Guard Hog

Here's a pic showing three GBU-38v1's (tan DSU-33's on the nose as A-10 LOADER said), and a GBU-38v5 labeled "BLU-129/B" and a drab nose plug. Now that I think of it, we started that deployment with v4's but got the v5's toward the end.

That looks like a GBU-54 on Station 8, with the fairing connecting the nose sensor up front to the guidance tail kit. As for Station 4, I'm guessing it's a GBU-38v4 or v5. That standard -38 is a regular old Mk82 bomb body. The collateral damage concerns in Afghanistan drove the development and use of these versions: GBU-38v4: same old bomb body but significantly less explosive charge (I want to say it's 20 pounds but don't quote me) GBU-38v5: brand new bomb body made of cellulose and carbon fiber, but with the same explosive charge as the standard bomb -- massive r

A few more... https://www.alamy.com/us-air-force-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-aircraft-flies-a-combat-sortie-april-image68504962.html?imageid=A71280CA-3A53-444C-AEF3-47921D014ECE&p=145884&pn=1&searchId=538854d7e72bdb0a030b731f01ed7698&searchtype=0 https://www.alamy.com/us-air-force-capt-kyle-babbitt-75th-expeditionary-fighter-squadron-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-pilot-flies-a-combat-sortie-april-2-2014-over-northeast-afghanistan-babbitt-is-a-houston-native-the-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-is-the-first-air-force-aircraft-specially-designed-for-close-air-support-of-ground-forces-du

Check out this pic, taken during that deployment: https://www.alamy.com/us-air-force-capt-nick-harris-75th-expeditionary-fighter-squadron-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-pilot-flies-a-combat-sortie-april-2-2014-over-northeast-afghanistan-harris-is-a-denver-colo-native-the-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-is-the-first-air-force-aircraft-specifically-designed-for-close-air-support-of-ground-forces-during-this-sortie-the-a-10-provided-close-air-support-capabilities-to-operation-enduring-freedom-coalition-ground-forces-us-air-force-photo-by-tech-sgt-jason-robertsonreleased-image440058060.html?imageid=274D9089-49A8-47

So I can't speak to specific markings, but the 75FS jets haven't seemed to change much in their appearance over the years. And while it would be difficult to find out specific serial numbers, I'd venture to say there's about a 50% chance that specific one was in Turkey seeing as half the squadron's jets were deployed. I know, none of it is definitive, but I think totally plausible. And I'm not trying to steer you away from your original intent or complicate things. Either deployment would give you the opportunity to field a good weapons configuration. Did you install the Pave Penny

Hi, For a Hog in Afghanistan during that time period... GBU-31: no, these didn't start flying on Hogs in combat til 2015 in Syria/Iraq AGM-65: yes, and it would be an AGM-65L GBU-38's: yes, both v1 and v4/5 GBU-12's: yes, but I don't recall anyone carrying them on Sta 1 until ops in Syria/Iraq in 2015/16; more likely on Stations 4-8 APKWS (AGR-20): no, these weren't fielded by A-10's in combat til the summer of 2016 when the 190FS was deployed to Turkey Targeting Pods: check references for the squadron/timeframe. The Guard has alway used LITENI

Hi all, I was active on here years ago and just now getting back into the hobby with a 1/48 Hasegawa F-16A that I picked up for $5... maybe 'cause it was missing two key pieces. Does anyone have a vertical stabilizer (both halves) from that kit they'd be willing to part with? Happy to pay a reasonable price for your troubles! Thanks! - Tom

Just looking for the ACES II logos that go on the seat, one above the oxygen bottle and the other on the opposite side. Cut-outs from a sheet work great. I know some full decal sheets include these but mine are all packed away and I don't need to buy more! I can send you money via Venmo. Thank you! - Tom Found some, thanks.

That SATCOM antenna...! Just an assembly error, but it makes me laugh. People are always trying to make things look aerodynamic on the Hog... there's nothing aerodynamic about the Hog! Looks promising overall.

Glad to be of some help, Curt. I think it's great you're thoughtful regarding those details.

Good question and this doesn't answer it... but the Idaho Hog's flaps were extended for painting. Granted, it was a full repaint and they needed to match the rest of the airframe's new color....

Thanks for sharing this. It looks like they have zeroed in on the details that no other manufacturer (except Monogram in the 1980s's!) has gotten right, namely the nose and the windscreen. Even the Academy kit, which looks pretty good, didn't quite get it in those respects.

The increased range and wider performance envelope are the obvious benefits, but one of the critical selling points of that particular tank was the fact that its shorter length allows the necessary gun bay panels to be opened for gun reloads without dropping the tank, both for ICT's and regular turns.

Looking really nice -- good in-depth review of how it builds, too. If it helps your planning, A-10's actually have their flaps in the retracted/up position on the ground when the jets aren't running. Once in a while, you'll see a jet's flap or flaps drooping, but that's not common. It's absolutely accurate to build the flaps up without a pilot in the seat. Hope that helps. Thanks for the follow-along!

Very interesting, Steve! I never knew any of that work went beyond bar napkin drawings. There was talk/hope of integrating the JAGM (Hellfire replacement) with the Hog to replace the Maverick. It likely will never happen. [Removed my comment that started the the thread away from your original question.. sorry, Raptor.777]

Yeah, I want to say it was 2.5x. And technically, it was magnification of the video picture; the clarity and ability to see farther wasn't improved. Might sound like semantics but there is a difference in this context.

Nope, it's a D-model. The EO's (B/K/H) and Laser (E/L) are perfectly clear. Generally, the Maverick is broken down into the guidance section (front), warhead (middle), and motor (back). Over the course of a missile's life, sections may be swapped and replaced, creating those varieties. I'm guessing that original contracts dictated acceptable colors, hence the shades of green, brown, and gray. Here's an AGM-65B with it's original warhead and motor (gloss white) with a seeker that at some point underwent some level of maintenance and was repainted gray. The "SCENE M

And here's a model I built years ago showing to IIR Mavs painted that way. They're a tad bit yellow -- should have mixed a bit more toward orange.

It's been a while since I painted one, but I always started with yellow then mixed in red and brown. For what it's worth, I recommend forgetting about making it clear/translucent -- paint it then gloss coat it. The seekers, even straight out of the casket, are opaque and you're hard-pressed to see any of the internal components even when standing right in front of it. Most seekers are the color you mentioned, but every once in a while you get a D/G with the reflective aviators-type lens. Same missile... don't know the reason for the lens looking so different. The fir

Looks really nice. Glad to be wrong about the wingtip AAR-47. I hope all those pieces come together to capture the old girl's lines correctly.

I guess it comes down to a modeler's skills -- thinking mine would look more like blobs than sensors! Very technically, the AAR-47 (MWS) was a separate upgrade to the A-10, but pretty nearly coincided with C-model conversion. Outside the cockpit, there are not a lot of indicators; an accurate depiction of a specific subject will really come down to references. Boom175's unit was the first to convert... maybe he remembers the specific changes?

They did, but I believe only on the stations that received 1760 cables for JDAMs (3/9, 8/4, 7/5), and it was just some panel changes allowing access inside the pylon for connecting said cables to the bombs. The elevators and rudders pretty much sit neutral when on the ground and powered off, unlike the flaps which on some birds have a tendency to droop without hydraulic power on.

Yeah, a good call on their part. It looked like that part matches the actual jet's windscreen assembly. Even on the good old Monogram kit, getting the seam between the clear part and fuselage to blend was always difficult, and I think when not done right it detracted from the lines.

Based on the limited views of it so far, I would agree that they do look significantly shallower than the real thing. Could be a pretty easy fix, and certainly an opportunity for the aftermarket guys. I'll try not to get too in the weeds with speculation 'til I can look at it with my own eyes, though. It's just really nice to see a new A-10 in this scale.

Yeah, I guess they could be the clear pieces you showed. But I didn't see them on the photos from the build displayed at that model show a few weeks back, nor on this full build: https://hyperscale.com/2022/reviews/kits/academy12348previewbg_1.htm Anyway, I'm not complaining or chucking spears, nor do I expect perfection. I hope it's a great kit!