Jump to content

Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

ROEs under Clinton

The part about the Clinton administration being paranoid seems rather NPOV. Perhaps it should be removed? Berrik

Agreed with Berrik. Also it may be noted that for instance Swedish UN soldisrs on the ground benefited from having the A-10's available on call. The intimidating power of airborne support is quite good when the other side does not know what the ROE are for the planes. --J-Star 11:21, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

I agree that the current phrasing may be more POV than required, but I don't agree with complete removal; that restrictive ROE limited the plane's usefulness in that conflict may well be true. We should probably do what we normally should do when expressing a point of view: find someone who said that and quote them. —Morven 18:18, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Friendly Fire

The article mentions two friendly fire incidents. However, I remember another; two A-10s attacked a refugee camp (with UN guards) on the border of Albania, in front of TV cameras. However, I don't remember any detals. --Ahruman 2005-04-04

This is an appallingly biased article, and needs to be rewritten to deal with the appalling history of so-called friendly fire incidents involving this machine. Quite franklyit should not be allowed to fly until competent, responsible pilots are rostered to it. 213.78.145.81 15:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more apalling that soldiers dumb enough to call in air support on themselves are allowed into battle. Couldn't they even give simple directions? Of course, it's not the poor soldiers' fault their nations' don't pay enough to attract competent soldiers smart enough to jump out of the way when they see friendly aircraft coming. (Serious responses are given is section below.) - BillCJ 16:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion revert

An anon removed large chunks of this article for no reason that I could see. I reverted that deletion since the information that was removed was correct as far as I am aware and appropriate for inclusion in the article. Kelly Martin 03:33, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

___________________________-

Does anyone have copyright free pictures of the HUD area that show the two meters on either side of the screen? I believe that design is a problem unique to the A10 and is responsible for crashes including Captain Button's.

You can reach me at http://VisionAndPsychosis.Net. The related material is on the Captain Button page.

There's a drawing in the flight manual, for which scanned versions exist (I have one). Since it's a US Government publication it would be in the public domain. Paul Koning 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Gun picture

That doesn't do justice to the gun. There's nothing for a size comparison.

You look at the picture, and you think "cool, it's a 7-barrel gatling gun". It looks like any common 50-caliber gun... except that it's a huge beast of a gun. The face of that thing is about as big as a human head, but from the picture you might guess it to be only 3 inches (7cm) across. The picture might as well be the gun of an Apache; it looks no bigger without something to compare against.

The ammo is crazy big too. The bullets are about 4 inches long, or about 12 inches when you include the casing.

BTW, the length of the gun should be mentioned. According to my fading memory, the gun is 23 feet long. It runs the length of the plane.

24.110.60.225 05:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the gun and its ammo drum is bigger than a Volkswagon Beetle. I've got a picture of it next to a VW but I'm not sure about the copyright laws. David Ayton 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The picture I was refering to is actually shown on the Avenger's own page. GAU-8 Avenger David Ayton 12:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with 24, the 50 cal on the thunderbolt is huge, it is one uber big gun. there definitely needs to be a comparison, i suggest going to a museum and getting a picture taken with an object that we would find large, maybe a hand or something so we can see that the gun is one big gun. Zeetoboy 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Anybody that has a good size comparison photo, please do add it to the GAU-8 article, but puh-leez be careful with any claims you make in the text concerning relative size. I had to edit out some text that said that the gun filled half the aircraft fuselage and was a third the weight of the empty aircraft; those claims completely ignored the sizes and weights given in the GAU-8 article and this article as well. --Molon Labe 21:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Development history

So we have half a page on A-10 in video games and not a single word on its design and development history? What gives? There is plenty to tell about the engineering innovations and the political obstacles (e.g. the flyoff against A-7). The A-10 is a bit too new for my interests but perhaps someone would be up to the task? - Emt147 Burninate! 07:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed up a bit. Guapovia 15:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Television, films and video games

This section needs to be seriously trimmed. This is an article about an aircraft, not about computer games. The information like movie scene summaries and what attacks computer game units can do is totally irrelevant to the A-10. I will move the entire section out to a separate page unless there's a good reason for it to stay. Anyone? - Emt147 Burninate! 05:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I take the total lack of responses to be a consensus. The pop culture stuff was moved to A-10 Thunderbolt II in popular culture. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

need information source of "whispering death" nickname

"The A-10 has received several nicknames from its enemies. In the first Gulf war 1991, captured Iraqi tankcrews called it: "Whispering Death" (a nickname that has also been attributed to the WW2 Bristol Beaufighter). In the 2003 defeat of conventional Iraqi forces, captured Fedayeens referred to the A-10 as "the Devil's Cross" a name that was also used for it in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising (1986). Captured Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters referred to it as 'the silent gun'. The rounds hit their target before the target heard the report of the gunfire" Is there a valid source for what it appears to be politically incorrect propaganda?, i mean we know that in middle east they are somewhat backwards, but to be as backwards to call a plane "whispering death"?... its not like they would call a train iron horse either.

I highly suspect that this is propaganda or soldier stories. The name "whispering death" has been attributed to Corsair and Beaufighter as well and AFAIK there is no historical evidence whatsoever that it was actually used by the enemies. The same goes for "the Devil's cross," particularly seeing how Tom Clancy used the term 5 years prior and I suspect US servicemen read Clancy more than Taliban fighters. I will pull it until someone can come up with references. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
In the first Gulf war 1991, captured Iraqi tankcrews called it: "Whispering Death" (a nickname that has also been attributed to the WW2 Bristol Beaufighter). In the 2003 defeat of conventional Iraqi forces, captured Fedayeens referred to the A-10 as "the Devil's Cross" a name that was also used for it in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising (1986). (pulled text, - Emt147 Burninate! 00:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
I'd heard that 'Whispering Death' was the Nickname the NVA, and VC gave the F-111. I personally doubt that we captured many men in the Gulf Wars who were attacked, because many surrendered before that happened, and many who didn't were just plain dead. LWF 22:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's one ref that makes the "whispering death" claim: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/iraqifreedom/annasiriyah/default.aspx It doesn't sound insulting or backward to me by the way. I think you are reading too much into it.

One man with no credentials to speak of made an unreferenced and uncited claim, probably because he heard it from someone else. I will revert all "whispering deaths" with a vengeance unless someone can present an actual source for this. It's a myth that has been perpetuated for different aircraft since at least World War II because it sounds cool and makes for a good story. There is no truth that I know of behind it. Beaufighter and Corsair had large non-turbocharged radial engines with straight exhausts. F-111 runs on two massive afterburning turbofans. A-10 again runs on turbofans and has the aerodynamics of a school bus. Whispering my ass. The only airplane I know of from WW2-to-present time period that could be genuinely quiet is a P-38 Lightning at slow cruise because the large turbos very much muffle the engines and the aircraft is aerodynamically clean. And yet, no one ever claimed P-38 to be called that. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the A-10 is one of the quitest aircraft I had worked on in my time in the service... The only time you hear it is when it passed by you. The gun noise is the same way, its quite until after the bullets hit. I am not reverting anything, just pointing out that just because it is a jet aircraft doesn't mean it loud.```` Drew1369 07:58, 17 September 2006

>>Drew. I don't have your background/experience with as many planes, but I MUST say that you sure hear these bad-boys coming. I live close to Willow-Grove Naval Air Station in PA, home to the PANG's 111th Wing of A10s. And believe me....I hear them coming. It's to the point where I know if it's a single plane, a double, or a quad flight. Luckily, they don't do 'live fire' exercises in my area.

Possibly but I was also around f-15 and f-16's as well and the a-10 was music to my ears... like I said it is the quitest bird in the inventory minus the stealth fighter and bomber Drew1369 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I heartily agree with Drew. The A-10 is an exceptionally quiet aircraft. And I must add, to the individual who lives near Willow Grove (as opposed to working on them, like myself and Drew), consider this: You may hear the aircraft approaching, but by the time you hear it, you've been within range of it's weapons for quite some time. If it WERE to fire on you, you would more than likely not live long enough to hear the roar of the engines.


  • This quote needs, at the very least, a citation: "Stories of enemies using fearsome nicknames to describe their opponents weapons are sometimes propaganda. For instance, during World War 2, the Allies claimed that Axis soldiers described some of their planes as "whispering death" and "flying porcupine," when in fact it was an invention to obliquely suggest the fearsomeness of Allied weapons." The presence of this paragraph insinuates that such nicknames reported for the A-10 in recent years are just that, propaganda. Unless there is specific evidence suggesting that this may be the case in this instance, I think this paragraph is totally superfluous and should be deleted. Furthermore, I suggest that those purported nicknames be deleted unless and until a reliable source can be found and cited. --Askari Mark | Talk 03:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I chopped out this phrase: "and its ability to engage targets with supersonic ammunition from distances that preclude hearing the incoming rounds before they impact." This is needless because all fired ammunition is supersonic and hits its target before impact. All bullets, cannon shells etc. travel faster than the speed of sound (332 m/s). You'll never hear a bullet before it hits you, even if it's fired from 20,000 ft. While falling bombs can theoritically be heard, there is no indication they are any quieter coming from an A-10. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.187.154.49 (talk • contribs).
  • sighs* *shakes head*

Here's the deal. To the guy who says he hears the A-10s "all the time," you're hearing them operating around an airfield. During DESERT STORM, ENDURING FREEDOM, and IRAQI FREEDOM, the A-10s flew much, much higher than if they were landing or taking off. Additionally, there are usually other things going on (explosions, gunfire, etc.) that would preclude you from hearing the aircraft in its usual operating environment.

Additionally, the sounds you're hearing are of the A-10 landing and taking off, two states in which the engines are operating at higher than normal levels, which makes them louder. I've been in the field with A-10s flying and shooting around me, and you DON'T hear them.

Picture shift

I am going to shift around some of the pictures around to make this look cleaner, unless anyone has any objections in the next week or so. Cornell Rockey 02:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. the pictures removed were: Image:Thunderbolt.a10.fairford.arp.jpg & Image:Thunderbolt.a10.closeup.fairford.arp.jpg
Cornell Rockey 14:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, it could probably do with more pictures being removed (as long as they’re in the Commons gallery, which all except Image:Thunderbolt_II_flight.jpg and Image:2seatwarthog.jpg seem to be). -Ahruman 18:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Those two pictures I removed were the least attractive, and I guess I'm partial to more stunning photographs. Honestly, Commons has a ton of A-10 pictures, & I'm tempted to nominate those two for deletion to cut the burden on wiki servers. Cornell Rockey 14:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Guys, you are much too keen to remove perfectly good photos. Have you realised that the two ground pics are the only two pics of the aircraft on the ground and might well be the sort of pic a reader wants for a project or homework or whatever? Is it up to you to make that judgement? Just present a variety of pics (including ground ones!) and let the reader decide.
To say the reader can go to Commons to see them is not being thoughtful to the reader. We should not force them to change to another site to see pics if the article has plenty of room for them.
There's no reason to put them up for deletion because I've read many times that the pics and text of WP occupy less than the hard drive capacity of a modern home computer. The poor speeds we see on WP are not due to that - Adrian Pingstone 12:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You can directly link to Commons images. If an image is not found on the Wikipedia server, it will look on the Commons server. The format is the same ol' Image tag and it works seamlessly. The nice thing about Commons images is that they are safe from roving vandals like OrphanBot. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No metion of JAAT

There is no metion of JAAT, (joint air attack team), in which attack helicopters and A-10s work together. The attack helicopters shoot at the air defences, and the A-10s attack the ground vehicles. It is supposed to be more effective than the two different aircraft attacking independent of one another. It has also been called JAWS, (joint air weapon system). 204.80.61.10 19:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Will need a citation or source. I'm not personally familiar so I can't comment on it. --Mmx1 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of joint ops, but that commen military practice to use several different types of aircraft to attack an area or specific objects Drew1369 15:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Questionable facts.

I removed the following:

Because of this high position of the engines the thrust line would act above the longitudinal aerodynamic axis so to avoid nuisance trimming measures the engine tailpipes are angled at nine degrees upwards bring the combined thrust line down through the centre of gravity.

Just by visual inspection the claim is suspect, and it appears the engines are angled up, not down, to allow the gun to point downwards in level flight. I'd be happy to add it back in if the claim checks out

I said they were angled up. Angling the pipes upward brings the thrust line ahead of the engine down. David Ayton 03:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I may have been a bit unclear. By visual inspection, the tailpipes are higher than the front of the engines....i.e. angled down; bringing the thrust line up. e.g. [1] Do you mean the tailpipe as in the last portion only, and not the whole aircraft? --Mmx1 04:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the last portion only. The engines as a whole are raised up at the front for several reasons; inference with the wing, reduced risk of FOD, structural necessity. Therefore if the tailpipes where straight the aircraft would always experience a nose down pitching moment, not desirable especially if the pilot is incapacitated. The pipes at the back are angle 9 degrees upward to bring the thrustline ahead of the engine down to where the aircrafts aerodynamic centre is, or at least nearer. I can't remember the source of this information I've taken it from a project I did over a year ago. It may have been "Jane's". I have a picture that I have edited to try and explain this a little clearer. It's not 100% accurate but it explains it a bit better, but for some reason it's not uploading. Hope my explaination is enough. David Ayton 13:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks right and your explanation sounds reasonable. I'll put it back in or you can. It needs a clearer wording for the article that was previously present. --Mmx1 05:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, cheers, changed the wording a bit, hope it's more understandable. David Ayton 13:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I also removed a claim that the gun is the primary armament of the air craft. While a distinctive feature, I find that a very auspicious claim, particularly today with the guided and ranged ordnance available.

--Mmx1 04:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the A-10 was designed around the GAU-8 (with its armor-piercing DU ammunition). The plane could not carry any guided ordnance other than the self-guided Maverick until the Pave Penny pod was incorporated. The new upgrade to the A-10C standard makes it far more robust. --Askari Mark | Talk 15:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The pave penny pod is a guidence aid it doesn't designate or guide weapons to targets. The pave penny pod itself is only a laser receiver... not a laser designator which means it requires the laser to be shot from another source like a grunt on the ground or a laser pod like LANTIRN or LIGHTNING from another aircraft. AND the main purpose of the pave penny pod was actually designed to point the plane in the direction and angle of attack to fire the gun at maximum range Drew1369 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism?

"The A-10 Thunderbolt II was offered to the Pakistan Air Force as part of a package including the F-20. They opted to buy the multirole F-16 instead." This really doesn't say much about the A-10 itself. They could have gone with one plane over two for maintenance reasons, or perhaps they just didn't like the F-20. As such, it seems out of place in the middle of that section. Counterfit 18:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted that sentence altogether. As it stood it was irrelevant and added nothing to the article. It did not explain why they made this choice, as you point out, and it gives no 'criticism' of aircraft as such. Hydraton31 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


FYI: The Pakistanis' issue was with the F-20, not the A-10. To satisfy arms control advocates, the F-20 and F-16/J79 were developed to be offered to "third-world" countries instead of the most modern capabilities. You can imagine how many countries were enthralled with the idea of receiving only the "second best". Askari Mark | Talk 15:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II/Archive_1&oldid=797362683"