It's Time For America To Give Its Allies The A-10 - Polidicks

Just you guys wait until they slap a railgun onto an A-10. Air to air fights will be won in a blink of an eye and no tank would be safe.

[QUOTE=Sableye;47775711]Even though the f-16 and the pretentious f-35 can't mimic its amazing close air support capabilities[/QUOTE] but apaches can?

The A-10 can still shred soft vehicles and defensive positions, and can carry a whole boatload of extra stuff on the wings. For the combat that we're involved with (insurgencies), it's better than wahtever the F-35 wants to do. Also it exists. And works. Unlike the F-35.

Bring back the project to turn them into drones.

this plane was like the staple of 90's war flying games wow

reading more about this i can understand why they want to retire it. A-10s work wonders against insurgents but less so if we ever faced an actual modernized army

[QUOTE=Trooper0315;47775075]1 plane to fulfill all roles at once.[/QUOTE] This is a very bad sense of logic when it comes to anything, especially military. I think about the only thing I've seen it applied to successfully was plain-Jane tanks, sectioned down from fast, light, medium, heavy, destroyer, assault, and other classes into the Main Battle Tank. [QUOTE=Rofl_copter;47776663]if you're referring to russia when you say modern threats, i think a-10s are perfect considering they were designed specifically to take out russian tanks rolling across europe. the troops love them[/QUOTE] A-10 were designed and fetishized with the fear of big Russian armored tank columns. While the 30mm rounds it has pack a pretty major punch, they lack the raw penetration to do anything more than annoy and disorient modern tanks. Only in something ridiculous, like a 90'degree dive, might they actually penetrate current generation tanks. The rotary cannon is still extremely effective against soft targets, and the guided AT missiles it carries can still punch tanks pretty hard. The issue is, missiles have viable countermeasures, but actual ammunition (aside from HEAT/HE) doesn't - aside from raw armor.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;47776353]For the combat that we're involved with (insurgencies), it's better than wahtever the F-35 wants to do. Also it exists. And works. Unlike the F-35.[/QUOTE] Yea, where the hell is this mythical, all-in-one wonderplane F-35? Kinda sounds like a pipe dream conceived by the USAF so far.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47776771]Yea, where the hell is this mythical, all-in-one wonderplane F-35? Kinda sounds like a pipe dream conceived by the USAF so far.[/QUOTE] F-35's been flying over my head for months now where I live

A flight of A-10's flew over my old house once. Granted, that was years ago and totally irrelevant to the discussion. I love the Warthog and the AH-64, but which one is better at taking out helicopters? Which can take more fire from small arms and slightly larger things that go boom?

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47774975][b]It's Time For America To Give Its Allies The A-10[/b] Source: [url=http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/its-time-for-america-to-give-its-allies-the-a-10-1706083434]Foxtrot Alpha[/url] _______________ I'm ok with this. Letting it rot in an airplane boneyard would be a MASSIVE waste. Also... I still don't quite understand why the USAF wants to retire it so badly?![/QUOTE] Because like the army did in the 80s, they got a shit-ton of command staff turnover lately and the new brass want the biggest contracts and the biggest chunk of the budget for the Air Force going forward. An old plane that has extremely predictable cost-to-effectiveness and fulfills a very specific role isn't enough of a money hog to spike up budget requests.

I wouldn't be surprised if some ended up in Israeli service.

Isn't the A-10 an excellent fire support craft, still? Sure, its main gun can no longer take out the armor of *some* main battle tanks, but it can still carry AGM-65s, and those can practically vaporize buildings. Tank armor can't withstand it any better than it could twenty years ago. Let's not forget how effective the A-10 proved at taking out Taliban in Afghanistan.

Weren't they trying to refit them into drones at some point? Also, is there a video showing what the BRRRT sounds like from the cockpit? :v: [editline]22nd May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;47777161]Let's not forget how effective the A-10 proved at taking out Taliban in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE] To the point where when some of them saw the bigger drones, they thought it was an A-10 and surrendered. This things nightmare fuel to fight against, you see your friends(and any building, vehicle and/or emplacement) go up in a dust cloud, then a second or two later you hear BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT.

Ever since depleted uranium was banned in rounds, the A-10 lost a pretty significant amount of it's viability

[QUOTE=archangel125;47777161]Isn't the A-10 an excellent fire support craft, still? Sure, its main gun can no longer take out the armor of *some* main battle tanks, but it can still carry AGM-65s, and those can practically vaporize buildings. Tank armor can't withstand it any better than it could twenty years ago. Let's not forget how effective the A-10 proved at taking out Taliban in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE] As much as I love the A-10, it doesn't stand much of a chance if it is used against an enemy that can put up AA missile defense outside of MANPADS. If the Cold War were ever to turn hot, A-10 pilots were projected to have a very low survival rate. It operates best when enemy air defense is suppressed or non-existent. So it works in a very specialized situation, but we keep finding ourselves in that situation.

[QUOTE=archangel125;47777161]Isn't the A-10 an excellent fire support craft, still? Sure, its main gun can no longer take out the armor of *some* main battle tanks, but it can still carry AGM-65s, and those can practically vaporize buildings. Tank armor can't withstand it any better than it could twenty years ago. Let's not forget how effective the A-10 proved at taking out Taliban in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE] a hellfire or maverick costs 100k+. You can drop a guided bomb on the building for a fourth of that or a half of that. JDAMs can be dropped from drones for much less risk and cost than an A-10. The A-10 is not going to fight anything resembling a modern tank either, since a modern tank would be used by a nation with a half-decent anti-air net.

[QUOTE=katbug;47777533]Ever since depleted uranium was banned in rounds, the A-10 lost a pretty significant amount of it's viability[/QUOTE] Banned, why?

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47777786]Banned, why?[/QUOTE] Children in Iraq were being born hideously deformed among other medical and environmental problems

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47777786]Banned, why?[/QUOTE] Because when a DU round hits something, it explodes into a uranium dust. This dust is then inhaled by anything nearby, carried by the wind, etc.. and it kills people. Because it's a radioactive heavy metal. Just because it isn't usable in reactors doesn't mean it's not radioactive.

I guess when it comes down to it maybe it is time for the A10 to be phased out. It was designed for a specific role that its just not doing. As mentioned, the lack of DU rounds basically killed any viability against armor, and as far as attacking insurgents, other aircraft with better weapon loads and more common parts, like the F-16 or the F/A-18E/F can do the same job, just...well. Better. Against soft targets, i hardly think the difference between 30mm and 20mm matters much. Not to mention the A-10 doesnt really see many upgrades like Super Hornets and Falcons do. Really the A-10 just kind of has an extreme psychological effect. But i guess it doesn't make much difference when a different multi-million dollar aircraft screams by at Mach 1 and JDAMs the shit out of you. You probably shit your pants either way, assuming you live.

[QUOTE=Griffster26;47777792]Children in Iraq were being born hideously deformed among other medical and environmental problems[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=draugur;47777822]Because when a DU round hits something, it explodes into a uranium dust. This dust is then inhaled by anything nearby, carried by the wind, etc.. and it kills people. Because it's a radioactive heavy metal. Just because it isn't usable in reactors doesn't mean it's not radioactive.[/QUOTE] Didn't know that, thanks.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47775000]Because many people at the DoD believe its cannon is too outdated to combat modern threats.[/QUOTE] The gun is not, the tactics probably are though. I'd imagine you would still be able to bust just about any tank as long as you buzz from it's top where it's likely to have it's weakest armor. You'd more than likely would either kill the crew and or cause an ammunition explosion depending on the tank.

[QUOTE=draugur;47777822]Because when a DU round hits something, it explodes into a uranium dust. This dust is then inhaled by anything nearby, carried by the wind, etc.. and it kills people. Because it's a radioactive heavy metal. Just because it isn't usable in reactors doesn't mean it's not radioactive.[/QUOTE] Granted, uranium isn't something you want in you period, but I am sure that with natural and depleted uranium the chemical toxicity of it is far more dangerous than the radioactivity. Like I don't want people to get the picture that uranium is some kind of radioactive death powder and anyone who is contaminated with it will have deformed babies, because that's not how it is. The biological half life of uranium is something like 15 days, and it is only weakly radioactive, provided it doesn't have a large amount of other short lived elements in it. Like uranium [I]might [/I]give you cancer or something, but it will fuck up your kidneys long before that. Basically the verdict is still out on whether it is more dangerous than something like lead, and according to the UN I believe it is still legal as of 2011. Belgium has banned it though.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;47776072]Just you guys wait until they slap a railgun onto an A-10. Air to air fights will be won in a blink of an eye and no tank would be safe.[/QUOTE] I could see that. A-10 fills out every hardpoint with battery pods, and carries the central railgun up to 10km. Enough power for one shot, but since it's in upper atmosphere this mach 20 smart projectile flies an insane distance comparable to a tactical ballistic missile. It's be one hell of a nuke interceptor.

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;47775048][T]http://new4.fjcdn.com/comments/Gt+brrrrrrrrt+_06f71ebbd2799302f42f16756b5fa930.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Jesus fucking Christ, everybody on my workplace heard me laugh like a zebra, thank you so much.

A friend sent me this, do with that as you will [url]http://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-close-air-support/[/url]

Like it or not the A-10 is pretty much the posterboy of the air force, as much they don't want to admit it

When an A-10 shoots it sounds like a wasp holding in a shit

So, in order to make a successor to the A-10, we need to first build a bigger and better gun first, and then worry about getting it off the ground. Remember, [b]the plane is the accessory[/b], not the gun.