 | 
10-28-2005, 03:07 PM
|
#241 | | World Traveler
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Royal Deeside/St Andrews, Scotland, UK
Posts: 11,575
Country:  | Nice information Les and good pics, it took a fair bit of damage to the wings. What about the fusalage and engine though any hits there?
__________________  "Success is not Final, Failure is not Fatal, it is the Courage to Continue that Counts"
Sir Winston Churchill
"To him the People of the World Largely owe the Freedom and Liberties they Enjoy Today"
Enscription on Hugh Dowding's (AOC Fighter Command 1936-40) statue in London
Moderator WW2 Talk: A WW2 Discussion Forum
My Photo Collections on Flickr
| 
|  | |
10-28-2005, 03:18 PM
|
#242 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,235
Country:  | SLAM DUNK! 
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | |
| | |
10-28-2005, 04:23 PM
|
#243 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,312
| Still it only carries 9000 pounds of ordinance for 100 miles at 24 million dollars a copy. Not cost effective. Way too much money.
In the fleet defense role, its far more effective. No arguments about that.
Only thing those pictures proved is the wings were sure built solid!
And the Marine Corps doctrine is obsolete. Its still cold war thinking. The harriers need to be sold off or scrapped, Apache's and F18's brought in to replace them. Far more effective.
The A10 can also be refueled in the air, plus it has far longer loiter time/range so a tanker isnt wasted.
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
10-28-2005, 04:34 PM
|
#244 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country:  | Quote: |
Still it only carries 9000 pounds of ordinance for 100 miles at 24 million dollars a copy. Not cost effective. Way too much money.
| As lanc made very clear, that is the figure for a vertical take-off, which is seldom used in combat...
Apaches in place of Harriers? I think not. Alongside maybe but not in place of, theyre too unreliable.
__________________  with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
10-28-2005, 04:57 PM
|
#245 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,828
| Would someone like to tell Syscom about the problems that the Apaches are having in Afganistan due to the height and the heat? | |
| | |
10-28-2005, 05:04 PM
|
#246 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,312
| Glider, what about it? Are you going to tell me the AAA in Afghanistan is so weak, the harrier is safe?
And if the Harrier isnt going to be used in a VTOL mode, then what is its rationale?
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
10-28-2005, 05:12 PM
|
#247 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,235
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Glider Would someone like to tell Syscom about the problems that the Apaches are having in Afganistan due to the height and the heat? | Right now I believe the Apache has the highest maintenance man hour to flight hour ratio out of all the aircraft within the US Armed services.
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
10-28-2005, 05:14 PM
|
#248 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | One was recently shot down after taking a hit from ONE .bullet from an AK. Ok it was a lucky shot, but still.
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
10-28-2005, 05:20 PM
|
#249 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,312
| helicopters are maintenece intensive. But Helo's are always easier in the sum total of cost to procure, fly, maintain and pilot training than compared to a Harrier.
Its another one of those comparing apples with oranges (am tempted to say lemons for the harrier, heheheheheh).
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
10-28-2005, 05:29 PM
|
#250 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,235
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by syscom3 helicopters are maintenece intensive. But Helo's are always easier in the sum total of cost to procure, fly, maintain and pilot training than compared to a Harrier. | I maintained helicopters - As far as maintenance, I'll take 5 harriers over one Apache anyday!!!!
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
10-28-2005, 05:35 PM
|
#251 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Edmonton,Alberta
Posts: 2,260
Country:  | Quote: |
Originally Posted by syscom3 if the A10 gets hit by something, it probably will keep on flying. If the harrier is hit by something, so long harrier.
We can call it an attack plane, cause anything that can carry bombs is an attack plane. But is it a good attack plane? Nope. Id even put the Skyhawk above it.
Cant handle damage, cant carry much ordinance, and cant carry it very far for that matter. | Your telling us that the A-10 is basically imperveous to any AA weaponary?What if an SA-2 Surface to Air Missile flies up right behind an A-10 and hits it Directly on the Engines, youre saying chances are it will keep flying, is that along the lines of what your saying?
Because if it is, that means the A-10 is hands down the most Durable aircraf around, and for a jet that is hard to beleive.
And another thing Syscom Your statistics on the Harrier is not exact true because I just Learned Something, the Harrier was actually able to take off on the catapualt with a payload of 12000 pounds (not 9000) including external fuel, Oh an Sys The Harriers Range was more like 230 miles, but thats only after a vertical takeoff with a payload of 3tons. The Harrier doesnt use up as much fuel when it launches from the catapault.
__________________
Hello me...meet the real me.
And my misfits way of life.
A dark black past is my
Most valued possession.
Hindsight is always 20-20,
But looking back its still a bit fuzzy.
Speak of mutually assured destruction?
Nice story...tell it to readers digest!!! | |
| | |
10-28-2005, 05:41 PM
|
#252 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | The A-10 is bloody tough - It was designed to be able to fly lacking an engine, thats why theyre placed where they are.
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
10-28-2005, 05:44 PM
|
#253 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,235
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by cheddar cheese The A-10 is bloody tough - It was designed to be able to fly lacking an engine, thats why theyre placed where they are. | Agree with that!
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
10-28-2005, 06:16 PM
|
#254 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,828
| No Syscom it was the assertion that the Marines would be better off replacing Harriers with Apaches.
The maintanence load for an Apache is very significant and in Afganistan they have trouble operating because like a lot of helicopters they cannot operate well or sometimes at all, at altitude.
You are the one that made that statement not I. | |
| | |
10-28-2005, 06:33 PM
|
#255 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,312
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by 102first_hussars Your telling us that the A-10 is basically imperveous to any AA weaponary?What if an SA-2 Surface to Air Missile flies up right behind an A-10 and hits it Directly on the Engines, youre saying chances are it will keep flying, is that along the lines of what your saying? | Come on, dont go to extremes. I suppose an atomic weapon would bring down anything too. Quote: |
Originally Posted by 102first_hussars And another thing Syscom Your statistics on the Harrier is not exact true because I just Learned Something, the Harrier was actually able to take off on the catapualt with a payload of 12000 pounds (not 9000) including external fuel, Oh an Sys The Harriers Range was more like 230 miles, but thats only after a vertical takeoff with a payload of 3tons. The Harrier doesnt use up as much fuel when it launches from the catapault. | Well, if its flying from carriers with catapults, then we dont need it. Might as well use F18's. My figures are correct and cross referenced. 9000 pounds for 120 miles on a non cat launch.
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:24 AM. | |
