If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Arizona Daily Independent)   Talk of retiring the A-10 Warthog spurs effort to save it. Still say it looks like a Puma   (arizonadailyindependent.com) divider line 306
    More: Sad, warthogs, Operation Desert Storm, boots on the ground, iraqi freedom, Raul Grijalva  
•       •       •

10139 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Aug 2013 at 10:00 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-20 12:45:28 PM

you have pee hands: I think the original hypothetical said something like "guns only" because obviously the Sidewinder takes all the fun out of it.


Consider that the Warthog only needs to get you in its sights, just once, and you've just had a Very Bad DayTM. It will turn the very air the P-51 is flying through into a hyper-velocity slurry of very finely spaced projectiles the size of soda bottles. The P-51's only chance is to be totally missed, which is really not much chance at all, since all the A-10 need do is nose up, get as much altitude as possible, (which is a lot more than the P-51 can,) turn its sights on its quarry below, and riddle the entire vicinity. at the rate it tosses ammo, it could cut the P-51 in half, in its first pass.
 
2013-08-20 12:45:35 PM
Saved my butt a few times and it always felt good to know one was just hanging around up there ready to come to your aid.
 
2013-08-20 12:47:05 PM
 
2013-08-20 12:47:14 PM

bill4935: I like it in blue.

[imageshack.com image 658x552]


COBRA had some crappy tanks and planes, but the Rattler wasn't one of them.
 
2013-08-20 12:54:17 PM

HAMMERTOE: Consider that the Warthog only needs to get you in its sights, just once, and you've just had a Very Bad DayTM. It will turn the very air the P-51 is flying through into a hyper-velocity slurry of very finely spaced projectiles the size of soda bottles. The P-51's only chance is to be totally missed, which is really not much chance at all, since all the A-10 need do is nose up, get as much altitude as possible, (which is a lot more than the P-51 can,) turn its sights on its quarry below, and riddle the entire vicinity. at the rate it tosses ammo, it could cut the P-51 in half, in its first pass.


It's also worth noting that the GAU-8's bullet time-to-target and minimal drop almost qualify as cheating compared to WWII era guns.
 
2013-08-20 12:56:16 PM

Earguy: I once took part in an Army training exercise, I was a "wounded soldier", complete with cinema-makeup broken arm, and got to hang out on the ground waiting for the Rangers to come rescue me.  A10s circled overhead providing coverage.

What impressed me most was the machine guns.  The rounds fire off so fast they don't go bang-bang-bang, they go VVVVVVVVRRRBBBBT.


I was on annual training, where we are all setting up commo equipment. Of in the distance there were a couple of A-10s doing gun runs. I had gone into a tent later on and apparently they decided "Lets buzz the army guys". I hear vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVfarkINGRRROOOOOOM!

I look out the tent window in time to see an A-10 cockpit close enough to read the pilot's name. Out the window. Not out and up. This mother farker must have come in at 30 feet off the deck. I was thinking "Yeah it's real farking funny until you clip one of those antenna" But I suspect if an A-10 clipped my microwave rig, it would be the antenna who would suffer more.
 
2013-08-20 12:58:02 PM

durbnpoisn: Considering that there is pretty much no air force on this planet (that's not an ally already), can keep up with the US, I don't see why there is so much thought being put in to replacing old jets.


While there is usefulness in talking about it (specifically how to properly meter development), the reasoning is that history demonstrates repeatedly that not advancing your weapons tech is a sure road to being successfully attacked and subjugated.

Read through a Short History of War - you can find it here (Air War College web site); you'll find it, I think, an interesting read.
 
2013-08-20 12:59:26 PM

fluffy2097: belhade: It's a flying tank. that flies. HOW CAN YOU RETIRE THAT??

It's a gun with wings. and an engine.

The same man who looked at the GAU-8 and said "Make this gun fly", is the same guy who was carrying a howitzer in a C-130 and said to himself "Let's shoot at targets on the ground with this howitzer, by aiming it out the farking window!"


Your sir, win.
 
2013-08-20 12:59:42 PM

MonoChango: Click Click D'oh: (f-16) new ones being built every day.

No they aren't...  well Lockheed did make a few block 60's a few years ago but I understand those all went to the UAE.  Oh and I think the Koreans are making a variant... but I'm not sure if that counts. The ones my brother works on were manufactured in the mid 80's.


Current F-16 backorders will keep the production line open until at lest 2017 if no further orders are received.  One of the great things about being an aviation enthusiast in Dallas is that I can go the Ft. Worth JRB and watch the new F-16s come off the line

.

LedZeppelinRule: For that matter he's right, the Mustang would cream the Warthog in a dogfight. Same level speed, lower wing loading, lower stall speed. Probably a better roll rate. It would take a lot of rounds to bring an A-10 down, but it's only a matter of time really.


Having seen both aircraft fly extensively, I doubt the P-51 would stand much of a chance.  People tend to glamorize the P-51 well beyond it's capabilities.   It was a very good aircraft, but not to the standards people portray it as.  What it had going for it was an amazing production rate and was flown by very well trained pilots at a time when enemy forces were running out of trained pilots.  In particular, the P-51s roll rate is abysmal.  Around 90 degrees per second.  The A-10 will roll at 130 degrees per second clean and up to 200 degrees per second with the boards cracked.  So yeah, go ahead Video Game guys and say that in DCS or whatever game you play the P-51 wins.  At Nellis, the A-10 turns inside F-16s stupid enough to play in their world and eats them alive.  Are you guys going to say F-16s would lose to P-51s?
 
2013-08-20 01:00:04 PM

ChaosStar: fluffy2097: belhade: It's a flying tank. that flies. HOW CAN YOU RETIRE THAT??

It's a gun with wings. and an engine.

The same man who looked at the GAU-8 and said "Make this gun fly", is the same guy who was carrying a howitzer in a C-130 and said to himself "Let's shoot at targets on the ground with this howitzer, by aiming it out the farking window!"

your You sir, win.

ftfm
 
2013-08-20 01:03:44 PM

ceebeecates4: With all these GEDs in military procurement and logistics management, we can keep the Thunderbolt II flying for 30 years!  After all, all one has to do is waltz down to Fairchild Republic and pick up a few spare parts!  Maintaining an obsolete aircraft that has the RCS of a barn and the thermal signature of the sun worked really well for the Iranians, and that's why their F-14 fleet is the best in the world!  After all, we're still facing the dangers of columns of soviet T-72s about to push through the Fulda gap, and MANPADS are far too expensive for any potential enemy to afford.

/Nostalgia has no place in weapon systems.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-20 01:05:02 PM

fluffy2097: dryknife: Supposedly the cannon alters flight characteristics and actually slows the plane by a few miles per hour.

Cannon is the plane's reverse gear.

During early firing tests the gases produced by all the rounds being fired had a nasty habit of being sucked into the engine sand flaming them out. This was sorted out before they went into service.


I've read somewhere that it also produces about 9000lbs of reverse thrust.
 
2013-08-20 01:06:01 PM
I've got a buddy that is a USMA graduate and an infantry officer.

During his "vacation" in A-Stan, he told me there was no sweeter sound than a couple Hogs overhead bringing the noise on an insurgent position.

"I'd rather fight with my radio than my M4."
 
2013-08-20 01:07:13 PM

HAMMERTOE: Consider that the Warthog only needs to get you in its sights, just once, and you've just had a Very Bad DayTM. It will turn the very air the P-51 is flying through into a hyper-velocity slurry of very finely spaced projectiles the size of soda bottles. The P-51's only chance is to be totally missed, which is really not much chance at all, since all the A-10 need do is nose up, get as much altitude as possible, (which is a lot more than the P-51 can,) turn its sights on its quarry below, and riddle the entire vicinity. at the rate it tosses ammo, it could cut the P-51 in half, in its first pass.


Well, yeah, that's basically what I said to the guy talking about the P-51 turn rate.  The P-51 needs to be pretty close to hit anything with the .50s, the A-10 can handle a lot of .50 cal rounds probably, and the A-10 climbs almost twice as fast so it can engage and disengage on its own schedule.  It's not much of a contest which I guess is basically true any time you look at 30 years of military development.
 
2013-08-20 01:09:38 PM

lousyskater: [i.imgur.com image 850x540]


Damn you
 
2013-08-20 01:10:33 PM

fluffy2097: antidisestablishmentarianism: Retiring the bestest plane evar? What will replace it?

Nothing. Nothing can. The F35 is lightly armored, has low weapons load and is designed for combat at stand off ranges, and it's gun has a pidddling 1200 rounds.

During desert storm A-10's expended all their ordinance during missions. That's like 6 laser guided bombs, 4 2000 pound dumb bombs, and 3 maverick missiles. (in addition to being able to carry rockets, and cluster bombs).  And like 20,000 rounds of GAU-8 ammo. oh, and titanium armor for the pilot and critical systems.

The A-10 also has triple redundant flight system. dual hydraulic  systems, and cable controls.

The warthog brings home pilots in situations where there is really no logical reason why it would be capable of flying. A female A-10 pilot got hit over Iraq, lost almost all flight control and then proceeded to write the book on flying a wounded A-10 on differential thrust alone. She landed back at base safely.


A-10s that have made it home safe:
cellar.orgwww.ww2aircraft.neti493.photobucket.comwww.online-utility.orgwww.ww2aircraft.net
 
2013-08-20 01:14:58 PM
Would you P-51 vs. A-10 dogfight guys just stop?  The A-10 would simply ram the P-51 and fly through the other side.  Dogfight over.   The A-10 is, after all, the aircraft that has a titanium bathtub surrounding the pilot, to help ward off battle damage.  Back in the late 80's I swear I read an account of an A-10 flying through an apartment block in Germany, with the pilot surviving the crash without bailing out (can't find the story online now, though).  What other airplane not only flies through buildings but also lets the occupant (of the plane) survive?
 
2013-08-20 01:18:47 PM

Click Click D'oh: Current F-16 backorders will keep the production line open until at lest 2017 if no further orders are received. One of the great things about being an aviation enthusiast in Dallas is that I can go the Ft. Worth JRB and watch the new F-16s come off the line


I stand corrected.  Thanks.  I was under the impression that they shut down production in the 90's under the first Bush military slow down.  I think they did shut it down but I guess Lockheed must have start it back up when they bought it from GD.
Personally I think we need to be producing more A-10's and giving them away to all our allies.  Hell of a lot cheaper to keep in the air than a F-16 AND would make the Russians think twice about rolling into Georgia again.  And it isn't like they could use it to challenge us at air superiority if they ever fell into the wrong hands.
Heck it wouldn't cost much more than about $5 million a pop, to make a A-10 like drone.   Remove the human and add more ammo.
 
2013-08-20 01:20:54 PM
"Its loveliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness; "
 
2013-08-20 01:22:13 PM

Warthog: Would you P-51 vs. A-10 dogfight guys just stop?  The A-10 would simply ram the P-51 and fly through the other side.  Dogfight over.   The A-10 is, after all, the aircraft that has a titanium bathtub surrounding the pilot, to help ward off battle damage.  Back in the late 80's I swear I read an account of an A-10 flying through an apartment block in Germany, with the pilot surviving the crash without bailing out (can't find the story online now, though).  What other airplane not only flies through buildings but also lets the occupant (of the plane) survive?



Pfffft.  What would *you* know about the A-10?
 
2013-08-20 01:23:30 PM

Warthog: With two engines, 13 hard points carrying almost every weapon in the Air Force arsenal, and a 7 barrel Vulcan cannon spewing 1,174 rounds of depleted uranium, beats this:


Although I don't disagree with your points of comparison.  The Vulcan is a 6 barrel 20mm gatling gun, found on many aircraft.  The A-10 uses the 7 barrel 30mm Gau-8 gatling gun, only the one plane carries it.

\\ yeah, that guy.
\ worked in engineering (intern) on the line that made the shells . . . fun stuff.
 
2013-08-20 01:23:59 PM
we have drones and missiles for this now.
 
2013-08-20 01:24:09 PM
No lobbying dollars behind the A-10. BIG lobbying dollars behind the F-35.

Businesses give money to politicians, who turn around and promote those businesses. Who then continue to funnel a portion of profits to favorable politicians. Rinse and repeat. It's a classic circle jerk. The less polite would call them kickbacks.
 
2013-08-20 01:24:10 PM

Betacamman: bill4935: I like it in blue.

[imageshack.com image 658x552]

COBRA had some crappy tanks and planes, but the Rattler wasn't one of them.


And it could seat 2!!
 
2013-08-20 01:25:59 PM
I always love seeing the videos that soilders take on the ground after calling in an A-10, like no other plane the US troops on the ground, and the enemy soilders SEE and HEAR that BMF coming and they know what that sound means to them.
 
2013-08-20 01:32:27 PM

ThreadSinger: Not the scariest silhouette of an aircraft ever?


Not in an animal way. But that aircraft made every nuclear power on this planet (aside from the U.S.) shiat their collective pants. And still does, from what I know.
 
2013-08-20 01:33:41 PM
Why in the FARK would you retire this plane? Between this and the Apache, you have ground support aircraft. Add in the Stealth Fighter, and you have almost then entire offensive air organization that you will ever need. This plane can be shot to shiat and still fly home. Add in a few Spectre Gunships, and you have the air...

It's time to think smart, not just as 'flashy' as you can. Sometimes medium to low tech is better than uber high tech.
 
2013-08-20 01:34:45 PM

fluffy2097: Earguy: I once took part in an Army training exercise, I was a "wounded soldier", complete with cinema-makeup broken arm, and got to hang out on the ground waiting for the Rangers to come rescue me.  A10s circled overhead providing coverage.

What impressed me most was the machine guns.  The rounds fire off so fast they don't go bang-bang-bang, they go VVVVVVVVRRRBBBBT.

They are also as big as a Volkswagon The ammo can ALONE for it is bigger then a Volkswagen.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x543]
And the bullets are this big.

[lh3.ggpht.com image 309x350]


Jesus, I knew the guns were big, but have never seen one outside of the plane. I DID know how big the ammo was, though. It's like farking artillery, it's so damn big.
 
2013-08-20 01:37:08 PM

schnee: I remember driving between Phoenix and Tucson one sunny day, in my bright red Pontiac. Off in the distance, two specs flying and getting closer and closer. A couple of seconds later, two A-10s screamed nearly overhead.

Nothing like being target practice.

/cool plane
//I'm a confirmed kill


Got buzzed byu an Apache on the Salt River one time... They had one hovering about 50 yards away, and when we were all distracted that one, another swooped up behind us and scared the fark out of us. Couldn't have been more than 50 feet above ground. Would have loved to see those A-10's though... It was the cool part about spring training games in Tucson, watching the Warthogs come in for landings at Davis Monthan.
 
2013-08-20 01:37:59 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Retiring the bestest plane evar? What will replace it?


If we've learned anything from turning brown people into halal meat over the last 20 years, it's that subsonic gun platforms like the Harrier, the A-10 and the Apache helicopter are brutally effective means of disrupting weddings.

But I would imagine the 400% profit earned from A-10s is not sufficient when compared with the 600% profit from a purely unnecessary pile of F-35s, a plane that would make a really nice fighter in 1995, before we had the ability to make about 10,000 explosive drones to throw in front of them at one-tenth of the cost of a single F-35.
 
2013-08-20 01:38:45 PM
OH yay, this again.  Never understood just exactly why the Chair Force doesn't like this plane, but honestly they aren't gonna get rid of it.  They aren't going to be allowed. It's like replacing the M2HB or the 7.62x51, it just does the job being asked of it well enough that there's no gain in replacing it.
 
2013-08-20 01:41:29 PM

ArkPanda: I'm not an Army guy, but isn't that what helicopters are supposed to be doing now?  Or is the role not quite the same?


Apaches are great, but they aren't the tank killers that the A-10 is, and they can't be as shot up as an A-10 and still make it back to base. I think the Apaches have a role, but the A-10 has a bigger one. It's a ground attack aircraft that can be turned into swiss cheese. a helicopter is still a helicopter, slow and vulnerable.
 
2013-08-20 01:41:56 PM

MythDragon: You should see some of the damage I've come back home with in my fighter pilot days


Rapier FTW.

/wc Origin -k
 
2013-08-20 01:44:06 PM

fluffy2097: belhade: It's a flying tank. that flies. HOW CAN YOU RETIRE THAT??

It's a gun with wings. and an engine.

The same man who looked at the GAU-8 and said "Make this gun fly", is the same guy who was carrying a howitzer in a C-130 and said to himself "Let's shoot at targets on the ground with this howitzer, by aiming it out the farking window!"


It hasn't really been said yet, but Athena AND Ares blessed these men. Spooky and Co are the Angels of Death, and the Warthogs are Their swords.
 
2013-08-20 01:44:11 PM
This is an impressive enough plane that I thought it was the perfect thing to steal for a militia when that guy disappeared with one in the late 90's. It would be the best aircraft for someone like that to get ahold of, it's next to invulnerable against ground targets, and can saturate them with ordnance as big as your farking car...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Button
 
2013-08-20 01:45:00 PM

snocone: Sorry folks, the A-10 just does not have high enough marks in redistribution of wealth.
It has gotta go.


JungleBoogie: No lobbying dollars behind the A-10. BIG lobbying dollars behind the F-35.
Businesses give money to politicians, who turn around and promote those businesses. Who then continue to funnel a portion of profits to favorable politicians. Rinse and repeat. It's a classic circle jerk. The less polite would call them kickbacks.


Therein lays the problem.  Every part on the A-10 is easily replaceable with parts that can be manufacture in any back woods machine/sheet metal shop.  There is no kickbacks, huge labor force or much profit in keeping them operational.
 
2013-08-20 01:54:17 PM

Mikey1969: ArkPanda: I'm not an Army guy, but isn't that what helicopters are supposed to be doing now?  Or is the role not quite the same?

Apaches are great, but they aren't the tank killers that the A-10 is, and they can't be as shot up as an A-10 and still make it back to base. I think the Apaches have a role, but the A-10 has a bigger one. It's a ground attack aircraft that can be turned into swiss cheese. a helicopter is still a helicopter, slow and vulnerable.


The average altitude in Afghanistan is something like 6000 ft.  Helicopters are very limited in what they can carry at those altitudes.  Plus the GAU-8 is the only gun we have that can rip though the rammed earth fortifications that are so common in Afghanistan.  Like they say, the Apache is a great aircraft but it has it's limits.  The idea is to use the weapon system that supplements the other systems you have.  A pair of Apache with an A-10 is pretty much the best combo any ground pounded would love.
 
2013-08-20 01:59:37 PM
www.productwiki.com
sell them to COOBBRRAAAA!!!
 
2013-08-20 02:01:53 PM
I know it's hard to let go of great things however there comes a time when people need to just let go... otherwise we'll still be flying P-51s today. I mean it's a great airplane and all however would you fly one against a MiG 29?

NO! so why would you fly an A-10 in a modern/future battlefield when you have F-35 about to go into full scale production any moment now?

In the future where you have sophisticated C4ISR environement with 5th Gen fighters and advanced SAMs and AAAs, the F-35 has a good chance however the A-10 would've been blown to bits and the poor Marines on the ground waiting for an airstrike or napalm drop etc will be dead because they depended on the A-10s that never made it..
 
2013-08-20 02:04:10 PM

MonoChango: Mikey1969: ArkPanda: I'm not an Army guy, but isn't that what helicopters are supposed to be doing now?  Or is the role not quite the same?

Apaches are great, but they aren't the tank killers that the A-10 is, and they can't be as shot up as an A-10 and still make it back to base. I think the Apaches have a role, but the A-10 has a bigger one. It's a ground attack aircraft that can be turned into swiss cheese. a helicopter is still a helicopter, slow and vulnerable.

The average altitude in Afghanistan is something like 6000 ft.  Helicopters are very limited in what they can carry at those altitudes.  Plus the GAU-8 is the only gun we have that can rip though the rammed earth fortifications that are so common in Afghanistan.  Like they say, the Apache is a great aircraft but it has it's limits.  The idea is to use the weapon system that supplements the other systems you have.  A pair of Apache with an A-10 is pretty much the best combo any ground pounded would love.



I heartily concur... This is a good combination, and I just don't understand why we are talking about getting rid of something that works together THIS well... I guess I must not love America, or something.
 
2013-08-20 02:12:38 PM

Pumpernickel bread: But lose your relay aircraft and you lose your whole fleet of drones. Best case scenario, they auto-pilot back to base. Meanwhile, the guys on the ground just lost all their air support. Sure, use drones, but don't depend on them entirely. Gotta have some manned aircraft providing support


But those aircraft are 200+ miles away from the action.  If you're doing CAS, it's on the front lines in a conventional battle, or it's counter-insurgency.  For conventional battle, if you can't protect a high-value aircraft 200 miles behind the front lines, you've got some major problems.  And again, they don't have to be manned, they can also be drones, and you can have them even higher than pretty much any reasonable system that could target them.  You could design the relay drones to fly at 90,000 feet, or higher.  And if they are drones, it's likely that they are cheap enough that you can use multiple relay aircraft if you need the redundancy.

If it's for counter-insurgency operations, the chances that the opponent is going to be able to attack a relay aircraft that is 200+ miles away and at 40,000 feet altitude is unlikely.

The problem with using satellite control is that the round trip to geosynchronous orbit and back down is going to take a significant amount of time.  Best case, ignoring the delay in retransmission, is 1/4 of a second delay for a one-way message up to the satellite and back down (44,472 miles/186,000 miles a second = .24 seconds*)  That means you're essentially adding a 1/2 second delay to every single action you do, bare minimum.  That's OK for a high flying, slow-moving drone, but a fast mover is going to need significantly better response time:  At 400 miles per hour, the drone will have moved have moved about 300 feet during that half-second.

You could even, if you wanted to, have them revert to local control, though that is dicey.  Personally, I wouldn't go there.
 
2013-08-20 02:13:37 PM

HAMMERTOE: get as much altitude as possible, (which is a lot more than the P-51 can,) turn its sights on its quarry below, and riddle the entire vicinity. at the rate it tosses ammo, it could cut the P-51 in half, in its first pass.


The only thing an A-10 has on a P-51 maneuverability wise is rate of climb. The P-51 is about as fast, and more maneuverable, but with half the climb rate of an A-10.

In a fair fight where nobody got the drop on each other, I'd bet on the P-51 if only guns were allowed.

If I were fighting a P-51 in an A10, I'd engage it a few miles away with a sidewinder or maverick. Preferably from behind and above.
 
2013-08-20 02:15:45 PM

dittybopper: xxmedium: Why the hell would you direct a petition at the Obama Administration when it's the Senate and the DoD procurement that are making these determinations?

Because the Democrats hold the Senate, and the president can lean on the senators of his party.  That doesn't guarantee anything, of course, but it does carry at least some weight.

BTW, I don't see the A-10 being replaced by the F-35, or any other manned aircraft for that matter.  Seems to me the most likely replacement would be a drone.  Cheaper in terms of material, fuel, and personnel costs, and you can make a relatively fast moving drone, especially if it's controlled from nearby.

For example, you could control several "fast mover" CAS drones in real time relatively locally with a stand-off aircraft manned by drone pilots.  A Boeing airliner refitted could cruise at 40,000 feet and it would have 'line of sight' communications to the drones out to nearly 300 miles.   Put the control aircraft far back from the action, and send the drones in.  Alternatively, if you have ground control pods, you can just put up a relay aircraft, and have the pilots nearly 600 miles away.  The relay aircraft, which can be a drone itself, retransmits the drone and control information back and forth.  Because the distance is much, much shorter than the path it would take to a geosynchronous satellite and back, you can make "fast mover" drones that can maneuver radically, in real time.

If the drones lose a lock on the signal, they would go into a "safe mode"  where they increase height and head back towards base,  until they either regain airborne lock, back-up satellite lock, or local control at the base.


Maybe I'm just being dumb here, because I don't really get much into the specs of these war toys, but I thought the enormous farking machine gun that the A-10 sports was what accounted for much of its CAS utility?

How many enemy tanks and armored assault vehicles can a drone destroy? I mean, if you're talking about cutting a safe path through enemy lines for ground troops, wouldn't you need a huge number of drones to equal the destructive power of just one A-10?
 
2013-08-20 02:17:43 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Improve the Warthog by having the engines tilt up and down.  Oh man....sweet....


Destro, is that you?
 
2013-08-20 02:18:53 PM

SuperNinjaToad: In the future where you have sophisticated C4ISR environement with 5th Gen fighters and advanced SAMs and AAAs, the F-35 has a good chance however the A-10 would've been blown to bits and the poor Marines on the ground waiting for an airstrike or napalm drop etc will be dead because they depended on the A-10s that never made it..


And once the initial strike is over and all the fancy radars and missile launchers have been taken out by stealth planes, some kind of aircraft is going to have to come in and cover the soldiers who are taking over the area. The perfect airplane for that? The A-10.

/The F35 is kinda like a football player that specializes in field goals, being a quarterback, an offensive lineman, a defensive linesman, and cheerleading.
//It's not a bad plane, they are trying to make it do to many things, and put it in roles it is ill suited for.
 
2013-08-20 02:22:52 PM

Z-clipped: Maybe I'm just being dumb here, because I don't really get much into the specs of these war toys, but I thought the enormous farking machine gun that the A-10 sports was what accounted for much of its CAS utility?


It also can carry quite a lot of bombs missiles and rockets.

I think the idea behind drones is that you CAN have a swarm of them. Rather then one expensive meat filled plane. More targets for the enemy, more intimidating; if you've got enough drones you can even fly them in a loop to drop bombs then return to base for more weapons.
 
2013-08-20 02:23:42 PM

clkeagle: dittybopper: xxmedium: Why the hell would you direct a petition at the Obama Administration when it's the Senate and the DoD procurement that are making these determinations?

Because the Democrats hold the Senate, and the president can lean on the senators of his party.  That doesn't guarantee anything, of course, but it does carry at least some weight.

BTW, I don't see the A-10 being replaced by the F-35, or any other manned aircraft for that matter.  Seems to me the most likely replacement would be a drone.  Cheaper in terms of material, fuel, and personnel costs, and you can make a relatively fast moving drone, especially if it's controlled from nearby.

For example, you could control several "fast mover" CAS drones in real time relatively locally with a stand-off aircraft manned by drone pilots.  A Boeing airliner refitted could cruise at 40,000 feet and it would have 'line of sight' communications to the drones out to nearly 300 miles.   Put the control aircraft far back from the action, and send the drones in.  Alternatively, if you have ground control pods, you can just put up a relay aircraft, and have the pilots nearly 600 miles away.  The relay aircraft, which can be a drone itself, retransmits the drone and control information back and forth.  Because the distance is much, much shorter than the path it would take to a geosynchronous satellite and back, you can make "fast mover" drones that can maneuver radically, in real time.

If the drones lose a lock on the signal, they would go into a "safe mode"  where they increase height and head back towards base,  until they either regain airborne lock, back-up satellite lock, or local control at the base.

The drone argument applies to pretty much every mission (except dogfighting against first-world aircraft). They're cheaper and safer than manned aircraft, and they can operate for a much longer period of time.

That's what bothers me most about the F-35 contract. The flyaway cost to the Air Force for the F-3 ...


Because Transformers.
 
2013-08-20 02:36:05 PM

Mikey1969: ....Got buzzed byu an Apache on the Salt River one time... They had one hovering about 50 yards away, and when we were all distracted that one, another swooped up behind us and scared the fark out of us. ....


Clever girl....

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-20 02:39:26 PM

Mikey1969: I heartily concur... This is a good combination, and I just don't understand why we are talking about getting rid of something that works together THIS well... I guess I must not love America, or something.


The A-10 is too cheap to build and fly.  Congress needs to give your tax money to Lockheed and there just isn't enough profit margin on an A-10.  :-)  What were you thinking?  That they care about how well weapons work in combat?
 
2013-08-20 02:40:49 PM

fluffy2097: Z-clipped: Maybe I'm just being dumb here, because I don't really get much into the specs of these war toys, but I thought the enormous farking machine gun that the A-10 sports was what accounted for much of its CAS utility?

It also can carry quite a lot of bombs missiles and rockets.

I think the idea behind drones is that you CAN have a swarm of them. Rather then one expensive meat filled plane. More targets for the enemy, more intimidating; if you've got enough drones you can even fly them in a loop to drop bombs then return to base for more weapons.


I suppose. It just seems like it would be orders of magnitude more difficult to coordinate 30 drone pilots than two A-10s. Plus, I still don't see what armament a drone can carry that can both bust a tank open, and sweep away a large body of entrenched infantry. So now you have to coordinate not only a bunch of drones in a small airspace, but a bunch of specialized units as well.

It just seems more expedient to concentrate power where is needed in this type of engagement.

A bunch of tiny robots can probably cut your entire lawn faster than a tractor, but if all you need is one narrow strip cut, and cut well...?
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report