Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 8 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
#4250052 - 04/15/16 09:48 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: axman]  
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,740
FlashBurn Offline
Senior Member
FlashBurn  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,740
Washington State, USA
Have to keep in mind, this thread will reveal personal bias and blind spots. My bias is looking in at from the some dumb broken scout somewhere out front on the ground. If in such a screwed up situation that you got spotted and engaged you need help NOW to get the heck out in a stand up fight. But somewhere, someone is going to bleed more in a major conflict. In major conflict this often ends up being the guy with the rifle as other things, important things, also need doing. The A-10 is certainly getting close to not survivable on a modern battlefield. It is not there yet and no real replacement either. But I find it ironic that the Air Force brass is looking at potential wars with China/Russia and only really looking at what they want to do. Shoot down fighters and bomb things in the rear. That needs doing. But what do we have that get to the fight on the ground that is not off doing other things in the future? We don't. Recent wars and top brass are filled with experience on these stupid low intensity wars. The guys that had to learn the hard way decades back are long past. And the military always gets the next war wrong.

Throw away drones and brilliant weapons that can target on their own (hopefully right) are not here yet. And can probably do these sorts of missions. But for a 1st world power, it better not be GPS based. Gee I wonder what Number 1 target will be up yonder for any potential 1st world power as a US adversary? I just say keep something like the A-10 until you damned well know you do not need it. Or will it be a situation where you start pulling old planes out of moth balls like in Korea and Vietnam. But there is no time for that in a modern war. There will simply be no time. Its come with what you got. Manufacturing anything bigger than a rifle or simple gun will never get to the front line before you either won or lost the war. And any conflict bigger than a 1st power regional fight? Don't worry, the world would be glass anyways.

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4250056 - 04/15/16 10:21 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: radicaldude1234]  
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 17,301
Nixer Offline
Scaliwag and Survivor
Nixer  Offline
Scaliwag and Survivor
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 17,301
Living with the Trees
This is even better than the flight model threads in the old IL2 forum. popcorn

From what I understand, the A-10 has been very effective in the asymmetrical wars we have allowed our leadership to embroil us in.

Anything else is speculation IMHO.


Censored

Look for me on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook or Tic Toc...or anywhere you may frequent, besides SimHq, on the Global Scam Net. Aka, the internet.
I am not there, never have been or ever will be, but the fruitless search may be more gratifying then the "content" you might otherwise be exposed to.

"There's a sucker born every minute."
Phineas Taylor Barnum

#4250061 - 04/15/16 10:35 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: FlashBurn]  
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 116
radicaldude1234 Offline
Member
radicaldude1234  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 116
SoCal
Originally Posted By: FlashBurn
Have to keep in mind, this thread will reveal personal bias and blind spots. My bias is looking in at from the some dumb broken scout somewhere out front on the ground. If in such a screwed up situation that you got spotted and engaged you need help NOW to get the heck out in a stand up fight. But somewhere, someone is going to bleed more in a major conflict. In major conflict this often ends up being the guy with the rifle as other things, important things, also need doing. The A-10 is certainly getting close to not survivable on a modern battlefield. It is not there yet and no real replacement either. But I find it ironic that the Air Force brass is looking at potential wars with China/Russia and only really looking at what they want to do. Shoot down fighters and bomb things in the rear. That needs doing. But what do we have that get to the fight on the ground that is not off doing other things in the future? We don't. Recent wars and top brass are filled with experience on these stupid low intensity wars. The guys that had to learn the hard way decades back are long past. And the military always gets the next war wrong.


While it may certainly seem like it, I doubt the brass is that blind. Recently the Air Force has been between a rock and a hard place. Its combat aircraft are being kept in service at ages that are unprecedented. The aircraft being developed to replace them have been delayed and overpriced. There is a strong emphasis to fund these newer types so we don't get screwed a decade or two down the line. If they screw up procurement, reduced CAS capabilities will be least of our worries...particularly if we lose air dominance (F-22), long range strike (LRB/B-21), and a workhorse fighter (F-35).

That's why there's a strong push to eliminate manned single role aircraft now. In terms of putting one trick ponies out to pasture, let's look at our options:

-F-15, sure they're falling apart and haven't fired a shot since the Balkans, but we didn't buy enough F-22s and if we lose air superiority, we can forget about air-anything
-B-1B. They're significantly more expensive to operate than the B-52, but if we retire them we lose a significant portion of our nuclear deterrent and long range strike capability.
-B-52, same argument as B-1B, and they're cheap to operate.
-B-2, same argument as the B-1B, that and they're a significant part of nuclear deterrence.
-T-1/T-6/T-38, we need something to train our pilots, don't we?
-U-2, was on the chopping block, but Global Hawk couldn't get it's act together.
-RQ-4 Global Hawk, ironically because it couldn't get its act together to replace the U-2
-KC-10, last I heard, was being considered for the chopping block.
-F-22, see F-15 argument, and hell, we just bought the damn things...

Which leaves us to....the A-10. While it's proposed replacements aren't as good at its job, the Warthog is not totally irreplaceable. The increase from 20mm to 30mm is really only useful for use against tanks, and only marginally at that: it's been implied (see A-10 pilot coloring book, along with tongue in cheek humor) that the shell straight up cannot penetrate the frontal armor of modern tanks and it's other CAS capabilities can be taken over by other aircraft. No ONE aircraft can replace the A-10, but a collection of existing platforms can...

The implication is also that if the environment is safe enough for a Warthog to operate in, why not an attack helicopter, drone, OV-10, AC-130, Cessna Caravan with Hellfire missiles (don't laugh, those exist).

It's not a question of if they want to get rid of the Warthog; it's more a question of "if you have to cut somebody from the team, who would you choose?"

Quote:
Throw away drones and brilliant weapons that can target on their own (hopefully right) are not here yet. And can probably do these sorts of missions. But for a 1st world power, it better not be GPS based. Gee I wonder what Number 1 target will be up yonder for any potential 1st world power as a US adversary? I just say keep something like the A-10 until you damned well know you do not need it. Or will it be a situation where you start pulling old planes out of moth balls like in Korea and Vietnam. But there is no time for that in a modern war. There will simply be no time. Its come with what you got. Manufacturing anything bigger than a rifle or simple gun will never get to the front line before you either won or lost the war. And any conflict bigger than a 1st power regional fight? Don't worry, the world would be glass anyways.


Except we can't throw away drones as an option. In the last decade, there's been an huge rise (so to speak) in emphasis for drones. They currently shoulder the workload in terms of CAS and strikes in the middle east. There was such a shortage of drone pilots that the Air Force created a separate pipeline to train them.

It's funny that you mentioned the vulnerability of GPS based weaponry because they realized this the JDAM system was just updated to include optical (laser) systems, along with the inertial system that it already has. The weapon of choice for drones (Hellfire) is laser guided. As for maintaining superiority in space...let's just say there's an entire command in the Air Force devoted to that...

Last edited by radicaldude1234; 04/15/16 10:55 PM.
#4250072 - 04/15/16 11:20 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: PanzerMeyer]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Offline
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer
Originally Posted By: Flogger23m

For its original role, a tank killer, it is outdated.
Assuming we never have a war against China, Russia or North Korea all of whom have large tank forces.


There are a number of planes which can carry more advanced anti tank missiles in larger numbers, radars all while being able to defend themselves more easily. If anything the A-10 won't see much action against a modern military, much like an AC-130.

Originally Posted By: NH2112

And what's the blast radius of a JDAM? How close to friendlies can a Hellfire hit without injuring or killing them? See, big bombs make big booms and hurt people far away.


Unguided munitions aren't exactly safe either. And the US Army found that HE in something smaller than 40mm wasn't effective at stopping a threat. I recall this was a large reason why their airbust 25mm wasn't pursued further. From what I have read, the GAU-8 is similar. Decent suppression but it doesn't stop threats well.

The USMC has found that smart low yield missiles are great for COIN and seem to prefer them to hosing the area down with cannons:

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_Gunslinger_on_KC-130J_Harvest_Hawk_lg.jpg

They seem to be using the Harvest Hawk successfully.

#4250136 - 04/16/16 08:32 AM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: radicaldude1234]  
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 10,790
Weasel_Keeper Offline
SimHQ Forums Manager
Weasel_Keeper  Offline
SimHQ Forums Manager
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 10,790
Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Originally Posted By: radicaldude1234


You're right about training, but let me point out that one of the best CAS outfits was the NY ANG Squadron at Syracuse. They operated A-10s and then switched over to F-16s all the while maintaining their fearsome reputation for being brutally effective at CAS. They now operate Predators, but that's another story for another time smile



Funny the Syracuse Guard is mentioned. Before my unit went to A-10s we spent a year and a half going from block 25s to block 30 F-16s...only to put them in the boneyard after we made them right so we could get A-10Cs. We received 6 block 30s from Syracuse...and they were by far the 2nd biggest POS acft in the USAF inventory, only outdone by the Selfridge block 30s we got at the same time. At one time we had no less than 7 jets on jacks in our hangar swapping out 2 or 3 landing gear because of overlooked inspections and shoddy maintenance. The boneyard was actually surprised when they got these from my unit because they were so well taken care of in just a short 1.5 years.

I might be going over everyone's head but in the F-16 main landing gear there is what's commonly known as a "dime shim"...it's literally a set of metallic shims that's about equal in thickness and roundness to a dime. I personally was working a Syracuse block 30 F-16 landing gear during this time and I pulled out an actual freaking dime (10 cents US) where the "dime shim" goes.

With that said, I'll let everyone get back to saying the A-10 is crap and can't survive, even though they're still deep into the current fight for almost two years and still doing VERY well...with zero losses blah blah blah. reading


"Cave Putorium!"
SoWW #2485
Beware the Weasel
#4250141 - 04/16/16 09:10 AM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: axman]  
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
scrim Offline
Member
scrim  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
It's fairly clear and well stated that the A-10, just like any plane, has no issues surviving dropping bombs from 20k feet on people who at best have badly maintained MANPADs. Even B-17s could do that. What is pointed out is that they weren't reckoned to survive more than 4 days of the tank hunting in Central Europe that they were designed for, and that they incurred so many losses against the outdated AD systems employed by relatively disorganised Republican Guard units in '91, that they were (successfully) replaced by F-16s for missions against those units. Would they face lesser AD threats 30 years later from a country with modern weapons?

Last edited by scrim; 04/16/16 09:13 AM.
#4250218 - 04/16/16 05:50 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: axman]  
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,338
W-Molders Offline
Member
W-Molders  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,338
I.E. Commiefornia ..S.B Count...
everybody is missing the point in the AF and the Pentagon.... A10 brings fear and suppression to the enemy allowing the ground troops to re-position or counter attack. They know WTF that 30mm is and they fear it cuase they know it aint going away and you cant hide from it.


[Signature deleted]
#4250243 - 04/16/16 09:48 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: scrim]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
NH2112 Online content
Veteran
NH2112  Online Content
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
Jackman, ME
Originally Posted By: scrim
Originally Posted By: NH2112
The thing is, other aircraft CAN'T. There simply is no other aircraft in the US military inventory that can perform the CAS mission as well as the A10. Dropping bombs on enemy positions 1/4 mile away or more isn't CAS. Strafing an enemy close enough that you could throw a hand grenade at them is.


Originally Posted By: MD
Sigh. It's sad to see the fanboys who are so out of control in what they think they know about the A-10, and it somehow being this invincible entity of some kind, to which US troops will be dying by the millions if A-10s aren't around (since, of course, they can be everywhere at all times and when every CAS situation pops up :roll: ). I show up in various places to correct some of the outright stupidity I come across from these folks who haven't clue one about any of the missions, and still I get morons wanting to argue with me on everything from true CAPES to weapons to tactics/employment, etc. To where I get the usual idiotic argument of "ask the ground troops what they want" (ground troops are CAS specialists?), or the "NO other aircraft does CAS" (that is, besides the many that do), "give them to the Marines, they'll take them" (no they won't), or the better one of "I work on A-10s as a crew chief, so I know how they're used" (no son, am glad you maintain them, but you haven't clue one about tactics or employment, anymore than I have clue one about servicing the LOX on the jet), to the absolute best of "if you haven't done the job of CAS and haven't flown the Hog, you should shut the eff up" (as if you have done either fanboy? and yes, been there, done that, in the Hog. Next?) Sheer idiocy, some of these people. In reality, these people do far more damage to any kind of movement to save the A-10, than they do help; because the pure emotional arguments of these particular people (as opposed to balanced arguments based on reality) combined with the fact that they have zero experience in the role/mission/airframes or are even remotely affected by same. And the idiocy they post is seen by anyone and everyone, including those who are in positions to save or kill the airframe. No wonder when they write/call congresspeople/senators, they either get a canned political response, or no response at all.

Just the other day, there was a poster who was comparing the A-10/F-35, talking about how the Hog carries 2000 rounds of gun ammo as compared to the 200 the F-35 will carry. 2000 rounds? What, were GPU-5 pods bolted to a few of the parent stations and their ammo counted in the load being carried? As well as the same loadout arguments that have been going on in previous pages in this thread. Finally just told them, if you're going to support the A-10 or bash the F-35, at least do a little damn homework and come up with facts on both aircraft, pro or con, lest you sound like an ignorant fool.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=301246#p301246


As much as I do enjoy debating, I've gotta say this is the end of the line for me in regards to you. It's simply downright boring to present numbers, statistics, facts and discoveries this side of the 21st century, etc. only to have it very deliberately ignored, twisted or misunderstood as it suits you. It's one thing to be stubborn, but really...
It's quite clear that you simply don't want to hear of anything that doesn't say that only the A-10 can adequately perform CAS (apparently Apaches can be downed with a rock, despite their long history of operating far closer and more effectively with ground troops for over a decade in Afghanistan and Iraq now), that no technological developments have occurred that enables it to be carried out in any other way than with a GAU-8 against enemies at bayonet fighting range from friendlies, that everyone who wants the A-10 to stay as it is are heroes and everyone against is a duped fool, etc.


The thing is, you haven't presented anything that could remotely be construed as a fact, other than the fact that more A10s were downed during Desert Storm than F16s. A fact which means nothing once you look past the raw data, such as the A10s flew 8100 sorties, almost all of which were ground attack missions, while the 13400 sorties flown by F16s covered many more types of missions and put them out of the range of many AA weapons. You're saying things along the line of "more Marines than soldiers were killed in the Pacific during WW2, that must mean the Marines aren't as good at fighting as the army was," without taking into consideration that the Marines conducted more contested amphibious assaults than the army did. You think the number of losses is the sole indicator of an aircraft's value, and I'm trying to make you see it goes far beyond that.

Again, you have a grand total of ONE former A10 pilot taking your side of the debate. If I come up with 2 or more former or current who say he's wrong do I therefore win? He scoffs at people who form their opinions by talking to those who do a certain job, an opinion you apparently hold while you do the exact same thing as those you scoff at. Since I was an artilleryman and not a tanker, I can't possibly know how tanks are employed tactically? Or I can't possibly know the maintenance side of things since I wasn't a mechanic? I had no idea what went on in FDC because I wasn't a fire support specialist? A grunt on the ground needs to be a CAS specialist in order to know which aircraft does certain jobs better? Most people would be able to look at the results and know. I guess you have to be a mechanic to know that a wrench tightens or loosens nuts better than a pair of pliers.


Phil

“The biggest problem people have is they don’t think they’re supposed to have problems.” - Hayes Barnard
#4250258 - 04/16/16 11:52 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: axman]  
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
scrim Offline
Member
scrim  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
So many things I could point out there as being absurdly wrong, but I've really just got one thing to say: I said I'm done "debating" with you, and that's exactly what I meant.

#4250372 - 04/17/16 02:18 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: NH2112]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
MigBuster Offline
Member
MigBuster  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
UK
Originally Posted By: NH2112

A fact which means nothing once you look past the raw data, such as the A10s flew 8100 sorties, almost all of which were ground attack missions, while the 13400 sorties flown by F16s covered many more types of missions and put them out of the range of many AA weapons.


Unfortunately the only different mission for USAF F-16s (specifically defined) was 442 "Recce" sorties. You need to remember they were primary A-G assets in the USAF and won quite a few of the bomb comps in the 80s due to a better bombing system.

If you are interested the US DOD sortie breakdown:







#4250573 - 04/18/16 01:22 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: radicaldude1234]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 20,152
Top Gun Offline
Lifer
Top Gun  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 20,152
Roch-Vegas NH
Originally Posted By: radicaldude1234

Quote:
Because the guns aren't accurate enough, for one, and because they don't carry enough 20mm to make a difference. Strafing is all you can do when hostiles are danger close, unless you decide killing the friendlies as well is acceptable.


Are you claiming that the M61 cannon, which the F-16, F-15, F-22 depend on for air to air combat, is not accurate for strafing? Please support this claim as I am curious

Also, a Hellfire missile has around 20lbs of high explosive, the same as around 20 rounds of 30mm cannon shells. As strafing runs rarely ever just use 20 rounds, it looks like that more explosive power is in fact used.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#Accuracy

Quote:
The muzzle velocity of the GAU-8/A is about the same as that of the M61 Vulcan cannon, but the GAU-8/A uses heavier ammunition and has superior ballistics. The time of flight of its projectile to 4,000 feet (1,200 m) is 30 percent less than that of an M61 round; the GAU-8/A projectile decelerates much less rapidly after leaving the barrel, and it drops a negligible amount, about 10 feet (3.0 m) over the distance. The GAU-8/A accuracy when installed in the A-10 is rated at "5 mil, 80 percent", meaning that 80 percent of rounds fired will hit within a cone with an angle of five-milliradians. This equates to a 40 feet (12 m) diameter circle at the weapon's design range of 4,000 feet (1,200 m).[14] By comparison, the M61 has an 8-milliradian dispersion.



Weasel_keeper who is an A-10 crew chief has already posted in one of the a-10 threads about how the ROE doesn't allow them to drop bombs to take out enemy vehicles hiding between buildings because they don't want collateral damage... rolleyes But when he was stationed over in the sand box just last year his unit was strafing enemy vehicles between buildings because the gun was that accurate.

#4250616 - 04/18/16 03:34 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: axman]  
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
scrim Offline
Member
scrim  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
I think the point was more about collateral damage (which is bad, hitting friendlies/civilians is rather detrimental). The Brits have had huge successes with their Brimstone missile in those regards, achieving results that no pilot could hope to achieve strafing with any plane. And unlike the GAU-8, it can actually kill tanks.

#4250642 - 04/18/16 04:44 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: axman]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Crane Hunter Offline
Veteran
Crane Hunter  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
It remains to be seen how effective Brimstone style missiles would be against a vehicle with the latest Active Protection Systems, at least the GAU-8 would be able to damage some exterior components.

#4250649 - 04/18/16 05:02 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: axman]  
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
scrim Offline
Member
scrim  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
Well, if it's an enemy that's so advanced they have modern APSs, I think it's fairly safe to say that going down low to strafe to literally speaking just score a mobility/mission-kill (because that's about what the GAU-8 can hope to achieve against modern MBTs) will get you killed before your finger is even off the trigger.

Last edited by scrim; 04/18/16 05:04 PM.
#4250651 - 04/18/16 05:10 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: axman]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Crane Hunter Offline
Veteran
Crane Hunter  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
That's true, but I was more pointing out that the antiarmor task is going to be a lot more complicated going foward.

#4250660 - 04/18/16 05:35 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: Crane Hunter]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Offline
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted By: Crane Hunter
It remains to be seen how effective Brimstone style missiles would be against a vehicle with the latest Active Protection Systems, at least the GAU-8 would be able to damage some exterior components.


Active Protection has limited ammunition. And I'm not too sure how well it works against top profile attack missiles. It currently seems to be focused mostly on RPGs or older missiles. Of course, you can always shoot 2-3 Brimstones at a single vehicle. While expensive you can carry a lot of them. 18 for the Eurofighter, 12 for the Tornado (maybe more?).

#4250692 - 04/18/16 07:14 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Crane Hunter Offline
Veteran
Crane Hunter  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
Originally Posted By: Flogger23m


Active Protection has limited ammunition. And I'm not too sure how well it works against top profile attack missiles. It currently seems to be focused mostly on RPGs or older missiles. Of course, you can always shoot 2-3 Brimstones at a single vehicle. While expensive you can carry a lot of them. 18 for the Eurofighter, 12 for the Tornado (maybe more?).


The latest generation can deal with top attack missiles and salvos.

APS shots are a hell of lot cheaper than missiles, in fact an entire APS can be bought with the cost of 2 or 3 Brimstones.

#4250697 - 04/18/16 07:22 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: axman]  
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
scrim Offline
Member
scrim  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
In the end of the day, I do think it will still be cheaper to find a way to destroy something, than to invent something that keeps said object from being destroyed.

It's also a matter of where you draw the line for what an APS will actually intercept. Projectiles that are recognized to physically hit the vehicle unless intercepted, of course. But e.g. overfly top attack missiles? When you start tweaking the APS to intercept those as well, it will wind up intercepting loads of projectiles that pose no threat at all to the tank. 40mm grenades, regular missiles and rockets that require a physical hit, etc.

And if you set them to intercept weapons like the BLU-108, Christ! It'll be shooting down anything solid falling down from above!

Last edited by scrim; 04/18/16 07:26 PM.
#4250723 - 04/18/16 08:55 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: axman]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Crane Hunter Offline
Veteran
Crane Hunter  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,944
Master Meme-er
Yeah, of a certain velocity and radar signature.

Page 8 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
CD WOFF
by Britisheh. 03/28/24 08:05 PM
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0