[QUOTE=Highwind017;47779577]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.[/QUOTE]
the gun is literally the A-10s biggest drawback. It could be completely replaced by rocket pods for a fraction of the cost and an increase in effectiveness.
I know everyone is fond of the brrrt meme but we're not in the seventies any more
[QUOTE=Sector 7;47779790]the gun is literally the A-10s biggest drawback. It could be completely replaced by rocket pods for a fraction of the cost and an increase in effectiveness.[/QUOTE]
Rockets would not be an effective replacement considering accuracy and effectiveness against multiple types of targets.
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;47779842]Rockets would not be an effective replacement considering accuracy and effectiveness against multiple types of targets.[/QUOTE]
A-10s don't attack multiple types of targets. They exclusively strafe dirt farmers.
There's also the thing of you can get alot more bang out of 1100 rounds of 30MM than you can with 10-20 rockets.
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;47779880]There's also the thing of you can get alot more bang out of 1100 rounds of 30MM than you can with 10-20 rockets.[/QUOTE]
Aim a little higher. The GAU-8 with a full load of ammunition weighs over four thousand pounds. That's a little more than 10-20 rockets; in fact that's more potential ordnance than most medium bombers carried during WW2.
The A-10 is a good CAS platform, troops like it because it does the job. The job however can be done by other systems. Top Air Force brass doesn't care about the A-10 anyway(Even said it on a Reddit AMA), They want more money so they want to retire an aircraft they have hated and lied their asses off about since it got put in service. They once tried to replace the A-10 with modified F-16's. The Air Force even said they may have to retire F-16's since they can't retire the A-10. Littler later I'll see if I can find some links about the things the Air Force could retire that it didn't need that kept the A-10, F-16, etc in service. [url]http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-16-gun-pod-that-tried-to-shoot-down-the-a-10-wart-1597577525[/url]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;47779913]Aim a little higher. The GAU-8 with a full load of ammunition weighs over four thousand pounds. That's a little more than 10-20 rockets; in fact that's more potential ordnance than most medium bombers carried during WW2.[/QUOTE]
Where would you put them? The A-10 can already carry a shitload of rockets on its wings. Also, rockets are nowhere near as accurate as the GAU-8, so you couldn't do danger close gun runs like this
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WIsmvTtMNc[/media]
[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]
Actually it explodes into uranium dust, which is pyrophoric, and immediately ignites, vaporizing the overwhelming majority of the round and leaving virtually no detectable radioactive traces.
Because it ignites, it is one of the only rounds that is both armor piercing and incendiary, which lets the cannon on the A10 take out any armored vehicle short of a main battle tank with an excellent level of efficiency. It can also, without switching rounds, engage ground troops with excellent results.
Contrary to popular belief, you aren't going to manage this in another caliber, as it wouldn't contain enough DU to do the job, and you aren't going to manage it with tungsten. In tanks you can make a saboted tungsten dart. The sabot flies out of the barrel and is discarded as the tungsten dart then flies freely towards its target. You can't do that in aircraft because the discarded sabot components would get sucked into the engines. The A10 recovers all of its spent casings and ejects none during flight for a similar reason. On top of all of that, tungsten darts have no real blast radius, making them useless against infantry.
30mm DU rounds sit in a very weird niche where the physics behind the DU makes it virtually indespensible as a munition for aircraft.
Are these those motherfuckers that can take a tank shot mid-air and still fly?
[QUOTE=A Beaver;47780781]Are these those motherfuckers that can take a tank shot mid-air and still fly?[/QUOTE]
They can survive more damage than other aircraft, plus the pilot is VERY well protected. Can it survive a tank shot? No. It can survive a lot of anti aircraft rounds, etc.
[QUOTE=A Beaver;47780781]Are these those motherfuckers that can take a tank shot mid-air and still fly?[/QUOTE]
Anything flying is gonna get vaporized if it gets whacked by a 100+ mm HEAT shell. The A10 has heavy armor [I]for a plane[/I], but it's still light. According to Wikipedia, its cockpit armor can be penetrated by a 57mm.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;47780827]They can survive more damage than other aircraft, plus the pilot is VERY well protected. Can it survive a tank shot? No. It can survive a lot of anti aircraft rounds, etc.[/QUOTE]
Pics related
[IMG]http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/01.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5120/5894132855_8b3d76bcc3_z.jpg[/IMG]
The damage in the second pic was caused by an AA missile. Both managed to land safely despite the damages of course
Someone did point out that the damage being done to A-10s also demonstrated their susceptability to flak and other such attacks
[QUOTE=Zambies!;47783499]Someone did point out that the damage being done to A-10s also demonstrated their susceptability to flak and other such attacks[/QUOTE]
Which is why the aircraft was built to take quite the punishment before finally getting shot down.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;47784503]Which is why the aircraft was built to take quite the punishment before finally getting shot down.[/QUOTE]
Aye. The aircraft has so many subtle design features that aid it in doing its job.
Stuff like the landing gear is designed specifically so that in the event of a total hydraulic failure, simply unlocking the landing gear while in flight will cause the gear to deploy and lock from the drag alone.
The tail wing (horizontal and vertical stabilizer) is designed to keep the aircraft aloft and stable with half of it gone. It intentionally has more than sufficient control surface area in order to compensate for severe damage.
The engines are placed high and to the rear of the aircraft so that it can take off from, and land on, dirt runways without sucking rocks into the intake.
The aircraft is physically very practical in its design. Everything is dedicated to making it good at its role as a CAS aircraft.
[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]
Uranium dust actually isn't dangerous because it's radiactive. It's dangerous because it has a tendency to cut up lungs, breathing tubes, colons and other organs. And has the capacity to do this for a very very long time.
Didn't the last time the DoD say guns are outdated, they ended up shitting tons of money in the Vietnam war and just lost the fuck outta that?
That gun has saved countless lives on our end. That airplane has saved its pilots time and time again. While being bulky and ugly, it is still nimble and very capable of taking direct hits while remaining in flight.
Oh well, they just want to justify the F35. We go into wars we cant win, and we spend money we don't have, with weapons that barely work. Typical America.
Did anybody bother looking at that article I pasted? There's a reason people are trying to do away with it. I'd much rather use Super Tucanos
[QUOTE=Zambies!;47786795]Did anybody bother looking at that article I pasted? There's a reason people are trying to do away with it. I'd much rather use Super Tucanos[/QUOTE]
Why? According to your article, literally the only benefit would be that it's cheaper.
[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]
Well, seeing as how the F-35 can carry 2k pounds more weapon payload than the A-10, and can mount 6 external pylons with a new laser guided AGM-65 being developed for the F-35, I think we'll be alright in that regard. The only thing we'll really miss out on if we retire the A-10 once the F-35 is around is that sweet sweet gun. The F-35 can also laser designate its own targets without a targeting pod or a guy on the ground, unlike the A-10, and it's just as tough, if not tougher, than the A-10.
I hate to say it but the A-10 will be obsolete with its gun being the only exception, and if a 30mm gun offering CAS is the only thing going for it, wouldn't you rather have the Apache doing that instead, with the FLIR and optics offering more accurate fire?
[QUOTE=Apache249;47786823]Why? According to your article, literally the only benefit would be that it's cheaper.[/QUOTE]
Glad to see you read the whole thing. Or the fact that just because damage photos and BRRRT don't mean everything. An F-35 can kill things and not get eviscerated by 1970s AA
[QUOTE=Zambies!;47786853]Glad to see you read the whole thing. Or the fact that just because damage photos and BRRRT don't mean everything. An F-35 can kill things and not get eviscerated by 1970s AA[/QUOTE]
I'm addressing your "I'd rather use Super Tucanos" comment. Unlike others I actually don't have a huge hard-on for the A-10.
[editline]23rd May 2015[/editline]
feel free to explain why the ST is a better option, though
[QUOTE=Apache249;47786881]I'm addressing your "I'd rather use Super Tucanos" comment. Unlike others I actually don't have a huge hard-on for the A-10.
[editline]23rd May 2015[/editline]
feel free to explain why the ST is a better option, though[/QUOTE]
Ah sorry I much prefer the ST because it is cheap, high loiter, and apparently some of the AA the Taliban and ISIS use has a difficult time locking on because of its low heat signature not to completely discount the A-10 but some fanboyism gets out of control so I get a bit heated. Sorry buddy
[QUOTE=Zambies!;47786975]Ah sorry I much prefer the ST because it is cheap, high loiter, and apparently some of the AA the Taliban and ISIS use has a difficult time locking on because of its low heat signature not to completely discount the A-10 but some fanboyism gets out of control so I get a bit heated. Sorry buddy[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, but by US standards, the A-10 costs practically nothing to fly as is. The ST may have a larger combat radius/more range in general, but the A-10 has IFR capability, which the ST lacks. As for the heat signature, it would be lower, but I can't find anything on how effective it really is.
[editline]23rd May 2015[/editline]
Not to mention the obvious, massive decrease in payload
I concede
[QUOTE=TheTalon;47786839]wouldn't you rather have the Apache doing that instead, with the FLIR and optics offering more accurate fire?[/QUOTE]
Depends on the Scenario but in a lot of cases the A-10 would be safer and would be able to put down more ordinance than a helicopter would with about the same amount of Accuracy. Not to mention that you can get a Hog out quicker to your boots on the ground.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;47786853]An F-35 can kill things and not get eviscerated by 1970s AA[/QUOTE]
F-35 can get killed by the same shit the A-10 can in the right circumstances. Just because it's new doesn't mean that a lucky Igla or SA-6 can't get it.
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;47787248]Depends on the Scenario but in a lot of cases the A-10 would be safer and would be able to put down more ordinance than a helicopter would with about the same amount of Accuracy. Not to mention that you can get a Hog out quicker to your boots on the ground.
F-35 can get killed by the same shit the A-10 can in the right circumstances. Just because it's new doesn't mean that a lucky Igla or SA-6 can't get it.[/QUOTE]
And if it's performing the same role as the A-10, it's still just as vulnerable to a ZSU. In fact probably more vulnerable because the F-35 isn't designed with withstanding ground fire in mind.
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;47787277]And if it's performing the same role as the A-10, it's still just as vulnerable to a ZSU. In fact probably more vulnerable because the F-35 isn't designed with withstanding ground fire in mind.[/QUOTE]
Well the skeleton IS made entirely of Carbon Composites and Titanium, and has closed loop hydraulics for each control surface, and those have backup electrical systems on top of that. Short of ripping off a wing I bet it would fair just as well as anything could
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47775000]You're welcome.
Because many people at the DoD believe its cannon is too outdated to combat modern threats.[/QUOTE]
how can a flying minigun EVER be outdated
the plane is just the attachment though
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
