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.

(Defense News)   "A-10..." "You sank my warthog fleet"   (defensenews.com) divider line 316
    More: Unlikely, U.S. Air Force, Boeing F-15C Eagle, McDonnell Douglas, aerial refueling, Ground warfare, Air Force Reserves, Teal Group, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter  
•       •       •

18512 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2013 at 9:08 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-17 09:44:09 AM

Publikwerks: Tell me one thing the A-10 can do that a Reaper can't, other than take a beating?


It can make the most amazing sound in all of warfare, as far as this civilian is concerned.

/God's own zipper
//BFFFFFFFFFT
///http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZwk5J8rGLU
 
2013-09-17 09:46:12 AM

GodComplex: Ever seen the vids of the A-10 dog fighting during the gulf war?



Ever think that was 20 years ago....
Time, it has passed you by.

It, might be cool to think you can fly low and slow and GUN things.... but imagine tomorrow when you lose a pilot over Damascus.

You can't afford to keep the planes financially.
....and you sure as hell can't afford dead pilots

/POW?
 
2013-09-17 09:46:21 AM

AFKobel: All I know is when I call in the Warthog, it only takes three passes at the map.  It gets a good amount of kills, but come on people, you need take more than three runs at the map to turn the tide.  I'm on a team of morons!


Every time I summon the Warthog (like twice; I'm a sucky player), I get more team kills than opponent kills.

UAV, Hunter Killer, Care Package - You know I suck.
 
2013-09-17 09:46:34 AM

Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]

You're kidding, right?

Nope.

Yes, it doesn't have GAU-8. Luckly, missiles can kill tanks, and the reaper can carry those.
Plus, it can loiter far longer than a A-10
Plus you don't have to worry about the pilot. If he gets shot down, he'll get out of his seat, and go get a coffee, not start trying to remeber his SERE training.

Tell me one thing the A-10 can do that a Reaper can't, other than take a beating?

Kill more.


I don't think it can.
Flying the A-10 is 5-6X as expensive as a drone. So you can field 5 to 6 of them instead of an A-10. They can loiter longer, and can go places that sending an A-10 into would be not advisable, like if you don't have air superiority.
 
2013-09-17 09:47:03 AM

ChipNASA: Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]

You're kidding, right?

THIS.

You can't do this, with THAT.

[www.fotodisk.cz image 785x501]

Please tell me that gun is mounted on that car. If so I want that car.
 
2013-09-17 09:47:28 AM

Cybernetic: The KC-46 is supposed to come on line in 2016.


The KC-46 procurement is broken up into three phases: KC-X, -Y, -Z. The current procurement phase is only procuring 179 KC-46's, while we have like 400 -135's in service with a lot more (the old E models) not in service but maintained at the boneyards in case of emergency.

asynchron: Also, we already had this thread about a month ago. Maybe we should talk about the KC-10s this time? I'll admit I don't know much about them. How do they compare/contrast with the KC-135?


Basically, there are two major types of mission in terms of required airplane performance. There are times when you simply need a shiatload of fuel in the sky, like when you're flying a couple cargo planes to Guam. Then there are times when you need a shiatload of offload in the sky, like when there are red flag exercises and 30-40 planes flying around. The former would ideally be done by a floating tanker ship and only requires one offload point, the latter would ideally be done by little drones, one per receiver, with exactly as much fuel as you need to offload.

The KC-10 is closer to the former. It can hold a LOT more fuel than the -135, has a more flexible drogue system (aside from the few -135's retooled to fit wing pods), etc. The -135 is the actual workhorse (contrary to what the article claims) and there's something like 400 in active service. But since it's smaller, you can run into issues where you need 3 tankers working a complicated relay system to haul a plane from one place to another. The -135 is also farking ancient, it was introduced in the late 50's and is looking to have another 50 years of service ahead of it. There's a meme that goes 'the last pilot of the last -135 hasn't been born yet'. It would probably be more appropriate to say 'the father of the last pilot of the last -135 hasn't been born yet'.

And, for the record, the KC-46 is sort of between the two in capability, which is actually a Bad Thing. That makes it far more expensive to use when you're needing to refuel the 40 plane training exercises and it has a significantly lower across-the-pond hauling capacity. It also has serious operability issues that will arise from being a two engine plane; it's far more susceptible to mission cancellation. For example, there are massive problems if you have an engine die while moving planes across the ocean; a -135 or -10 can just keep going but a -46 will suddenly be limited by range of the planes it's hauling. It's similar to civilian ETOPS, but instead of going off the range of the -46, the maximum range from an airfield in an emergency situation like one engine left goes to whatever it's hauling's max range...and that's really, really small for a fighter.
 
2013-09-17 09:47:53 AM
A10's are all we will have left after Skynet takes over, remember? don't scrap em!
 
2013-09-17 09:48:14 AM
Ever seen the vids of the A-10 dog fighting during the gulf war?

Fighter pilots are afraid of getting that close to the ground. And the A-10 would dance circles around most jets. Just cant catch up when they bug out.
 
2013-09-17 09:48:56 AM
Meant to post this -  a cost comparison of the MQ-9 vs A-10 Vs F-16.
http://www.jameshasik.com/weblog/2012/06/affordably-unmanned-a-cost- co mparison-of-the-mq-9-to-the-f-16-and-a-10-and-a-response-to-winslow-wh e.html

Again, don't retire the A-10. Move it to the ANG. Governors love the A-10.

Then if we do decided to re-enact WWII, we'll have the right plane for the job.
 
2013-09-17 09:51:22 AM
Aw man, the A-10 was the coolest thing you yanks ever gave the world. Don't pull that, that gun is freaking awesome.
 
2013-09-17 09:52:01 AM

Infernalist: netcentric: Infernalist: netcentric: Lets face it,  the military isn't going to start on any new conflicts for a couple years.   We're too broke as a country to take on any new action.

We will slowly wrap up our commitments and withdraw from current engagements.

The Army will shrink in the next 3 years
The Navy will shrink in the next 3 years
The Marines will shrink in the next 3 years
The Air Force will shrink in the next 3 years

The nations credit cards are maxed out.    We are no longer able to commit to all the programs we would like.  Cuts are going to happen (although this websource for this article is not a very good one).

This is the direction we have been headed in for several years,  it's not new.    People should have warmed up to it by now.

The peace dividend.... spend it wisely on immigration reform,  alternative energy and paying off several stimulus bills.

You're an idiot.


Really?    I think I am right.    You have no reason to think cuts are not coming this year and next, and then next.

Tell us why the budget cuts will not affect programs.         ???    Tell us why America is pushing for more US interventions abroad....  maybe you could list a few that America is wanting to spend more money on  ???

No, I mean you're an idiot for making mention of 'credit cards' and treating national economics as if it's the same thing as a family budget.

If you can equate these two things in your mind, then you're beyond hope.  Try not to breed, Frito.



Oh.... so to sum up your answer.   "You were right Netcentric.   I will try to take a slap at you, but no I cannot point out where you were incorrect".

Thanks Infernalist !
 
2013-09-17 09:52:04 AM

netcentric: GodComplex: Ever seen the vids of the A-10 dog fighting during the gulf war?


Ever think that was 20 years ago....
Time, it has passed you by.

It, might be cool to think you can fly low and slow and GUN things.... but imagine tomorrow when you lose a pilot over Damascus.

You can't afford to keep the planes financially.
....and you sure as hell can't afford dead pilots

/POW?


And yet we've been using the AR platform since the 60s and aircraft carriers since the 20s.

/War
//War never changes..
 
2013-09-17 09:52:28 AM

quantum_csc: Couldn't this serve in place of the A-10?

[community.warplanes.com image 850x637]


Not really. It serves some of the same functions, but in a different way.

The Apache is used in more of a standoff role, sometimes even firing from behind cover, such as hills or a treeline. The A-10 is designed for the kind of up-close, in-your-face, I-can-kill-you-before-you-can-kill-me support mission that is more difficult for helicopters because they are inherently more fragile than a fixed-wing aircraft.
 
2013-09-17 09:52:36 AM

sprawl15: MadMattressMack: sprawl15: Scrapping the KC-10? Well that's a farking hilariously terrible idea. Nothing like overworking the -135's for another 50 years.

FTFA: "Faced with steep budget cuts and the desire to keep existing procurement initiatives on track, the US Air Force is considering scrapping its entire fleet of KC-10 tankers and A-10 attack jets, according to multiple military and defense sources."

Why not fly the bottom out of them when you can keep spending your brains out on the F-35? The contractors who were paid for the old platforms are paid off. You can't get any more special favors out of them or look good for approving manufacturing spending in congressional districts. The only way to do that is to get rid of the old and build new stuff.

The KC-X procurement program is setup such that Boeing covers any cost overruns. There aren't going to be any additional expenses (for the government at least) beyond what was already budgeted and signed up to, unless it just totally collapses and Boeing defaults.

And the F-35 makes a poor strategic tanker.


I didn't know that about the KC-X, but I don't 100% foresee that not happening with Boeing. It wouldn't be the first time a contractor underbid and had to be bailed out in order to save their work. I'm not saying it'll happen, but I won't hold my breath for them to hit budget. They're having trouble with the 787, but then again the 747-8 worked out well. I know, they're 2 different aircraft with one all new and one an upgrade, but it's something of a baseline.

The F-35 doesn't have buddy stores?

Not that I'm writing the defense budget, but I just don't care for that aircraft. Too much money for an aircraft that doesn't perform to spec, yet the AF is willing to pull money (or threaten to pull money for political wrangling) from proven functional programs to ensure the capital stream for it.
 
2013-09-17 09:52:49 AM

Publikwerks: Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]

You're kidding, right?

Nope.

Yes, it doesn't have GAU-8. Luckly, missiles can kill tanks, and the reaper can carry those.
Plus, it can loiter far longer than a A-10
Plus you don't have to worry about the pilot. If he gets shot down, he'll get out of his seat, and go get a coffee, not start trying to remeber his SERE training.

Tell me one thing the A-10 can do that a Reaper can't, other than take a beating?

Kill more.

I don't think it can.
Flying the A-10 is 5-6X as expensive as a drone. So you can field 5 to 6 of them instead of an A-10. They can loiter longer, and can go places that sending an A-10 into would be not advisable, like if you don't have air superiority.


Forget about expenses for a moment.  it's about cabability when the cards are on the table.  Let's take a situation where a million screaming Best Koreans come pouring into the DMZ with all their armor and infantry.  You're the commander.  What do you do?  A-10s, or Reapers?
 
2013-09-17 09:53:20 AM

Smoky Dragon Dish: Mock26: Smoky Dragon Dish: Mock26: dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10.  They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it.  And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.  Problem is, it's absolutely a vital function, and because of the various agreements, the Army can't have it's own fixed-wing attack aircraft.  So the Air Force gets stuck doing a job it doesn't really want, with aircraft it doesn't really want, but it can't relinquish that role to the actual military because if it does, it loses influence.

Meh, the Army already has within its arsenal more than enough weapons to compensate for the loss of the A-10.

<citation needed>

Anti tank missiles.
Artillery.
Tanks.
Mines.

You do realize that mines are no longer part of the DoD arsenal, right?
The whole point of the A-10 is to save tanks from engaging tanks.
Artillery?  Ok, if you want to hit one tank at a time from 20km away... assuming you can hit it.  With Excalibur, OK, you can do this pretty well..... with a non-moving target.
Anti-tank missiles.  Launched from what?  An even slower heli?


Yes, I am aware that the whole point of the A-10 is to save tanks from engaging tanks.  But, tanks can still take out tanks.  Sure, ground losses will probably be heavier if the A-10 is pulled from service, but despite that fact the Army is still capable of dealing with enemy tanks with what it has.

Also, I thought that it was only "dumb" mines that were phased out and that so-called "smart" mines were still part of the arsenal.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention helicopters.  The army still has those, and those can also take out tanks.

And, Yes, the A-10 is probably more effective than all of those other weapons I mentioned, but that was not my point.  My point is that the Army is still fully capable of taking out enemy tanks without help from the Air Force.  The Air Force just makes it a lot easier for them!
 
2013-09-17 09:53:34 AM
Meanwhile, how far over initial budget estimates is the F-35 project, and how much of its original mission profile is it capable of performing right now?
 
2013-09-17 09:54:01 AM
War has changed, there is no question of that. The costs of war are slowing moving in favor of drones when the military begins counting in the cost of soldiers lives. However, the effectiveness of these airframes make them difficult to replace in the near future, but that is the probable direction the DoD is headed sooner rather than later.
 
2013-09-17 09:54:38 AM

Publikwerks: Meant to post this -  a cost comparison of the MQ-9 vs A-10 Vs F-16.
http://www.jameshasik.com/weblog/2012/06/affordably-unmanned-a-cost- co mparison-of-the-mq-9-to-the-f-16-and-a-10-and-a-response-to-winslow-wh e.html

Again, don't retire the A-10. Move it to the ANG. Governors love the A-10.

Then if we do decided to re-enact WWII,The Korean War, we'll have the right plane for the job.


FIFY.
 
2013-09-17 09:54:45 AM

quantum_csc: Couldn't this serve in place of the A-10?

[community.warplanes.com image 850x637]


Not really.

Doesn't have the legs.


sprawl15: The KC-X procurement program is setup such that Boeing covers any cost overruns. There aren't going to be any additional expenses (for the government at least) beyond what was already budgeted and signed up to, unless it just totally collapses and Boeing defaults.


I find that very hard to believe.

Do you have a source?
 
2013-09-17 09:57:45 AM

Publikwerks: But I don't see the United States fighting a traditional land war in the future.


So we will never become involved in another land war?

It must be nice to live in a reality where nothing ever changes.

Oh wait, it does, but mindsets like yours are why we always seem to start wars prepared to fight the last one.
 
2013-09-17 09:59:45 AM

Thunderpipes: Mock26: ChipNASA: Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]

You're kidding, right?

THIS.

You can't do this, with THAT.

[img.photobucket.com image 850x543]

This, too, can take out a tank from the air:
[img.photobucket.com image 850x629]

And, it can be mounted on a drone!

The overall firepower the GAU delivers cannot be replaced with a missile. It is also more flexible, and the A-10 carries them as well.


Whether or not the GAU can replace the firepower of gun on the A-10 is irrelevant (and, No, I do not think that the GAU can replace it).  The point is that the GAU can kill any tank currently in service by a foreign power.  Take away the A-10 and we can still take out enemy tanks from the air.  Sure, at present using drones would not be as effective, but I think we will see a pretty big increase in the number of drones in service.
 
2013-09-17 10:00:45 AM

MadMattressMack: I didn't know that about the KC-X, but I don't 100% foresee that not happening with Boeing. It wouldn't be the first time a contractor underbid and had to be bailed out in order to save their work. I'm not saying it'll happen, but I won't hold my breath for them to hit budget. They're having trouble with the 787, but then again the 747-8 worked out well. I know, they're 2 different aircraft with one all new and one an upgrade, but it's something of a baseline.



It would be the first time in the last 30 years (or longer) when a new aircraft didn't end up costing more.

MadMattressMack: The F-35 doesn't have buddy stores?


They do, but they haven't been proven yet and they aren't a replacement for a real tanker.
 
2013-09-17 10:02:09 AM
If they do pull the A-10 from service they should pull the guns from all the planes, mount them on trucks, and give them to the Army!
 
2013-09-17 10:03:13 AM

MadMattressMack: I don't 100% foresee that not happening with Boeing. It wouldn't be the first time a contractor underbid and had to be bailed out in order to save their work.


Yup, same. It just means they'll sink as much cost as they can before declaring that they're going to default. Defaulting on a contract also has far reaching consequences for a company, so the government will be over a barrel.

Especially since the -46 is basically a new airframe. They're using the body of one 767 model, the wings of another, and the avionics of a third.

MadMattressMack: The F-35 doesn't have buddy stores?


Not hundreds of thousands of pounds worth.

liam76: I find that very hard to believe.

Do you have a source?


First thing I hit on Google:
"The government's projection of Boeing's potential liability has increased to about $700 million," Air Force spokesman Charles Gulick said in a statement. "Government liability is capped," and any additional "financial liability is completely borne by Boeing."
 
2013-09-17 10:03:14 AM
Mock26:

Yes, I am aware that the whole point of the A-10 is to save tanks from engaging tanks.  But, tanks can still take out tanks.  Sure, ground losses will probably be heavier if the A-10 is pulled from service, but despite that fact the Army is still capable of dealing with enemy tanks with what it has.

Also, I thought that it was only "dumb" mines that were phased out and that so-called "smart" mines were still part of the arsenal.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention helicopters.  The army still has those, and those can also take out tanks.

And, Yes, the A-10
is probably more effective than all of those other weapons I mentioned, but that was not my point. My point is that the Army is still fully capable of taking out enemy tanks without help from the Air Force. The Air Force just makes it a lot easier for them!

We do have what you're calling "smart mines" but they're not technically mines, since they're man-in-the-loop systems.  But, they're anti-personnel capability.

Helis are slower than the A-10 and expose pilots to greater risk in a more syemtrical conflict.  It's easy to shoot down a heli compared to an A-10.

You're right in the sense that the Army has anti-tank capability. But, the joint capability of the DoD as a whole isn't decided by one military branch.  It's decided at the JROC level, and taking out the A-10 would leave a hole.  You said it yourself that casualities would be greater without the A-10.  That's my point.
 
2013-09-17 10:04:32 AM

Mock26: Thunderpipes: Mock26: ChipNASA: Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]

You're kidding, right?

THIS.

You can't do this, with THAT.

[img.photobucket.com image 850x543]

This, too, can take out a tank from the air:
[img.photobucket.com image 850x629]

And, it can be mounted on a drone!

The overall firepower the GAU delivers cannot be replaced with a missile. It is also more flexible, and the A-10 carries them as well.

Whether or not the Hellfire can replace the firepower of GAU on the A-10 is irrelevant (and, No, I do not think that the Hellfire can replace it).  The point is that the Hellfire can kill any tank currently in service by a foreign power.  Take away the A-10 and we can still take out enemy tanks from the air.  Sure, at present using drones would not be as effective, but I think we will see a pretty big increase in the number of drones in service.


Derp!  Too much scotch in my coffee this morning.

Fixed that for myself.
 
2013-09-17 10:04:40 AM

Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]



D'aww, look at you trying to be cute. That drone can't even begin to do what the Thunderbolt can do.

i274.photobucket.com

www.portviewfitout.co.uk
 
2013-09-17 10:04:51 AM
Christ, they've been trying to get rid of the A-10 since before Kosovo.
 
2013-09-17 10:04:53 AM
Hey Guys! Guys? Guys.  It's a SCARE tactic.  Just like the sequestration. They don't actually intend on any of these cuts, but they are trying to scare their way into getting what they want.  Of course, just like sequestrations, you should be careful who & how you bluff.  Someone might call you on it.

/ back to your regularly scheduled big gun argument /
 
2013-09-17 10:05:00 AM

GodComplex: Publikwerks: Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]

You're kidding, right?

Nope.

Yes, it doesn't have GAU-8. Luckly, missiles can kill tanks, and the reaper can carry those.
Plus, it can loiter far longer than a A-10
Plus you don't have to worry about the pilot. If he gets shot down, he'll get out of his seat, and go get a coffee, not start trying to remeber his SERE training.

Tell me one thing the A-10 can do that a Reaper can't, other than take a beating?

Ever seen the vids of the A-10 dog fighting during the gulf war?


The A-10 can provide real time CAS. Here's an example of an engagement by an A-10 that a drone can't do as it doesn't have a gun. Also, it's mainly used against vehicles and houses, both easy targets that are small and contain a large number of people. It's a lot harder to track and hit spread out infantry in cover who are on the move.

http://medium.com/war-is-boring/adb2cef00361

Drones are the future, but we don't have any fielded that can replace the A-10 yet. Maybe we will in 20 or 30 years, but that's not going to help us today.
 
2013-09-17 10:05:01 AM

BigBooper: Publikwerks: But I don't see the United States fighting a traditional land war in the future.

So we will never become involved in another land war?

It must be nice to live in a reality where nothing ever changes.

Oh wait, it does, but mindsets like yours are why we always seem to start wars prepared to fight the last one.


Wait wait wait.... YOU are saying that I am the one "prepared to fight the last one. " when I'm advocating moving away from a plane designed to fight the war of the cold war to a plane designed to fight insurgencies???

Really?
 
2013-09-17 10:05:21 AM
Retire the KC-10s and replace them with what?  The KC-10 is carries more fuel, cargo and people than a KC-135 can and can offload that fuel to a wider variety of aircraft or more aircraft at the same time than the KC-135 and is far superior to the KC-135 for tanking large long range type aircraft.  Hell, instead of talking about retiring the fleet, the should be pulling MD-11s out of the boneyards and converting them to KC-11s.
 
2013-09-17 10:06:27 AM

Publikwerks: BigBooper: Publikwerks: But I don't see the United States fighting a traditional land war in the future.

So we will never become involved in another land war?

It must be nice to live in a reality where nothing ever changes.

Oh wait, it does, but mindsets like yours are why we always seem to start wars prepared to fight the last one.

Wait wait wait.... YOU are saying that I am the one "prepared to fight the last one. " when I'm advocating moving away from a plane designed to fight the war of the cold war to a plane designed to fight insurgencies???

Really?


well he did just finish reading a tom clancy novel so he is kind of an expert you know
 
2013-09-17 10:07:15 AM

Mock26: Whether or not the GAU can replace the firepower of gun on the A-10 is irrelevant (and, No, I do not think that the GAU can replace it).  The point is that the GAU can kill any tank currently in service by a foreign power.  Take away the A-10 and we can still take out enemy tanks from the air.  Sure, at present using drones would not be as effective, but I think we will see a pretty big increase in the number of drones in service.


Wouldn't it be cheaper to field one aircraft which could kill... oh, say 20 tanks on a full loadout, plus various sundry other units, than one aircraft which can kill maybe 3?
 
2013-09-17 10:07:38 AM

Smoky Dragon Dish: Mock26:

Yes, I am aware that the whole point of the A-10 is to save tanks from engaging tanks.  But, tanks can still take out tanks.  Sure, ground losses will probably be heavier if the A-10 is pulled from service, but despite that fact the Army is still capable of dealing with enemy tanks with what it has.

Also, I thought that it was only "dumb" mines that were phased out and that so-called "smart" mines were still part of the arsenal.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention helicopters.  The army still has those, and those can also take out tanks.

And, Yes, the A-10 is probably more effective than all of those other weapons I mentioned, but that was not my point. My point is that the Army is still fully capable of taking out enemy tanks without help from the Air Force. The Air Force just makes it a lot easier for them!

We do have what you're calling "smart mines" but they're not technically mines, since they're man-in-the-loop systems.  But, they're anti-personnel capability.

Helis are slower than the A-10 and expose pilots to greater risk in a more syemtrical conflict.  It's easy to shoot down a heli compared to an A-10.

You're right in the sense that the Army has anti-tank capability. But, the joint capability of the DoD as a whole isn't decided by one military branch.  It's decided at the JROC level, and taking out the A-10 would leave a hole.  You said it yourself that casualities would be greater without the A-10.  That's my point.


Soldiers are paid to fight and if need be, die.  Yes, I would much rather see the A-10 stay in service because it would save lives (and because it is a truly awesome plane).  But, if it gets taken away then that hole it leaves behind could at present be filled by the Army.   That is my point.
 
2013-09-17 10:08:40 AM

GodComplex: netcentric: GodComplex: Ever seen the vids of the A-10 dog fighting during the gulf war?


Ever think that was 20 years ago....
Time, it has passed you by.

It, might be cool to think you can fly low and slow and GUN things.... but imagine tomorrow when you lose a pilot over Damascus.

You can't afford to keep the planes financially.
....and you sure as hell can't afford dead pilots

/POW?

And yet we've been using the AR platform since the 60s and aircraft carriers since the 20s.

/War
//War never changes..


Actually.... war has changed dramatically.     Brownings and B-52's aside.

Sorry, but the days of the old Vietnam Strike package are gone.    The US has evolved militarily quite a bit, even since the 1980's.

The days of flying low and slow are over.     Sorry but A-7's with snake-eyes and F105's firing thier guns and shooting bullpups down in the missile envelope are over.

The A-10 will be around for awhile.    They are paid for.   Even though we are spending a bout 2 billion on them (iirc since 2007 appropriations which include some of the Re-wing costs).

But they are the 3rd string weapons.  Like the B-52's.    They only can come out in low intensity conflicts.

Our chances of being in another conflict in the next few years is nil.
No money,  no interest in pilots being held POW for propoganda and ugly negotiations.

War,  it HAS changed.
 
2013-09-17 10:09:22 AM

Mock26: Smoky Dragon Dish: Mock26:

Yes, I am aware that the whole point of the A-10 is to save tanks from engaging tanks.  But, tanks can still take out tanks.  Sure, ground losses will probably be heavier if the A-10 is pulled from service, but despite that fact the Army is still capable of dealing with enemy tanks with what it has.

Also, I thought that it was only "dumb" mines that were phased out and that so-called "smart" mines were still part of the arsenal.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention helicopters.  The army still has those, and those can also take out tanks.

And, Yes, the A-10 is probably more effective than all of those other weapons I mentioned, but that was not my point. My point is that the Army is still fully capable of taking out enemy tanks without help from the Air Force. The Air Force just makes it a lot easier for them!

We do have what you're calling "smart mines" but they're not technically mines, since they're man-in-the-loop systems.  But, they're anti-personnel capability.

Helis are slower than the A-10 and expose pilots to greater risk in a more syemtrical conflict.  It's easy to shoot down a heli compared to an A-10.

You're right in the sense that the Army has anti-tank capability. But, the joint capability of the DoD as a whole isn't decided by one military branch.  It's decided at the JROC level, and taking out the A-10 would leave a hole.  You said it yourself that casualities would be greater without the A-10.  That's my point.

Soldiers are paid to fight and if need be, die.  Yes, I would much rather see the A-10 stay in service because it would save lives (and because it is a truly awesome plane).  But, if it gets taken away then that hole it leaves behind could at present be filled by the Army.   That is my point.


Then it appears that were in violent agreement.
 
2013-09-17 10:10:00 AM

sprawl15: liam76: I find that very hard to believe.

Do you have a source?

First thing I hit on Google:
"The government's projection of Boeing's potential liability has increased to about $700 million," Air Force spokesman Charles Gulick said in a statement. "Government liability is capped," and any additional "financial liability is completely borne by Boeing."


Thanks for that.

I would still wager a fair amount they will lose nothing on it, and spend nothing more. If push comes to shove they will just strip capabilities.

The govt has never pushed for the big contractors to deliver on things like this.
 
2013-09-17 10:10:22 AM
FTFA: "Each US military service is developing two budgets for 2015 - one that includes sequestration spending cuts and another that builds on the Pentagon's 2014 budget proposal, which is $52 billion above the sequestration cap."
Sounds like they're still hoping to get that whole "sequestration" thing undone, for themselves anyway. I've been watching this dance lately with not-so-wry amusement; Both sides made a deal wherein they put some of their sacred cows on the chopping block "if they couldn't make a deal otherwise" hoping that the others sides aversion to pain would make them see things their way. And now after everybody in the Mexican standoff had to pull the trigger they all want to renege, but just on their part.
 
2013-09-17 10:10:31 AM
I love A-10 threads.. they're like pizza/burger/barbecue threads.
 
2013-09-17 10:11:25 AM

Dadburns: FTFA: "Each US military service is developing two budgets for 2015 - one that includes sequestration spending cuts and another that builds on the Pentagon's 2014 budget proposal, which is $52 billion above the sequestration cap."
Sounds like they're still hoping to get that whole "sequestration" thing undone, for themselves anyway. I've been watching this dance lately with not-so-wry amusement; Both sides made a deal wherein they put some of their sacred cows on the chopping block "if they couldn't make a deal otherwise" hoping that the others sides aversion to pain would make them see things their way. And now after everybody in the Mexican standoff had to pull the trigger they all want to renege, but just on their part.


I said this earlier in this thread.  This is all posturing as part of the POM cycle.
 
2013-09-17 10:11:28 AM

WippitGuud: Mock26: Whether or not the GAU can replace the firepower of gun on the A-10 is irrelevant (and, No, I do not think that the GAU can replace it).  The point is that the GAU can kill any tank currently in service by a foreign power.  Take away the A-10 and we can still take out enemy tanks from the air.  Sure, at present using drones would not be as effective, but I think we will see a pretty big increase in the number of drones in service.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to field one aircraft which could kill... oh, say 20 tanks on a full loadout, plus various sundry other units, than one aircraft which can kill maybe 3?


What is the operating cost of the A-10 compared to the Reaper?
How long can each one stay up in the air?
What are the effective operating ranges of each air craft?
How much does it cost to train the respective pilots/controllers?
How many people can potentially die when one of each unit is shot down?

There are other factors to consider besides the total number of possible kills from a single mission.
 
2013-09-17 10:11:36 AM

liam76: If push comes to shove they will just strip capabilities.


Eh, up until an actual threat of default, the Air Force doesn't have to accept a single change. Though, I'd bet all the money I don't have that the -46 won't be able to refuel the Osprey.
 
2013-09-17 10:11:45 AM

Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]

You're kidding, right?

Nope.

Yes, it doesn't have GAU-8. Luckly, missiles can kill tanks, and the reaper can carry those.
Plus, it can loiter far longer than a A-10
Plus you don't have to worry about the pilot. If he gets shot down, he'll get out of his seat, and go get a coffee, not start trying to remeber his SERE training.

Tell me one thing the A-10 can do that a Reaper can't, other than take a beating?

Kill more.


The A-10 pilot is also a FAC.  A FAC has a better understanding of the battlefield elements than some barista sitting behind a screen 10,000 miles away.  It also higher payload, and the pilot can select the best tool for the job.  The cannon isn't just a tank-butser, although its depleted uranium rounds are good at that. Iragi Soldiers in Desert Storm disappeared with they saw the A-10 loitering because they knew tay could not survive.

Also, helicopters have terrible meintenance ratios compared to the A-10, however, they have a flexibility the A-10 does not.  The reality is you need both for close air support.
 
2013-09-17 10:12:40 AM
CSB time I guess (whatevah):

For my first go-round at graduate school back in the 90s, at UTSA, I crashed a fully-loaded KC-10 into Corpus Christi Bay just off the approach to NAS Corpus Christi.  I had it break up on impact and not ignite.

/fuel dispersal, currents modeling, and wind vectors, oh my!
 
2013-09-17 10:13:17 AM

Smoky Dragon Dish: Mock26: Smoky Dragon Dish: Mock26:

Yes, I am aware that the whole point of the A-10 is to save tanks from engaging tanks.  But, tanks can still take out tanks.  Sure, ground losses will probably be heavier if the A-10 is pulled from service, but despite that fact the Army is still capable of dealing with enemy tanks with what it has.

Also, I thought that it was only "dumb" mines that were phased out and that so-called "smart" mines were still part of the arsenal.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention helicopters.  The army still has those, and those can also take out tanks.

And, Yes, the A-10 is probably more effective than all of those other weapons I mentioned, but that was not my point. My point is that the Army is still fully capable of taking out enemy tanks without help from the Air Force. The Air Force just makes it a lot easier for them!

We do have what you're calling "smart mines" but they're not technically mines, since they're man-in-the-loop systems.  But, they're anti-personnel capability.

Helis are slower than the A-10 and expose pilots to greater risk in a more syemtrical conflict.  It's easy to shoot down a heli compared to an A-10.

You're right in the sense that the Army has anti-tank capability. But, the joint capability of the DoD as a whole isn't decided by one military branch.  It's decided at the JROC level, and taking out the A-10 would leave a hole.  You said it yourself that casualities would be greater without the A-10.  That's my point.

Soldiers are paid to fight and if need be, die.  Yes, I would much rather see the A-10 stay in service because it would save lives (and because it is a truly awesome plane).  But, if it gets taken away then that hole it leaves behind could at present be filled by the Army.   That is my point.

Then it appears that were in violent agreement.


No, we are not in violent agreement.  We are in friendly yet differing agreement.  If we were in violent agreement we would have been insulting each other in classic Fark fashion!
 
2013-09-17 10:13:22 AM

sprawl15: Basically


Awesome, good to know!

Oh, and since we are doing the A-10 thing again after all, let me write up a little check list from last time, as I remember it:

USAF doesn't find A-10's "sexy", followed by some USAF bashing -- check
Give them to the Army -- check
Give them to the Air NG -- check
A-10s vs helis -- check
A-10s vs drones -- check
The F-35 boondoggle -- check
Picture of GAU-8 next to VW Type 1 -- check

Yet to come up:
Cool pics of A-10s that made it home somehow
Fark user Warthog shows up (unless I wasn't looking close enough)
A couple of guys carry on about dogfighting the A-10 and P-...35 was it? in some combat flight sim
Arguments over whether the avionics are modern
...am I missing anything?
 
2013-09-17 10:13:25 AM

MadMattressMack: GodComplex: Publikwerks: Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]

You're kidding, right?

Nope.

Yes, it doesn't have GAU-8. Luckly, missiles can kill tanks, and the reaper can carry those.
Plus, it can loiter far longer than a A-10
Plus you don't have to worry about the pilot. If he gets shot down, he'll get out of his seat, and go get a coffee, not start trying to remeber his SERE training.

Tell me one thing the A-10 can do that a Reaper can't, other than take a beating?

Ever seen the vids of the A-10 dog fighting during the gulf war?

The A-10 can provide real time CAS. Here's an example of an engagement by an A-10 that a drone can't do as it doesn't have a gun. Also, it's mainly used against vehicles and houses, both easy targets that are small and contain a large number of people. It's a lot harder to track and hit spread out infantry in cover who are on the move.

http://medium.com/war-is-boring/adb2cef00361

Drones are the future, but we don't have any fielded that can replace the A-10 yet. Maybe we will in 20 or 30 years, but that's not going to help us today.


The GAU-8 is overkill for CAS, and there are better planes for . I would rather have a AC-130.
Then again, a missile strike from an MQ-9 would be effective as well, and far more likely to be available, because of the costs per hour, you can keep more MQ-9s up.
 
2013-09-17 10:13:31 AM
Ugly, but well hung.
 
Displayed 50 of 316 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