• Everyone's Favorite Ground Attack Aircraft On the Verge of Retirement: A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog)
    126 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42293260] 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,[/quote] It is a CAS aircraft. It's main target is anything on the ground. Nevermind the abrams that were immobilized and penetrated by 20mm fire. [quote] so why continue to use this flying hunk of metal thats incredibly slow[/quote] That is a plus. [quote] and a massive target for our good friend SAM?[/quote] [quote]the A-10 was built to attack tanks, armored vehicles, and other ground targets with limited air defenses[/quote] The A-10 is durable enough to do what it's role entails. It is not, and never was a first strike aircraft. [quote] Why not use an aircraft that is going to be harder for SAM to track[/quote] To match payload of the A-10 the F-35 would no longer be a stealth aircraft, and then it is supremely vulnerable. In many ways, terrain is a better defense for CAS aircraft. [quote] can go super sonic, and can be it's own escort fighter, at the cost of a few less hard points?[/quote] I'd love to see an F-35 be it's own escort while providing CAS. The plane is simply incapable at being effective at both at the same time. [quote] 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] The F-35 lacks the armament, durability, features and endurance to perform the CAS role even remotely as well as the A-10. It can't even generate the sorties required to replace the A-10 either.
the current gun is more than capable of handling tanks as it uses DU rounds and mostly hits the weaker armor on top of the tank also it fires a lot, and it only takes a few rounds to hit something vital the plane could dogfight in theory but it is only subsonic and has no aiming system for planes but it did get its chance against helicopters in desert storm and it shredded them
[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] The A-10 is plenty capable of using guided weapons, such as the maverick anti tank missle. The biggest strongpoint is its psychological effect on the enemy. With it being able to linger in the air for hours around a combat zone, being able to unleash massive amounts of fire power, puts a huge dent in enemy moral and boosts our own. If you've ever heard that thing shoot, its motivating as hell for our troops and more than enough to make the enemy shit their pants. Its a perfect aircraft for the unconventional warfare the US has been fighting well over the last decade. In terms of conventional warfare it is outdated, but seeing as the US hasn't fought a true conventional war since korea and it looks like we'll be fighting an unconventional war in the future it still holds its place as a very good ground support aircraft.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42293379]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[/QUOTE] The GAU-8 can't be fired in long bursts anyway, they're not allowed to fire for longer than 2 seconds.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;42293398]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?[/QUOTE] It has no hope as a modern air fighter. It would receive a missile up it's exhaust pipe before the other plane was even in range. The gun is very useful for tanks - as even if it doesn't destroy them, it severely fucks with them. Anything less armored than a tank gets shredded, including helicopters. It's purely a ground attack plane. (And helicopters I guess.) [sp]I'm glad we've gone this long in the thread without anyone posting anything from the anthro A-10 smut craze that was going around for a very short time.[/sp]
The A-10 is an aircraft very capable at a role that is no longer relevant to the battlefield while carrying a weapon that is no longer effective at its intended task. It really should be on the chopping block. It was designed to fight waves of Soviet tanks streaming across the Balkans, not hunt terrorists or pulverize the infrastructure of third-rate nations. Now its main assets are its survivability (not a strong concern when nobody we fight has the capacity to effectively return fire) and its payload (which is matched by dedicated bombers in tactical bombing roles). It has no stealth (which is a death sentence in modern warfare- sorry, doesn't matter how tough it's built, it will not survive a direct hit from any modern AA missile), the weapon system that it was literally designed around is no longer useful for its intended task (tank-busting), and lobbing missiles on high-value individual targets while loitering on-site is now the role of drones. It can't go up against a modern military because it doesn't have the stealth to avoid modern AA systems, and it's total overkill against obsolete militaries and insurgents when an unmanned craft can carry the same weapon for a fraction of the cost, more stealthily, and without risking a pilot.
[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.[/QUOTE] but you are trying to say that the F-35 (armed with the GAU-22) can fill the same role as the A-10 (which is armed with the GAU-8), so you ARE comparing them and it IS a relevant comparison the fact that the A-10 is armed with the GAU-8 makes it better at CAS, and thus is [B]COMPLETELY[/B] relevant to this conversation, stop dismissing it.
[QUOTE=catbarf;42293535]The A-10 is an aircraft very capable at a role that is no longer relevant to the battlefield while carrying a weapon that is no longer effective at its intended task. It really should be on the chopping block. It was designed to fight waves of Soviet tanks streaming across the Balkans, not hunt terrorists or pulverize the infrastructure of third-rate nations. Now its main assets are its survivability (not a strong concern when nobody we fight has the capacity to effectively return fire) and its payload (which is matched by dedicated bombers in tactical bombing roles). It has no stealth (which is a death sentence in modern warfare- sorry, doesn't matter how tough it's built, it will not survive a direct hit from any modern AA missile), the weapon system that it was literally designed around is no longer useful for its intended task (tank-busting), and lobbing missiles on high-value individual targets while loitering on-site is now the role of drones. It can't go up against a modern military because it doesn't have the stealth to avoid modern AA systems, and it's total overkill against obsolete militaries and insurgents when an unmanned craft can carry the same weapon for a fraction of the cost, more stealthily, and without risking a pilot.[/QUOTE] However, there is no affordable alternative to the Thunderbolt at this time. Everyone was talking about how the F-35 was going to be the fucking godsend, but it became a bloated, unreliable, barely working money sink.
[QUOTE=Dacheet;42293573]However, there is no affordable alternative to the Thunderbolt at this time. Everyone was talking about how the F-35 was going to be the fucking godsend, but it became a bloated, unreliable, barely working money sink.[/QUOTE] The F-35 isn't done and won't be for a while, but nobody's talking about just locking up all the A-10s overnight and forgetting about them. There has to be a gradual reduction program, like with the F-14, giving time for the F-35 to subsume some of the roles while Predator and Reaper drones carry out the others. For pure CAS I-need-that-bunker-dead-now jobs drones can already do the same task, with a lower price tag, longer loiter time, greater stealth, and no pilot risk. The A-10 is a good CAS aircraft but its intended design role is now irrelevant and it's overkill in many of the roles it's being used for.
[QUOTE=J!NX;42289187][t]http://gajitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/bizarre-flying-tank.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] looks like you found the A-5 Pig
I was just talking to an Air Force captain at my schools career fair and he said they have been thinking about retiring the a10 since he enlisted 15 years ago. He said he'd be surprised if it actually retired. He also told me of a story of a woman landing an a10 with on engine and one wing. Amazing.
my first PC game (mac) was A-10 Attack! Glory days Going to have to somehow play this game again to remember the good old A-10 :( [img]http://www.hitrepeat.com/imagehost/2012324192538580OBIP5718OB.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/245590-a-10-attack-macintosh-screenshot-tower-view-on-the-runway.png[/img] [img]http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2006/05/18/A-10Attack_USERSUB_Screenshot_1147920246-1511549.jpg[/img] [editline]24th September 2013[/editline] also, did you know you can't fire the gun for more than a few seconds or you'll stall the plane from recoil?
I don't think anyone has mentioned it, but something else that the A10 is very good at is being easy to repair. It really is a plane that you can fix with a hammer, a screw driver, some chewing gum, and a paperclip. Little things like the engines being identical. They can limp home with one engine and 2/3rds of a wing missing without a problem. Have 3 planes that got shot up badly? Since so many of the parts don't have a right/left side you can just rip them apart and merge them together to make 2. A lot of people love it because they don't require pentagrams and chalk to fix. It just doesn't give a fuck and keeps working.
Why get rid of the A-10? It's like the best ground attack aircraft ever. Unlike attack helicopters, it's actually tough enough to get you back to a friendly airfield in one piece.
[QUOTE=Dacheet;42293573]However, there is no affordable alternative to the Thunderbolt at this time. Everyone was talking about how the F-35 was going to be the fucking godsend, but it became a bloated, unreliable, barely working money sink.[/QUOTE] The F-35 reminds me of this: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA[/media] They want it to do everything.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;42293746]my first PC game (mac) was A-10 Attack! also, did you know you can't fire the gun for more than a few seconds or you'll stall the plane from recoil?[/QUOTE] did you know with enough ammo, they could actually stop the plane in the air
I swear to christ if they replace this with the F30shit I am gonna flip shit How else will we hear the fart of freedom
The F-35 is a supermodel: it's beautiful as all fuck, but it does nothing useful and sucks you dry of your money.
[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] I read somewhere when they retire the B52 it is gonna be like somewhere between 70-98 years of service.
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;42295375]I read somewhere when they retire the B52 it is gonna be like somewhere between 70-98 years of service.[/QUOTE] I can't really think what we would replace the 52 with. I mean, B-1B/B-2 are great, but they lack the carrying capacity and fear factor of a fleet of B-52's armed to the teeth with cluster bombs. However, I think that the military might be focusing less on specific planes for tasks (Aggressors, fighters, bombers, etc) and instead are trying to make a jack of all trades, master of none.
[QUOTE=Dacheet;42295398]I can't really think what we would replace the 52 with. I mean, B-1B/B-2 are great, but they lack the carrying capacity and fear factor of a fleet of B-52's armed to the teeth with cluster bombs. However, I think that the military might be focusing less on specific planes for tasks (Aggressors, fighters, bombers, etc) and instead are trying to make a jack of all trades, master of none.[/QUOTE] Ill tell you now, Ill be far more scared if I heard a Fleet of B52s was coming at me rather then B2s My grandfather was in Vietnam. He said you didn't see them or hear them. Then you just felt the ground shake.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;42293746]my first PC game (mac) was A-10 Attack! Glory days Going to have to somehow play this game again to remember the good old A-10 :( [img]http://www.hitrepeat.com/imagehost/2012324192538580OBIP5718OB.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/245590-a-10-attack-macintosh-screenshot-tower-view-on-the-runway.png[/img] [img]http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2006/05/18/A-10Attack_USERSUB_Screenshot_1147920246-1511549.jpg[/img] [editline]24th September 2013[/editline] also, did you know you can't fire the gun for more than a few seconds or you'll stall the plane from recoil?[/QUOTE] That is just a myth. Why don´t you play the glorious sequel A10 Cuba! ? Or the much more recent DCS A10c Warthog? [IMG]http://www.16thaccw.com/j/images/A-10_FiringGun.png[/IMG]
People wanted a cut back on military spending, this is what you get.
[QUOTE=Saxon;42296447]People wanted a cut back on military spending, this is what you get.[/QUOTE] Yeah, a multi-billion dollar stealth fighter program replacing a combat tested, reliable, and already-integrated ground attack plane that goes for 1/10th the individual unit cost. Exactly what you get.
That Bradley video is exactly how I feel the F-35 is. They want too much out of one plane that costs far too much. Jack of all trades, master of none should be its name. There's no way in hell it can do all these things as effectively as they think it can. And what if you lose just one of them (crash or otherwise, it will happen, like it or not)? That's 300m or so down the drain. What is wrong with having an aircraft for a specific job? You don't go running around with a hammercrowbarscrewdriversawdrilltapewelderknifeforkwhateverthefuck, you get the right tool for the job.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;42296489]Yeah, a multi-billion dollar stealth fighter program replacing a combat tested, reliable, and already-integrated ground attack plane that goes for 1/10th the individual unit cost. Exactly what you get.[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing its effectiveness, but the Air Force isn't going to cut a project they've already invested so much resources in. They need to make cuts so they're going to cut something that's finishing up its service life that was originally designed to perform a job which is becoming more obsolete by the year. [editline]24th September 2013[/editline] Anyway the National Guard still operates its own A-10's so they're not going away for awhile.
[QUOTE=abananapeel;42289099]This cant be. My dad works at Raytheon, a defense contractor, and he is working on a thing that goes on top of an A-10 that makes it almost autonomous or something. I doubt its on the chopping block if they're paying my dad to help make something for it.[/QUOTE] People have been working on this sort of thing for years, one day it will happen. It will be terrifying when (or if) it happens. I honestly cannot see it for a while though.
[QUOTE=catbarf;42293535] not hunt terrorists or pulverize the infrastructure of third-rate nations.[/QUOTE] I dunno if you knew this or not. But uh, it does thisjob amazingly well. [editline]24th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;42295455]Ill tell you now, Ill be far more scared if I heard a Fleet of B52s was coming at me rather then B2s My grandfather was in Vietnam. He said you didn't see them or hear them. Then you just felt the ground shake.[/QUOTE] [img]http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/8431/efp2.jpg[/img] Not gonna lie, seeing this coming for you in the distance would be scary as hell.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;42299057]I dunno if you knew this or not. But uh, it does thisjob amazingly well. [editline]24th September 2013[/editline] [img]http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/8431/efp2.jpg[/img] Not gonna lie, seeing this coming for you in the distance would be scary as hell.[/QUOTE] Not if you're an anti-air operator of any kind. [editline]24th September 2013[/editline] What perplexes me is that the US military has decided it okay that certain types of bombers (B-52 is a great example) are acceptable as they are: indefensible, while we use stealth bombers to conduct the first-strike sorties, and yet we are retiring the smaller Attacker form of the same concept. The A-10 is excellent in low air defense sectors and the F-35 is excellent in high air defense sectors, but the opposite is not true for either vehicle. Same situation with the B-52 vs B-2 Spirit or F117.
[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] Yep, but when put into financial pressure and having to decide if you want to keep more multipurpose aircraft as opposed to less, better and more specialialised aircraft, you will often decide to keep the MP one instead. Even if it performs worse.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.