• Everyone's Favorite Ground Attack Aircraft On the Verge of Retirement: A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog)
    126 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;42290879]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.[/QUOTE] A single barrel is going to heat up much more rapidly than a group of barrels. Hot barrel-less accurate, 4 less-hot barrels- more accurate. Almost all air-to-air combat is done through air to air missiles now-a-days without the enemies even seeing each other.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42290884]A single barrel is going to heat up much more rapidly than a group of barrels. Hot barrel-less accurate, 4 less-hot barrels- more accurate. Almost all air-to-air combat is done through air to air missiles now-a-days without the enemies even seeing each other.[/QUOTE] My thinking is: Wouldn´t it be more reasonable to just use an autocannon which does the same job successfully with less weight and more firetime?
[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] The gau 8 has an accuracy of 5 milliradians 80%, aka the same accuracy as the gau 22 on the F-35, meaning at 1000 meters, 80% of rounds will hit in a 5 meter circle. The gun is only as accurate as the angle of attack is, which has gotten better as the support systems have. This is also forgetting that it isn't just used against tanks, it is used against lighter targets as well. Payload wise, the F-35 does have an advantage of around 1 ton, which isn't I'd have no problems with replacing the A-10 if it's replacement or replacements can do all of it's jobs equally well, and the F-35 simply does not have the firepower overall. It has 10 hardpoints for munitions, only 6 of which are capable of carrying air - surface munitions, The A-10 has 11 hardpoints, 1 reserved for fuel, 2 reserved for bombs only and 2 cannot carry munitions at all(electronics packages). This is forgetting that for the F-35 to work at it's full potential it cannot use anything but internal loads, as bombs and missiles that are externally mounted are able to be detected by radar, thus making it useless as a stealth aircraft. If you don't mount stuff outside it, it only has 2 hardpoints with capable of being used effectively for close air support in addition to it's main gun. It still comes down to comparing something specialized in it's role vs something that is supposed to do everything , you have to compromise somewhere. [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42290876]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! [/QUOTE] Unknown stall speed too, A-10 can go really slow if needed, also by being subsonic, it can have a much more flexible design. [QUOTE] 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] The three versions of the F-35 are completely different designs with compatible components, the carrier version, vtol version, and standard version. C/B/A [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? [/QUOTE] Whoever has a better internal radar and longer range missiles win, simple. [QUOTE] 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. [/QUOTE] You don't get that we are not saying it is god, it just does it's designed job a whole lot better than the F-35 is even capable of doing by specifications. [QUOTE] [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.[/QUOTE] The F-35 is being purchased before it is even complete.
[QUOTE=deadoon;42290955]The gau 8 has an accuracy of 5 milliradians 80%, aka the same accuracy as the gau 22 on the F-35, meaning at 1000 meters, 80% of rounds will hit in a 5 meter circle. The gun is only as accurate as the angle of attack is, which has gotten better as the support systems have. This is also forgetting that it isn't just used against tanks, it is used against lighter targets as well. Payload wise, the F-35 does have an advantage of around 1 ton, which isn't I'd have no problems with replacing the A-10 if it's replacement or replacements can do all of it's jobs equally well, and the F-35 simply does not have the firepower overall. It has 10 hardpoints for munitions, only 6 of which are capable of carrying air - surface munitions, The A-10 has 11 hardpoints, 1 reserved for fuel, 2 reserved for bombs only and 2 cannot carry munitions at all(electronics packages). This is forgetting that for the F-35 to work at it's full potential it cannot use anything but internal loads, as bombs and missiles that are externally mounted are able to be detected by radar, thus making it useless as a stealth aircraft. If you don't mount stuff outside it, it only has 2 hardpoints with capable of being used effectively for close air support in addition to it's main gun. It still comes down to comparing something specialized in it's role vs something that is supposed to do everything , you have to compromise somewhere.[/QUOTE] Again, you can't compare the GAU-8 and the GAU-22 because they aren't mean to do the same thing, it's apples to oranges dood.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42290969]Again, you can't compare the GAU-8 and the GAU-22 because they aren't mean to do the same thing, it's apples to oranges dood.[/QUOTE] Yep, ignore everything that you deem irrelevant, because having a gun capable of actually doing something is better than having a gun more comparable to a backup pistol after-all. The A-10 does it's job, if you can somehow prove that the F-35 is a better CAS aircraft go ahead, but I won't be expecting much more logic than you have been providing, considering you don't even check your reported facts.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42290969]Again, you can't compare the GAU-8 and the GAU-22 because they aren't mean to do the same thing, it's apples to oranges dood.[/QUOTE] Why are you getting all defensive on the F35? Did you design it or work on it? Just check the facts.
These things used to be stationed at a base south of me, I'd always see them flying in to do touch and goes and when I was out on a decently busy lake I saw two of them fly side by side and then split and do some 90 degree turns which was pretty cool. Oh well, RIP.
I remember hearing these fly by and do strafing runs during basic training. There's nothing like minding your business then hearing the sky rip ass out of nowhere.
Why don't they just redesign and improve existing planes? I mean they're proven to be safe and effective already, why don't they just bring the design up-to-date with new composite materials, better engines, better fuel efficiency, better weapons, etc. And call it something cool... like the A-10 Thunderbolt III.
This CAS aircraft well deserves its own place in history. Effective in its role, well armed, well protected, and, as everyone can tell, awesome as fuck. Hell, even my dad, which isn't interested in weaponry and military vehicles, saw it once on the history channel and started asking me questions about it and its cannon. Showed him a couple of live action videos from youtube and liveleak, and he fell in love with the damn thing, now everytime one of them pops up in the TV, he stands in front of it paying attention like a zombified kid.
I'd also like to mention that do to the A10's sturdy platform, some consideration has been made to use them as storm chaser. [url=http://www.livescience.com/30915-thunderbolt-10-warplane-storm-chaser.html]For example, this A-10 was upgraded with 13 million dollars in scientific equipment to help aid with Storm Tracking. [/url] The Ugly Hog will live on for a long, long time.
But i like the flying gun with aircraft attachment! D: Ditching it just sounds silly. It's practical and they know it works, why scrap it for something... well, boring?
You know who else really liked fighter-bomber type craft even at the expense of good, dedicated platforms? [I]Hitler[/I]
Another thing is that just recently, Boeing has produced about 51 pairs of replacement wings for A-10's stationed in Arizona. The hope is to keep them running until the 2040's.
I like the plan because it seems so old school compared to the laser guided,6 million mph robot planes we have now. Just a slow, behemoth of a plane that shoots big ass bullets.
Reliability issues aside (it's new tech, of course it's going to be full of bugs), the biggest problem I have with the F35 is that it's just so damn expensive. Is having a few ridiculously high-tech aircraft worth it when we can have dozens of almost as good craft for the same price?
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;42289155]its a gun that has a tank and wings mounted to it[/QUOTE] There, fixed it for you.
It almost looks like we looked at german WWII tank designs and started using that mindset to build our planes.
The sound is like a modern day Stuka. Psychological warfare at its best.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42290876]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![/quote] The low stall speed and high angle of attack are two of the things that make the A-10 such a good CAS plane. One reason why the F-35 would be poor for such a role. F-35's are simply a terrible CAS aircraft. They cannot loiter to any extent in the area (completely lack the endurance to do so).
I remember a few years back one of these was flying over my neighborhood for a local airshow. The sound of it flying alone was awe-inspiring. [editline]24th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ogopogo;42293220]The low stall speed and high angle of attack are two of the things that make the A-10 such a good CAS plane. One reason why the F-35 would be poor for such a role.[/QUOTE] Those wide wings are what make the plane so good.
[QUOTE=deadoon;42291002]Yep, ignore everything that you deem irrelevant, because having a gun capable of actually doing something is better than having a gun more comparable to a backup pistol after-all. The A-10 does it's job, if you can somehow prove that the F-35 is a better CAS aircraft go ahead, but I won't be expecting much more logic than you have been providing, considering you don't even check your reported facts.[/QUOTE] Again, for the umptillionth time, you can't compare the GAU-8 and GAU-22 because THEY ARE MEANT FOR DIFFERENT ROLES. It would be like comparing an AKM to an RPG-7. They are meant to to do different things and fill different roles, comparing them is pointless, so stop already. Yeah, the A-10 is great but it's main feature, which it sacrifices a lot of things for, is useless against it's main target now, so why continue to use this flying hunk of metal thats incredibly slow and a massive target for our good friend SAM? Why not use an aircraft that is going to be harder for SAM to track, can go super sonic, and can be it's own escort fighter, at the cost of a few less hard points? And again, I'm basing my argument off the day the F-35 is completed and is perfected. I can't prove the F-35 is better because as far as I know, it hasn't participated in any major CAS roles yet.
Does retirement just mean they wont be building anymore of them? Because It would be stupid to have like hundreds of these expensive aircraft then one day just go "nope, were retiring it" then leave it in a warehouse when you still have pilots who can use the aircraft.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42293260]Again, for the umptillionth time, you can't compare the GAU-8 and GAU-22 because THEY ARE MEANT FOR DIFFERENT ROLES. It would be like comparing an AKM to an RPG-7. They are meant to to do different things and fill different roles, comparing them is pointless, so stop already. Yeah, the A-10 is great but it's main feature, which it sacrifices a lot of things for, is useless against it's main target now, so why continue to use this flying hunk of metal thats incredibly slow and a massive target for our good friend SAM? Why not use an aircraft that is going to be harder for SAM to track, can go super sonic, and can be it's own escort fighter, at the cost of a few less hard points? And again, I'm basing my argument off the day the F-35 is completed and is perfected. I can't prove the F-35 is better because as far as I know, it hasn't participated in any major CAS roles yet.[/QUOTE] Upgrade the A10 with a stealth coating (maybe rework the airframe a little too), replace the GAU-8 with a 40-50mm version (or replace it with a tank gun like the soviets were doing back during the war) and give it a pair of the latest engines. Bam. (Before you start complaining that this is impossible, keep in mind I'm just brainstorming ideas here).
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;42293315]Upgrade the A10 with a stealth coating (maybe rework the airframe a little too, replace the GAU-8 with a 40-50mm version (or replace it with a tank gun like the soviets were doing back during the war) and give it a pair of the latest engines. Bam.[/QUOTE] While a stealth A10 would either look sexy or ugly as all sin, it's not that easy to up a gatling cannon by 10mm. 30mm is already ridiculous to be seen on a plane. 40-50mm would fuck either with the flight dynamics, rate of fire, or ammo storage. As per an actual anti-tank gun on a plane; I'm not so sure a slow-rate of fire autocannon would be as useful for a quick strafing run - it would require lining up each individual target instead of just ripping down a line. A lot of nations tried that in World War II, Me410s with 50mm (which ended being used on bombers), Japs with 75mm Ki-109's, Americans with a M3 Lee 75mm tank gun in a B-25 Mitchell. Not to mention some silly Stuka projects with twin 37mm anti-tank guns. And there's a reason we don't see those anymore, they didn't work too spectacularly compared to faster firing guns or just plain bombs. [quote](Before you start complaining that this is impossible, keep in mind I'm just brainstorming ideas here).[/quote] (Fuck you, you added that later.) :v:
if you could paint a plane with stealth~ to protect it against SAMs then they'd all have it.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;42293315]Upgrade the A10 with a stealth coating (maybe rework the airframe a little too), replace the GAU-8 with a 40-50mm version (or replace it with a tank gun like the soviets were doing back during the war) and give it a pair of the latest engines. Bam.[/QUOTE] lol you can't just paint the aircraft black and then it's suddenly invisible on radar, it's quite a bit more complicated then that. You can't have a rotary cannon that large without redesigning the entire aircraft. Another issue would be the recoil from the gun, it would probably damage the airframe pretty rapidly and you wouldn't be able to fire very long bursts without being completely thrown off target. GAU-8 accuracy is already piss poor, so I doubt a rotary cannon with even more recoil will perform any better. Because of the larger caliber, it would have little to no ammo storage either. Having a full sized tank gun on there is just stupid. Why go through the effort when a AGM will do the same job with guaranteed results? Upgrading an aircraft isn't that simple
they want to replace it with drones and hellfire missiles... the role it played in Iraq and Afghanistan has been taken over by drones, even if its more capable of an aircraft
[QUOTE=Doom14;42293365]While a stealth A10 would either look sexy or ugly as all sin, it's not that easy to up a gatling cannon by 10mm. 30mm is already ridiculous to be seen on a plane. 40-50mm would fuck either with the flight dynamics, rate of fire, or ammo storage. As per an actual anti-tank gun on a plane; I'm not so sure a slow-rate of fire autocannon would be as useful for a quick strafing run - it would require lining up each individual target instead of just ripping down a line. A lot of nations tried that in World War II, Me410s with 50mm (which ended being used on bombers), Japs with 76mm Ki-109's, Americans with a M3 Lee 75mm tank gun in a B-25 Mitchell. Not to mention some silly Stuka projects with twin 37mm anti-tank guns. And there's a reason we don't see those anymore, they didn't work too spectacularly compared to faster firing guns or just plain bombs. (Fuck you, you added that later.) :v:[/QUOTE] Okay. Well, if the current gun is useless against tanks, why don't we scrap it? Replace it with something more manageable like a 20mm (which theoretically would work better for Air-to-Air) and see if we can add additional missile hardpoints? Maybe have enough room for both Air-Ground and Air-Air ordnance?
still if we have to get on the ground somewhere else In the middle east, this thing will be there
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.