[Hazaanko]

The A-10 Warthog will live forever.  It has a freaking amazing history as well.

[Mars]

And airplane with a machinegun that can rip through several tanks at once is worth the scant $10 million the A-10 is woth

[jr2]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/115274/eurofighter_typhoon/
eats your thunderbolt real fast

The A-10 isn't primarily an air-to-air superiority craft.    That said, if it's underestimated, the payback will be total.  The A-10 has never had a chance to prove itself against a fighter in the sky (perhaps just after takeoff, but that wouldn't count).  It does have 2 AIM-9 Sidewinders for self-defense, as well as the Gatling, ofc.  But, since its role isn't air-to-air, it is covered by a CAP of F-15s, 16s, or 18s (prolly used to also include 14s) all the time... so any enemy aircraft would have to sneak past those to challenge the A-10 (and feel its wrath!  ).

I like the SR-71.... but it has no weapons, it's too fast.    Since the SR-71 meets all of my speed requirements, I don't need speed to like the A-10, which has enough weapon power for both.    Now if they could figure out those airborne lasers....

[BengalTiger]

[Mobius]

Sigh...

 

[Hazaanko]

[Mobius]

Meh, n00b

[Polpolion]

Tomcats are nice n all but hornets are better My mom actually worked on circuit boards for hornets back in the day

NEVER. Tomcats rule...RULE!
If only the Super Tomcat saw the light of day, then you'd see....

Yup. The Tomcats rule just as much as any other disused 40 year old aircraft.

[NGTM-1R]

Sorry... but I'm an SR-71 fanboi.  I will now infect you with my disease.  Don't worry, it's (mostly) painless.

You don't have much a chance, considering I actually saw in SR-71 up close and personal, one that had been given to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. They, like most museums, don't have room to display all their stuff. The Smithsonian's stuff is rather bigger than others, though, and flies a lot of the time, so they have a hanger out by BWI (I think, it was a long time ago), with a good deal of misc. aircraft bits and some whole planes.

A friend of a friend's parent (I was perhaps 10 at the time) was a curator there and helped with restoration work, and got a few of us wee little munchkins a chance to visit. They had an SR-71 in mint condition there, which was probably the most intact of the stuff in the hanger. You could walk up to it, under it, touch it. The cockpit was a mess, a lot of the stuff was still classified back then (this would have been early 1990s) and had been torn out, but you could get down under it and stare into the recon camera lenses. I remember that very clearly.

The star of the place for me was a FW-190D partially restored, and they also had a B-24 that was in pieces, a F-5E Tiger II that was in need of major work to the engine nacelles and tail, a skeletal MiG-17, an engine from an ME-262, a TBM-1 Avenger they had just gotten that had been submerged in the Salton Sea for too long, and they were working on a replica A6M2 Zero (not sure of the specific model).

[jr2]

A little help: each of the Blackbird's engines produce more power than all four of the Queen Mary's engines combined. 

[Mobius]

Back on topic, I have always loved the SR-71. Especially the flyable version in Ace Combat 3

[Unknown Target]

Tomcats are nice n all but hornets are better My mom actually worked on circuit boards for hornets back in the day

NEVER. Tomcats rule...RULE!
If only the Super Tomcat saw the light of day, then you'd see....

Yup. The Tomcats rule just as much as any other disused 40 year old aircraft.

Tomcats actually are much better air-superiority aircraft than the even the Super Hornet - they're faster, can carry longer-ranged missiles, and have longer legs. They were retired because they were really good at air superiority, but only so so at ground attack. The Super Hornet, however, is good at both, and while not excellent at one like the Tomact was, it's mult-imission capability and it's much more modern electronics suite (the Tomcat, despite all efforts to modernize it, was still lagging behind modern aircraft) made the Hornet the best choice for the Navy's current plans. That and the Tomcat takes up a LOT of room on the carrier deck, compared to the Hornet, and it makes more sense logistically to only have to supply one type of aircraft, instead of two whose jobs overlap.

The Tomcat still is arguably more high-performance, though.

[Mefustae]

Tomcats actually are much better air-superiority aircraft than the even the Super Hornet - they're faster, can carry longer-ranged missiles, and have longer legs. They were retired because they were really good at air superiority, but only so so at ground attack. The Super Hornet, however, is good at both, and while not excellent at one like the Tomact was, it's mult-imission capability and it's much more modern electronics suite (the Tomcat, despite all efforts to modernize it, was still lagging behind modern aircraft) made the Hornet the best choice for the Navy's current plans. That and the Tomcat takes up a LOT of room on the carrier deck, compared to the Hornet, and it makes more sense logistically to only have to supply one type of aircraft, instead of two whose jobs overlap.

Hmm, I was under the impression the choice to retire the Tomcat was made because it was a total ***** to keep airborne. Extremely high maintenance plus an aging airframe equals retirement. Can't be helped.

[Dysko]

Tomcats were retired because they were really good at air superiority, but only so so at ground attack.

Actually, with an upgrade of the early '90s, Tomcats became also good planes for air-to-ground missions. Like Mefustae said, they were very expensive in maintenance costs.

[Wobble73]

I'd like to point out that these are all aeroplanes, none are airplanes! 

[Nuclear1]

I'd like to point out that these are all aeroplanes, none are airplanes! 

To connect two threads...

"Oh, an aeroplane!  My, my, we are grand aren't we?  Oh, no more buttered scones for me maitre, I'm off to play the grand piano!  Pardon me while I fly my aeroplane!"

[Unknown Target]

Tomcats were retired because they were really good at air superiority, but only so so at ground attack.

Actually, with an upgrade of the early '90s, Tomcats became also good planes for air-to-ground missions. Like Mefustae said, they were very expensive in maintenance costs.

I forgot to mention that, but yea, the Tomcats were also maintenance whores. But even with the Bombcat upgrade, they still were simply so-so bombers, IIRC.

[TrashMan]

Tomcats were retired because they were really good at air superiority, but only so so at ground attack.

Actually, with an upgrade of the early '90s, Tomcats became also good planes for air-to-ground missions. Like Mefustae said, they were very expensive in maintenance costs.

The modls were destroyed. TI's was government and corporte policy that.
Dick (the f***) Cheny was responsible for that. Without the original molds, it becam very costly to mantain them. It was sabotage. the new tomcat would kick the super hornets arse any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[Mobius]

I forgot to mention that, but yea, the Tomcats were also maintenance whores. But even with the Bombcat upgrade, they still were simply so-so bombers, IIRC.

So-so bombers like the F-15E?

[Dysko]

I forgot to mention that, but yea, the Tomcats were also maintenance whores. But even with the Bombcat upgrade, they still were simply so-so bombers, IIRC.

So-so bombers like the F-15E?

The F-15E is not much a "so-so" bomber... it offers great performances and paylod, and also very good air-to-air capabilities inherited from the air superiority variant.