Whimsical little piece here.
”Everyone loves the Spitfire, of course, and so they should, because it was and remains one of the great classics of design, all smooth curves and elegance, like a movie star from the golden age of Hollywood. But if you were a real geek about these things, as I was, you had opinions on the relative merits of (from that era) the Typhoon and the rugged Hurricane and the glorious Mosquito, and the great deadly four-engined bombers like the B-17 Flying Fortress and the Lancaster. And from later generations, you’d have long ago picked favourites from the F-86 Sabre, the roaring, shark-mouthed warrior of Korea, or the graceful Hawker Hunter, an early British jet fighter.”
By: mike currill - 23rd June 2014 at 19:38
I’ll go along with you on that. Also must be one of the few cases of designing and aircraft around a weapon rather than designing an aircraft and shoe horning a weapon to fit.
By: Sabrejet - 23rd June 2014 at 06:00
I always find it strange that the A-10 is described as ‘ugly’; I’ve never thought it so. Handsome – yes, impressive – most definitely. But ugly? I just don’t see it.
It’s almost as if someone years ago decided to use the ‘u-word’ and it’s stuck, despite being inapproprate. And besides, there are many more deserving candidates in the aviation world, such as the Airtruk. Now that is something only a mother could love!
Just don’t get me started on cars (automobiles)!!
By: mike currill - 23rd June 2014 at 00:26
Has it been reprieved though? There is a fantastic campaign to keep the Warthog in service currently running in the US but I get the impression that the USAF will get their way in order to pay for the new gimmicky toy F-35.
The USAF brass never seem to learn lessons from past conflicts.
Not just them, the military procurement people always buy what they think the forces would like instead of asking said forces to specify what they actually need. That goes for any country but sadly the MOD seems to be worse than the rest for it. Having seen the military procurement system from the end user perspective for 20+ years I can assure you it’s true.
By: The Bump - 22nd June 2014 at 23:12
The Hog is flyable up to 2028, it’s been upgraded and rewinged.
Problem is, the USAF have to pay for the F35 somehow.
Funny they don’t consider cutting some of the vast F16 fleet to allow the CAS dedicated Hog and it’s specialised crews to remain in service. That way you will have enough F16’s to do the missions they do well and the Hog to do CAS which the F16 can’t do well. I’m talking danger close CAS with troops in contact.
By: Supermarine305 - 22nd June 2014 at 22:33
What I have heard, possibly from these forums, is that whenever the USAF moots getting rid of their A-10s, the the US Army shows an interest in buying them up. Seeing as the USAF can’t abide anyone muscling in on their patch they promplty prolong the life of the airframes. I have no idea how apocryphal that tale is though.
I am surprised that the A10 and the U2 were mooted for phasing out. Ithought they and the B52 had years left in them because there was nothing else that did what they did as well as they did.
And as a side note the RAF really should have gotten some A10s. As most air war is about blowing stuff up on the ground they would have been invaluable.
By: The Bump - 22nd June 2014 at 20:05
Has it been reprieved though? There is a fantastic campaign to keep the Warthog in service currently running in the US but I get the impression that the USAF will get their way in order to pay for the new gimmicky toy F-35.
The USAF brass never seem to learn lessons from past conflicts.
By: Seafuryfan - 22nd June 2014 at 19:57
Good article, articulating my thoughts. The A-10 reminds me of the Stuka: to me, fantastically ugly but beautiful at the same time. The Eighties I suppose was the heyday for the varied array of exotic jets
Sign In
June 22, 2014 at 7:17 pm