[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]
That doesn't take into account the F-35's speed, which is a form of protection. It won't linger, it'll drop it's payload and then get out of there probably before a ZSU has time to target it. The F-35's CAS role is more comparable to the F-16 or maybe the F-15E.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47775036]
What do they mean by that?! I keep seeing A-10 videos blasting through *anything* in their path, it looks more than capable to me.
Maybe they should work on a 2nd gen cannon -- a completely updated revision of the A-10? It's not like they don't have the money...[/QUOTE]
Because we spent all our money on the (currently at least) piece of shit known as the F35.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;47788878][editline]21st May 2015[/editline]
What do they mean by that?! I keep seeing A-10 videos blasting through *anything* in their path, it looks more than capable to me.
Maybe they should work on a 2nd gen cannon -- a completely updated revision of the A-10? It's not like they don't have the money...
Because we spent all our money on the F35.
[/QUOTE]
It would be pretty friggin awesome if we could get a new version of the A-10 with a 40-45MM Gatling Cannon. Then again at that point it might face what the MiG-27 with it's GSh-6-30 faced back when it was used (Violent uncomfortable vibrations, Avionics panel falling off mid flight, Canopy Jettison, etc).
[QUOTE=Doom14;47776671]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]
Hasn't stopped us before, when we tried to make the M14 replace the SMG, Automatic Rifle, Infantry Rifle, and Precision Rifle all at once. We all know how that failed.
Also MBT's didn't replace Fast Tanks and Light Tanks, Armoured Cars and Armored Fighting Vehicles did. The MBT replaced Medium Tanks and Heavy Tanks.
snip nevermind that was dumb
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;47778319]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]
Watch as it also launches the A-10 itself back at twice its maximum forward airspeed. Seems practical. :V
Why do they want to retire it? Did they not see them wreck alien robots in 2007's Transformers by Michael Bay? That shit was the cavalry.
[QUOTE=Doom14;47776671]igned 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]
Honestly, even before the days of composite armour, the 30mm could only ever be described as moderately effective against main line tanks and heavy tanks. Anything lighter than that (again, before modern armour) would be shredded.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;47791053]Honestly, even before the days of composite armour, the 30mm could only ever be described as moderately effective against main line tanks and heavy tanks. Anything lighter than that (again, before modern armour) would be shredded.[/QUOTE]
I think the Gau-8's advantage was in its rate of fire. Sure, one or two 30mm shells to a tank wouldn't do much damage. When there are 70 of those hitting your tank every second for a two-second burst, it can do quite a bit more. Modern tank armor does mitigate that a hell of a lot better, but an A-10 can still effectively disable even modern tanks by shredding their tracks. Kind of hard to do field repairs when there isn't much left to patch back together.
[QUOTE=archangel125;47791156]I think the Gau-8's advantage was in its rate of fire. Sure, one or two 30mm shells to a tank wouldn't do much damage. When there are 70 of those hitting your tank every second for a two-second burst, it can do quite a bit more. Modern tank armor does mitigate that a hell of a lot better, but an A-10 can still effectively disable even modern tanks by shredding their tracks. Kind of hard to do field repairs when there isn't much left to patch back together.[/QUOTE]
Correction: Fuck leaving the tank when theirs something with a 30mm cannon waiting for you to make the stupid move of popping open the hatches.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;47791369]Correction: Fuck leaving the tank when theirs something with a 30mm cannon waiting for you to make the stupid move of popping open the hatches.[/QUOTE]
You're probably safer running than staying put; you're easy fodder for one of the bombs the A-10's probably carrying if you stay inside. Besides; when a tank loses its mobility it's a sitting duck. An A-10 isn't going to wait for tank crew to pop out and mop them up, it'll hit priority targets and leave.
[QUOTE=archangel125;47791156]I think the Gau-8's advantage was in its rate of fire. Sure, one or two 30mm shells to a tank wouldn't do much damage. When there are 70 of those hitting your tank every second for a two-second burst, it can do quite a bit more. Modern tank armor does mitigate that a hell of a lot better, but an A-10 can still effectively disable even modern tanks by shredding their tracks. Kind of hard to do field repairs when there isn't much left to patch back together.[/QUOTE]
Tracks in modern tanks are a fair bit more durable than older tanks (commonly having at least 10kg track explosive protection, and that's just to damage the tracks, not sever them). In perfect test conditions (for low passes in western Europe conditions), the A-10 only manage 0.69 second bursts averaging 22 rounds per burst at the 2100 RPM fire rate, having an accuracy, including ricochets, of 34%. Of the M47 tanks they were using to simulate targets, only three of the ten targets were completely immobilized.
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;47777145]I wouldn't be surprised if some ended up in Israeli service.[/QUOTE]
I doubt it.
The IAF already has [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Force#Current"]a decent amount[/URL] of F16s and F15s, and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Force#Future"]is getting[/URL] F35s soon as Israel is involved in its development.
Generally speaking the IAF prefers to put its limited budget into air frames that can fill as many roles as possible, so an aircraft that specializes in taking out tank columns and bunkers and is not great against modern AA or against targets in urban areas wouldn't be their first choice.
I guess if the USA hands them over for free, ammo and replacement parts included than the IAF may find a role for them, but even then they'll probably have to help out with the cost of the extensive upgrades Israel puts any aircraft they get through. Because with the F35 coming I don't think there's any free cash laying around to cover that.
[QUOTE=Angua;47775452]It's outdated though, the a-10 was made to counter pact tanks such as t-55's, t-62's, t-64's and t-72's as they came in the 70's. All these tanks have been upgraded time and time again since and that gun the plane is made around was not very effective against them then and it's mostly useless now sans soft targets such as the unarmored spg's in the video. However missiles that can be fired from a safe distance away can be wielded by many much better platforms that are not at such high risk from anti-air fire. Sure the a-10 can carry decent missile/bomb load out too but then what's the point of the a-10, many other planes that are not hampered in mobility by that massive GAU-8 can do that job just as well or downright better.
edit: damn you catbarf[/QUOTE]
Its still perfect for what its being used for now, anti-insurgent, its at a strange place where its just not the best for the times, but its still perfect for whats happening.
[QUOTE=Jund;47775947]both the f-16 and f-35 have higher carrying capacities than the a-10
not that it matters because your selective reading skills are incredible
anyway COIN will probably be taken over by planes like the AT-6 and the Textron Scorpion where we don't have to spend $17k per flight hour to kill some dudes with AKs
[editline]21st May 2015[/editline]
the gau-8 can't pen 50mm RHA at 1000m, and modern tanks have about 600+mm effective RHA equivalent composite armor
API rounds spit out fire when hitting steel but that doesn't mean it actually damages anything inside, like in the above testing vid[/QUOTE]
When close to 300 rounds hit in around the same area, the rounds dont really need individual penetrations.
You know, if you think of the A-10 as a sex move, the title of this thread sounds like a bad Hetalia fan-fic.
[QUOTE=archangel125;47790152]Watch as it also launches the A-10 itself back at twice its maximum forward airspeed. Seems practical. :V[/QUOTE]
The mass of the round is far too low I think, bigger problem is that it would almost 100% be single shot only
[QUOTE=FLIPPY;47797668]When close to 300 rounds hit in around the same area, the rounds dont really need individual penetrations.[/QUOTE]
Literally only a few posts above you someone said that in a field test in perfect conditions, only 7 or 8 rounds (on average) hit each target. And it's not as if all those rounds would be in the same area, because those 7 or 8 rounds were from a total of 22 fired meaning 66% missed a huge tank.
[editline]25th May 2015[/editline]
I can't wait until the Internet's obsession over the A-10 dies. I don't even think it's because of the practicality of the A-10 (as it has very little to none), instead it's because it had a big gun that makes a brrrt sound. Hey, you's like to talk about cutting back the U.S. military budget so why not make a start and retire this aircraft which can't do what it was intended for anymore?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;47798317]Literally only a few posts above you someone said that in a field test in perfect conditions, only 7 or 8 rounds (on average) hit each target. And it's not as if all those rounds would be in the same area, because those 7 or 8 rounds were from a total of 22 fired meaning 66% missed a huge tank.
[editline]25th May 2015[/editline]
I can't wait until the Internet's obsession over the A-10 dies. I don't even think it's because of the practicality of the A-10 (as it has very little to none), instead it's because it had a big gun that makes a brrrt sound. Hey, you's like to talk about cutting back the U.S. military budget so why not make a start and retire this aircraft which can't do what it was intended for anymore?[/QUOTE]
Uhh what?
The aircraft can, today, still do precisely what it was supposed to do all along: shred any armored vehicle short of a main battle tank.
The features that made it suited to close air support are still present and still exceed that of any modern aircraft. It has a decent loiter time, low stall speed, and enough armor for it to provide actual close air support.
The problem with other aircraft providing CAS is that they can be shot down by the most rudimentary of AAA. A low and slow gun run makes you vulnerable to all sorts of unguided munitions. On top of that, in a close air support role, the F-35, who would filled the role of the A10, would need to carry ordinance on its external pylons, entirely negating its reduced radar visibility. Someone with a MANPADS could take him right out of the sky. The A-10 expects to operate in this fashion and simply has enough armor to limp home afterwards.
The A-10 does the job it was intended to do, and does so with features that simply aren't present in its replacement. The F-35 is going to cost a fuckload to maintain compared to the A-10.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47798694]Uhh what?
The aircraft can, today, still do precisely what it was supposed to do all along: shred any armored vehicle short of a main battle tank.
The features that made it suited to close air support are still present and still exceed that of any modern aircraft. It has a decent loiter time, low stall speed, and enough armor for it to provide actual close air support.
The problem with other aircraft providing CAS is that they can be shot down by the most rudimentary of AAA. A low and slow gun run makes you vulnerable to all sorts of unguided munitions. On top of that, in a close air support role, the F-35, who would filled the role of the A10, would need to carry ordinance on its external pylons, entirely negating its reduced radar visibility. Someone with a MANPADS could take him right out of the sky. The A-10 expects to operate in this fashion and simply has enough armor to limp home afterwards.
The A-10 does the job it was intended to do, and does so with features that simply aren't present in its replacement. The F-35 is going to cost a fuckload to maintain compared to the A-10.[/QUOTE]
Well I mean shit, here's GunFox who knows better than the USAF, who are trying to retire the aircraft.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;47798801]Well I mean shit, here's GunFox who knows better than the USAF, who are trying to retire the aircraft.[/QUOTE]
The USAF knows this. They want to save money and are trying to get rid of the A-10, something they have never liked... did no one read my article on the F/A-16 program? This is nothing new, they've tried to retire it since the 80's.
Question: Has the F35 proven that its capable to do the A10's job just as well yet?
If not, why retire the A10 now, and not wait a few years later until the F35 can be properly evaluated as a replacement for it?
[QUOTE=GunFox;47798694]Uhh what?
The aircraft can, today, still do precisely what it was supposed to do all along: shred any armored vehicle short of a main battle tank.
The features that made it suited to close air support are still present and still exceed that of any modern aircraft. It has a decent loiter time, low stall speed, and enough armor for it to provide actual close air support.
The problem with other aircraft providing CAS is that they can be shot down by the most rudimentary of AAA. A low and slow gun run makes you vulnerable to all sorts of unguided munitions. On top of that, in a close air support role, the F-35, who would filled the role of the A10, would need to carry ordinance on its external pylons, entirely negating its reduced radar visibility. Someone with a MANPADS could take him right out of the sky. The A-10 expects to operate in this fashion and simply has enough armor to limp home afterwards.
The A-10 does the job it was intended to do, and does so with features that simply aren't present in its replacement. The F-35 is going to cost a fuckload to maintain compared to the A-10.[/QUOTE]
I would chalk up the effectiveness of the A-10 less towards the actual platform itself but more towards the current conflicts it's found itself in the last decade or so, that is, against forces with limited and/or no anti-aircraft weaponry and air superiority. People throw out all these benefits and how effective the A-10 is, and as much as I do love the plane, all these benefits are nigh worthless if it can't operate in an area of air superiority. You've got to factor in more then just the running costs of the A-10 but also what allows it to operate in such a relatively safe area which is often other aircraft having cleared the sky of threats or the deployment of ground based anti-aircraft equipment. It's ironically the conflicts the A-10 wasn't in mind for that makes it so effective.
This is part of the reason I imagine(besides wanting to splurge on new toys) that the F-35 program is going in the direction it is. People talk about the GAU-8 as the be-all-end-all of weaponry but even by their own words the USAF has acknowledged that it was obsolete not long into it's service life, moreso today when modern tanks are rolling composites and all. It still shreds lighter armor and soft targets but why risk an entire plane just to deploy the GAU-8 when you can replace it and use it's costs towards more missiles which will do the same job with higher probability of a kill and further away? Likewise, people show these pictures of damaged A-10s and tout them as proof of it's superiority, that if it was any other aircraft then it would have been shot down. True, if it was any other aircraft that had been hit then it could have been much worse but that begs of whether that other aircraft would have been hit in the first place. People see these pictures but gloss over how many A-10s [I]were[/I] hit and knocked out of the sky completely. Just last page someone posted a link to some stats that showed the A-10 had the worst survivability out of any deployed air platform in that conflict and that was against three decade old anti-air. Part of the supposed benefits of the F-35 is that it doesn't need armor because it's not going to get hit in the first place with modern ECS, agility and the fact it doesn't need to get so close just for a gun run. Whether this will prove in practice is a whole different matter but it's hard to do equivalences when one platform has had decades of data to compare to and the other is barely in production.
The F-35 represents a possible future where the A-10 won't feasibly cut it and that is against well equipped, modern and capable forces such as those of Russia or China where optimal operating conditions for CAS or other craft are hard or nigh impossible to achieve. With that in mind they want a platform that I guess is jack of all trades, a strike fighter better then previous ones where it can perform both roles and still have countermeasures to modern threats. Again as much as I do love the A-10 I feel a lot of people gloss over it's faults because it's seen a relatively successful career in theaters it wasn't meant for and simply because of that they somehow extrapolate it to being effective everywhere. Compound this with people hearing nothing good about the F-35 but budget blow-out after budget blow-out I can see why people paint it in such a dim light(then again the F-16 experienced similar problems yet look at it today). All-in-all do we know everything about the F-35? No of course not which is why I'd encourage people to stay cautious about it's operating capabilities, both the good and bad, rather then hold the A-10 on a pedestal as the pinnacle of a CAS aircraft. If the conflicts of today had have been against more competent forces the A-10 would have likely been phased out already. Do I believe it has a role to fulfill today? Yes I do but will it in the future? Who knows but the USAF is banking on a future where it won't cut it sooner or later and they're going with sooner rather then being caught with their pants down later(much to the dismay of their budget).
The future is shooting at insurgents. Having something like the F-35 which can be used to face down a more modernized force is nice, but the reality is that the overwhelming majority of our opponents for even the distant future are going to be using some pretty ancient tech.
It costs 50k+ for a single air to surface missile. The entire 1200 round load of 30mm is about 30k. (This number is going to vary both because the cost of the rounds changes over time and because the GAU-8 can use a blend of ammunition that varies.)
Meanwhile the F-35 costs about 30k to fly for an hour, while the A-10 costs about 12K.
[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-shows-hourly-cost-of-military-aircraft-2014-12[/url]
These numbers are slightly different than more reliable sources, but it has a pretty graph.
The A-10 is simply cost effective. You can lay down a lot of hurt from an aircraft that doesn't cost nearly as much to operate and uses a weapon that is comparatively cheap to utilize.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47805578]The future is shooting at insurgents. Having something like the F-35 which can be used to face down a more modernized force is nice, but the reality is that the overwhelming majority of our opponents for even the distant future are going to be using some pretty ancient tech.
It costs 50k+ for a single air to surface missile. The entire 1200 round load of 30mm is about 30k. (This number is going to vary both because the cost of the rounds changes over time and because the GAU-8 can use a blend of ammunition that varies.)
Meanwhile the F-35 costs about 30k to fly for an hour, while the A-10 costs about 12K.
[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-shows-hourly-cost-of-military-aircraft-2014-12[/url]
These numbers are slightly different than more reliable sources, but it has a pretty graph.
The A-10 is simply cost effective. You can lay down a lot of hurt from an aircraft that doesn't cost nearly as much to operate and uses a weapon that is comparatively cheap to utilize.[/QUOTE]
I agree that for the foreseeable future we're going to be facing insurgent forces but 'ancient' tech is a relative term. You could say the tech used during the Iraq war was relatively ancient but it still inflicted air casualties that I imagine could have been avoided. Look at the Crimean rebels, they got their hands on some decent AA(Russia's involvement not withstanding) and I imagine this is the type of thing the USAF is banking on facing. Not just modern military's but also more competently armed insurgent forces. I don't like to add hyperbolic onto the situation but I imagine if ISIL gained more ground in the Middle East it could open up some opportunities for them.
I agree the operating cost is advantageous for it but it's comparing a nearly five decade airframe to one still in design flux. As your source itself claims, part of the F-35 running cost is simply because the logistics isn't there yet but given if it had a five decade lifespan it would paint a different picture. Even just in terms of running costs, I've seen ballpark figures that the [URL="http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes"]F-16 has costs on par if not below the A-10[/URL](can't get a hard figure at the moment) and can carry more armament for a marginal increase. In the end it's funny because the GAU-8 is the biggest point of contention but it's biggest(arguable) advantage. I've seen figures higher then the 30k you say for the GAU but I digress, it's the priorities of the USAF on what costs they want to pay and those they'd rather cut.
I agree that the A-10 has a role but as to how far in the future it's going to be efficient in it is the real question and the USAF would rather answer it now with the F-35.
The F-35 remains physically incapable of filling the role.
Once you mount weapons on the external pylons of the F-35, you ruin its primary means of avoiding surface to air fire. Now it is a single engine unarmored aircraft that cannot loiter in combat zones.
The video that was just posted highlights the reason why the A-10 does so well. The troops were giving gun run orders for danger close targets, but their instructions weren't the best. The A-10 not only could use the cannon to drop ordinance on non laser designated targets with ease, but he could make those gun runs rapidly due to heavy armor plating and an extremely low stall speed allowing him to stay right on top of the target.
If facing an enemy in the future with better surface to air tech, then sure, deploy the F-35 for CAS, but understand that it will not be anywhere near as good at the job or as cost efficient. Pursue new tech, sure, but don't dump the A-10 for an aircraft that can't do the job as well because of a threat that literally doesn't even exist yet. Even ISIS has a joke of an air defense. The reason the tech insurgents use is ancient is largely because nobody had the knowhow to use thebmeaner stuff. Advanced training is difficult and expensive. It is why, despite capturing quite a few fixed wing aircraft, ISIS has launched little to no air strikes. The people we fight, even if they can get the equipment, they have no ability to field it.
As a radio operator I have always loved the A-10, best fixed wing CAS.
I wish the USAF wouldn't try to retire it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
