text:
Friday, March 03, 2006
Hunter's Compass
This quilt belongs to Sharon, and it is the first time I have ever seen the hunter's star pattern pieced with compass points included! I think it adds so much to the pattern. The pics were taken without flash to get the quilting to show...so the colors are not so true...
I wasn't sure how to quilt it, but after I got started yesterday, and made it to about 1/2 way...I manged to click my way through the blog ring and also saw that Darcie had just finished quilting a hunter's star quilt too!
One thing I have to ask is why quilters like to insert that little flange flappy border thing? Do they not know it is a nightmare for machine quilters? I could only quilt so far into the corners because I couldn't pin it back out of the way far enough. You have to be careful not to catch it with the needle, or with the whole foot if you are moving the machine across the quilt top...the foot can catch on it, you can stitch yourself into a black hole if you catch it. It's just a pain in the (*&@#*(&! Any other longarmers out there want to comment on the border flanges??? :c/
I am still grounded here at home with son on school suspension that will last until tuesday. We have picked up job applications and hopefully we will be delivering those back out today...the kid needs a job. He has way too much time on his hands and since he can't use it constructively and wisely, he is going to get a JOB. At least this way while he is working I will know where he is and what he is doing, kind of like Teenage Daycare, you know?
I will get through this, I will get through this, I will get through this! AUUGHH!
10 comments:
The quilting looks great and the compass points really add to this quilt.
I just put a flange on a jeans quilt I'm making for my son and I agree it's a pain in the butt to avoid when I'm quilting. But, this quilt needed a spark of color and with the jeans I didn't want a flimsy fabric border between the jeans fabric so it was worth the hassle to me.
As far as the job goes - I agree with you there too - it's much easier to keep track of them when they're working and busy is good at that age.Morning Bonnie...great job on coping with both sons and flanges!
Neither is an easy piece....let yourself drift back to that glorious time in the Smokey Mountains for the holidays...smell that clean air, and take in the beauty..breath deep..ok, now do that at least twice a day....Hugs, Finn *VBS****Do they not know it is a nightmare for machine quilters?***
LOL You know, don't you Bonnie, most of *them* think our machines run on voice-command?!
I can't remember, it's been so long since I've had clients that have done those on larger quilts. With the smaller quilts, I have just ditched between the border and on top of the zinger. That seems to have kept them from becoming erect. I do know that one cannot quilt too closely to the zinger, otherwise they *boing.*
The quilt (and especially the machine quilting...the quilting makes the quilt, you know!) is so striking. Hope your client shows it off at some shows!
Sorry to hear about the troubles with your son. Finn had some great advice. And remember, "This too shall pass." Keep your faith, Bonnie!
I know it's a hassle, but I've had to enable the word verification thing so that EVERYONE is eligible for blog giveaways. It's the only way to keep the spammers, scammers and other baddies at bay!
If you are commenting as anonymous, kindly leave your name and email address so I can get back to you.
Those without visible email addresses can not be replied to.


text:
Seminars & Webcasts
On-Demand Learning
The unprecedented scope and continuation of the credit crisis, recession, and weak recovery requires business people and professionals to react quickly and deal with distressed companies and defaults. This includes problems in the financial services, automotive, airlines, manufacturing, retail, sports and entertainment and real estate industries. The program will cover current issues relating to structuring, drafting and enforcing the ...
Nathan A. Schachtman ~ Nathan A. Schachtman, Esq., PC
Gary A. Adler ~ Bingham McCutchen LLP
Sabine Chalmers ~ Chief Legal & Corporate Affairs Officer, Anheuser-Busch InBev
All Contents Copyright © 1996-2013 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Calendars.com has been selling calendars online since 1999. In this exclusive interview with CMO.com, Paul Hoffman provides an interesting CEO perspective about marketing, including thoughts on CMO tenure and the CEO's role in marketing. | Read More »
Once again, SoDA has made available to CMO.com its digital trends publication, featuring insight from different corners of the industry. Article topics include characteristics of today's leading digital marketers, a new type of network taking over social, and changes ahead for the dynamics of advertising. | Read More »
The industry has been changing so rapidly that it can sometimes be hard to know what to expect in the next week, let alone the next year. But, then again, marketers have to at least try to plan for the future. | Read More »
The best and brightest are not flocking to the Goliath companies, but to those companies that are sticking a defiant fist in the air and using agility, the Internet, and their base to mount a marketing attack against the dominant market shareholders. | Read More »


text:
- Apartment
La Latina DoréeArea: CentroCapacity: 6 Guests
2 Bedrooms
2 Double beds
2 Bathrooms
1 Double sofa beds
0 comments0Amenities
- DVD Player
- Radio CD player
- Air-conditioning
- Heating
- Washing machine
- Fridge with small freezer
- Glass-ceramic stove
- Oven
- Microwave
- Spanish coffeemaker
- Kettle
- Juicer
- Toaster
- Elevator
- Balcony
- Salón
- Bath / Shower Whirlpool
- Shower
- Hair dryer
- Iron / Ironing board
The apartment is ideally situated in the renowned La Latina neighbourhood famous for its typical tapas bars, restaurants, and warm atmosphere. La Latina Dorée is located at a walking distance of Plaza Mayor, the Palacio Real and the impressive Rastro market. It is a fantastic apartment to visit Madrid, and enjoy its atmosphere and quality of life.
La Latina apartment is set on a second floor, with elevator. It will be easy to feel at home when the sun shines into this luxuriously decorated wide living-dining room that opens to a balcony, and offers a double sofa bed. This room combines design with eclectic elements and quality finishes, such as the wooden beams, the parquet floor and the brick wall. The separated kitchen with modern colours is fully equipped. The two cosy bedrooms each include a double bed, a cupboards and a desk. Two practical and luxurious bathrooms complete the offer, of which one with whirlpool.
Aspasios offers another apartment in the same building.
Rates and other La Latina Dorée apartment rental conditions
Minimum stay: 3 nightsRates (including taxes), from:Price per night:140 €Price per week:882 €Price 1 month:2.700 €Price 2-6 months2.500 €/monthOver 6 months:2.500 €/monthSurplus from 3 guests: 0 €/dayOnly for stays shorter than 30 days:Other chargesCheck-in / Check-out:15 € / 10 €Check-in on Sundays:30 €Check-in after 20h:30 €
Deposit: 250 €
Other conditionsThe price includes agency fees, bed linen and towels, weekly cleaning service, bed linen laundry in the apartment, internet, water and energy costs (up to 150 €/month for stays over 30 nights). The remaining balance of your reservation must be paid upon arrival, in cash or with credit card. The security deposit must be made using a credit card. -
- Area
Surrounding of the apartment La Latina Dorée in the Centro neighbourhood
- Comments(0)
La Latina Dorée
Ratings over 0 comments0Situation0Atmosphere0Comfort0Cleaning0
* Adults & children > 2 years old


text:
You're watching...
5 ways we waste money over the holidays
Personal finance expert Vera Gibbons gives her tips
Nov 27, 2012
Vera Gibbons
You're watching...
Personal finance expert Vera Gibbons gives her tips
Nov 27, 2012
Vera Gibbons
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advanceThis transcript is automatically generated
Well I had Yani started your Christmas shopping he's dead.
-- there's a new study that says he'll spend an average of 750.
Dollars this year.
But don't fall into the trap of spending more than that.
Here with top five ways that we waste money over the holidays as our personal finance accident theory -- airline morning -- couldn't first staff what is it have a budget.
Have a budget have a list and could win on the list down.
So many people are shopping with analysts about a budget they're not sending any kind of spending limits and we are spending.
Fourteen million Americans are carrying -- from last year.
And last year's last cent from last year's Christmas an -- on -- even happening you know it's a record Cyber Monday of one point five billion.
59 million -- -- -- -- a Thanksgiving -- I think people are.
Spending a little tonight -- 730 dollars sounds like a lot and it does add up quickly OK so I you say don't pay too much for shipping and how do you avoid that because somebody -- -- Make you pay for your on shipping -- unless you spend a certain amount but if you plan on the ship shopping online is what people are this year.
One way to dodge says Heather is to order online and then have it shipped to date retailers bricks brick and mortar location if that's an option.
Throughout the 25 dollars who cares -- Another thing -- free shipping has you find those on line.
So I would look for those and then there's free shipping day December 17 and about a thousand merchants participating in this where.
Think guaranteed delivery by Christmas -- 124 of no shipping -- -- right -- -- that December 7 summer seventy -- and the free shipping so it's reshaping our front line give a good piece of advice for comparison shopping.
People are getting a little bit better at this that yes you want to do that before you head out to make sure you're separating the big deals from the ho hum.
There are sites their web sites -- apps fat wallet Google shopper consumer world dot org has a good price -- as well.
And you can even check the histories of the prices on price -- dot -- to see how much was six months ago -- today you wanna make sure you're getting a good deal because -- so many deals out there you can separate -- that -- the good from that.
Not -- and here's one that always frustrates me when they try to get you to sign up for credit card and your credit score can take a real hit it -- and start -- you see a lot of these -- cards being heavily touted this time -- -- sign -- save 15%.
If you sign up for too many yeah I your credit score could definitely take a hit here and the industry -- saying -- governor of 20% another big thing their papers just Amir's extended warranty.
We spent over a billion dollars on them over the holiday more slippery -- -- year or whatever you buy it now it's a money -- for the retailers but consumer reports finds that generally speaking you do not need the extended warranties have.
-- -- Avoid that aboard that extend working Vera Gibbons thank you thank -- again and it is now.
Filter by section


text:
Main Page
Contents |
To get the iOS booting in QEMU on the different hardware platforms (iphone,ipod,ipad etc)
Git (Source)
Current development is active on github QEMU-s5l89xx-port
Help us
Best method for contacting is to join irc.freenode.net #iemu. You can also email me at cmw \A\T cmw.me.
Current Status
Track the current status of development
Follow me on twitter
You can follow me on twitter at Follow me


text:
Orlando Lake Buena Vista Hotels + Nonsmoking + IHOTELIER
Know When You're Going?
More Search OptionsHotel Amenities
- Nonsmoking
Customers tell us...
- Clean Rooms (3)
- Friendly Staff (3)
- Good For The Family (3)
- Good Value (3)
- Great Location (3)
- Better Than Expected (2)
- Comfortable Beds (2)
- Great Hotel (2)
- Great Breakfast (1)
- I Will Go Back (1)
- Orlando Vacation (1)
- Stayed With My Husband (1)
- Stayed With My Wife (1)
Hotels by Type
- Cheap Hotels (4)
- Resort Hotels (4)
- Vacation Rental Hotels (3)
- Luxury Hotels (2)
- Suite Hotels (2)
- Boutique Hotels (1)
"We stayed at Floridays Resort Orlando in March of 2011 for a family vacation. We cho... Read more"
"Very clean and well appointed 2 bedroom unit. Granite countertops in the kitchen and ... Read more"
"The rooms were very nice but beginning to show some wear. The beds were not comfortab... Read more"
"Resort was awesome!! No complaints. My 5 year old daughter loved it, especially the p... Read more"
"Hotel was great. Suite room accomodated five nicely. Kids loved the pool. Staff was f... Read more"
"we arrived at 1245pm and had a smooth check-in. Our room was ready at that time unlik... Read more"
"Stayed for 4 nights and was very happy with everything. The room was very comfortabl... Read more"
"We stayed at the BVS the last week of May 2010. The location cant be beat it is very... Read more"
"I stayed here for 4 nights last month. First off I was very disapointed with everythi... Read more"
"Overall the hotel was very nice. Back patio was small but screened in so no bugs coul... Read more"
"Easy location to get to Disney theme parks. Refrigerator leaked water constantly. J... Read more"
"The location is great... the "resort" is a little run down and old but it w... Read more"
Note: The nightly rates shown above do not yet include Tax Recovery Charge & Service Fees or (if applicable) Extra Person Fees, Child Fees, Additional Mandatory Hotel Charges or optional incidentals, such as parking, room service or movies.


text:
More scare tactics, manufactured diseases, caused and perpetrated by, Big Pharma.
Read THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DRUG COMPANIES by Dr. Marcia Angell, MD, recently retired Editor & Chief of The New England Journal Of Medicine; linked in the technical recommended reading section of this web site.
Drugs KILL, Plants CURE.
~ Uncle Russ
Post Script: GOT ZIJA?!®
It is no longer a secret that drug-resistant bacteria are rapidly emerging and spreading all around the world as a result of the continued overuse and abuse of antibiotic drugs in both conventional medicine and industrial agriculture.


text:
© Office du tourisme de Québec
Get free advice to plan your stay in the region
Geographical Area: Portneuf zone Category: Regional Delights
At the Langlois family farm established 11 generations ago in 1669, you will find items available nowhere else. We proudly handpick and sell top quality vegetables and fruits. Always fresh and bursting with flavor, they reflect the latest culinary trends. We also offer a wide variety of prepared foods made from our harvest according to traditional family recipes: ketchups, marinades, jams, pâtés, pies, and more.
Free outdoor car parking on site, Free outdoor bus parking on site, Free outdoor bike parking on site
Schedule and rates are subject to change frequently and without notice. You should always visit their website or contact them before going.
June to September: vegetable stand and shop, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. October to December: vegetable stand and shop, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Winter: Tuesday to Saturday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. (hours may vary).
Closed: Closed Sundays and Mondays from January to March.
Rate your experience
[ 1=poor, 5=outstanding ]
0 of 5 stars
This email address is invalid.


text:
Wildfox Couture
Marianne Mid-Rise Skinny
Inspired by Native American art and vintage rocker tees, Los Angeles-based designers Emily Faulstich and Kimberly Gordon offer up a collection of women's knitwear that jumps generations. Think cool t-shirts with old-school graphics and loads of color.
- Wash - Euphoria
- 30.5" Inseam
- 8.5" Rise
- 98% cotton 2% spandex
- 13" in the knee narrows to 10" at the leg opening
- Intentional fading throughout
- Distressed areas throughout
- Styled with Schutz Alys Pump in Pepper.
- Modeled in size 27. See fit guide for model's dimensions.
- Revolve Style No. WILD-WJ15
- Manufacturer Style No. WOT120EUP


text:
Help the Philippines Typhoon Relief effort
Note: Select a region before finding a country.
Snowfall from Sunday evening into Monday morning will total 12-20 cm Details >
Dec 6, 2013; 5:00 PM ET A low pressure system over northeastern Europe will produce a strong northerly flow of cold air across Sweden, Finland and Norway.
11:15am EET


text:
System Components
Find a Dealer
0 dealers found near you
A smart investment in comfort and efficiency, with up to a 15.50 SEER rating. The XB14 helps your home overcome everything from the most stifling days to bone-chilling nights, all with reliable, energy-conscious operation.
Look for Savings & Offers in your area.
The XB14's SEER rating of up to 15.50 and HSPF of up to 8.50 make it an energy-efficient choice for home comfort.
Increased energy efficiency may substantially lower your home cooling costs.
Materials for all components are tested again and again for long-lasting performance and reliability.
Add Trane CleanEffects™ to your system for advanced air filtration that removes more dust, pollen and other irritants from conditioned air for a cleaner, healthier, more comfortable home.
Get the details & specifications
more cost & comparison information
Register within 60 days of installation to activate warranty. Residential use only. Some exclusions may apply. Call 1-800-554-6413 or Register Online.
Every Trane Heat Pump is packed with high-quality components. Each helps ensure that time after time, your unit will provide total comfort your family can rely on. The XB14 includes:
Registered Limited Warranty terms are available if the product is registered within 60 days of installation. Registration can be completed either online at Trane.com or by calling 800-554-6413. Trane's Registered Limited Warranty terms include:
Select up to 4 units to compare features.
Here are your results:
Go back and compare again


text:
I see that if I enter "Android-[any letter]" into the Tags edit box below, there are untold number of Android subtags (there's got to be about 100). Is there a list (page) somewhere that lists all of these in one place?
migrated from stackoverflow.com Dec 11 '11 at 5:46
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
Search for 'android' and you'll get the list. | |||
There are exactly 50 tags:
| |||||
According to the query I just wrote on Data Explorer, there are 161 tags starting with | |||||||||


text:
Posted by Steven Windmueller
Jews no longer count in defining election outcomes. The Jewish community's numbers are simply too small and getting smaller. Several decades ago, Jews comprised some 4% of the electorate; today this constituency accounts for less than 2%. The Jewish vote continues to decline in proportion to the overall national population and in relationship to other ethnic communities, portending a further weakening of this community's political prowess at the polls.
This political reality may create a discussion around whether there still exists a "Jewish vote" or what strategic roles this constituency can play in future elections.
Despite all of the hype associated with the "Jewish vote," Barack Obama held this constituency securing around 69% of the vote. While this percentage is below his 2008 total of 78%, Jews clearly remain embedded inside the Democratic Party. Since 1916 Democratic presidential candidates have on average secured 71% of the Jewish electorate. Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis received less support from Jews than this President. This respondent had suggested prior to the election a 9-12% adjustment in the 2012 Jewish vote.
The number of Jewish elected officials at the federal level is dropping and the 2012 election points dramatically to these losses. Therefore, the overall political clout for the community will be undergoing a fundamental change. With fewer members in the House and Senate, this marker of political influence will need to be recast.
No doubt, there will be a new round of recrimination and anger from within the Jewish community following these election results. With Jews deeply divided over the President and his conduct of foreign affairs, the discourse around Israel and American priorities will remain intense over the months ahead. As in the past, American Jews did not vote the "Israel card" in this election but rather joined with other Americans in focusing their political energy around the economy, health care, and a host of other domestic-based considerations.
11.8.12 at 11:03 am | Jews no longer count in defining election. . .
10.23.12 at 12:14 pm | During last evening's debate some 33 minutes. . .
9.17.12 at 8:07 pm | What will happen prior to November 6th?
8.28.12 at 12:12 am | Over the course of history, Jews would operate in. . .
8.10.12 at 10:43 am | Every voter has his/her own motivations and. . .
7.30.12 at 9:39 am | With approximately 100 days to the November. . .
5.29.12 at 10:12 am | Religious and social values of our Presidents. . . (4)
6.27.12 at 10:26 pm | While the traditional "white majority" seems to. . . (3)
8.10.12 at 10:43 am | Every voter has his/her own motivations and. . . (3)
October 23, 2012 | 12:14 pm
Posted by Steven Windmueller
During last evening's debate some 33 minutes was devoted to the Middle East and more directly, United States-Israel relations. No other indicator more directly points to the significance placed by both campaigns on the "Jewish vote" in this coming election.
Employing an array of different frameworks, Bob Schieffer of CBS introduced a series of questions that gave both the President and Governor Romney ample opportunity to define their "pro-Israel" credentials and relationships. And indeed, each candidate took the occasion to reassert their respective record in connection with issues that were introduced around Iran, Syria, and the broader tensions within the Middle East to define their special connections to the State of Israel. Providing their personal connections and policy positions, the two Presidential candidates invoked their support for and commitment to the future of the US-Israel relationship.
Of particular importance, it permitted a sitting President and his rival for the Oval Office to expand America's engagement with Israel and to create an umbrella of security for Israel when Mr. Schieffer asked if as a nation we would be prepared to defend the Jewish state in the event of it being attacked. This moment within the debate ought to be seen as historic in the context of the American-Israel connection. The question and the two responses represent a fundamental transition of United States' policy, where the leaders of both political parties articulate such a defined commitment.
This segment of the 90 minute debate was designed specifically to play to the Florida Jewish community, a state key to both campaigns. In a state where only a few percentage points separate the two campaigns, the shift of even a few key voting groups can make a significant difference.
This moment on national television confirmed several political realities, namely the importance of Israel as a strategic and valued ally to the United States. By the attention extended to this relationship, it would symbolize and affirm the significant standing within American society provided to Jews by both political camps.
September 17, 2012 | 8:07 pm
Posted by Steven Windmueller
What will happen prior to November 6th?
August 28, 2012 | 12:12 am
Posted by Steven Windmueller
Over the course of history, Jews would operate in the public sector adopting various political behaviors.
In contemporary times, several of these competing ideas remain in play, influenced by different elements of Jewish experience and practice. Five of them are being introduced here:
Nationalist Orientation vs. Accommodational Behavior: Historically, Jews operated in one of two political spheres, either understanding their political destiny as tied to a national (i.e. Jewish) perspective, seeking to create a Jewish state or to work toward sustaining it, or striving for some type of acceptance by making political compromises whereby they would accommodate to the social environment around them. In other terms, we might describe these characteristics, as "going it alone" vs. "fitting in".
Judaism as Americanism: Over the course of the 20th century a body of political thought would emerge that would define Jews as full partners in the American story and where "Judeo-Christian values" would frame the social fabric of this nation. This "melting pot" concept would allow Jews full access into the mainstream of the society.
"Be a Jew on the Street and an American at Home": Historian David Biale has suggested that unlike the mindset of the Enlightenment where Jews publicly shed their Jewishness, the American context represents precisely the reverse idea, where one can reject the melting pot viewpoint in favor of a Jewish political assertion.
Never Forget: "The commanding voice of Auschwitz" would not allow a Jew to forget his/her historical and political distinctiveness. One may understand this concept best when viewing it in the following terms: "failure to support Israel represents a denial of the lessons of the Holocaust."
Rule of Marginal Effect: Jewish influence is centered only in those selected areas, such as Israel-United States relations, where the interests of the community go generally unchallenged by other interest groups or are offset by broader policy priorities of the United States.
These ideas are part of a body of literature on Jewish political behavior and reflect the historical engagement of Jews with power.
August 10, 2012 | 10:43 am
Posted by Steven Windmueller
Every voter has his/her own motivations and passions related to the nature of their vote. Yet for 2012 two distinct viewpoints frame the collective "Jewish vote." We can actually study these two political contrasts by exploring the stories of two individuals. For our purposes, we have "Naomi" and "Sam." So, let's meet them:
Naomi lives in Southern California. She is a 30 something single professional. An Ohio native, Naomi came to Los Angeles following graduate school.
A businessman in his 60's, Sam is a resident of Florida, who is married with three grown kids. Sam has lived in South Florida all of his life. Following college, he opened his own construction and real estate firm.
Naomi's family has long ties to the Democratic Party and to various social causes in Cleveland.
Sam is a first generation American. His parents were nominally "Democrats."
Religious Affiliation:
Naomi grew up in the Conservative Movement but now is involved with an alternative Minyan.
A member of a Reform congregation, Sam in more recent years has become active in and supportive of Aish HaTorah.
Political Affiliation:
Describing herself as a "Liberal Democrat," Naomi intends to support President Obama and volunteer for his campaign in one of the "swing" states this fall.
Switched party affiliations a number of years ago, Sam now considers himself a "Moderate Republican." He has contributed this year to the Mitt Romney campaign and to the the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Naomi is a J Street Supporter but has a broad set of political interests that align with her general liberal values.
Sam is a supporter of AIPAC and other Pro-Israel organizations, including Stand With Us. Sam sees Israel's security and well-being as a central political interest.
Liberal Causes:
Naomi is active in an array of liberal initiatives that involve the environment, health care, international human rights, etc… She tries to support organizations and causes that reflect her priorities.
Pro-Israel Priorities: Sam supports a number of Jewish and civic groups that are focused on Israel and US security interests.
Naomi supported Hilary Clinton for the Democratic nomination but supported Barack Obama in the fall campaign.
Sam had been a long time supporter of John McCain, so he was active on behalf of the Senator from the outset.
For the most part, Naomi's friends share her politics.
Sam's friends are divided politically. A group of his friends share his political positions, yet a number are long standing Democrats; others are still uncertain how they will vote this fall.
For both Naomi and Sam this election cycle has been particularly contentious as they each have encountered political conversations that they describe as difficult. Friendships in some cases have been strained, and conversations around Israel have been problematic. Sam has noted that dinner conversations frequently now avoid the "I" (Israel) word, while Naomi reported that she has witnessed scenes where name calling replaced civil discourse.
The political divide that we read about in American politics in general is also being played out within the American Jewish community, as clearly two distinctive political perspectives have emerged over Israel in particular and Jewish interests in more general terms. Probably many of us can identify with the above descriptions.
July 30, 2012 | 9:39 am
Posted by Steven Windmueller
With approximately 100 days to the November elections, the intensity of the campaign has accelerated. One can identify four core elements: focusing on fund raising, escalating the political rhetoric, studying key voter trends, and creating new organizing initiatives.
If the recent polls are on target with reference to the Jewish vote, the roughly 14% of Jewish voters who are considered as "undecideds" will be the recipients of most of the attention by both political camps
(http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-elections-2012/countdown-to-2012-elections-new-jewish-vote-poll-shows-slight-gain-for-romney-1.433764). How and where will that energy play out?
Fund Raising: This past week, the Romney campaign reportedly raised some $1.5 million among Jewish supporters in Los Angeles, while the Republican Jewish Coalition launched its own fundraising effort to target Jewish voters in key swing states, including Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. In what they have labeled, "My Buyer's Remorse" the RLC is seeking to sway disenchanted Obama voters into the Republican camp for 2012.
Political Rhetoric and Key Issues: The conversation around "who would be best in support of Israel" is playing out with the forthcoming visit to Jerusalem scheduled by Governor Romney. The debate over Israel security issues has created points of controversy and tension between Jewish leaders supporting both candidates, especially in Florida.
Key Voter Trends: A series of new voter polls has also created a conversation over voter "enthusiasm." In a recent Gallup Poll, one finds thirty-nine percent of Democrats indicating that are more enthusiastic about voting than usual, but this number is down from 2004 (68%) and 2008 (61%). In turn, this study found that Republicans (51%) are more enthusiastic than in 2008 (35%) but register the same as they did in 2004 (51%). The key for both campaigns moving forward will be stroking their base, mobilizing their supporters, and targeting the remaining uncommitted.
Organizing Initiatives: Targeting key elites will be one strategy. The mobilization of prominent Jewish Democrats and Republicans and Hollywood personalities will allow each side to demonstrate the scope of endorsements that they have secured in an effort to sway non-committed voters and to re-enforce support from their base. Rabbis and other prominent Jewish communal leaders will be summoned to meetings with both candidates to hear "off-the-record" briefings and to garner their endorsement and/or support.
Mobilizing important constituencies will be the second focus. Each side will now launch a series of ads and outreach initiatives to "sell their message." Be prepared to be bombarded as your mail boxes will be filled with campaign literature and appeals. Despite all of these specific steps, once past the conventions, the candidates will be concentrating on two core missions: secure financial resources and carry their message to the "toss-up" states. As Jews are seen as an important donor base for both parties and are present in several key swing states, including Florida and Ohio, they will be central players to the unfolding events that will follow in September and October.
July 15, 2012 | 8:13 pm
Posted by Steven Windmueller
Jews have always encountered anti-Semitism. In this society, however, unlike many in which Jews have resided, one finds limited expressions of religious hatred or political attacks, yet such messages are still present. In surveying websites and political commentaries in preparation for this fall's election, one can identify a number of traditional anti-Jewish themes interlocked with political rhetoric. Among the most common messages:
"Jewish influence and control" in its various forms and iterations over politics, finances, and media"
"Israel as having undo influence over America"
"Jews as possessing too much power"
During election cycles these types of conspiratorial ideas and distorted images are seemingly accentuated. Jews are often depicted by an array of labels and negative images, including "communists", "disloyal", and "parasites". Some of these sites are generated by traditional anti-Semites and others sponsored by various extreme political elements. In addition, political cartoons and editorials within the Arab press play on these same canards on an on-going basis.
Actions taken by candidates or their political parties are interpreted through this lens of conspiracy. Governor Romney's trip to Israel this summer and the President's participation this past May with Jewish Heritage Month are seen as manifestations of "Jewish control".
Some of these commentators of hate note that it will make little difference who will win in November, suggesting that Jewish influence is so imbedded within both parties and their campaigns that Jews will continue to dominate the political landscape.
Upon reflection, Jews account for less than 1.7% of this nation's population, yet in the mindset of the anti-Semite Jewish influence must appear to be overwhelming.
July 1, 2012 | 1:34 pm
Posted by Steven Windmueller
"The Jewish Vote" Uncovering its Origin and Role
in Shaping American Bipartisan Politics in Support of Israel
Steven Windmueller, Ph.D.
Sonja Schoepf Wentling and Rafael Medoff in their recent book, Herbert Hoover and the Jews: the Origins of the "Jewish Vote" and Bipartisan Support for Israel, we gain some fascinating insights into the political history of Herbert Hoover and more significantly into the origins of the "Jewish vote".
In a chapter entitled "Hoover and the Origins of the Jewish Vote," Wentling and Medoff initially revisit Roosevelt's reluctance to act on behalf of European Jewry covering the period of 1942-1945. In turn, they provide a fascinating account of Republican efforts in 1944 to embrace the case for a Jewish State in Palestine and in turn, seek to pull the Jewish vote away from the Democratic Party. "…for the first time in history, the Republicans and Democrats adopted planks pledging support for Jewish statehood and actively competed for Jewish electoral support on that basis."
In this political analysis the reader is introduced to the humanitarian orientation of President Hoover and to the political environment covering a twenty-five year period, 1919-1944, in which this former President would play a high profile role. "Despite Hoover's record on Jewish concerns, most mainstream Jewish leaders refrained from building ties to the former president or other prominent Republicans."
For Hoover, who was born in West Branch, Iowa, his Quaker upbringing would frame his social and political values. Over the course of his public career he would hold to the view that America was unique among the nations, and with this historical status, came a special responsibility. American exceptionalism was also a perspective that he would share with his Jewish friends.
During his Presidency, and at other times throughout his political career, Hoover was outspoken in his support of Jewish claims to Palestine. As early as 1922, he called for developing in Palestine "an asylum for the less fortunate masses of the Jewish people and as a restoration of religious shrines." During his tenure as President (1928-1932), Hoover would speak out in support of the Zionist cause, despite facing strong opposition from his own State Department. Of the course of his Presidency, Hoover would issue statements of support to both Jewish and Pro-Zionist Christian groups.
Toward the end of this book, the authors move away from Hoover and focus almost exclusively on the "Jewish vote" seeking to identify any possible shifting patterns over the years that would suggest a change in the historic support garnered by Democrats among the Jewish electorate.
At the same time the authors offer a far less sympathetic view of Franklin Roosevelt; commenting, for example, on Roosevelt's involvement with the Evian Conference of 1938, they would write: "Roosevelt exhibited a kind of amateur geographer's fascination with the idea of moving people around and creating new countries or societies."
One might ask what is the ultimate goal of the writers: Is this book intended as an attack on the Democratic Party, and in particular, President Franklin Roosevelt for his failure to intercede on behalf of European Jewry, or is it a thoughtful historical study of the rise of Herbert Hoover and his impact on shaping and empowering the pro-Israel agenda?


text:
Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II
A-10 Thunderbolt II | |
An A-10 from the 81st Fighter Squadron, Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany | |
Role | Fixed-wing close air support, forward air control, and ground-attack aircraft |
Manufacturer | Fairchild Republic |
First flight | 10 May 1972 |
Introduction | March 1977 |
Status | In service |
Primary user | United States Air Force |
Produced | 1972–1984[1] |
Number built | 716[2] |
Unit cost |
US$11.8 million (average, 1994 dollars)[3]
The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is an American twin-engine, straight-wing jet aircraft developed by Fairchild-Republic in the early 1970s. The only United States Air Force aircraft designed solely for close air support of ground forces, the A-10 was built to attack tanks, armored vehicles, and other ground targets with limited air defenses.
The A-10 was designed around the GAU-8 Avenger, a 30 mm rotary cannon that is the airplane's primary armament and the heaviest such automatic cannon mounted on an aircraft. The A-10's airframe was designed for survivability, with measures such as 1,200 pounds (540 kg) of armor for protection of the cockpit and aircraft systems that enables the aircraft to continue flying after taking significant damage. The A-10A single-seat variant was the only version built, though one A-10A was converted to the A-10B twin-seat version. In 2005, a program was begun to upgrade A-10A aircraft to the A-10C configuration.
The A-10's official name comes from the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt of World War II, a fighter that was particularly effective at close air support. The A-10 is more commonly known by its nicknames "Warthog" or "Hog". It also has a secondary mission, where it provides airborne forward air control, directing other aircraft in attacks on ground targets. Aircraft used primarily in this role are designated OA-10. With a variety of upgrades and wing replacements, the A-10's service life has been extended to 2028.
Criticism that the U.S. Air Force did not take close air support (CAS) seriously prompted a few service members to seek a specialized attack aircraft.[4][5] In the Vietnam War, large numbers of ground-attack aircraft were shot down by small arms, surface-to-air missiles, and low-level anti-aircraft gunfire, prompting the development of an aircraft better able to survive such weapons. In addition, the UH-1 Iroquois and AH-1 Cobra helicopters of the day, which USAF commanders had said should handle close air support, were ill-suited for use against armor, carrying only anti-personnel machine guns and unguided rockets meant for soft targets. Fast jets such as the F-100 Super Sabre, F-105 Thunderchief and F-4 Phantom II proved for the most part to be ineffective for close air support because their high speed did not allow pilots enough time to get an accurate fix on ground targets and they lacked sufficient loiter time. The effective, but aging, Korean War era, A-1 Skyraider was the USAF's primary close air support aircraft.[6][7]
A-X program[edit]
In 1966, the USAF formed the Attack Experimental (A-X) program office.[8] On 6 March 1967, the Air Force released a request for information to 21 defense contractors for the A-X. The objective was to create a design study for a low-cost attack aircraft.[5] In 1969, the Secretary of the Air Force asked Pierre Sprey to write the detailed specifications for the proposed A-X project. However, his initial involvement was kept secret because of Sprey's earlier controversial involvement in the F-X project.[5]
Sprey's discussions with A-1 Skyraider pilots operating in Vietnam and analysis of the effectiveness of current aircraft used in the role indicated the ideal aircraft should have long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, massive cannon firepower, and extreme survivability;[5] an aircraft that had the best elements of the Ilyushin Il-2, Henschel Hs 129, and Skyraider. The specifications also demanded that each aircraft cost less than $3 million.[5] Sprey required that the biography of World War II attack pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel be read by people on the A-X program.[9]
In May 1970, the USAF issued a modified and much more detailed request for proposals (RFP) for the aircraft. The threat of Soviet armored forces and all-weather attack operations had become more serious. Now included in the requirements was that the aircraft would be designed specifically for the 30 mm cannon. The RFP also specified an aircraft with a maximum speed of 460 mph (400 kn; 740 km/h), takeoff distance of 4,000 feet (1,200 m), external load of 16,000 pounds (7,300 kg), 285-mile (460 km) mission radius, and a unit cost of US$1.4 million.[10] The A-X would be the first Air Force aircraft designed exclusively for close air support.[11]
During this time, a separate RFP was released for A-X's 30 mm cannon with requirements for a high rate of fire (4,000 round/minute) and a high muzzle velocity.[12] Six companies submitted aircraft proposals to the USAF, with Northrop and Fairchild Republic selected to build prototypes: the YA-9A and YA-10A, respectively. General Electric and Philco-Ford were selected to build and test GAU-8 cannon prototypes.[13]
The YA-10A was built in Hagerstown, Maryland and first flew on 10 May 1972. After trials and a fly-off against the YA-9A, the Air Force announced its selection of Fairchild-Republic's YA-10A on 18 January 1973 for production.[14] General Electric was selected to build the GAU-8 cannon in June 1973.[15] The YA-10 had an additional fly-off in 1974 against the Ling-Temco-Vought A-7D Corsair II, the principal Air Force attack aircraft at the time, in order to prove the need to purchase a new attack aircraft. The first production A-10 flew in October 1975, and deliveries to the Air Force commenced in March 1976. In total, 715 airplanes were produced, the last delivered in 1984.[16]
One experimental two-seat A-10 Night Adverse Weather (N/AW) version was built by converting an A-10A.[17] The N/AW was developed by Fairchild from the first Demonstration Testing and Evaluation (DT&E) A-10 for consideration by the USAF. It included a second seat for a weapons system officer responsible for electronic countermeasures (ECM), navigation and target acquisition. The N/AW version did not interest the USAF or export customers. The two-seat trainer version was ordered by the Air Force in 1981, but funding was canceled by U.S. Congress and the jet was not produced.[18] The only two-seat A-10 built now resides at Edwards Air Force Base's Flight Test Center Museum.[19]
The A-10 has received many upgrades over the years. Aircraft received the Pave Penny laser receiver pod beginning in 1978. It senses reflected laser radiation from a laser designator on a target for faster and more accurate target identification.[20][21][22] The A-10 began receiving an inertial navigation system in 1980.[23] Later, the Low-Altitude Safety and Targeting Enhancement (LASTE) upgrade provided computerized weapon-aiming equipment, an autopilot, and a ground-collision warning system. The A-10 is now compatible with night vision goggles for low-light operation. In 1999, aircraft began to receive Global Positioning System navigation systems and a new multi-function display.[24] Its LASTE system is being upgraded with the Integrated Flight & Fire Control Computers (IFFCC).[25]
In 2005, the entire A-10 fleet also began receiving the Precision Engagement upgrades that include an improved fire control system (FCS), electronic countermeasures (ECM), and the ability to aim smart bombs. The aircraft that receive this upgrade are redesignated A-10C. The C model upgrades were to be completed in 2011.[26] The Government Accounting Office in 2007 estimated the cost of upgrading, refurbishing, and service life extension plans for the A-10 force to total $2.25 billion through 2013.[11]
Modifications to provide precision weapons capability are well underway.[27] In July 2010, the USAF issued Raytheon a contract to integrate a Helmet Mounted Integrated Targeting (HMIT) system into A-10Cs.[27] The Air Force Material Command's Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill AFB, Utah completed work on its 100th A-10 precision engagement upgrade in January 2008.[28] The Gentex Corporation Scorpion "Helmet Mounted Cueing System" (HMCS) is also being evaluated.[29]
The A-10 will receive a service life extension program (SLEP) upgrade with many receiving new wings.[30] The service life of the re-winged aircraft is extended to 2040. A contract to build as many as 242 new A-10 wing sets was awarded to Boeing in June 2007.[31] Two A-10s flew in November 2011 with the new wing installed. On 4 September 2013, the Air Force awarded Boeing a follow-on contract of $212 million for 56 of the replacement wings for the A-10 Thunderbolt II, bring the number of wings on order to 173. The wings will improve mission readiness, decrease maintenance costs, and keep the type operational into 2035.[32]
In 2012, Air Combat Command requested testing of a 600-gallon external fuel tank to prolong the A-10's flight time. Flight testing of a tank was accomplished in 1997, but was never evaluated for combat requirements. The 40th Flight Test Squadron wanted to determine if the aircraft can safely reach combat flight limits while carrying the tank. An A-10C with a 600-gallon tank would expand loitering time by 45-60 minutes, pushing back tanker support. Over 30 flight tests were conducted, pushing it to greater airspeeds, Mach levels, and higher symmetrical (pulling Gs without rolling) and asymmetrical (rolling and pulling Gs) limits. Focus was on gathering data for the aircraft's handling characteristics and different aircraft load configurations to ensure flight capability. With the tank, stability in the yaw axis is slightly reduced, but there is no decrease in aircraft tracking performance.[33]
Alternate fuel tests[edit]
On 25 March 2010, an A-10 conducted the first flight of an aircraft with all engines powered by a biofuel blend. The flight, performed at Eglin Air Force Base, used a 1:1 blend of JP-8 and Camelina-based fuel.[34]
On 28 June 2012, the A-10 became the first aircraft to fly using a new fuel blend derived from alcohol. It flew normally without any issues at Eglin. The fuel, known as ATJ (Alcohol-to-Jet), is cellulousic-based that can be derived using wood, paper, grass, or anything that is a cell-based material. The sugars extracted from the materials are fermented into alcohols, which are then hydro-processed into the aviation-grade kerosenes used for aviation fuel. ATJ is the third alternative fuel to be evaluated by the Air Force for fleet-wide use as a replacement for petroleum-derived JP-8 fuel. Previous types were a synthetic paraffinic kerosene derived from coal and natural gas and a bio-mass fuel derived from plant-oils and animal fats known as Hydroprocessed Renewable Jet.[35]
Other uses[edit]
The National Science Foundation has granted $11 million to modify an A-10 to perform weather research for CIRPAS at the US Naval Postgraduate School,[36][37] to continue the effort after[38] the T-28 that was retired in 2005.[38][39] The A-10's armor is expected to allow it to survive the extreme meteorological conditions, such as 200 mph hailstorms, found in inclement high-altitude weather events.[37]
The A-10 has superior maneuverability at low speeds and altitude because of its large wing area, high wing aspect ratio, and large ailerons. The high aspect ratio wing also allows for short takeoffs and landings, permitting operations from primitive forward airfields near front lines. The aircraft can loiter for extended periods and operate under 1,000 ft (300 m) ceilings with 1.5 mi (2.4 km) visibility. It typically flies at a relatively slow speed of 300 knots (350 mph; 560 km/h), which makes it a much better platform for the ground-attack role than fast fighter-bombers, which often have difficulty targeting small and slow-moving targets.[6]
Engine exhaust passes over the aircraft's horizontal stabilizer and between the twin tails, decreasing the A-10's infrared signature and lowering the likelihood that the aircraft can be targeted by heat-seeking missiles fired from the ground. The placement of the engines behind the wings partially shields them from anti-aircraft fire.[40] The leading edge of the wing is honeycomb panel construction to provide strength with minimal weight compromise. Honeycomb panels of this type on the A-10 include the flap shrouds, elevators, rudders and other sections of the fins.[41]
The A-10 has integrally machined skin panels. Because the stringers are integral with the skin, there are no joint or seal problems. These panels, fabricated using computer controlled machining, reduce the time and hence the cost of production. Combat experience has shown that this type of panel is more resistant to damage. The skin is not load-bearing, so damaged skin sections can be easily replaced in the field, with makeshift materials if necessary.[42]
The ailerons are at the far ends of the wings to gain greater rolling moment, as with many aircraft, but there are two distinguishing features. The ailerons are larger than is typical, almost 50% of the wingspan, providing improved control even at slow speeds. The aileron is also split, making it a deceleron.[43][44]
The A-10 is designed to be refueled, rearmed, and serviced with minimal equipment.[45] Also, most repairs can be done in the field.[46] An unusual feature is that many of the aircraft's parts are interchangeable between the left and right sides, including the engines, main landing gear, and vertical stabilizers. The sturdy landing gear, low-pressure tires and large, straight wings allow operation from short rough strips even with a heavy ordnance load, allowing the aircraft to operate from damaged airbases. If runways are damaged in an attack, the A-10 can operate from taxiways or straight roadway sections.[47]
The front landing gear is offset to the aircraft's right to allow placement of the 30 mm cannon with its firing barrel along the centerline of the aircraft.[48] During ground taxi, the offset front landing gear causes the A-10 to have dissimilar turning radii. Turning to the right on the ground takes less distance than turning left.[Note 1]
The A-10 is exceptionally tough. Its strong airframe can survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles up to 23 mm. The aircraft has triple redundancy in its flight systems, with mechanical systems to back up double-redundant hydraulic systems. This permits pilots to fly and land when hydraulic power or part of a wing is lost. Flight without hydraulic power uses the manual reversion flight control system; this engages automatically for pitch and yaw control, and under pilot control (manual reversion switch) for roll control. In manual reversion mode, the A-10 is sufficiently controllable under favorable conditions to return to base and land, though control forces are much higher than normal. The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator, and half of one wing missing.[49]
Its self-sealing fuel tanks are protected by fire-retardant foam.[50] The A-10's main landing gear is designed so that the wheels partially protrude from their nacelles when the gear is retracted so as to make gear-up belly landings easier to control and less damaging to the aircraft's underside. Additionally, the landing gears are all hinged toward the rear of the aircraft, so if hydraulic power is lost the pilot can drop the gear and a combination of gravity and wind resistance will open and lock the gear in place.[44]
The cockpit and parts of the flight-control system are protected by 1,200 lb (540 kg) of titanium armor, referred to as a "bathtub".[51][52] The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds.[46][51] It is made up of titanium plates with thicknesses from 0.5 to 1.5 inches (13 to 38 mm) determined by a study of likely trajectories and deflection angles. This protection comes at a cost, with the armor making up almost 6% of the aircraft's empty weight. To protect the pilot from the fragmentation likely to be created from impact of a shell, any interior surface of the tub that is directly exposed to the pilot is covered by a multi-layer nylon spall shield.[50][53] In addition, the front windscreen and canopy are resistant to small arms fire.[54]
Proof of the durability of the A-10 was shown when Captain Kim Campbell, flying a ground support mission over Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq on 7 April, suffered extensive flak damage to her A-10. Iraqi fire damaged one of the A-10's engines and crippled its hydraulic system, which required the aircraft's stabilizer and flight controls to be operated via the back-up mechanical system, this being known as 'manual reversion mode'. Despite this damage, Campbell managed to fly the aircraft for nearly an hour and landed safely.[55][56]
There are several reasons for the unusual location of the A-10's General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofan engines. First, the A-10 was envisioned to fly from forward air bases, often with substandard, semi-prepared runways that present a high risk of foreign object damage to the engines. The height of the engines decreases the chance that sand or stones will be ingested. This also allows engines to keep running while the aircraft is serviced and rearmed by ground crews, reducing turn-around time. Without the limitations imposed by engines, the wings could be mounted closer to the ground, to simplify servicing and rearming.[57]
The engines' high 6:1 bypass ratio provides the A-10 with a relatively small infrared signature, and their position directs exhaust over the tailplanes further shielding it from detection by heat-seeking surface to air missiles. The engines are angled upward by nine degrees to cancel out the nose-down pitching moment they would otherwise generate due to being mounted above the aerodynamic center of the aircraft. This avoids the necessity to trim the control surfaces against the force. The heavy engines require strong supports, so their pylons are connected to the airframe by four bolts.[57]
The A-10's fuel system components are protected in multiple ways. All four fuel tanks are located near the center of the aircraft, reducing the likelihood that they will be hit or have their fuel lines severed. The tanks are separate from the fuselage; thus, projectiles would need to penetrate the aircraft's skin before reaching the outer skin of the tank.[50][53] The refueling system is purged after use so that all fuel in the aircraft is protected from fire.[58] All fuel transfer lines self-seal if they are compromised; if a tank is damaged beyond its ability to self-seal, check valves prevent fuel flowing into the compromised tank. Most of the fuel system components are inside the tanks so that fuel will not be lost in case a component were to leak. Most importantly, reticulated polyurethane foam lines both the inner and outer sides of the fuel tanks, retaining debris and restricting fuel spillage in the event of damage. The other source of possible combustion, the engines, are shielded from the fuel system and the rest of the airframe by firewalls and fire extinguishing equipment. Even in the event of all four main tanks being penetrated and all contents lost, sufficient fuel is carried in two self-sealing sump tanks to allow flight for 230 miles (370 km).[50][53]
Although the A-10 can carry considerable disposable stores, its primary built-in weapon is the 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling-type cannon. One of the most powerful aircraft cannons ever flown, it fires large depleted uranium armor-piercing shells. In the original design, the pilot could switch between two rates of fire: 2,100 or 4,200 rounds per minute;[59] this was changed to a fixed rate of 3,900 rounds per minute.[60] The cannon takes about half a second to come up to speed, so 50 rounds are fired during the first second, 65 or 70 rounds per second thereafter. The gun is accurate enough to place 80% of its shots within a 40-foot (12.4 m) diameter circle from 4,000 feet (1,220 m) while in flight.[61] The GAU-8 is optimized for a slant range of 4,000 feet (1,220 m) with the A-10 in a 30 degree dive.[62]
The fuselage of the aircraft is built around the cannon. The GAU-8/A is mounted slightly to the port side; the barrel in the firing location is on the starboard side at the 9 o'clock position so it is aligned with the aircraft's centerline. The gun's 5-foot, 11.5-inch (1.816 m) ammunition drum can hold up to 1,350 rounds of 30 mm ammunition,[48] but generally holds 1,174 rounds.[62] To prevent enemy shells from causing the GAU-8/A rounds to fire prematurely, armor plates of differing thicknesses between the aircraft skin and the drum are designed to detonate incoming shells.[48][53] A final layer of armor around the drum protects it from fragmentation damage. The gun is loaded by Syn-Tech's linked tube carrier GFU-7/E 30 mm ammunition loading assembly cart.
Another commonly used weapon is the AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missile, with variants for electro-optical (TV-guided) or infrared targeting. The Maverick allows targets to be engaged at much greater ranges than the cannon, a safer proposition in the face of modern anti-aircraft systems. During Desert Storm, in the absence of dedicated forward-looking infrared (FLIR) cameras for night vision, the Maverick's infrared camera was used for night missions as a "poor man's FLIR".[63] Other weapons include cluster bombs and Hydra rocket pods.[64] Although the A-10 is equipped to carry laser-guided bombs, their use is relatively uncommon.[65] As of 2000, the A-10 has not been equipped with weapon control systems for accurate bombing.[20] A-10s usually fly with an ALQ-131 ECM pod under one wing and two AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles under the other wing for self-defense.[66]
The A-10 Precision Engagement Modification Program will update 356 A-10/OA-10s to the A-10C variant with a new flight computer, new glass cockpit displays and controls, two new 5.5-inch (140 mm) color displays with moving map function and an integrated digital stores management system.[11][27]
Other funded improvements to the A-10 fleet include a new data link, the ability to employ smart weapons such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition ("JDAM") and Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser, and the ability to carry an integrated targeting pod such as the Northrop Grumman LITENING targeting pod or the Lockheed Martin Sniper XR Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP). Also included is the Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) to provide sensor data to personnel on the ground.[26]
Colors and markings[edit]
Since the A-10 flies low to the ground and at subsonic speed, aircraft camouflage is important to make the aircraft more difficult to see. Many different types of paint schemes have been tried. These have included a "peanut scheme" of sand, yellow and field drab; black and white colors for winter operations and a tan, green and brown mixed pattern.[67]
The two most common markings applied to the A-10 have been the European I woodland camouflage scheme and a two-tone gray scheme. The European woodland scheme was designed to minimize visibility from above, as the threat from hostile fighter aircraft was felt to outweigh that from ground-fire. It uses dark green, medium green and dark gray in order to blend in with the typical European forest terrain and was used from the 1980s to the early 1990s. Following the end of the Cold War, and based on experience during the 1991 Gulf War, the air-to-air threat was no longer seen to be as important as that from ground fire, and a new color scheme known as "Compass Ghost" was chosen to minimize visibility from below. This two-tone gray scheme has darker gray color on top, with the lighter gray on the underside of the aircraft, and started to be applied from the early 1990s.[68]
Many A-10s also featured a false canopy painted in dark gray on the underside of the aircraft, just behind the gun. This form of automimicry is an attempt to confuse the enemy as to aircraft attitude and maneuver direction.[69][70] Many A-10s feature nose art, such as shark mouth or warthog head features.
Operational history[edit]
The first unit to receive the A-10 Thunderbolt II was the 355th Tactical Training Wing, based at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, in March 1976. The first unit to achieve full combat-readiness was the 354th Tactical Fighter Wing at Myrtle Beach AFB, South Carolina, in 1978. Deployments of A-10As followed at bases both at home and abroad, including England AFB, Louisiana; Eielson AFB, Alaska; Osan Air Base, South Korea; and RAF Bentwaters/RAF Woodbridge, England. The 81st TFW of RAF Bentwaters/RAF Woodbridge operated rotating detachments of A-10s at four bases in Germany known as Forward Operating Locations (FOLs): Leipheim, Sembach Air Base, Nörvenich, and Ahlhorn.[71]
A-10s were initially an unwelcome addition to many in the Air Force. Most pilots switching to the A-10 did not want to because fighter pilots traditionally favored speed and appearance.[72] In 1987, many A-10s were shifted to the forward air control (FAC) role and redesignated OA-10.[73] In the FAC role the OA-10 is typically equipped with up to six pods of 2.75 inch (70 mm) Hydra rockets, usually with smoke or white phosphorus warheads used for target marking. OA-10s are physically unchanged and remain fully combat capable despite the redesignation.[74]
Gulf War and Balkans[edit]
The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces, making it by far the most effective aircraft of the war.[4] A-10s also shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon. The first of these was shot down by Captain Robert Swain over Kuwait on 6 February 1991, marking the A-10's first air-to-air victory.[75] Four A-10s were shot down during the war, all by surface-to-air missiles. Another three battle-damaged A-10s and OA-10As returned to base but were written off, some sustaining additional damage in crashed landings.[76][77] The A-10 had a mission capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90% of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired in the conflict.[78] Shortly after the Gulf War, the Air Force gave up on the idea of replacing the A-10 with a close air support version of the F-16.[79]
U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft fired approximately 10,000 30 mm rounds in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1994–95. Following the seizure of some heavy weapons by Bosnian Serbs from a warehouse in Ilidža, a series of sorties were launched to locate and destroy the captured equipment. On 5 August 1994, two A-10s located and strafed an anti-tank vehicle. Afterward, the Serbs agreed to return remaining heavy weapons.[80] In August 1995, NATO launched an offensive called Operation Deliberate Force. A-10s flew close air support missions, attacking Bosnian Serb artillery and positions. In late September, A-10s began flying patrols again.[81]
A-10s returned to the Balkan region as part of Operation Allied Force in Kosovo beginning in March 1999.[81] In March 1999, A-10s escorted and supported search and rescue helicopters in finding a downed F-117 pilot.[82] The A-10s were deployed to support search and rescue missions, but the Warthogs began to receive more ground attack missions as the days passed. The A-10's first successful attack in Operation Allied Force happened on 6 April 1999; A-10s remained in action until combat ended in late June 1999.[83]
Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya Wars[edit]
During the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, A-10s did not take part in the initial stages. For the campaign against Taliban and Al Qaeda, A-10 squadrons were deployed to Pakistan and Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, beginning in March 2002. These A-10s participated in Operation Anaconda. Afterwards, A-10s remained in-country, fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants.[84]
Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 20 March 2003. Sixty OA-10/A-10 aircraft took part in early combat there.[85] United States Air Forces Central issued Operation Iraqi Freedom: By the Numbers, a declassified report about the aerial campaign in the conflict on 30 April 2003. During that initial invasion of Iraq, A-10s had a mission capable rate of 85% in the war and fired 311,597 rounds of 30 mm ammunition. A single A-10 was shot down near Baghdad International Airport by Iraqi fire late in the campaign. The A-10 also flew 32 missions in which the aircraft dropped propaganda leaflets over Iraq.[86]
The A-10C first deployed to Iraq in the third quarter of 2007 with the 104th Fighter Squadron of the Maryland Air National Guard. The jets include the Precision Engagement Upgrade.[87] The A-10C's digital avionics and communications systems have greatly reduced the time to acquire a close air support target and attack it.[88]
A-10s flew 32 percent of combat sorties in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The sorties ranged from 27,800 to 34,500 annually between 2009 and 2012. In the first half of 2013, they flew 11,189 sorties in Afghanistan.[89]
In March 2011, six A-10s were deployed as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn, the coalition intervention in Libya. They participated in attacks on Libyan ground forces there.[90][91]
On 24 July 2013, two A-10s provided close-air support to 60 U.S. soldiers. On 23 July, a 12-vehicle convoy was conducting route clearance when the first turned over, and then was ambushed. They established an overnight base and began receiving heavy fire from a tree line the next day, pinning them behind their vehicles. Three soldiers were wounded, and CAS was called in to protect casualty evacuation efforts. Two A-10s flew over to provide a show of force and engaged when the enemy didn't break contact. The ground unit didn't have a way to confirm the enemy's position, so the unit's joint fire observer communicated the estimated location to the pilots. Once they received the general location of the enemy's position, the lead aircraft, relying only on visual references, fired two rockets to mark the area with smoke, then the wingman rolled in to shoot his cannon. Unlike normal engagements, the attackers did not run after one or two passes, but instead moved closer to the soldiers. [92]
Helicopters could not evacuate the wounded because of the volume and close proximity of enemy fire, so the convoy commander authorized the A-10 pilots to fire danger close. The aircraft flew 75 ft above the enemy's position and 50 meters parallel to friendly ground forces to conduct strafing runs. In the two hours that the A-10s provided CAS, they completed 15 gun passes firing nearly 2,300 rounds, and dropped three 500 lb bombs. Both remained on-station until all the soldiers were safe. 18 enemy bodies were found, though more were suspected. This engagement demonstrated the type of close-air support mission the A-10 Thunderbolt II was specially designed for.[92]
Proposed retirement[edit]
In 2007, the A-10 was expected to be in USAF service until 2028 and possibly later,[93] when it may be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.[30] Critics have responded by saying that replacing the A-10 with the F-35 would be a "giant leap backwards" given the performance of the Warthog and the rising costs of the F-35 program.[94] In 2012 the Air Force briefly considered the F-35B STOVL variant for replacing the A-10 as a CAS aircraft, but concluded that the variant could not generate enough sorties to meet its needs.[95]
In early 2012, the USAF proposed to disband five A-10 squadrons in its budget request, in order to lessen cuts to more versatile aircraft in a smaller future fleet.[96] Congress however delayed this action in favor of more studies on the issue.[97]
In August 2013, Congress and a National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force were still looking at the proposal to cut A-10 numbers down to 246 aircraft, as well as others. The Air Force has been trying to replace the A-10 with a multi-role fighter that can cover more area and have a wider mission set for some time. The F-35, and even the MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle, are seen as having the multi-role ability and modern sensors to fill the Warthog's missions of destroying vehicles and providing close-air support. A-10 pilots have been vocal about the aircraft's superiority in its field and its frequent request, sometimes by name, by ground commanders. One lesser-known function of the A-10 is escorting helicopters on combat search and rescue missions. Some believe that an A-10 that can perform this low-altitude, long-loiter time task and take ground fire is superior to an F-35 performing that job. The Thunderbolt II is armored and can take hits, while the F-35 is not protected enough and cannot afford to be replaced if shot down. If the F-35 must do combat search and rescue, it will have a 360 degree distributed aperture infrared system that the A-10 does not. Furthermore, the two planes have different primary armaments. The F-35 relies on deploying guided bombs and missiles, which can be vulnerable to jamming, while the A-10's 30 mm cannon is immune to electronic warfare. The A-10 can destroy 14 targets per mission, while the F-35 cannot. Air Force officials have stated publicly that the F-35 will not duplicate the A-10's missions, but they do need a multi-role aircraft and it has a longer range. Air Combat Command has said it should not be about which newer weapon systems must replicate the exact capabilities of older systems, but how many new systems will be needed to address future capabilities. The Air Force has not ruled out replacing the A-10 with another light attack aircraft to maintain numbers and mass firepower with the advantage of being able to integrate next-generation sensors.[89]
As part of the U.S. Air Force's FY 2015 budget, the service is considering retiring the entire A-10 Thunderbolt II fleet and other single-mission aircraft to prioritize multi-mission aircraft and keep future procurements on track. While the service has previously considered cutting squadrons, cutting an entire fleet with its infrastructure support is seen as the only way to gain major savings. The Pentagon and active Air Force have tried to retire the single-mission platform for years. While Congressional resistance has previously saved the A-10, budget realities may finally defeat the aircraft. Members of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve argue that moving A-10s from the active Air Force use to their control completely would achieve savings while still keeping them in the Air Force inventory. Half of the fleet is already under National Guard control. The U.S. Army has expressed their dissatisfaction with the process of replacing the aircraft they call on for close-air support. The Army has shown interest in obtaining A-10 jets themselves if the Air Force retires them.[98][99]
During debates on the fiscal 2014 defense authorization bill in November 2013, an amendment from the Senate addressed the issue of early A-10 retirement. The Senate bill would keep the Air Force from retiring or storing the Thunderbolt II at least until the F-35A becomes fully operational, which is expected in 2021. The bill is a rare sign of bipartisan commitment which is from mutual support of the aircraft.[100] A defense budget passed by the House in early December 2013 blocks the Air Force from spending any money to divest the A-10 through 2014.[101]
On 13 November 2013, an event was hosted in Washington D.C. by the Straus Military Reform Project and the Project on Government Oversight to support the A-10. The event also included discussion of the future of close air support and a "next generation" Thunderbolt II. Pierre Sprey, who helped design the A-10 and F-16, brought up deficiencies in the A-10 design including thrust, maneuverability, and size. He envisions a future CAS aircraft to have more thrust and be able to turn tighter to reduce time between attack runs. It would be smaller to present a less visible target. Other improvements could include lighter armor, new engines, and new 30 mm ammunition. The gun itself could have a faster initial firing rate to reach its maximum rate faster and put more shells on target earlier. Cutting the A-10 is currently being considered as a cost-saving measure, so there is no official replacement program and one will not occur in the near future.[102]
- Pre-production variant. 12 were built.[103]
- Single-seat close air support, ground-attack version.
- A-10As used for airborne forward air control.
- YA-10B Night/Adverse Weather
- Two-seat experimental prototype, for work at night and in bad weather. The one YA-10B prototype was converted from an A-10A.[104]
- A-10As updated under the incremental Precision Engagement (PE) program.[26]
- Proposed unmanned version developed by Raytheon and Aurora Flight Sciences as part of DARPA's Persistent Close Air Support program.[105] The PCAS program eventually dropped the idea of using an optionally manned A-10.[106]
- Civilian A-10
- Proposed by the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology to replace its North American T-28 Trojan thunderstorm penetration aircraft. The A-10 would have its military engines, avionics, and oxygen system replaced by civilian versions. The engines and airframe would receive protection from hail, and the GAU-8 Avenger would be replaced with ballast or scientific instruments.[107]
The A-10 has been flown exclusively by the United States Air Force and its Air Reserve components, the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) and the Air National Guard (ANG). The USAF operated 345 A-10 and OA-10 aircraft (191 in active duty, 106 in ANG, and 48 in AFRC, all variants) as of September 2011[update].[108]
The Air Force operates multiple A-10/OA-10 Active, Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard wings and squadrons.
- United States Air Force
- 23d Wing: Moody Air Force Base, Georgia
- 51st Fighter Wing: Osan Air Base, South Korea
- 53d Wing: Eglin Air Force Base, Florida
- 422d Test and Evaluation Squadron (Geographically Separated Unit at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada)
- 57th Wing: Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada
- 355th Wing: Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona
- 122nd Fighter Wing (formerly 358th Fighter Group): Fort Wayne, Indiana
- 124th Fighter Wing: Boise Air Terminal, Idaho
- 127th Wing at Selfridge ANGB, Michigan (Transitioned from F-16s to A-10s due to BRAC 2005)
- 175th Wing: Warfield ANGB, Martin State Airport, Maryland
- 188th Fighter Wing: Fort Smith, Arkansas (Transiting to General Atomics [MQ-9 Reaper] by summer 2014)
- 442d Fighter Wing: Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri
- 442d Operations Group
- 476th Fighter Group (Geographically Separated Unit (GSU) of 442 FW at Moody AFB, Georgia)
- 76th Fighter Squadron (GSU at Moody AFB, Georgia)
- 944th Fighter Wing: Luke AFB, Arizona
- 924th Fighter Group (GSU of 944 FW at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona)
- 45th Fighter Squadron (GSU of 944 FW at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona)
- 924th Fighter Group (GSU of 944 FW at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona)
Former operators[edit]
- United States Air Force
- 10th Tactical Fighter Wing: RAF Alconbury, United Kingdom operated A-10s during 1988–1992
- 52d Fighter Wing: Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany
- 81st Fighter Squadron (squadron inactivated 18 June 2013)[109]
- 81st Tactical Fighter Wing: RAF Bentwaters/RAF Woodbridge, United Kingdom operated A-10s from June 1979 to April 1993
- 354th Tactical Fighter Wing: Myrtle Beach AFB, South Carolina operated A-10s during 1977–1993
- 917th Fighter Group: (GSU of 442 FW at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana) (inactivated September 2013)
- 926th Fighter Wing: NAS JRB New Orleans, Louisiana
- 706th Fighter Squadron (926 FW and 706 FS inactivated in 2007 due to BRAC 2005)
- 103d Fighter Wing: Bradley ANGB, Connecticut (BRAC 2005 removed A-10 aircraft, redesignated as 103d Airlift Wing and given C-21 in 2007)
- 118th Fighter Squadron (redesignated 118th Airlift Squadron per BRAC 2005)
- 104th Fighter Wing: Barnes ANGB, Massachusetts (BRAC 2005 saw unit transition from A-10 to F-15C in 2007)
- 131st Fighter Squadron
- 110th Airlift Wing - Battle Creek, Michigan - Operated A-10A and A-10Cs 1991–2008 BRAC 2005 changed unit to C-21s 2008–2012
- 172nd Fighter Squadron
- 111th Fighter Wing: NAS JRB Willow Grove/Willow Grove ARS, Pennsylvania (unit lost last four aircraft June 2010 as per 2005 BRAC)
- 103d Fighter Squadron
- 115th Fighter Wing: Truax Field, Wisconsin (Operated A-10s from 1981-1993, transitioned to F-16C/D block 30 in 1993)
- 174th Fighter Wing: Hancock Field, New York (Transitioned to F-16As in 1988)
Aircraft on display[edit]
- 71-1370 - Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Hampton, Virginia[110]
- 73-1666 - Hill Aerospace Museum, Hill AFB, Utah[112]
- 73-1667 - England AFB, Louisiana[113]
- 75-0263 - Empire State Aerosciences Museum, Glenville, New York[114]
- 75-0270 - McChord Air Museum, McChord AFB, Washington[115]
- 75-0293 - Wings of Eagles Discovery Center, Elmira, New York[116]
- 75-0288 - Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin AFB, Florida[117]
- 75-0298 - Pima Air & Space Museum (adjacent to Davis-Monthan AFB), Tucson, Arizona[118]
- 75-0305 - Museum of Aviation, Robins AFB, Warner Robins, Georgia[119]
- 75-0308 - Pope AFB, North Carolina[120]
- 76-0516 - Harold F. Pitcairn "Wings of Freedom" Aviation Museum, Horsham, Pennsylvania. [121]
- 76-0530 - Whiteman AFB, Missouri[122]
- 76-0535 - Cradle of Aviation, Garden City, New York[123]
- 76-0540 - Aerospace Museum of California, Sacramento, California[124]
- 76-0547 - Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas
- 77-0205 - USAF Academy Collection, Colorado Springs, Colorado[125]
- 77-0228 - Grissom Air Museum, Grissom ARB, Peru, Indiana[126]
- 77-0244 - Wisconsin Air National Guard Museum, Volk Field ANGB, Wisconsin[127]
- 77-0252 (nose section only) - Cradle of Aviation, Garden City, New York[128]
- 78-0681 - National Museum of the United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio[129]
- 78-0687 - Fort Campbell, Kentucky[130]
- 79-0079 - Warbird Park, former Myrtle Beach AFB, South Carolina[131]
- 79-0100 - Barnes Air National Guard Base, Westfield, Massachusetts[132]
- 79-0173 - New England Air Museum, Windsor Locks, Connecticut[133]
- 80-0708 - Selfridge Military Air Museum, Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Harrison Township, Michigan[134]
- 80-0219 - RAF Alconbury, Huntingdon, England
Specifications (A-10A)[edit]
Data from The Great Book of Modern Warplanes,[135] Fairchild-Republic A/OA-10,[136] USAF[78]
General characteristics
- Crew: 1
- Length: 53 ft 4 in (16.26 m)
- Wingspan: 57 ft 6 in (17.53 m)
- Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)
- Wing area: 506 ft² (47.0 m²)
- Airfoil: NACA 6716 root, NACA 6713 tip
- Empty weight: 24,959 lb (11,321 kg)
- Loaded weight: 30,384 lb (13,782 kg)
CAS mission: 47,094 lb (21,361 kg)
Anti-armor mission: 42,071 lb (19,083 kg) - Max. takeoff weight: 50,000 lb (23,000 kg)
- Powerplant: 2 × General Electric TF34-GE-100A turbofans, 9,065 lbf (40.32 kN) each
- Never exceed speed: 450 knots (518 mph,[136] 833 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,500 m) with 18 Mk 82 bombs[137]
- Maximum speed: 381 knots (439 mph, 706 km/h) at sea level, clean[136]
- Cruise speed: 300 knots (340 mph, 560 km/h)
- Stall speed: 120 knots (138 mph, 220 km/h) [138]
- Combat radius:
- CAS mission: 250 nmi (288 mi, 460 km) at 1.88 hour loiter at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat
- Anti-armor mission: 252 nmi (290 mi, 467 km), 40 nmi (45 mi, 75 km))sea-level penetration and exit, 30 min combat
- Ferry range: 2,240 nmi(2,580 mi, 4,150 km)with 50 knot (55 mph, 90 km/h) headwinds, 20 minutes reserve
- Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,700 m)
- Rate of climb: 6,000 ft/min (30 m/s)
- Wing loading: 99 lb/ft² (482 kg/m²)
- Thrust/weight: 0.36
- Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling cannon with 1,174 rounds
- Hardpoints: 11 (8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations) with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of:
- Rockets:
- 4× LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19× / 7× Hydra 70 mm rockets, respectively)
- 4× LAU-5003 rocket pods (each with 19× CRV7 70 mm rockets)
- 6× LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4× 127 mm (5.0 in) Zuni rockets)
- Missiles:
- 2× AIM-9 Sidewinders air-to-air missiles for self-defense
- 6× AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles
- Bombs:
- Mark 80 series of unguided iron bombs or
- Mk 77 incendiary bombs or
- BLU-1, BLU-27/B Rockeye II, Mk20, BL-755[139] and CBU-52/58/71/87/89/97 cluster bombs or
- Paveway series of Laser-guided bombs or
- Joint Direct Attack Munition (A-10C)[140] or
- Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (A-10C)
- Other:
- SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys and chaff dispenser pod or
- AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 ECM pods or
- Lockheed Martin Sniper XR or LITENING targeting pods (A-10C) or
- 2× 600 US gallon Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for increased range/loitering time.
- Rockets:
- AN/AAS-35(V) Pave Penny laser tracker pod[141] (mounted beneath right side of cockpit) for use with Paveway LGBs
- Head-up display (HUD) for improved technical flying and air-to-ground support.[142]
Notable appearances in media[edit]
The A-10 Thunderbolt II received its popular nickname "Warthog" from the pilots and crews of the USAF attack squadrons who flew and maintained it. The A-10 is the last of Republic's jet attack aircraft to serve with the USAF. The Republic F-84 Thunderjet was nicknamed the "Hog", F-84F Thunderstreak nicknamed "Superhog", and the Republic F-105 Thunderchief tagged "Ultra Hog".[143] A less common nickname is the "Tankbuster".[144] The saying Go Ugly Early has been associated with the aircraft in reference to calling in the A-10 early to support troops in ground combat.[145]
See also[edit]
- Craig D. Button
- 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident
- 1988 Remscheid A-10 crash
- Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era
- Related lists
- List of attack aircraft
- List of active United States military aircraft
- List of friendly fire incidents
- ^ With the inner wheel on a turn stopped, the minimum radius of the turn is dictated by the distance between the inner wheel and the nose wheel. Since the distance is less between the right main wheel and the nose gear than the same measurement on the left, the aircraft can turn more tightly to the right.
- ^ Spick 2000, pp. 17, 52.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, p. 42.
- ^ "Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of the Air Campaign, GAO/NSIAD-97-134 Appendix IV." U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Air Force, 12 June 1997. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.
- ^ a b Burton 1993[page needed].
- ^ a b c d e Coram 2004
- ^ a b Donald and March 2004, p. 8.
- ^ Spick 2000, pp. 10–12.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, p. 12.
- ^ Coram 2004, p. 235.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, pp. 16–17.
- ^ a b c "GAO-07-415: Tactical Aircraft, DOD Needs a Joint and Integrated Investment Strategy."U.S. Government Accountability Office, April 2007. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, p. 19.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, pp. 18, 20.
- ^ Spick 2000, p. 18.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, p. 21.
- ^ Pike, Chris. "A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt II." Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved: 18 July 2010.
- ^ "Fact Sheet: Republic Night/Adverse Weather A-10." National Museum of the United States Air Force. Retrieved: 18 July 2010.
- ^ Spick 2000, pp. 52–55.
- ^ "Exhibits"[dead link] www.afftcmuseum.org. Retrieved: 8 May 2011.
- ^ a b Spick 2000, p. 48.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, p. 652.
- ^ "Ball Aerospace to Develop New Laser Spot Tracker"[dead link]. PR Newswire, 13 December 2004.
- ^ Spick 2000, p. 49.
- ^ Donald and March 2004, p. 46.
- ^ Jensen, David. "All New Warthog." Avionics Magazine, 1 December 2005.
- ^ a b c Schanz, Marc V. "Not Fade Away." Air Force Magazine, June 2008. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.
- ^ a b c "A Higher-Tech Hog: The A-10C PE Program." Defense Industry Daily, 21 July 2010. Retrieved: 11 June 2011.
- ^ Orndorff, Bill. "Maintenance unit completes upgrade of 100th A-10." U.S. Air Force, 18 January 2008. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.
- ^ "USAF A-10 crews evaluate Scorpion HMCS."
- ^ a b Tirpak, John A. "Making the Best of the Fighter Force." Air Force magazine, Vol. 90, no. 3, March 2007.
- ^ "Boeing Awarded $2 Billion A-10 Wing Contract."[dead link] Boeing, 29 June 2007. Retrieved 1 July 2011.
- ^ US Air Force to Build 56 Additional A-10 Wings to Keep the Type Operating Through 2035 - Deagel.com, 4 September 2013
- ^ 40th FTS expands A-10 fuel limitations in combat - Eglin.AF.mil, 26 August 2013
- ^ Graham, Ian. "Air Force scientists test, develop bio jet fuels." af.mil, 30 March 2010. Retrieved: 18 July 2010.
- ^ 46th tests alcohol-based fuel in A-10 - Eglin.AF.mil, 2 July 2012
- ^ "NSF to Turn Tank Killer Into Storm Chaser" Science (journal), 11 November 2011. Retrieved: 22 July 2012.
- ^ a b "Plane Has Combative Attitude toward Storms" American Meteorological Society. Retrieved: 22 July 2012.
- ^ a b "Next-Generation Storm-Penetrating Aircraft" South Dakota School of Mines & Technology. Retrieved: 22 July 2012.
- ^ Godfrey, Joe. "Charlie Summers" AVweb, 16 April 2003. Retrieved: 22 July 2012.
- ^ Stephens World Air Power Journal Spring 1994, pp. 42–43.
- ^ Air International, May 1974, p. 224.
- ^ Drendel 1981, p. 12.
- ^ Stephens World Air Power Journal. Spring 1994, p. 64.
- ^ a b Taylor 1982, pp. 363–364.
- ^ Spick 2000, pp. 64–65.
- ^ a b Donald and March 2004, p. 18.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, p. 58.
- ^ a b c Spick 2000, p. 44.
- ^ Henderson, Breck W. "A-10 'Warthogs' damaged heavily in Gulf War bug survived to fly again." Aviation Week and Space Technology, 5 August 1991.
- ^ a b c d Stephens World Air Power Journal Spring 1994, p. 42.
- ^ a b Jenkins 1998, pp. 47, 49.
- ^ Spick 2000, pp. 32.
- ^ a b c d Air International June 1979, p. 270.
- ^ Spick 2000, pp. 30–33.
- ^ Haag, Jason. "Wounded Warthog: an A-10 Thunderbolt II pilot safely landed her "Warthog" after it sustained significant damage from enemy fire." Combat Edge, April 2004.
- ^ "Capt. Kim Campbell." stripes.com. Retrieved: 21 August 2011.
- ^ a b Bell 1986, p. 64.
- ^ Wilson 1976, p. 714.
- ^ Stephens 1995, p. 18.
- ^ TCTO 1A-10-1089, Flight manual TO 1A-10A-1 (20 February 2003, Change 8), page vi, 1-150A.
- ^ Sweetman 1987, p. 46.
- ^ a b Jenkins 1998, pp. 64–73.
- ^ Stephens World Air Power Journal Spring 1994, pp. 53–54.
- ^ Stephens World Air Power Journal, Spring 1994, pp. 54–56.
- ^ Stephens World Air Power Journal Spring 1994, p. 57.
- ^ Stephens. World Air Power Journal, Spring 1994, p. 53.
- ^ Neubeck 1999, p. 92.
- ^ Stephens World Air Power Journal, Spring 1994, p. 47.
- ^ Neubeck 1999, pp. 72, 73, 76, 77.
- ^ Shaw 1985, p. 382.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, pp. 56–59.
- ^ Campbell 2003, pp. 117, 175–183.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, p. 63.
- ^ Stephens World Air Power Journal, Spring 1994, pp. 50, 56.
- ^ Coyne, James P. "Total Storm", Air Force magazine, June 1992
- ^ "Fixed-wing Combar Aircraft Attrition, list of Gulf War fixed-wing aircraft losses."[dead link] Gulf War Airpower Survey, Vol. 5. Retrieved: 19 July 2010.
- ^ Friedman, Norman. "Desert Victory." World Air Power Journal.
- ^ a b "A-10/OA-10 fact sheet." U.S. Air Force, October 2007. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.
- ^ "A-16 Close Air Support." F-16.net. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.
- ^ Sudetic, Chuck. "U.S. Hits Bosnian Serb Target in Air Raid." The New York Times, 6 August 1994.
- ^ a b Donald and March 2004, pp. 42–43.
- ^ "Pilot Gets 2nd Chance to Thank Rescuer." Air Force Times, 27 April 2009.
- ^ Haave |, Col. Christopher and Lt. Col. Phil M. Haun. "A-10s over Kosovo." Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, December 2003. Retrieved: 21 August 2011.
- ^ Donald and March 2004, p. 44.
- ^ Donald and March 2004, pp. 44–45.
- ^ "30 Apr OIF by the Numbers UNCLASS.doc (pdf)." globalsecurity.org. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.
- ^ Maier, Staff Sgt. Markus. "Upgraded A-10s prove worth in Iraq." U.S. Air Force, 7 November 2007. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.
- ^ Doscher, Staff Sgt. Thomas J. "A-10C revolutionizes close air support." U.S. Air Force, 21 February 2008. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.
- ^ a b Fight to Keep A-10 Warthog in Air Force Inventory Reaches End Game - Nationaldefensemagazine.org, September 2013
- ^ "New air missions attack Kadhafi troops: Pentagon." AFP, 29 March 2011.
- ^ Schmitt, Eric "U.S. Gives Its Air Power Expansive Role in Libya." The New York Times, 29 March 2011, p. A13. Retrieved: 29 March 2011.
- ^ a b Bagram pilots save 60 Soldiers during convoy ambush - AF.mil, 6 August 2013
- ^ Trimble, Steven. "US Air Force may extend Fairchild A-10 life beyond 2028." Flight International, 29 August 2007. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.
- ^ Goozner, Merill. "$382 Billion for a Slightly Better Fighter Plane?: F-35 has plenty of support in Congress." The Fiscal Times, 11 February 2011. Retrieved: 6 March 2011
- ^ "F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10". Flightglobal.com, 16 May 2012.
- ^ Schogol, Jeff. "Proposed A-10 cuts total 29% of inventory." Air Force Times, 1 February 2012.
- ^ "Disputes Continue Over Air National Guard Cuts."
- ^ "USAF Weighs Scrapping KC-10, A-10 Fleets." Defense News, 15 September 2013.
- ^ "USAF General: A-10 Fleet Likely Done if Sequestration Continues." Defense News, 17 September 2013.
- ^ Senators Offer Amendment To Prevent A-10 Retirements - Aviationweek.com, 19 November 2013
- ^ Bill Blocks Air Force from Retiring A-10 Warthog - Defensetech.org, 13 December 2013
- ^ If a Future A-10 Happens, Expect Minor Changes - Defensenews.com, 5 December 2013
- ^ Donald and March 2004, pp. 9–10.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, pp. 92–93.
- ^ "Unmanned version of A-10 on way." SpaceDaily.com, 20 February 2012.
- ^ Darpa Refocuses Precision Close Air Support Effort On Manned Aircraft - Aviationweek.com, 10 September 2013
- ^ "Next-generation Storm-penetrating Aircraft". South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. Retrieved 14 December 2013.
- ^ Mehuron, Tamar A., Assoc. Editor. "USAF Almanac, Fact and Figures (PDF)" Air Force Magazine, May 2012. Retrieved: 17 May 2012.
- ^ "81st Inactivation | Spangdahlem Air Base Blog". Spangdahlem.dodlive.mil. 2013-06-18. Retrieved 2013-11-16.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/71-1370." aerialvisuals.ca. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/73-1664."[dead link] Air Force Flight Test Center Museum. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/73-1666." Hill Aerospace Museum. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/73-1667." Warbird Registry. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/75-0263." Empire State Aerosciences Museum. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/75-0270." McChord Air Museum. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/75-0293." Wings of Eagles Discovery Center. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/75-0288." Air Force Armament Museum. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/75-0298." Pima Air & Space Museum. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/75-0305." Museum of Aviation. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/75-0308." Warbird Registry. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ www.wingsoffreedom.org
- ^ "Team Whiteman recovers A-10 aircraft.". Whiteman AFB. Retrieved: 21 July 2011.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/76-0535." Cradle of Aviation. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/76-0540." Aerospace Museum of California. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/77-0205." Warbird Registry. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/77-0228." Grissom Air Museum. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/77-0244." Warbird Registry. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/77-0252." Cradle of Aviation. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/78-0681." National Museum of the USAF. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/78-0687." Warbird Registry. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/79-0079." Warbird Registry. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II/79-0100." Warbird Registry. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt II." New England Air Museum. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ [1]. Selfridge Military Air Museum. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- ^ Spick 2000, pp. 21, 44–48.
- ^ a b c Jenkins 1998, p. 54.
- ^ Flight manual TO 1A-10A-1 (20 February 2003, Change 8), pp. 5–24.
- ^ Aalbers, Willem "Palerider". "History of the Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, Part Two." Simhq.com. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.
- ^ Flight Manual TO 1A-10A-1 (20 February 2003, Change 8), pp. 5–30.
- ^ Pike, John. "A-10 Specs." Global Security. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.
- ^ "Lockheed Martin AN/AAS-35(V) Pave Penny laser tracker." Jane's Electro-Optic Systems, 5 January 2009. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.
- ^ "A-10 vs F-16: Go Ugly Early, HUD Video." Liveleak.com, 24 January 2009. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, pp. 4, backcover.
- ^ "A-10 Thunderbolt (Warthog) Ground Attack Aircraft." Airforce-technology.com. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, pp. 64–65.
- Bell, Dana. A-10 Warthog in Detail & Scale, Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania: TAB Books, 1986. ISBN 0-8168-5030-5.
- Burton, James G. The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard, Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1993. ISBN 1-55750-081-9.
- Campbell, Douglas N. The Warthog and the Close Air Support Debate. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 2003. ISBN 1-55750-232-3
- Coram, Robert. Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War. Los Angeles: Back Bay Books, 2004. ISBN 0-316-79688-3.
- Donald, David and Daniel J. March, eds. "A-10 Fighting Warthog". Modern Battlefield Warplanes. Norwalk, Connecticut: AIRtime, 2004. ISBN 1-880588-76-5.
- Drendel, Lou. A-10 Warthog in action. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1981. ISBN 0-89747-122-9.
- The Fairchild A-10A: More Thunder for the USAF, Air International, Vol. 6, No. 5, May 1974, pp. 219–225, 263. Bromley, UK: Pilot Press. ISSN 0306-5634.
- The Fairchild Can-Opener: Shturmovik of the Eighties?, Air International, Vol. 16, No. 6, June 1979, pp. 267–272, 287. Bromley, UK: Pilot Press. ISSN 0306-5634.
- Fitzsimmons, Bernard (ed.) A-10 Thunderbolt II (Modern Fighting Aircraft Series). New York: Arco Publishing, Inc., 1984. ISBN 0-668-06070-0.
- Jenkins, Dennis R. Fairchild-Republic A/OA-10 Warthog. North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press, 1998. ISBN 1-58007-013-2.
- Melampy, Jake. Modern Hog Guide: The A-10 Exposed. Trenton, Ohio: Reid Air Publications, 2007. ISBN 0-9795064-2-5.
- Neubeck, Ken. A-10 Warthog, Mini in-action. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1995. ISBN 0-89747-335-3.
- Neubeck, Ken. A-10 Warthog Walk Around. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1999. ISBN 0-89747-400-7.
- Shaw, Robert. Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1985. ISBN 0-87021-059-9.
- Spick, Mike. The Great Book of Modern Warplanes. London: Salamander Books, 2000. ISBN 1-84065-156-3.
- Stephens, Rick. "A-10 Thunderbolt II". World Air Power Journal, 1995. ISBN 1-874023-54-9.
- Stephens, Rick. "Fairchild A-10: Fighting Warthog", World Air Power Journal, Volume 16, Spring 1994, pp. 32–83, Aerospace Publishing, London. ISBN 1-874023-36-0. ISSN 0959-7050.
- Sweetman, Bill. The Great Book of Modern Warplanes, New York: Portland House, 1987. ISBN 0-517-63367-1.
- Taylor, John W. R. Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1982–83. London: Jane's Yearbooks, 1982. ISBN 0-7106-0748-2.
- Wilson, Michael. "Fairchild A-10". Flight International, 20 March 1976, pp. 707–717.
- Winchester, Jim, ed. "Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II", Military Aircraft of the Cold War (The Aviation Factfile), Rochester, Kent, UK: The Grange plc., 2006. ISBN 1-84013-929-3.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to A-10 Thunderbolt II. |
- USAF A-10 fact sheet page
- (1988) TO 1A-10A-1 Flight Manual USAF Series A-10A Aircraft Serno 75-00258 and Subsequent
- Republic A-10A page, A-10 Construction, and Night/Adverse Weather A-10 pages on National Museum of the United States Air Force site
- A-10.org web site[dead link]
- A-10 web page on GlobalSecurity.org
- A-10 Thunderbolt II in action on youtube.com
- A-10 Thunderbolt II