• Everyone's Favorite Ground Attack Aircraft On the Verge of Retirement: A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog)
    126 replies, posted
the best thing about the a-10 is when it fires because it sounds like a roar of some mythical beast or something and then when it roars something is probably dead
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;42289683]the best thing about the a-10 is when it fires because it sounds like a roar of some mythical beast or something and then when it roars something is probably dead[/QUOTE] No, when it roars you get a chunk of land at least the size of a fucking football field turned into a god damn parking lot. And you always have a shitload of dead things.
The reason it has the dual roar is because the round is supersonic, so you hear the sound of the rounds impacting the ground and exploding before you hear the plane fire. It has triple redundant systems- primary hydraulics, secondary hydraulics, tertiary cables It is an absolute beast of the aircraft and most of the reason I had ever considered joining the AF [editline]23rd September 2013[/editline] also its actually pretty accurate with the GAU-8, one of the final tests is getting so many rounds in a 10x100m strip of land or something, so those british chaps were probably fine
[QUOTE=OvB;42289056][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuYmn_xYB78[/media] That sound alone is a weapon.[/QUOTE] That shit got serious real fast.
[QUOTE=Dacheet;42289304][url=http://www.badassoftheweek.com/warthog.html]My favorite bit about the A-10. Gotta love Ben[/url][/QUOTE] [quote]During Desert Storm, A-10s flew 8,100 sorties, with a mission capable rate of 95.7%. They were credited with killing 987 tanks, 926 artillery pieces, 1,106 trucks, 51 SCUD missile launchers, and a shitload of support vehicles and bunkers.[/quote] How can you not wanna use A-10 after these statistics.
[QUOTE=paindoc;42289800]The reason it has the dual roar is because the round is supersonic, so you hear the sound of the rounds impacting the ground and exploding before you hear the plane fire. It has triple redundant systems- primary hydraulics, secondary hydraulics, tertiary cables It is an absolute beast of the aircraft and most of the reason I had ever considered joining the AF [editline]23rd September 2013[/editline] also its actually pretty accurate with the GAU-8, one of the final tests is getting so many rounds in a 10x100m strip of land or something, so those british chaps were probably fine[/QUOTE]I rated you disagree because you wouldn't necessarily hear the impact sounds if the plane was firing away from you and it was between you and the target. (this is the case of most videos, actually) In this situation, you are correct though. The video OvB posted, the first roar you hear is what they're cheering about, we didn't hear the impact because it happened before the video started. After that close call, a few seconds later, that distant roar is the sound of the gun firing those close rounds. And it was a small burst too, so all that carnage done immediately in front of their position was [i]minor[/i] by GAU-8 standards. That's pretty intense.
[QUOTE=OvB;42289056][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuYmn_xYB78[/media] That sound alone is a weapon.[/QUOTE] it sounds like a fucking earthquake
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;42289044]i don't understand this. even if its tank-busting days are obsolete, doesn't this thing have loiter times, payload weight, and battlefield survivability surpassing pretty much every other aircraft out there? weird to scrap it[/QUOTE] The US wants to do away with 'One-Role' aircraft. Air to Ground + Air to Air is what it wants. It's really stupid though, if you ask me. The A-10 brings CAS unlike any other aircraft
i thought they were just retiring the a-10a
Retiring the A-10 for the F-35? Are these muther fuckers retarded? Like someone else said, look how long the B-52 has been in service....I sure as fuck don't see that hulk of a plane retiring anytime soon. I can't think of a POSSIBLE good reason to retire the A-10....other than replacing it with a "better" plane, but the F-35 is ANYTHING but a better plane.
[QUOTE=J!NX;42289073]How deadly is it and how many kills has it had?[/QUOTE] Let me put it as I like to. The A-10 is a dragon.
I had the chance to hear the A-10's guns in person. While at a WW2 reenactment (Private tactical battle) at Camp Atterbury, Indiana, they have a firing range for these things a few miles away. Two of them were doing strafing runs. The sound was amazing.
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;42290149]Retiring the A-10 for the F-35? Are these muther fuckers retarded? Like someone else said, look how long the B-52 has been in service....I sure as fuck don't see that hulk of a plane retiring anytime soon. I can't think of a POSSIBLE good reason to retire the A-10....other than replacing it with a "better" plane, but the F-35 is ANYTHING but a better plane.[/QUOTE] guided ordnance works better than unguided minigun strafes. When you have a cluster-bomb that fires dozens of metal frisbees that guide themselves and each can knock out a tank and can be launched from a stealth fighter, it's hard to justify keeping something like the A-10 in the air. With that said, what the F-35 lacks is fear factor, and anti infantry capabilities like the A-10 with it's GAU-8 has.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42289612]hahhaha, as if they'd chop the A-10, don't get too mournful guys the A-10 is here to stay. The fucking B-52 has been flying since the early 50's for the USAF, and that big fucker ain't going anywhere either. The A-10 is a youngin compared to the ancient B-52.[/QUOTE] Ugh, dude, you've been in the thread where this was last discussed. Bombers need much less retrofitting than any attacker or fighter aircraft. We achieved high enough efficiency levels in the "carry lots of fucking stuff regardless of the physical or monetary cost" category of aircraft design back in the '50s and '60s. There's not much more we can do to the concept that would be worth the R&D costs outside of what we've already done with stealth technology, because its sole job is to carry something from point A to point B, and even then only if we're sure that nothing will touch it anywhere inbetween. High speed bombers are the same story and similarly old. And fuck man, you're a WoT player too, you understand that just because it shares the same name with its 1950s predecessor doesn't mean it's exactly the same vehicle.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;42289044]i don't understand this. even if its tank-busting days are obsolete, doesn't this thing have loiter times, payload weight, and battlefield survivability surpassing pretty much every other aircraft out there? weird to scrap it[/QUOTE] Military selection formula: (Actual strategic and tactical value on a scale from one to ten) + (cost in dollars (Contractors clout expressed in dollars)) Highest number wins
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42290303]guided ordnance works better than unguided minigun strafes. When you have a cluster-bomb that fires dozens of metal frisbees that guide themselves and each can knock out a tank and can be launched from a stealth fighter, it's hard to justify keeping something like the A-10 in the air. With that said, what the F-35 lacks is fear factor, and anti infantry capabilities like the A-10 with it's GAU-8 has.[/QUOTE] Also what the F-35 lacks is, you know, it also actually fucking reliably working regularly.
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;42289155]its a gun mounted on a tank that somehow has wings they better have something good up their sleeves if they are retiring the A10[/QUOTE] [b]AUTONOMOUS/REMOTE[/b] A-10's, if the guy above is to be believed. Fuck yeah, all the kick-ass we've loved for decades without the risk of a pilot's life.
Aren't those planes the only ones allowed to have unique paint jobs on their bodies these days?
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42290303]guided ordnance works better than unguided minigun strafes. When you have a cluster-bomb that fires dozens of metal frisbees that guide themselves and each can knock out a tank and can be launched from a stealth fighter, it's hard to justify keeping something like the A-10 in the air. With that said, what the F-35 lacks is fear factor, and anti infantry capabilities like the A-10 with it's GAU-8 has.[/QUOTE] A F-35 costs 180+ million new an A-10 costs 11.8 million new, a single sensor fuzed weapon that can kill at max 40 tanks costs 360 thousand. This does not take into account those sub munitions being too far away from targets to work. The weapon is non reusable, cannot be used for other missions and is even more special use than an A-10. Do you know what close air support is? That gun is extremely accurate, and can be used to support ground troops directly and much more effectively than the 25mm gun with a mere 180 rounds on the F-35, far less than the 1100 rounds of 30mm on the A-10. The F-35 cannot compete with the role of the A-10, it is a general purpose aircraft, the A-10 is a special purpose. Not to mention the F-35 is a stealth aircraft, it being shot at is not part of the design, unlike the a-10.
Even though I'm usually for cutting the military budget and ditching certain things, abandoning a weapon system that has proven to be ridiculously effective is just silly. But hey, if senators want Lockheed Martin to make a few more F-35 sales, what can we do about it?
[QUOTE=deadoon;42290518]A F-35 costs 180+ million new an A-10 costs 11.8 million new, a single sensor fuzed weapon that can kill at max 40 tanks costs 360 thousand. This does not take into account those sub munitions being too far away from targets to work. The weapon is non reusable, cannot be used for other missions and is even more special use than an A-10. Do you know what close air support is? That gun is extremely accurate, and can be used to support ground troops directly and much more effectively than the 25mm gun with a mere 180 rounds on the F-35, far less than the 1100 rounds of 30mm on the A-10. The F-35 cannot compete with the role of the A-10, it is a general purpose aircraft, the A-10 is a special purpose. Not to mention the F-35 is a stealth aircraft, it being shot at is not part of the design, unlike the a-10.[/QUOTE] I was giving a specific example of a certain anti tank weapon. Theres [I]dozens[/I] of other anti armor weaponry out there that can be mounted on an aircrafts hard points. Theres a million and one different munitions that can be fired from miles and miles and miles and miles away, even as far as 15 miles from a target. You talk about air-dropped munitions like the US isn't literally making thousands of them every year. When a munition is detonated, it's gone for ever, but that doesn't mean there aren't 70,000 munitions ready to take it's place and be dropped during the next sortie. When the US is in a war, they don't give 2 flying shits about the cost. Look at WWII for example. Another issue you need to take into account is the penetration rate of the GAU-8's 30mm spent uranium shell on modern armor thicknesses. Yeah, a GAU-8 will make a monkey model T-55 regret showing up that morning, but you try and run it on a modern MBT, and it'll shrug the hits and laugh. The GAU-8 is very good at putting a lot of lead down in a long, thick line. It's not a supreme accuracy weapon, it's just meant to drop a shit load of lead in a general area, which is real great against stationary infantry hiding in a mud hut. Another thing; you can't compare the F-35's GAU-22 to the A-10's GAU-8, as they are very different guns meant to fill different rolls. Another thing is accuracy. Back in the late 70's, official testing was done against some T-62's. 7 passes were made on the tanks at a few thousand feet in altitude, firing a few hundred rounds per strafe. After the passes, only 93 rounds struck the target and only 17 penetrated, many bouncing off the rear and side armor. Of course, the suspension and some other outer components were damaged, but thats a temporary knockout. These weren't just empty husks ready to be made target practice of, they were [B]combat loaded[/B], meaning they were fueled up and had ammo in storage, ready to cook off; but it didn't. Of course that was during the 70's but DU was still being used in the shells apparently, but the rounds probably became more effective as we tested new stuff, but as for accuracy? who knows; I haven't found any new stuff but I haven't been lookin for it either. Another issue is modern anti air munitions. The A-10 has probably the best survivability of any aircraft, but you can't underestimate modern AAA. Before they can be sent in, you have to use long range guided munitions, either launched from a bomber or the USN, which at that point why not just simplify it and drop a few of those munitions I was talking about earlier on the next sortie? Now look, I love the A-10, one of my favorite aircraft out there. It's cool as hell and it has it's place on the modern battlefield. But it's not the end-all-be-all so many people think it is.
Every now and then the Air Force has to go through a review of its airframes to see whether or not its still viable to keep them in active service. This happens all the time and is nothing to worry about. A10 gonna murder brown people for decades to come
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42290706]I was giving a specific example of a certain anti tank weapon. Theres [I]dozens[/I] of other anti armor weaponry out there that can be mounted on an aircrafts hard points. Theres a million and one different munitions that can be fired from miles and miles and miles and miles away, even as far as 15 miles from a target. You talk about air-dropped munitions like the US isn't literally making thousands of them every year. When a munition is detonated, it's gone for ever, but that doesn't mean there aren't 70,000 munitions ready to take it's place and be dropped during the next sortie. When the US is in a war, they don't give 2 flying shits about the cost. Look at WWII for example. Another issue you need to take into account is the penetration rate of the GAU-8's 30mm spent uranium shell on modern armor thicknesses. Yeah, a GAU-8 will make a monkey model T-55 regret showing up that morning, but you try and run it on a modern MBT, and it'll shrug the hits and laugh. The GAU-8 is very good at putting a lot of lead down in a long, thick line. It's not a supreme accuracy weapon, it's just meant to drop a shit load of lead in a general area, which is real great against stationary infantry hiding in a mud hut. Another thing; you can't compare the F-35's GAU-22 to the A-10's GAU-8, as they are very different guns meant to fill different rolls. Another thing is accuracy. Back in the late 70's, official testing was done against some T-62's. 7 passes were made on the tanks at a few thousand feet in altitude, firing a few hundred rounds per strafe. After the passes, only 93 rounds struck the target and only 17 penetrated, many bouncing off the rear and side armor. Of course, the suspension and some other outer components were damaged, but thats a temporary knockout. These weren't just empty husks ready to be made target practice of, they were [B]combat loaded[/B], meaning they were fueled up and had ammo in storage, ready to cook off; but it didn't. Of course that was during the 70's but DU was still being used in the shells apparently, but the rounds probably became more effective as we tested new stuff, but as for accuracy? who knows; I haven't found any new stuff but I haven't been lookin for it either. Another issue is modern anti air munitions. The A-10 has probably the best survivability of any aircraft, but you can't underestimate modern AAA. Before they can be sent in, you have to use long range guided munitions, either launched from a bomber or the USN, which at that point why not just simplify it and drop a few of those munitions I was talking about earlier on the next sortie? Now look, I love the A-10, one of my favorite aircraft out there. It's cool as hell and it has it's place on the modern battlefield. But it's not the end-all-be-all so many people think it is.[/QUOTE] I think you're ignoring the fact that the A-10 has eleven hard points. The F-35 has 10. They also have equal max payloads at 18,000 pounds. They are virtually the same when it comes to modular payloads, the only difference is the A-10 is a proven design at an affordable price.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42290706]I was giving a specific example of a certain anti tank weapon. Theres [I]dozens[/I] of other anti armor weaponry out there that can be mounted on an aircrafts hard points. Theres a million and one different munitions that can be fired from miles and miles and miles and miles away, even as far as 15 miles from a target. You talk about air-dropped munitions like the US isn't literally making thousands of them every year. When a munition is detonated, it's gone for ever, but that doesn't mean there aren't 70,000 munitions ready to take it's place and be dropped during the next sortie. When the US is in a war, they don't give 2 flying shits about the cost. Look at WWII for example. Another issue you need to take into account is the penetration rate of the GAU-8's 30mm spent uranium shell on modern armor thicknesses. Yeah, a GAU-8 will make a monkey model T-55 regret showing up that morning, but you try and run it on a modern MBT, and it'll shrug the hits and laugh. The GAU-8 is very good at putting a lot of lead down in a long, thick line. It's not a supreme accuracy weapon, it's just meant to drop a shit load of lead in a general area, which is real great against stationary infantry hiding in a mud hut. Another thing; you can't compare the F-35's GAU-22 to the A-10's GAU-8, as they are very different guns meant to fill different rolls. Another thing is accuracy. Back in the late 70's, official testing was done against some T-62's. 7 passes were made on the tanks at a few thousand feet in altitude, firing a few hundred rounds per strafe. After the passes, only 93 rounds struck the target and only 17 penetrated, many bouncing off the rear and side armor. Of course, the suspension and some other outer components were damaged, but thats a temporary knockout. These weren't just empty husks ready to be made target practice of, they were [B]combat loaded[/B], meaning they were fueled up and had ammo in storage, ready to cook off; but it didn't. Of course that was during the 70's but DU was still being used in the shells apparently, but the rounds probably became more effective as we tested new stuff, but as for accuracy? who knows; I haven't found any new stuff but I haven't been lookin for it either. Another issue is modern anti air munitions. The A-10 has probably the best survivability of any aircraft, but you can't underestimate modern AAA. Before they can be sent in, you have to use long range guided munitions, either launched from a bomber or the USN, which at that point why not just simplify it and drop a few of those munitions I was talking about earlier on the next sortie? Now look, I love the A-10, one of my favorite aircraft out there. It's cool as hell and it has it's place on the modern battlefield. But it's not the end-all-be-all so many people think it is.[/QUOTE] This is all [I]fine and dandy[/I] for conventional or nearly conventional warfare, but we're not often engaged in such a thing, and when we do become engaged in such a thing that's why we have a [B]variety[/B] of aircraft to choose from to fulfill the required role. You're also conveniently forgetting the WIDE array of precision ordinance the A-10 is capable of carrying on top of its high load capacity and infinite pylons. The retirement of the A-10 is removing a (very viable) option from the equation for no good reason.
The reason they want to get rid of them is because they have one very very specific role in the 21st century, fuck up low tech ground targets. They are cheap and cost effective in that role, but they would probably prefer to switch them out for a lower number of more sophisticated aircraft. The casualty projections for A10s against the Soviets 30 years ago were pretty bad. Essentially if you used A10s against a competent and capable force, they would suffer heavy casualties compared to a high tech multirole stealth fighter. Being tough and well armed simply isn't as safe as being quick and smart against high tech air defense. Afghanistan is the only reason they weren't retired a decade ago.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;42290779]The reason they want to get rid of them is because they have one very very specific role in the 21st century, fuck up low tech ground targets. They are cheap and cost effective in that role, but they would probably prefer to switch them out for a lower number of more sophisticated aircraft. [B]The casualty projections[/B] [B]for[/B] A10s [B]against the Soviets[/B] 30 years ago were pretty bad. Essentially if you used A10s against a competent and capable force, they would suffer heavy casualties compared to a high tech multirole stealth fighter. Being tough and well armed simply isn't as safe as being quick and smart against high tech air defense. Afghanistan is the only reason they weren't retired a decade ago.[/QUOTE] stop yourself there cold war doctrine is a very different beast.
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;42289683]the best thing about the a-10 is when it fires because it sounds like a roar of some mythical beast or something and then when it roars something is probably dead[/QUOTE] it's a fucking banshee
[QUOTE=Mbbird;42290792]stop yourself there cold war doctrine is a very different beast.[/QUOTE] My point is that A10s are great at seal clubbing, but not so great against modern AA, or the AA of tomorrow. Supersonic stealth aircraft have a better chance. I'm sure the US can afford to replace things before they become obsolete rather than after.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;42290749]I think you're ignoring the fact that the A-10 has eleven hard points. The F-35 has 10. They also have equal max payloads at 18,000 pounds. They are virtually the same when it comes to modular payloads, the only difference is the A-10 is a proven design at an affordable price.[/QUOTE] Friendly reminder that payload isn't the only thing that makes an aircraft useful. Theres things like size, rate of climb, top speed, cruising speed, stall speed, maximum altitude, operating altitude, turning speed, maximum G's, thrust to weight, and a few dozen more important little things. to name a really really really important one. A-10 has a whopping top speed of.....518 MPH, not even super sonic. Mr. F-35 can do Mach 1.6, or 1,200 MPH, you know, over twice what the A-10 can do! Another thing to remember is that the F-35 has some tech on it that would make the starfighter pilots in star wars cream their pants. F-35 can also be launched from a carrier or runway, vertically even. A-10 is modern but it pales in comparison to some of the stuff the F-35 has, and thats only the stuff we [i]know[/i] about. Imagine the classified stuff on that bird. [QUOTE=Mbbird;42290767]This is all [I]fine and dandy[/I] for conventional or nearly conventional warfare, but we're not often engaged in such a thing, and when we do become engaged in such a thing that's why we have a [B]variety[/B] of aircraft to choose from to fulfill the required role. You're also conveniently forgetting the WIDE array of precision ordinance the A-10 is capable of carrying on top of its high load capacity and infinite pylons. The retirement of the A-10 is removing a (very viable) option from the equation for no good reason.[/QUOTE] Ok yeah sure thats great and all but you still have to drop a lot of ordnance to get rid of any and all triple A emplacements before you can even think about sending in A-10's. Even then, it's main feature, the GAU-8, isn't even useful on armor anymore. Most of the killing it does is by dropping AGM's, rockets, and smart bombs (you know the same ones the F-35 can carry). So what happens when a sortie of enemy fighters approach an A-10 group? Now, same scenario, except with a group of F-35's? Which scenario is more ideal? And Again (for the third time). I'm not for retiring the A-10, it's just not the bird you all think it is. [editline]24th September 2013[/editline] The F-35 is by no means perfect, and I'm basing my argument on the day they do get the F-35 to perform perfectly, which will be one day if they don't cancel the project.
So let me get this right, the gun of the F35 is a 25 mm 4-barreled Gatling cannon with a firerate of 3300 rounds per minute. And the plane holds about 180 rounds. This would bring its maximum firetime to 3.3 seconds. Let´s compare it with the Eurofighters gun. It is an 27 mm revolver cannon with a selectable firerate of 1000-1700 rounds per minute. Whats also important is that it is singlebarrel. And it holds 150 rounds, making it able to fire for 9-5.3 seconds. Russian jets have a similar cannon in their arsenal. What I don´t understand is why you would need a 4 barrel gatling cannon, wouldnt 1 barrel be enough to do the job? You press the trigger once and all the food for your cannon is gone. You could use an autocannon which is lighter and use the additional space for more rounds.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.