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  
•       •       •

18520 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2013 at 9:08 AM (1 year 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 10:13:46 AM  

Mock26: 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.


And these are all considerations as part of the POM cycle when the JCIDS inputs to the acquisitition life cycle are considered.
 
2013-09-17 10:13:52 AM  

Carousel Beast: WW2 was decided on intelligence operations and air manufacturing superiority in both theaters.


The Soviets made lots of Soviets and the T-34.  The U.S. made vehicles (land & air) for mobility.
 
2013-09-17 10:14:52 AM  

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


Which of course perfectly explains why the B-52 and the A-10 have been doing pretty much all of the Air Forces heavy hauling for the last decade while the fancy and pretty F-15s and F-22s have been completely left out of the war and the B-2s had an opening night appearance then went home and sat out the rest.
 
2013-09-17 10:16:38 AM  

asynchron: Never quite understood this. If I were to have joined the Air Force, this probably would have been the first job I requested.


Pretty much everyone smart or dumb likes the fighters, but it takes a nerd to love the A-10.

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


Complement, yes.  Replace?  No.  The A-10 can get to the battlefield much faster.  It can also have half a wing blown off and stay in the air.  A helicopter is much slower and has many single points of failure.
 
2013-09-17 10:16:49 AM  

sprawl15: 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.


Accepting a change isn't the only way to strip capabilities.

If there is a disagremment in meeting capability it becoems a legal issue, and they have much better lawyers than the US. On top of that the head honchos who have to push for the legal fight have to go before congress and say their program is farked. You don't get promoted saying that (nevermind your cushy private acuqisition job after reitrment), so there is pressure to go with a result that is beneficial to the contractor.
 
2013-09-17 10:17:52 AM  

Carousel Beast: 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.

Really dude? I like mocking the chair force as much as the next guy, but come on.


Seriously, dits, I know you're a proud ex-soldier, but come on!

/Granted, my father was a 28 year USAF/NJANG NCO, so that's my bias.
 
2013-09-17 10:18:49 AM  
Ok story time. It is 1992 I'm 16 years old, in Kansas, my friends Mike and Micah are in the car with me, we're headed west from Fort Riley. It is dusk and there is no one for miles, no other cars in either direction. I'm doing 75-80 on the highway and I see something in my rear view. It is gaining on us but not fast. It keeps getting bigger and bigger, I ask my friends to look at it, I'm thinking we're about to be alien abduction victims. It gets close enough and it is an A-10. It was sand-camo colored, and flying LOW. Just above the highway, nothing for it to hit. It gets off to our right and holds parallel to us for at least half an hour.

That monster bird just shadowing us. Those things can fly crazy slow and low. For quite a while that was my fondest memory.
 
2013-09-17 10:18:49 AM  

sprawl15: MadMattressMack: 

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

Not hundreds of thousands of pounds worth.



True, and you that's why you won't see an F-35 filling up a B-52, B-1, or B2. Boeing was probably also bearing  a lot of the weight of the development costs to try to make up for the initial KC-767 procurement corruption issues.
 
2013-09-17 10:20:06 AM  

asynchron: Arguments over whether the avionics are modern


I've got no dog in this dogfight, but I used to maintain the avionics on A-10s at a test squadron. During the three years I was there new avionics were constantly being tested. An updated CADC, replacing LASTE with IFFCC, new EW control, and more. I've no reason to believe that test development stopped when I left. The avionics on the A-10 have been consistently upgraded throughout its life.
 
2013-09-17 10:20:56 AM  

liam76: Accepting a change isn't the only way to strip capabilities.


Yes, it is. It's a development contract, and changes to engineering require an engineering change proposal that has to be approved by AF contracting before such a change can be made. Those changes require a significant amount of justification and risk assessment, which are usually balanced against a cost assessments, but the US doesn't care about Boeing's extra costs.

The ridiculous procurement process (from the original lease, to the Drunyan scandal, to the award and retraction etc) resulted in a very explicit document. It's one of the best contracts in terms of watertightness that the government has ever put together, and I can't for the farking life of me figure out why Boeing signed up to it as-is.
 
2013-09-17 10:21:36 AM  

Mock26: 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!


So in trying to make a case for getting rid of the A-10 you just opt to ignore the single most important reason for keeping it?

"Hey, I know the A-10 excels in its role as a close air support and anti-armor platform, but here's a pile of alternatives that range from 'not an option because they no longer are in the arsenal' to 'shiatty.'  That's not terribly convincing.  Why don't you just list entire platoons of infantry equipped with nothing but SMAWs to bum rush the armor.  They can kill tanks too!
 
2013-09-17 10:24:12 AM  

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

Which of course perfectly explains why the B-52 and the A-10 have been doing pretty much all of the Air Forces heavy hauling for the last decade while the fancy and pretty F-15s and F-22s have been completely left out of the war and the B-2s had an opening night appearance then went home and sat out the rest.


Exactly....  a low threat environment in Afghanistan is the only place an A-10 can come out an play any more.  Or a B-52.

We use them while we can, to save money.   That is what this whole thread is about.  $$$

The 3rd string is on the field, while we rest the first string.    Not a hard concept.

(now just carry that concept one step farther.   America is broke, and tired of wars.  They do not want to commit forces and go deeper into borrowed debt.   Thus in the next few years you will see us intervene in exactly zero conflicts.    And thus,  these relics,  these 3rd string A/C will be phased out )
 
2013-09-17 10:24:29 AM  

Shrugging Atlas: Mock26: 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!

So in trying to make a case for getting rid of the A-10 you just opt to ignore the single most important reason for keeping it?

"Hey, I know the A-10 excels in its role as a close air support and anti-armor platform, but here's a pile of alternatives that range from 'not an option because they no longer are in the arsenal' to 'shiatty.'  That's not terribly convincing.  Why don't you just list entire platoons of infantry equipped with nothing but SMAWs to bum rush the armor.  They can kill tanks too!


The Krauts have been fielding this new weapon called a 'panzerschreck'. It apparently schrecks panzers.
 
2013-09-17 10:25:24 AM  
Uh....scrapping your in-flight refueling fleet is kind of a double-whammy, isn't it?

If you don't have in-flight refueling capability then don't you lose global bombing missions and other important non-stop tasks? Are they going to hire contractors (the you know who agency) to run a refueling fleet for the US military?
 
2013-09-17 10:25:38 AM  
latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com
RIP Cobra Rattler
 
2013-09-17 10:29:50 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?


Don't bother. If they dont even understand close air support, you cant even discuss this with them. There is NOTHING in the U.S. arsenal that can replace the A10. CAS has always been fulfilled by ugly, old, but tough aircraft like the A-1 skyraider and the P-47 Thunderbolt. The A-10 has already been retired once by those who want pretty and high tech, only to get egg in the face and have to bring them out of mothball.
 
2013-09-17 10:30:18 AM  

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

Which of course perfectly explains why the B-52 and the A-10 have been doing pretty much all of the Air Forces heavy hauling for the last decade while the fancy and pretty F-15s and F-22s have been completely left out of the war and the B-2s had an opening night appearance then went home and sat out the rest.

Exactly....  a low threat environment in Afghanistan is the only place an A-10 can come out an play any more.  Or a B-52.

We use them while we can, to save money.   That is what this whole thread is about.  $$$


I asked someone else this earlier.  What do you do if a million screaming Best Koreans come pouring into the DMZ with all their armor and infantry?  Don't you think the A-10 would come out to play in that situation?
 
2013-09-17 10:34:17 AM  
I'd gladly take one off their hands, for the right price.
 
2013-09-17 10:34:28 AM  

sprawl15: liam76: Accepting a change isn't the only way to strip capabilities.

Yes, it is. It's a development contract, and changes to engineering require an engineering change proposal that has to be approved by AF contracting before such a change can be made. Those changes require a significant amount of justification and risk assessment, which are usually balanced against a cost assessments, but the US doesn't care about Boeing's extra costs.


You seem to know a fair amount about aquisition, so maybe you are missing my point.

I am not talking about an engineering change. I am talking abotut he govt testing what they deliver and finding it wanting then it comes to the system spec. Which happens in every major modern military aquisition process. Which is why we don't buy hundreds right off the back with no changes.

Yes the govt doesn't care about the cost. But the poeple who sign off on assessments of how the aircraft perform do care about saying it looks good.


sprawl15: The ridiculous procurement process (from the original lease, to the Drunyan scandal, to the award and retraction etc) resulted in a very explicit document. It's one of the best contracts in terms of watertightness that the government has ever put together, and I can't for the farking life of me figure out why Boeing signed up to it as-is


I would guess it is because of the scandal. They got a lot of bad press for that (less than they deserved IMHO).

I think the safeguards they put into place after that were pretty weak. Peopel can still get out of govt/military and work with contractors they had enormous power over.
 
2013-09-17 10:35:48 AM  

Smoky Dragon Dish: 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.


Ah, so you did! In that case:
I like the cut of your jib/a man after mine own heart/please sign me up for you newsletter.... positive fark meme etc.

You made a good point about the timing. I listened to about thirty minutes of the Sunday morning cable political shows this weekend (all I could stand) and "Obama needs to fix military sequestration" and "Obama shouldn't be talking about Syria while weakening the military" were consistent talking points on the right side of the table while the left side remained consistently in internal disagreement.
 
2013-09-17 10:36:26 AM  
How about we keep the things we know work, and find the savings by scrapping R & D in things were not sure will pan out.  Of course that would kill all the fat for the industry that sucks at the teet of military contracts.
 
2013-09-17 10:42:08 AM  

sprawl15: 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


Clancy hasn't put out anything good for the better part of a decade, and his more recent novels have been utter crap.

That said, we need to look at what we are asking our military to do now, AND what we will be asking it to do in twenty years. Fighting low intensity conflicts, police actions, and limited air wars are the missions that we are asking our military to accomplish, but we also need to be prepared to fight other types of wars. The truth is that we need to prepare for every contingency.
 
2013-09-17 10:42:25 AM  

Smoky Dragon Dish: netcentric: Click Click D'oh: netcentric: But they are the 3rd string weapons.  Like the B-52's.    They only can come out in low intensity conflicts.

Which of course perfectly explains why the B-52 and the A-10 have been doing pretty much all of the Air Forces heavy hauling for the last decade while the fancy and pretty F-15s and F-22s have been completely left out of the war and the B-2s had an opening night appearance then went home and sat out the rest.

Exactly....  a low threat environment in Afghanistan is the only place an A-10 can come out an play any more.  Or a B-52.

We use them while we can, to save money.   That is what this whole thread is about.  $$$

I asked someone else this earlier.  What do you do if a million screaming Best Koreans come pouring into the DMZ with all their armor and infantry?  Don't you think the A-10 would come out to play in that situation?



I don't think in any scenario that a million screaming Best Koreans are going to do anything.
But I am trying to think of a more likely scnerio.

It is hard to think up realistic scenarios where the US population says "hey, lets borrow money we don't have and spend it on a war.  At the same time, lets get US pilots shot down, by intentionally putting them down in the missile envelope and have them fly slow.   We could really use some POWs being held in an enemy country for either propoganda or blackmail".
 
2013-09-17 10:42:55 AM  
For the cost of 1 F-35 you could get nearly 7 F-15s or 20 A-10s.  Sense it appears were not likely to be engaged in an air superiority war any time soon maybe we should be doing some cost benefit analysis here.
 
2013-09-17 10:46:14 AM  
But but but think of all the jerbs
 
2013-09-17 10:46:36 AM  

2wolves: Carousel Beast: WW2 was decided on intelligence operations and air manufacturing superiority in both theaters.

The Soviets made lots of Soviets and the T-34.  The U.S. made vehicles (land & air) for mobility.


The Soviets paid the highest price in the victory; they would not have won by themselves (nor would the US/Brits). Allied intel ops kept half the German army (and nearly all the Italian) pinned in Western Europe, while air ops kept them from moving freely, especially after Overlord.
 
Caveat: Hitler did as much to defeat Germany as anyone

 
2013-09-17 10:46:52 AM  

liam76: You seem to know a fair amount about aquisition, so maybe you are missing my point.

I am not talking about an engineering change. I am talking abotut he govt testing what they deliver and finding it wanting then it comes to the system spec. Which happens in every major modern military aquisition process. Which is why we don't buy hundreds right off the back with no changes.


The thing is, it's mostly assembly of existing parts. Take this wing, attach it to this structure, put in these cockpit instruments, glue a boom onto the ass end. There's very little development from a blank slate other than the AR system (the boom, the fuel lines, the wing pod mounts, etc), and the majority of the operating factors other than the AR system are pretty much known going in. The engines provide so much thrust, there's going to be this much weight at that kind of a CG profile, its fuel tanks can hold so much offload, etc. The engineering will be "put them together like we thought we should" and if that doesn't work, they put in an ECP. It not being up to spec isn't the real worry, the worry is that Boeing massively underbid (their low price was a major determining factor against EADS) and will declare that they simply can't keep absorbing the losses and still stay solvent as a company. If the government's in the position where Boeing has to either go bankrupt or default or both, they'll have to jump in to fund it.

The usual thing with a contract is that the contractor will say "we need to either go over budget or reduce capability" a couple dozen times and you end up with quite a bit of both. In this case, they can't say the former and the USAF can outright reject the latter. It's a totally different dynamic when the government can say 'tough shiat'.

liam76: I think the safeguards they put into place after that were pretty weak.


They've been trying a lot harder in the last few years (like seriously within the last 3-4 years), but the DCAA/DCMA are pretty criminally underfunded and understaffed.
 
2013-09-17 10:49:11 AM  

pdee: For the cost of 1 F-35 you could get nearly 7 F-15s or 20 A-10s.  Sense it appears were not likely to be engaged in an air superiority war any time soon maybe we should be doing some cost benefit analysis here.


 You should do that.

What is the cost benefit analysis on having Pilots and WSO's held as POW's.   And how will we factor in the cost of a lost pilot life.     I'm sure it is hard to do.   Where do you start,  do you physically go to the wife and kid and say "how much would you give right now if you could get your dad back"

But hey,  that might not be fair to do to a six year old.... huh?
 
2013-09-17 10:49:54 AM  

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

[community.warplanes.com image 850x637]


Those didn't fare so well against planned Fedayeen air defenses.
 
2013-09-17 10:50:48 AM  

Carousel Beast: 2wolves: Carousel Beast: WW2 was decided on intelligence operations and air manufacturing superiority in both theaters.

The Soviets made lots of Soviets and the T-34.  The U.S. made vehicles (land & air) for mobility.

The Soviets paid the highest price in the victory; they would not have won by themselves (nor would the US/Brits). Allied intel ops kept half the German army (and nearly all the Italian) pinned in Western Europe, while air ops kept them from moving freely, especially after Overlord.
 
Caveat: Hitler did as much to defeat Germany as anyone


Plus the Finns killed 250,000 Soviets. Not bad for plucky little Finland in the Soviet's first major engagement. The Brits couldn't come to their aid because the Brits needed the Soviets more than they needed Finland.
 
2013-09-17 10:50:59 AM  

Mock26: This, too, can take out a tank from the air:


And, it can be mounted on a drone!


The first shot fired in the Iraq War in 2003 was an Apache that fired one of those and hit an M-1. The M-1 needed some paint.
 
2013-09-17 10:52:26 AM  

Dadburns: Smoky Dragon Dish: 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.

Ah, so you did! In that case:
I like the cut of your jib/a man after mine own heart/please sign me up for you newsletter.... positive fark meme etc.

You made a good point about the timing. I listened to about thirty minutes of the Sunday morning cable political shows this weekend (all I could stand) and "Obama needs to fix military sequestration" and "Obama shouldn't be talking about Syria while weakening the military" were consistent talking points on the right side of the table while the left side remained consistently in internal disagreement.


I made no comments whatsoever about republicans vs. democrats.  I don't want to frame it that way.  Let me take out the acronyms and explain things in plain english, since I used some jargon before.

So, every year, every military project/system/agency submits a budget.  Those budgets get rolled-up and sent-up the chain of command of each respective service.  They then go to the joint level, where the heads of the four services decide on a final budget.  These decisions are based on cabability.  They know that the pinch is coming...  so what do you do?  "Oh noes, we may have to have to cut out the A-10!"  *shakes fist at congress*

My point is that the A-10 would be an important platform in any conflict with Best Korea.  Someone else said earlier that the A-10 is for a WW2 sytle conflict.... well, that's what were going to have in Korea if the shiat hits the fan.
 
2013-09-17 10:52:29 AM  

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


Yeah, ultimately, drones will replace the ground attack role of the A-10. Less risk, less infrastructure (which is what cutting entire fleets is really about), and they can be deployed anywhere in the world - places you absolutely cannot risk having a human being taken prisoner.

They are cheaper to build, cheaper to fly, cheaper to deploy, cheaper to maintain. Their weapons systems get the job done with laser precision. A 30mm Vulcan cannon is awesome to watch, but a hellfire missile will get the job done just as well, without wasting a lot of ammo.
 
2013-09-17 10:54:30 AM  
The flying gun!  Who doesn't like an A-10?
 
2013-09-17 10:54:30 AM  

Carousel Beast: Really dude? I like mocking the chair force as much as the next guy, but come on.


Heh.  It's just my little dig.  My F-I-L retired from the Air Force.

/US Army.
 
2013-09-17 10:55:16 AM  

Detinwolf: The flying gun!  Who doesn't like an A-10?


Pretty much everyone on the wrong side of the muzzle of its gun.
 
2013-09-17 10:55:39 AM  

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

Yeah, ultimately, drones will replace the ground attack role of the A-10. Less risk, less infrastructure (which is what cutting entire fleets is really about), and they can be deployed anywhere in the world - places you absolutely cannot risk having a human being taken prisoner.

They are cheaper to build, cheaper to fly, cheaper to deploy, cheaper to maintain. Their weapons systems get the job done with laser precision. A 30mm Vulcan cannon is awesome to watch, but a hellfire missile will get the job done just as well, without wasting a lot of ammo.


winner winner .... chicken dinner
 
2013-09-17 10:55:47 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, we'll have the right plane for the job.


However, the A-10 was developed out of Vietnam. It seems that the Air Force tried to use fast movers for CAS there and it didn't work out so they built the A-10. Now they're trying to replace it with fast movers again. The only thing I could see replacing it is a drone, but there aren't any out that can take over its workload - thought that's debate apparently.

In other words, if we find our selves in a war where there are troops on the ground in need of CAS then we'll have the right plane for the job.
 
2013-09-17 10:56:24 AM  
WhoopAssWayne (farkied: s/Whoop/Jack/): Valiente: You can't run an empire with hand puppets, 'Murica.

Don't make us come up there and liberate your asses, beaver humper.


i122.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-17 10:56:27 AM  
Looks more like a puma to me.
 
2013-09-17 10:56:38 AM  
 remember back in the '70s, I was at an airshow at the former Webb A.F.B. in big Spring, Texas,and close to the end of the day, as we were walking out, the breeze coming through one of the A-10 engines, causing the turbine to spin slowlym and making an eerie, slow rubbing whine. In the early 90s, the gave an A-10 demo at the formerKelly A.F.B., and they were so impressive, and flying slowly a quietly, as they passed over, they sounded like vacuum cleaners, compaered to th subseqquent speed and screaming engines of the F-18s.Gotta love it.Someone who will fly slowly, placing themselves in a mess,and being able to clear numerous kill boxes in short order.No drone, with a Nintendo pilot, can even come close. Gonna go fly my little UAV later today.
 
2013-09-17 10:57:28 AM  

Carousel Beast: 2wolves: Carousel Beast: WW2 was decided on intelligence operations and air manufacturing superiority in both theaters.

The Soviets made lots of Soviets and the T-34.  The U.S. made vehicles (land & air) for mobility.

The Soviets paid the highest price in the victory; they would not have won by themselves (nor would the US/Brits). Allied intel ops kept half the German army (and nearly all the Italian) pinned in Western Europe, while air ops kept them from moving freely, especially after Overlord.

Caveat: Hitler did as much to defeat Germany as anyone


We sent them enough food to feed every one of their soldiers three meals a day for the entire war. Khrushchev said they couldn't have fed their army without us.

I think they needed help.

Not to mention that we provided a shiatload of rolling stock and quite a few trucks. In addition, 85% of German fighters were destroyed by the West.

Without food and with 6 times as many aircraft coming at them, the Russians might have found their winter experience to be a little more like the German one.
 
2013-09-17 10:57:50 AM  

2wolves: Carousel Beast: Really dude? I like mocking the chair force as much as the next guy, but come on.

They still believe they won WWII with bombers.


Well that's gay.

/enola
 
2013-09-17 10:59:07 AM  

Carousel Beast: I like mocking the chair force as much as the next guy, but come on.


It's the honorable alternative to military service.
 
2013-09-17 10:59:31 AM  
Keep in mind the road we are traveling down with the Messiah in charge. We will have a full scale Cold War again, and the Russians are not all peace loving beatnicks. America has become weak, pussified, and eventually the sharks smell the blood in the water.
 
2013-09-17 10:59:43 AM  
This plan is completely moronic. For the type of warfare the US has been engaged in in the past decade, the A-10, AC-130 Spectre gunships and the Predator drones have been the most effective attack aircraft in the Air Force' inventory. F-15C, yeah, mothball it. Sell themto allies, it's old and it's replacement is already online. Our Air Fore has not seen sustained Air to Air Combat since Vietnam. (Let's face it, Gulf War One was a live fire training exercise, and in GW2 no one rose to meet them.)

They have been called, numerous times to strike land based targets and provide CAS to troops on the ground. THIS IS THE EXACT ROLE THE A-10 WAS DESIGNED FOR! Why mothball, a reliable, proven and effective weapon, in favor of a an unproven dumbass idea. (They tried that single airframe for all services bullshiat in the 70s with the F-4, which was really good at some things, and very bad at others.) This is why we wound up with an F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18.

The Apache, is also a great ground attack platform, but it's considerably slower, much more vulnerable to ground fire, and cannot defend itself from enemy strike aircraft. (According to tales from Red Flag exercises, the A-10 routinely maul F-16s that come down to their level for a bit of sport.) The A-10 also has a much longer flight duration, so it can loiter over a target zone and rain fire and hell from the skies.

In short; You don't need a sleek, sexy, stealthy CAS craft. You want those enemy troops to hear it coming, and immediately start shiatting themselves. The A-10, and the AC-130 have this effect. Plus it's paid for, so...added bonus.

When this story first hit fark, I'm pretty sure I saw one comment that said "USMC: We'll take'em."
 
2013-09-17 11:02:18 AM  

UNC_Samurai: 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?



It makes for a really nifty paperweight.
 
2013-09-17 11:02:28 AM  

netcentric: Smoky Dragon Dish: netcentric: Click Click D'oh: netcentric: But they are the 3rd string weapons.  Like the B-52's.    They only can come out in low intensity conflicts.

...

I don't think in any scenario that a million screaming Best Koreans are going to do anything.
But I am trying to think of a more likely scnerio.

It is hard to think up realistic scenarios where the US population says "hey, lets borrow money we don't have and spend it on a war.  At the same time, lets get US pilots shot down, by intentionally putting them down in the missile envelope and have them fly slow.   We could really use some POWs being held in an enemy country for either propoganda or blackmail".


Just because something is unlikely to happen, doesn't mean we shouldn't have the capibilities for defense and offense.

The Eighth Army is in South Korea. If North Korea attacks, we're involved whether we like it or not.  That's not going to change, until our military presence in Korea is no more.

There are ways to neutralize missile threats to allow slower aircraft to operate.  They have been pretty effective in a number of conflicts in the past 25 years.
 
2013-09-17 11:02:50 AM  

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?


Not have latency.
Not worry about being jammed and completely shut down(though smoke and clouds can obscure vision).
Have a greater range of vision for target acquisition and verification.
Carry more ammunition.
Have Stuka like effects on enemy morale.

Granted, I told you more than one thing, but you get the gist.
 
2013-09-17 11:03:53 AM  

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?


function if somone disables your pilot to reaper communication?
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report