause. If you look back through history, alot of our favorite aircraft have been involved in incidents like this one.

In short, the F-16, A-10, and Phantom are awesome aircraft. They all deserve a place in our collection.

i seem to recall Mike advising that you should go to your local retail outlets and pester, request and demand what you want to see. So, you A-10 guys should maybe heed that advice and get vocal at your local retail outlets (eg TRU) and ask for a true scale, 1/18 A-10. Can't hurt and who knows what good it may do.

I've been doing that. Just wish I had some bigger names on the TRU food chain to write or correspond to. It would be great if Mike would give us his connections to contact instead of ole local Joe TRU manager. That might help make a bigger difference you know...

[EnemyAce]

SO, what do you prefer?

Classic Sharkmouth:




http://www.militarypictures.info/airpla ... 0.jpg.html


Or tusky warthog:



http://photohome.com/photos/aircraft-pi ... ter-1.html


...and exactly how many schemes did we see on the Sabre...silver and.....silver? Oh wait, that's right, 21st only did the Sabre because Admiral did!

Come on, Admiral! Make us a Warthog so I can buy 21st's version at Wallys!

[Sabrefan]

I really like those sharkmouth A-10s. Well, I like all the A-10 paint shemes I have seen. What a cool plane!

[CW4USARMY]

SO, what do you prefer?

Classic Sharkmouth:




http://www.militarypictures.info/airpla ... 0.jpg.html


Or tusky warthog:



http://photohome.com/photos/aircraft-pi ... ter-1.html


...and exactly how many schemes did we see on the Sabre...silver and.....silver? Oh wait, that's right, 21st only did the Sabre because Admiral did!

Come on, Admiral! Make us a Warthog so I can buy 21st's version at Wallys!

LOL!!!!!!

[Plane Nuts]

I think the tusks are much more fitting. The shark mouth is too P-40ish... OK, who is I kidding...repaints are what will make this plane saleable!!!

Adding my two cents to the history of air warfare...the thing the F-4 had to deal with was that it was the first to be intended to use air to air missiles as its primary tool for the interceptor package. It's no big deal that it had to do the attack role, that is a much more versatile package for a plane to be able to pull off.

Of course, the funny part from my perspective is that my cousin who ended his military career flying F-16s decried that the F-16s had taken on the attack role more than air to air. He claimed that it was asinine that the F-16 was doing attack with one engine, while the F-15 with two engines was not, even though the F-15 was designed for the attack role more than air to air (his opinion, not mine!). Of course, when I heard him say this, I couldn't help but to laugh to myself...an actual user who really had no clue!!! And I thought pilots were soooo smart!! Of course, he started as a Tomcat driver, and I am sure he lamented that it too had made a mark in the attack role as well!!

There hasn't been a true fighter since the F-86!

[GooglyDoogly]

There hasn't been a true fighter since the F-86!

What about the F-8 Crusader?

I love that bird....

And yes, please count me in for two Warthogs please.

[Spudkopf]

There hasn't been a true fighter since the F-86!

Off the top of my head oh the Mirage III springs to mind I'm sure there are a stack of others

Delta Dagger and Dart also.............

[Plane Nuts]

There hasn't been a true fighter since the F-86!

Off the top of my head the Mirage III springs to mind I'm sure there are a stack of others

But the Mirage's haven't really seen much except for regional conflict...and I would term their success as being akin to shooting fish in a barrell!! And I think that if they would have had to go up against an F-4 or even an F-8 the results would have been much different.

Just so you can see my line of thought, I don't think there has been an air to air fighter since Korea. The F-4s never really made a mark in Vietnam, as the truth was that there just wasn't a real air war in Vietnam--I guess the Soviets learned in the Korean War that their pilots weren't worth the sacrifice. And the last time the US fired an air to air shot, even an Apache is confirmed with a kill!!!

[VMF115]

What about the F-14, I thought it was a true Fighter/interceptor

[Plane Nuts]

What about the F-14, I thought it was a true Fighter/interceptor

During Gulf War 1, when the US ran out of targets, the Navy discovered that the F-14 had a special talent at hunting and destroying ground targets. It was never fully a fleet defender after that.

I guess if you could extrapolate, it probably led to its withdrawal from service as the F-18 was a bit cheaper, but there is no doubt that the F-14 for all its fame as a fighter interceptor ended its career as yet another attack plane.

[Spudkopf]

So next you'll be telling me that the F-104 was designed as a bomber and before you say anything the F-86 could also be bombed up too.

I think if it comes down to who would have a better chance in a dog fight between a Mirage and an F-4 then the Mirage might actually have the edge and to both of these aircraft the F-86 would be one these barrel fish you mentioned. You may find that the Mirage has a fairly impressive score card against front line soviet aircraft with far better trained pilots than that of North Vietnam especially when in the hands of the IAF, further the North Korean pilots (including the Chinese and Russian volunteers) were also no match for the US pilots.

The Hawker Hunter (put into production March 1950) was also a very successful pure fighter that I’d back against an F-86 any day. The F-5 is another superb fighter platform.

There are just way to many pure fighter designs produced between 1950 and 1960 that in many cases equal if not better the F-86, many of these other aircraft stayed in service far beyond the F-86 and served on well into the 80’s and even the early 90’s.

No offence but I just think your F-86 statement is a little ill informed.

There are also other nations besides the US making jet fighters you know.

[DocTodd]

Pretty short sighted of 21st to say they will not produce one of the most desired modern jets of our time. There is no question it would sell well and you could make at least three color scheme differences between grey, green and sand colored. Then there are special edition Alaska versions and D-Day commemorative patterns. I would wager that the plane would sell as well as the F-4. I realize that the F-4 you could do several different repaints and that is what makes companies want to produce them and I hope they do well, but again I say it is a mistake to not produce the A-10.
Todd

[Plane Nuts]

So next you'll be telling me that the F-104 was designed as a bomber and before you say anything the F-86 could also be bombed up too.

No, the F-104 was an interceptor for high altitude bombers. I highly doubt anyone would have believed it would last in a dog fight or be effective in a ground attack role.

I think if it comes down to who would have a better chance in a dog fight between a Mirage and an F-4 then the Mirage might actually have the edge and to both of these aircraft the F-86 would be one these barrel fish you mentioned. You may find that the Mirage has a fairly impressive score card against front line soviet aircraft with far better trained pilots than that of North Vietnam especially when in the hands of the IAF, further the North Korean pilots (including the Chinese and Russian volunteers) were also no match for the US pilots.

And if your Mirage was painted by a Sparrow, would you still believe it would have the same dog fighting capability? It's possible that the Mirage would top the F-86 in a gun fight, but you are forgetting that the Israelis developed tactics and practiced them relentlessly for the MiG-15-19s and 21s. I don't know if the Americans would have been more adaptable to the IAF than the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Saudis...but our history with the F-4 is a bit of a hint.

The Hawker Hunter (put into production March 1950) was also a very successful pure fighter that I’d back against an F-86 any day. The F-5 is another superb fighter platform.

Fine...but they still have never had an impact in a major conflict in an aerial dogfight role.

There are just way to many pure fighter designs produced between 1950 and 1960 that in many cases equal if not better the F-86, many of these other aircraft stayed in service far beyond the F-86 and served on well into the 80’s and even the early 90’s.

Fine...but they still have never had an impact in a major conflict in an aerial dogfight role.

No offence but I just think your F-86 statement is a little ill informed.

There are also other nations besides the US making jet fighters you know.

No offence taken, and I hope you don't take offence either, but you are kinda missing my point!!! My intention in originally posting was to point out that the F-4 in an attack role is not unique and is certainly consistent with everything that has come since.

The F-86 was the last fighter to see significant air to air combat in a major conflict. Like I said, even the Apache has a confirmed air to air kill (I think the A-10 does as well), but that doesn't make it a fighter!! On the other hand, there is not a "fighter" in production today that could lick the F-22's boots, yet it is not a true fighter either. Neither are the Typhoon, Rafael, Grippen, Su-27, etc.

[Moth]

Dogfights are more or less obsolete today, missles effectively replaced guns, so the role of "Fighter" is very vague today. There is no aircraft specifically designed to be a dogfighter today. That's my opinon at least.

One thing about the Starfighter bugs me...
They actually thought it can land on a carrier? (It has a tailhook)

I cant even begin to image it landing on a carrier, you cant say it has wings, they are more like stabilizers on a rocket. Plus you cant flare the thing much, since it has a huge overhanging tail.

I get shivers imagining that thing lining up to a carrier.

Did they even operate from carriers? What was thier loss rate?

[Plane Nuts]

Believe it or not, Moth, but the tail hook is ubiquitous on American planes. In fact, any runway that is certified by the DOD for the landing of American war airplanes must either have an emergency arresting cable at each end or sufficient run off length. Therefore, any runway that is not certified is not allowed for a US military plane for landing. It really has nothing to do with carrier landings.

Now, that doesn't mean that someone somehow didn't imagine the possibility of an F-104 landing on a carrier!! But it would be stupid!!

[Moth]

Interesting, thanks for the information!

That would explain the F-16 having it too

Damn, the thought of a Starfighter and a carrier makes me want to go hide somewhere.
Im scared to even try it on my Flight Simulator

[Spudkopf]

And if your Mirage was painted by a Sparrow, would you still believe it would have the same dog fighting capability?

Ah……….. first you have to be able to get into a position to get a lock, if you do get a lock you then have to hope your 1964/5 F-4s radar can maintain this lock and then after launch hope your first generation Sparrow could sustain a lock to the target and also not be fooled by chaff.

Then if your talk Sidewinder engagements, well most Mirage's were cleared to carry these or their French equivalents so then it comes down to manoeuvrability and here is where I think the Mirage would gain the upper hand.

You also have to hope this all happens at altitude as once you are down in the weeds it will all come down to handling, basically when I said dog fight, I was thinking guns only type fighting not shoot and scoot.

Don't get me wrong I love the big uglies as much as the next guy, I just think if they pitted in combat against other western fighters they may have been found wanting.

Just and FYI, the RAAF briefly employed the F-4E (1970-73) while waiting delivery of the F-11C's (ordered in 1963) but delayed, the aging of the Canberra bombers in service necessitated a stopgap measure to fill the gap. As a result, the United States Government offered to lease to the RAAF 24 brand new F-4E Phantom aircraft from the USAF at heavily discounted rates pending the delivery of the F-111C. The official contract was signed 22 June 1970 with the aircraft being delivered to Australia in September and October of that year. The Phantoms were based at RAAF Base Amberley in Queensland with Nos 1 and 6 Squadrons and were popular with both aircrew and ground crew for the aircraft's flying characteristics and ease of servicing. Australia even considered cancelling its order for the F-111Cs and purchasing Phantoms, but this proved to be too expensive as the F-4E’s comparatively short range meant a fleet of KC-135 tankers would need to be purchased to support the aircraft. During their Australian service only one Phantom was lost in an accident and the remaining twenty-three were returned to the USAF in 1973.

Lastly I still have to disagree that the F-86 was the last and best of it's kind especially when it is well documented that the MiGs where actually superior performance wise in all aspects except for the most important this being the aircrews. The F-86 was also in service with the RAAF all be it as the Avon engined and cannoned armed CA-27 variant, they where in turn replaced by the Mirage IIIO.

No offence here either, it's nice to banter with someone who takes his convictions so passionately.

Now as far as the A-10 goes I think there is no equal, the Su 25 does not even come close, so I hope we can at least agree on that

I'll even go further and risk being flamed by all when I say the F-111 may be the all time best best attack bomber, the F-15E being a close second but only because of the all the gizmos

[Birddog]

Like I said, even the Apache has a confirmed air to air kill (I think the A-10 does as well), but that doesn't make it a fighter!! On the other hand, there is not a "fighter" in production today that could lick the F-22's boots, yet it is not a true fighter either. Neither are the Typhoon, Rafael, Grippen, Su-27, etc.

The A-10 has TWO air to air kills to it's name. Both helicopters, but they are air to air kills. The F-16 hasn't even gotten one that I know of since it has been in US service.

[jeffrowse]

Easy guys...sharing knowledge is good, but let's not get testy with each other. Seems there has been a lot of heat on the board the last few days..let's let it cool off.

Digger is right - I shouldn't have ranted at you EnemyAce, and I'm sorry. I offer my apologies.
It's C21 I'm miffed at here, and I'm afraid that the narkiness I get when people who really don't have a clue start preaching about how fightin' men should fight (that is, most civilians and nearly all politicians of any nation) kinda tipped me over the edge.

Jeff.

"Phantoms Phorever! Jet Noise - the Sound of Freedom!"

[jeffrowse]

Ah……….. first you have to be able to get into a position to get a lock, if you do get a lock you then have to hope your 1964/5 F-4s radar can maintain this lock and then after launch hope your first generation Sparrow could sustain a lock to the target and also not be fooled by chaff.

So, what happened to the update kits the USAAF spent so much money on? In some ways the earlier radars were better than the newer stuff - unable to rely on finesse and changing scanning frequncies quicker than the enemy jammers could follow and jam, the older kit has to brute-force its way through with oodles of power. And if you don't get a "shootable" lock-on, there's still a chance to fry a few bits of electronics if the EM hardening isn't up to the task.
Secondly, the Phantom did not get stuck with just the first-gen Sparrows that were available when they first flew. Early-model Phantoms in the 'Nam flew with Sidewinder AIM-9Cs or -9Ds (Navy and AF had different models!) and (IIRC) AIM-7 Sparrows (didn't even have a model designator initially!) The -4E and -4G Weasel packages carrieed AIM-7E Sparrows and the all-aspect(*1) AIM-9J or -9K 'Winders.

I'll even go further and risk being flamed by all when I say the F-111 may be the all time best best attack bomber, the F-15E being a close second but only because of the all the gizmos

I'd like to know why you think the Aardvark is the best attack bomber - it's not that impressive in terms of range and payload really, and I've seen 1950s-era tech outperform one on climb-out. This ain't a flame - I'm genuinely interested.
Whilst not my favourite aircraft, the Strike Eagle is a much better bird than the F-111 (oops sorry) FB-111 any day. Especially since it was designed purely as a fighter[/b] but has been converted to a fighter-bomber... whizzo gizmos or not, it's a good, solid airframe with plenty of power and carrying capacity (especially with the FASTPacks bolted on!) *and* it has a better air-to-air load for self-defence than the -111 carried.

Hold on, who designed the Eagle?
Hmm, McDonnell Douglas who also did... now what was it... oh yeah, the Phantom.

"Phantoms Phorever! Jet Noise - the Sound of Freedom!"

(*1)For those of us who don't know, the early infra-red "heat-seeking" missiles like the Sidewinder (the French version was the Matra Magic, btw) and its Russian equivalent were only effective if fired from behind the target - from any other direction, there was insufficient heat for th eseeker to lock on to. Later generations of missiles, fitted with more sensitive IR seekers (and other assorted trickery ) are known as "all-aspect" missiles because they can be fired from any angle towards the target - the newest ones can even be fired "off-boresight", which means the missile doesn't even need to be pointed towards the target when it's fired... a scary thought if you happen to be on the receiving end!

[Moth]

"the newest ones can even be fired "off-boresight", which means the missile doesn't even need to be pointed towards the target when it's fired... a scary thought if you happen to be on the receiving end!"

A scary thought for your wingman too

[VMF115]

I'll even go further and risk being flamed by all when I say the F-111 may be the all time best best attack bomber, the F-15E being a close second but only because of the all the gizmos

The A-7 and the A-6 are also great Attack A/C



1. A-6 Best
2. A-7
3. F-11
4. F-15E

[Birddog]

I'll even go further and risk being flamed by all when I say the F-111 may be the all time best best attack bomber, the F-15E being a close second but only because of the all the gizmos

The A-7 and the A-6 are also great Attack A/C



1. A-6 Best
2. A-7
3. F-11
4. F-15E

Come on now, you have to put the A-10 in there above the A-7. After all, it beat the A-7 like a dog in a fly off for the attack role....

The A-10 is going through some changes to become the A-10C. It will be able to deliver precision weapons like the others. Finally getting a glass cockpit. Hope they find the funding to do the engine upgrade it deserves as well. That will give it even better performance.

Did you know that A-10 pilots have been shown ways to target airborne threats with their AGM-65 Mavericks. Although none have ever been used in this manner, it's a pretty neat tactic.

[tkjaer21]

I thought that there was a tan/desert camo scheme A-10 as well. If true, then that would make 3 different paint schemes. That is more than most other variants that 21C has. They seem to have mostly two schemes on all of their Planes and Helos. The P-38J has only two paint scemes as well (OD and Gun Metel Grey/silver), save the nose art and markings. Same as well as the P-47, F-4U, P-51D, etc, etc, etc......You, see my point. The difference being the individualistic marking that a Air Hero or Air Legend has on their bird with the nose art. The basic paint scheme is down to two or three colors at the most.