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 (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



316 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-17 08:27:49 AM
Also on the chopping block are F-15C fighter jets and a planned $6.8 billion purchase of new combat search-and-rescue helicopters, these sources say.



I hear Switzerland has a great deal on St Bernards with keg collars.
 
2013-09-17 08:52:26 AM
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.
 
2013-09-17 08:59:45 AM

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.
 
DAR [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 09:00:42 AM
Not going happen, farking Chair Force zoomies have tried to kill that air frame a number of times in the past.  Mostly because it's not very sexy and its mission helps out another service.

The Army Generals @ the Joint Forces level get it funded every time because its really does the job it built for and any ground pounder who has watched it take out a enemy held hill for them will tell you that bird saves lives......k/dar
 
2013-09-17 09:12:04 AM

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.
 
2013-09-17 09:15:53 AM
Triple redundancy motherfer
 
2013-09-17 09:18:45 AM
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!
 
2013-09-17 09:18:50 AM
Scrapping the KC-10? Well that's a farking hilariously terrible idea. Nothing like overworking the -135's for another 50 years.
 
2013-09-17 09:20:21 AM

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.


FTFA: "Sources say the Army is interested in obtaining A-10s should the Air Force decide to retire the twin-engine jets, which have been flying since the 1970s."

Looks like the Army is saying we're sick of this shiat.
 
2013-09-17 09:20:53 AM

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.


Came here to say this and you beat me to it.
 
2013-09-17 09:21:18 AM
Who else is picturing World Cop with a really small penis head peeking out from a busted zipper?

You can't run an empire with hand puppets, 'Murica.
 
2013-09-17 09:21:26 AM
I think close support planes would remain useful far longer than most.

Air superiority?  That's a given anyway.  No one's going to dogfight us.
 
2013-09-17 09:21:39 AM

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.


It's political posturing.  Hello?  POM cycle?
 
2013-09-17 09:21:56 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.

I'm sure it's the cool thing to do, bashing on the Air Force.
Surprising we were right next to the "real" milita in Iraq/Afgan doing the same thing.

 
2013-09-17 09:23:41 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
defense-update.com
 
2013-09-17 09:23:54 AM
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.
 
2013-09-17 09:24:03 AM
One Nation, One Plane, All Missions: The F-35
 
2013-09-17 09:24:07 AM
I admit, I'm an armchair general, but shouldn't these decisions be made, in part, by the soldiers, marines, etc on the ground (cue: laughter)? They're incredibly durable, powerful, and a great close air-support option for ground forces. I hate that a constant bureaucratic pissing match puts our guys' lives at risk.
 
2013-09-17 09:24:18 AM

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


You're kidding, right?
 
2013-09-17 09:24:31 AM

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.
 
2013-09-17 09:25:10 AM

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


That's cute. Worthless as an A-10 stand in, but cute.
 
2013-09-17 09:25:14 AM

dittybopper: 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.


It's also dirty and dangerous.  The damage those birds take is both frightening and impressive at the same time.  Most pilots would freak if they saw half a wing ripped off.

I know most pilots would prefer to just press a button to launch a missile with a five-mile range (well, who the fark wouldn't), but war is shiat and you can't clean up a dog turd with leaf blower.
 
2013-09-17 09:25:59 AM

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.
 
2013-09-17 09:26:29 AM

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

That's cute. Worthless as an A-10 stand in, but cute.


I'm trying to figure out if he's making a "Pentagon Wars" reference...
 
2013-09-17 09:27:10 AM

dittybopper: low and slow ground attack isn't sexy


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

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?
 
2013-09-17 09:27:25 AM

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
 
2013-09-17 09:27:56 AM

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.
 
2013-09-17 09:28:34 AM

Valiente: You can't run an empire with hand puppets, 'Murica.


Don't make us come up there and liberate your asses, beaver humper.
 
2013-09-17 09:28:37 AM

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.
 
2013-09-17 09:28:49 AM

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.
 
2013-09-17 09:29:03 AM

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>
 
2013-09-17 09:29:54 AM

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?
 
2013-09-17 09:30:37 AM
So, basically... because the A-10 is not sexy, they want a replacement?
 
2013-09-17 09:33:25 AM
Couldn't this serve in place of the A-10?

community.warplanes.com
 
2013-09-17 09:33:30 AM

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


The KC-46 is supposed to come on line in 2016.
 
2013-09-17 09:33:56 AM
The Air Force just invested in upgrading the A-10 to last another 30 years.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/u-s-air-force-orders-more-boei n g-a--wings/article_9d2ad134-3baa-56c8-8c04-0afa7c81513c.html



The U.S. Air Force has ordered 56 additional wings from Boeing for the A-10 Thunderbolt twin-engine ground-attack jet.

The order brings the Air Force's total order for A-10 replacement wings to 173. Boeing has a contract to build up to 242 wings, which are produced at a Boeing facility in Macon, Ga.

The replacement wings will help the Air Force save an estimated $1.3 billion in maintenance costs over the next 30 yeas, Chicago-based Boeing said in a statement.

Boeing's Defense, Space and Security unit is based in Hazelwood.
 
2013-09-17 09:35:02 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.

img.photobucket.com


This, too, can take out a tank from the air:
img.photobucket.com

And, it can be mounted on a drone!
 
2013-09-17 09:35:39 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?


Kill more.
 
2013-09-17 09:36:42 AM

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.
 
2013-09-17 09:37:11 AM
BTW -I don't think the A-10 should be retired. I think it should be moved to the ANG. I think it's the perfect ANG plane.

That way, if we do get into a land war like WWII or a Cold War type scenario, we can put em to work. But I don't see the United States fighting a traditional land war in the future.
 
2013-09-17 09:37:22 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.


WW2 was decided on intelligence operations and air superiority in both theaters.
 
2013-09-17 09:37:52 AM

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  ???
 
2013-09-17 09:38:02 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?


Ever seen the vids of the A-10 dog fighting during the gulf war?
 
2013-09-17 09:40:50 AM

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.
 
2013-09-17 09:40:55 AM

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

[community.warplanes.com image 850x637]


Nope, see the gulf war. Helicopters have limited operating conditions compared to aircraft.
 
2013-09-17 09:41:59 AM

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?
 
2013-09-17 09:42:12 AM

Mock26: [img.photobucket.com image 850x629]

And, it can be mounted on a drone!


A drone has two hardpoints and 1,500 lb payload
An A-10 has 11 hardpoints and 16,000 payload (which doesn't include the cannon)
 
2013-09-17 09:42:18 AM

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.
 
2013-09-17 09:43:09 AM
I love watching the A-10's fly in the MD ANG.

A new long range bomber seems like the program to scrap
 
2013-09-17 09:43:28 AM

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


Yeah, right. Call me when they hang a GAU-8 under the nose. But at least they wouldn't be wasting pilots.
 
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.
 
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?
 
2013-09-17 11:05:22 AM

netcentric: 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


But would you fire an anti-tank missile at a bunch on insurgents scattered on a hillside?
How about a few hundred rounds form a GAU-8?
Which do you think would be more effective?
 
2013-09-17 11:05:45 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?


Watch and learn.  No RR.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rGcn2XGr48
 
2013-09-17 11:06:44 AM

sprawl15: 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'.


This is the most alarming part of the Air Force's "leadership's" thinking.  They have been kicking and screaming that they absolutely MUST get a new tanker online because the KC-135 was getting too old and too expensive to maintain, and to scare the Washington bozos, they float the idea of axing their most capable tanker, the KC-10, to "save money."

Goddamn, what a bunch of childish, whiny assbags.  The KC-10 is the best tanker we've got, it is nowhere near the number of the KC-135 (good airframe but it is getting old, or I should say, it is old and needs to be replaced) and all they are trying to do is stamp their feet in the desperate hope that they can get more cash for more shiny new toys.

THis isn't the Air Force only; I see it in the Marine Corps every day.  "Waaaa!!  We need the extra 50 billion because we are too inept to provide national defense at 2003 level money!"
 
2013-09-17 11:08:22 AM

Mi-5: sprawl15: 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'.

This is the most alarming part of the Air Force's "leadership's" thinking.  They have been kicking and screaming that they absolutely MUST get a new tanker online because the KC-135 was getting too old and too expensive to maintain, and to scare the Washington bozos, they float the idea of axing their most capable tanker, the KC-10, to "save money."

Goddamn, what a bunch of childish, whiny assbags.  The KC-10 is the best tanker we've got, it is nowhere near the number of the KC-135 (good airframe but it is getting old, or I should say, it is old and needs to be replaced) and all they are trying to do is stamp their feet in the desperate hope that they can get more cash for more shiny new toys.

THis isn't the Air Force only; I see it in the Marine Corps every day.  "Waaaa!!  We need the extra 50 billion because we are too inept to provide national defense at 2003 level money!"


This is what I keep saying in this thread.  This is POM-related political posturing.
 
2013-09-17 11:08:43 AM

Smoky Dragon Dish: 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.


At one time,  I thought like that.

/Salute to you
/cogent
 
2013-09-17 11:08:54 AM

trappedspirit: 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


The Allies won the war through attrition. Aircraft were but one part of it. Japan surrendered more because of Russia's declaration of war than the use of US atomic weapons. Not that weapons didn't help make the point.
 
2013-09-17 11:09:44 AM
You could just call in this guy instead:

images.wikia.com

/Yes, I know that's an M61, not a GAU-8
 
2013-09-17 11:10:23 AM

Ricardo Klement: 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.


There are different variants of the hellfire. If it had been one for tankes, it woudl have been another sotry.

sprawl15: 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


Changes I would be for (prevent senior PMA/PEO personnel from getting defense jobs with any group they have worked with woudl be above their head).

DCAA/DCMA decisions are going to be largely influenced by peoepl closer to the project.
 
2013-09-17 11:11:52 AM

liam76: There are different variants of the hellfire. If it had been one for tankes, it woudl have been another sotry.


It was. The Apache knew it was firing on a tank. It just didn't think it was a friendly one.
 
2013-09-17 11:12:22 AM

netcentric: Smoky Dragon Dish: 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.

At one time,  I thought like that.

/Salute to you
/cogent


Enlighten me.  This is a friendly discussion between two anons.
 
2013-09-17 11:16:01 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: 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.


I always forget the Finns (but not Poland!); they should be applauded because - if for no other reason - they got Stalin to put aside his paranoid dogma long enough to fetch his competent military commanders out of Siberia and set them against Hitler.
 
2013-09-17 11:17:25 AM
If the AF wants to scrap the A-10, one of the conditions for scrapping ought to be the canceling of the Key West Agreements.
Oh, one the things that a A-10 can do better than a RPV is Danger Close.
 
2013-09-17 11:17:32 AM

dittybopper: 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.


Really? Mine as well. My father was Navy. I couldn't hack the military myself, though frankly it may well have done me some good.
 
2013-09-17 11:19:09 AM

jankyboy: [latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com image 600x328]RIP Cobra Rattler


That was one of the main reasons I loved Cobra as a kid.
 
2013-09-17 11:19:28 AM
ModeratelyProfane: ...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."



Well.... that is a very grunty thing to say.   Oooo Rah!    Get down there on the deck and fly slow and GUN baby !!

"You want those enemy troops to hear it coming..."

so they can turn the AAA on you.  And shoot an SA7 up the pipe and you flip over and nose in....

Great system you got there sport....
 
2013-09-17 11:19:31 AM

Anayalator: Looks more like a puma to me.


Stop making up animals!
 
2013-09-17 11:19:31 AM
Although I am madly in love with the Thunderbolt, it and all other piloted (on board) aircraft are soon to be extinct.
 
2013-09-17 11:20:02 AM

liam76: sprawl15: 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

Changes I would be for (prevent senior PMA/PEO personnel from getting defense jobs with any group they have worked with woudl be above their head).

DCAA/DCMA decisions are going to be largely influenced by peoepl closer to the project.


Honestly the biggest problem is how there are groups of specialists who only tangentially work together. The DCAA only investigates the internal logic of the proposal, so they don't care what your contract is for or how your methodology relates to the requirements. If there were a couple million for helicopter blades in the KC-46 proposal, they'd check to make sure all the cost accounting was done properly and then give it a thumbs up. The DCMA is in a similar boat, and then neither of them are, by design, supposed to have any dog in the fight in negotiation. It puts a lot more work on the government procurement officer than a civilian counterpart because the government employee has to work with parties that have no incentive and are actually designed to not care about the negotiation outcome. Add that on top of the shiattier pay and constant public scrutiny and it's no wonder the government contracting world is as farked up as it is.
 
2013-09-17 11:21:20 AM

MadMattressMack: The Allies won the war through attrition. Aircraft were but one part of it. Japan surrendered more because of Russia's declaration of war than the use of US atomic weapons. Not that weapons didn't help make the point.


That their navy was occupying the floor of the Pacific, they were out of veteran combat pilots, and their army had been worn out in China and the Pacific islands, and a million American troops were assembling in Okinawa might have had something to do with it.

Oh, also all their major cities had been burned.
 
2013-09-17 11:23:12 AM

MadMattressMack: trappedspirit: 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

The Allies won the war through attrition. Aircraft were but one part of it. Japan surrendered more because of Russia's declaration of war than the use of US atomic weapons. Not that weapons didn't help make the point.


i was make for the joke
 
2013-09-17 11:24:37 AM
I don't see drones doing CAS anytime soon, hard enough for pilots on site to do that...

this is one of the best videos i've seen:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WIsmvTtMNc
 
2013-09-17 11:25:51 AM
Potential replacement for the A-10 Thunderbolt:

www.remington.com
 
2013-09-17 11:26:15 AM
I would have thought a short burst from a warthog's gatling gun should take out the majority of targets, and do so at less cost than a predator drone firing a missile. Either way, there's still going to be fuel costs, aircraft maintenance, and pilot salary to consider on both aircraft.
 
2013-09-17 11:27:42 AM

washington-babylon: 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 image 676x506]

[www.portviewfitout.co.uk image 683x440]


Did they really put an AT4 on there? "We got an empty pylon and some leftover rocket launchers over there, make it happen"?
 
2013-09-17 11:27:57 AM
Keep the goddamn A-10s for f*ck's sake.

I want to see those ugly bastards flying for the next hundred years.

[Drones] are cheaper to build, cheaper to fly, cheaper to deploy, cheaper to maintain.

Someone around here sounds like Dan Goldin. WRONG.
 
2013-09-17 11:29:06 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!


I did that all the time in Red Alert 2. Get the Anti Tank G.I.s and set them on a defensive line with regular G.I.s and you got a good Anti personnel and anti tank defense. Back them up with some anti air tanks and you're golden.
 
2013-09-17 11:29:57 AM

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

That's cute. Worthless as an A-10 stand in, but cute.

I'm trying to figure out if he's making a "Pentagon Wars" reference...


lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-09-17 11:33:34 AM

netcentric: 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?


Including the cost of pilot training/etc, it still is a win for buying more F-15s/F-16s instead of F-35s.

War is hell, losing a few pilots shouldn't be an issue.  We send ground grunts out in dangerous vehicles that get them killed all the time, but that's ok since they are just grunts.  The zoomies want the absolute best of everything to protect their pretty little butts, but the grunts get Humvees that get shredded by the smallest IED and MRAPs that like to flip.

The F-15 and F-16 are good enough to take on any current threat with acceptable loses, and with the F-15SE Silent Eagle it can be good enough to take on any near future threats with acceptable loses.
 
2013-09-17 11:38:44 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.


The current batch of drones have less lift capacity, less speed, and less accuracy compared to most manned vehicles. Remote control systems are also less reliable on any battlefield where the enemy might be using electronic countermeasures, not to mention anti aircraft systems.   Those missiles don't have much bang insideand they depend on the pilots being able to identify targets through the drones soda straw view.
Yes the plane could carry better camera systems and weapons on a larger and faster (even stealthy) airframe with fully trained pilots on the ground, but that quickly brings much of the costs back to where we started.
Only now you have a computer making most of the flight control decisions... and sometimes that ends badly.

dl.dropboxusercontent.com


The fact that this can happen means you shouldn't expect to see any cutting edge drones being used close to enemy lines or against waves of vehicles.  What you will see are alot of the stripped down models doing the simplified jobs they excel at.

/Everyone wants to kill the A-10 because its not airforce sexy.
/Know what's even less sexy? Making a Stealth pilot do ground pounding jobs.
/Oh wait, we didn't want to expose our stealth pilots to the risk of low altitude flight or enemy capture.
/I wager the A-10 isn't going anywhere.
/And you want to kill the KC's?  Really?  hahahahahhaha!
 
2013-09-17 11:39:41 AM

netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: ...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."


Well.... that is a very grunty thing to say.   Oooo Rah!    Get down there on the deck and fly slow and GUN baby !!

"You want those enemy troops to hear it coming..."

so they can turn the AAA on you.  And shoot an SA7 up the pipe and you flip over and nose in....

Great system you got there sport....


Let's look at the results: From the GW1
A-10  kills:
More than 900 Iraqi tanks
more than 2,000 other military vehicles
estimated 1,200 artillery pieces
A-10s also shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon. The first of these was shot down by Captain Robert Swain over Kuwait on 6 February 1991, marking the A-10's first air-to-air victory.

Total A-10 losses: Seven. Four were shot down in combat, 3 returned to base, but were written off due to the heavy damage they took.

So, yeah, My stupid plan...isn't my stupid plan....It's the USAF's and it lead to the A-10 being the single most effective combat aircraft during Desert Storm.


Sport.
 
2013-09-17 11:43:46 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.  $$$

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 )


It sounds like you have very limited economic knowledge. As for the intervention portion when the current President has worse foreign policy than the previous President (who started two wars) you know you've got a problem.
 
2013-09-17 11:44:01 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?


No but I'd freaking love to. Any links?
 
2013-09-17 11:44:52 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.


That's been the story for 30 years regarding the A-10.
 
2013-09-17 11:45:17 AM

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

That's cute. Worthless as an A-10 stand in, but cute.

I'm trying to figure out if he's making a "Pentagon Wars" reference...

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 480x360]


rahulabhyankar.files.wordpress.com
What the MQ-9 needs is portholes, you know, so the troops can fire back...
 
2013-09-17 11:47:15 AM

give me doughnuts: netcentric: 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

But would you fire an anti-tank missile at a bunch on insurgents scattered on a hillside?
How about a few hundred rounds form a GAU-8?
Which do you think would be more effective?


Drones have no problems taking out people. We've killed a LOT of targets using drones. I was specifically addressing the tank-killing aspects of ground attack aircraft.

I love the A-10, but I love a lot of old airplanes. Technology has advanced to the point where we do not need to risk skilled and well-trained professionals in the field of combat. It may be callous to say that life is cheap, but it is on the battlefield - except when those lives have thousands of hours of valuable experience and training invested in them. Near the end of WWII, the Germans and Japanese were trying to figure out ways to put untrained adults and children up as pilots.

As a weapons platform, you can be sure there are and will be new drones that can handle whatever mission payloads are needed. There are and always have been black programs, and offensive drones are a prime example of this. I'd be willing to bet that there is a heavily armed version of the Global Hawk (which is big enough to mount a Vulcan cannon, with a tradeoff on fuel capacity) already flying. The United States has not been very forthcoming on offensive-capable drones, so I wouldn't expect to see press releases.
 
2013-09-17 11:47:30 AM

Matrix Flavored Wasabi: 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?

No but I'd freaking love to. Any links?


Yes, I would like to see that as well.
 
2013-09-17 11:53:30 AM
We've reached and surpassed the point of diminishing returns in tech advancements not to mention we're still way out in front of the pack. Stop throwing quatrillions of wasted money into newer weapons to replace the better weapons we have right now.
 
2013-09-17 11:54:15 AM
Nothing special here. They want to scrap the KC-10s so Congress will dump more money into the new tanker. They want to scrap the A-10 and F-15C so Congress will dump as much money as necessary into the F-35 to make it not suck (if possible). Basically they're using the cover of BCA/Sequestration and savings to take some huge risks while hoping for a better payoff down the line.

Though not mentioned, I'm sure they'll try to leverage the savings into funding the development of the NGB.
 
2013-09-17 11:56:15 AM
Oh, the A-10.  It's what you get when you tell the Americans 'You can't build a flying tank, that's ludicrous" and they reply "The hell we can't."
 
2013-09-17 11:58:06 AM

Fano: 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.

That's been the story for 30 years regarding the A-10.


He was commenting about the bolded part of what I wrote above.

Basically, I was saying (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) that the Air Force isn't a real military service.
 
2013-09-17 12:00:37 PM

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.


I was just thinking about how the A-10 is sort of like the b-52 little cousin.  They are both amazingly long-lived designs because they are both designed around a very simple concept.  They are bomb trucks.  The B-52 can carry a massive bomb load anywhere in the world and loiter delivering death from high above.  It's not sexy, it's not fast, it's not stealthy, but for most of our current needs it is the cheapest simplest solution,

The A-10 is does basically the same thing.  Where the B-52 deals wholesale death from high above, the Warthog does it in retail quantities from up close.  But when it comes down to it, the A-10 is also really just a bomb truck.  Low and slow, with a fark-ton of ordinance and a large autocannon up front.

But yeah, neither plane is really something most kids grow up dreaming of flying.  People want to be Top Gun in a fancy new stealth fighter.  (Which I realize was the Navy, but it's the most famous pilot movie out there.  Oh, and those sexy F-14's...  long gone.)
 
2013-09-17 12:01:10 PM

way south: 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.

The current batch of drones have less lift capacity, less speed, and less accuracy compared to most manned vehicles. Remote control systems are also less reliable on any battlefield where the enemy might be using electronic countermeasures, not to mention anti aircraft systems.   Those missiles don't have much bang insideand they depend on the pilots being able to identify targets through the drones soda straw view.
Yes the plane could carry better camera systems and weapons on a larger and faster (even stealthy) airframe with fully trained pilots on the ground, but that quickly brings much of the costs back to where we started.
Only now you have a computer making most of the flight control decisions... and sometimes that ends badly.

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 650x366]


The fact that this can happen means you shouldn't expect to see any cutting edge drones being used close to enemy lines or against waves of vehicles.  What you will see are alot of the stripped down models doing the simplified jobs they excel at.

/Everyone wants to kill the A-10 because its not airforce sexy.
/Know what's even less sexy? Making a Stealth pilot do ground pounding jobs.
/Oh wait, we didn't want to expose our stealth pilots to the risk of low altitude flight or enemy capture.
/I wager the A-10 isn't going anywhere.
/And you wan ...


I realize countries like Iran are capable of creating mockups of drones.

There are always issues with deploying technology, too... As I just stated above, the Global Hawk is big enough to deploy some beefy weapons payloads - at the expense of range. s for your assertion that drones are lacking because they don't have human eyes - how do you think missile systems are targeting these days? Most aerial combat situations engage completely out of sight. About the only thing the pilot is involved with is getting a threat tone, lock tone, and pulling a trigger.

As for ground combat... again, eyes have very little to do with it. Nonetheless, these aren't fully autonomous drones we are talking about. Pilots are controlling some aspects that AI (can probably do, but) can't be fully trusted to do.

Radio signals can be jammed, sure... but that isn't as simple as it sounds. If you can do that against a human pilot, he's worthless, since he cannot confirm targets and engage on his own (or at least shouldn't be able to). Believe it or not, human-piloted aircraft have most of the same issues, but additionally, you need to support that pilot, with environmental and escape systems, control linkages, and informational systems - all of that takes weight (a pretty sizable chunk, too) and maintenance.

UAV pilots can get a coffee or take a bio-break. UAV pilots don't require parajumpers on standby. UAV pilots can be relieved after 8 hours of flying to go take a nap. UAV pilots aren't susceptible to high-G forces or hypoxia.
 
2013-09-17 12:06:32 PM
If they go to salvage, I want an A-10 for the ranch out here.
 
2013-09-17 12:07:10 PM

dittybopper: Fano: 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.

...

Basically, I was saying (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) that the Air Force isn't a real military service.


How to Tell the Difference Between the Branches of the US Armed Forces!
If you give the command "SECURE THE BUILDING", here is what the different services would do:
The NAVY would turn out the lights and lock the doors.
The ARMY would surround the building with defensive fortifications, tanks and concertina wire.
The MARINE CORPS would assault the building, using overlapping fields of fire from all appropriate points on the perimeter.
The AIR FORCE would take out a three-year lease with an option to buy the building.
 
2013-09-17 12:08:34 PM

ModeratelyProfane: netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: ...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."


Well.... that is a very grunty thing to say.   Oooo Rah!    Get down there on the deck and fly slow and GUN baby !!

"You want those enemy troops to hear it coming..."

so they can turn the AAA on you.  And shoot an SA7 up the pipe and you flip over and nose in....

Great system you got there sport....

Let's look at the results: From the GW1
A-10  kills:
More than 900 Iraqi tanks
more than 2,000 other military vehicles
estimated 1,200 artillery pieces
A-10s also shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon. The first of these was shot down by Captain Robert Swain over Kuwait on 6 February 1991, marking the A-10's first air-to-air victory.

Total A-10 losses: Seven. Four were shot down in combat, 3 returned to base, but were written off due to the heavy damage they took.

So, yeah, My stupid plan...isn't my stupid plan....It's the USAF's and it lead to the A-10 being the single most effective combat aircraft during Desert Storm.


Sport.


Desert Storm was 20 years ago...   sorry, but time has passed you by

...sport


You know what else was fantastic?   Battleships, 8" towed guns,  A-1 skyraiders
 
2013-09-17 12:08:55 PM

skrame: 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.


I'm not saying that's a danger... but most of the members of the teams I find myself on these days deserve a good TKing.

Can't wait for Ghosts.
 
2013-09-17 12:08:59 PM

Antimatter: Oh, the A-10.  It's what you get when you tell the Americans 'You can't build a flying tank, that's ludicrous" and they reply "The hell we can't."


"You can't put a howitzer in an aircraft, that's ludicrous!" and they reply "The hell we can't.  Here, hold my beer and watch me build this AC-130"
 
2013-09-17 12:09:30 PM

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

That's cute. Worthless as an A-10 stand in, but cute.

I'm trying to figure out if he's making a "Pentagon Wars" reference...

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 480x360]

[rahulabhyankar.files.wordpress.com image 470x353]
What the MQ-9 needs is portholes, you know, so the troops can fire back...



Portholes?! Re they in the Navy?

LesserEvil: give me doughnuts: netcentric: 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

But would you fire an anti-tank missile at a bunch on insurgents scattered on a hillside?
How about a few hundred rounds form a GAU-8?
Which do you think would be more effective?

Drones have no problems taking out people. We've killed a LOT of targets using drones. I was specifically addressing the tank-killing aspects of ground attack aircraft.

I love the A-10, but I love a lot of old airplanes. Technology has advanced to the point where we do not need to risk skilled and well-trained professionals in the field of combat. It may be callous to say that life is cheap, but it is on the battlefield - except when those lives have thousands of hours of valuable experience and training invested in them. Near the end of WWII, the Germans and Japanese were trying to figure out ways to put untrained adults and children up as pilots.

As a weapons platform, you can be sure there are and will be new drones that can handle whatever mission payloads are needed. There are and always have been black programs, and offensive drones are a prime example of this. I'd be willing to bet that there is a heavily armed version of the Global Hawk (which is big enough to mount a Vulcan cannon, with a tradeoff on fuel capacity) already flying. The United States has not been ve ...


Who are we fighting that has tanks? Who are you wanting us to fight that has tanks?

And until we can get rid of lag-time, and create a nearly perfect real-time virtual cockpit, drone operators won't have the situational awareness and reaction time of a pilot.
 
2013-09-17 12:09:34 PM

adragontattoo: jankyboy: [latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com image 600x328]RIP Cobra Rattler

That was one of the main reasons I loved Cobra as a kid.


No kidding.  One of my first nerdgasms back in the day was when I found out that the Rattler is based on a real plane.
Young Me: "Holy poop, that cannon with wings EXISTS?!?"
 
2013-09-17 12:09:34 PM
* not a danger
 
2013-09-17 12:12:20 PM

netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: ...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.

...


You know what else was fantastic?   Battleships,  8" towed guns,  A-1 skyraiders


The United States still has towed artillery.
 
2013-09-17 12:13:13 PM

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.


Hmm obviously you've ever heard of the F-35A Lighting II which makes the A-10 literally like your grandfather's plane. The F-35 is actually going to replace the A-10/F-16 in ground attack and CAS role.
 
2013-09-17 12:15:24 PM

Smoky Dragon Dish: netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: ...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.

...


You know what else was fantastic?   Battleships,  8" towed guns,  A-1 skyraiders

The United States still has towed artillery.


Just for the record we also have ships and planes.


...just less of them
 
2013-09-17 12:17:21 PM

Clemkadidlefark: If they go to salvage, I want an A-10 for the ranch out here.


Yeah, I wouldn't mind one for the backyard. I'll solve that squirrel problem once and for all!
 
2013-09-17 12:18:27 PM

LesserEvil: As I just stated above, the Global Hawk is big enough to deploy some beefy weapons payloads - at the expense of range


Have you ever really looked at pictures of it.

Where would they put them?


LesserEvil: Radio signals can be jammed, sure... but that isn't as simple as it sounds. If you can do that against a human pilot, he's worthless, since he cannot confirm targets and engage on his own (or at least shouldn't be able to).


You should read up on CAS.


LesserEvil: UAV pilots can get a coffee or take a bio-break. UAV pilots don't require parajumpers on standby. UAV pilots can be relieved after 8 hours of flying to go take a nap. UAV pilots aren't susceptible to high-G forces or hypoxia


You have some good points here, but I don't think we are there yet for them to replace the A-10.
 
2013-09-17 12:23:18 PM

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!


My problem is that when the other team calls it in those three passes get minimum 5 kills a pass.  When I call it in I get 3 passes and 3/4 of the kills are TKs.

I think the pilots are against me.
 
2013-09-17 12:23:20 PM

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

[community.warplanes.com image 850x637]


No...it will never take the enemy fire the way an A-10.
God Damn flying bath tubs.....but good god they can take and dish out a beating.
If you have never experienced this piece of hardware in action.....then shut your dirty whore mouth.

Saw one up close and personal cut a tank in 1/2.........

They are amazing.....

When it is lives in the balance and close up ground pounding is needed....accept no substitutes.

The helo is great....but it will not take over and do what the A-10 does....it doesnt have the guns carrying capacity or the abuse taking capacity. You can literally shoot the hell out of it.....it still flies....and those who confront it ..... DIE.
 
2013-09-17 12:23:48 PM

netcentric: Smoky Dragon Dish: netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: ...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.

...


You know what else was fantastic?   Battleships,  8" towed guns,  A-1 skyraiders

The United States still has towed artillery.

Just for the record we also have ships and planes.


...just less of them


bayonets and horses
 
2013-09-17 12:23:59 PM

netcentric: Smoky Dragon Dish: netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: ...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.

...


You know what else was fantastic?   Battleships,  8" towed guns,  A-1 skyraiders

The United States still has towed artillery.

Just for the record we also have ships and planes.


...just less of them


We have less of them because what we have now is more accurate.  We have guided munitions that can hit the broadside of a barn at +40 kms without painting the target.  Same capibility as WWII, Korea, Vietnam, without a loss of effectiveness.  You cannot say that about the options to replace the A-10.

Slightly off the subject, does your fark handle have anything to do with you job? Vis-a-vis NR-KPPs?
 
2013-09-17 12:25:41 PM

LesserEvil: s for your assertion that drones are lacking because they don't have human eyes - how do you think missile systems are targeting these days? Most aerial combat situations engage completely out of sight. About the only thing the pilot is involved with is getting a threat tone, lock tone, and pulling a trigger.


The close air support the A-10 excels in isn't hitting a laser designated target hundreds of yards away from a hidden team.  Tomahawks and F/A-18s and such can take care of those.  They aren't the threats that the A-10 handles better than the competition.  Rather, it's true close air support for ground units.  Picking out targets that are dozens of yards away from friendly forces and providing precision support while having a variety of weapons at their disposal depending on the circumstance.  A single missile is not nearly as effective at suppression as a barrage of high caliber gatling cannon fire, and combat suppression is a huge part of close air support
 
2013-09-17 12:25:53 PM

SuperNinjaToad: dittybopper: 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.

Hmm obviously you've ever heard of the F-35A Lighting II which makes the A-10 literally like your grandfather's plane. The F-35 is actually going to replace the A-10/F-16 in ground attack and CAS role.


Lets continue your "grandfather" analogy.

Right now the F-35 is an all electric car, that is completely untested.
The A-10 is a well maintained classic with no mechanical problems.
The goal is driving across the US as quick as possible.

One day the F-35 may work for driving across the US, we aren't there yet.
 
2013-09-17 12:26:16 PM

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?


Operate in an EMCON environment? Or an enemy jamming environment?
 
2013-09-17 12:27:47 PM

SuperNinjaToad: Hmm obviously you've ever heard of the F-35A Lighting II which makes the A-10 literally like your grandfather's plane. The F-35 is actually going to replace the A-10/F-16 in ground attack and CAS role.



We've heard of it. We've been hearing about it for most of a decade.
Is there any chance one might actually fly a mission sometime in the near future?
 
2013-09-17 12:28:17 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
www.darkgovernment.com www.sldinfo.com

This should put everyone's mind at ease.. no worries A-10's replacement is100X more capable.
 
2013-09-17 12:30:12 PM

Gleeman: 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?

Operate in an EMCON environment? Or an enemy jamming environment?


React to something without having to wait for the signals to bounce off a couple of satellites?
 
2013-09-17 12:31:08 PM

SuperNinjaToad: no worries A-10's replacement is100X more capable


If this is sarcasm, well done.
 
2013-09-17 12:31:40 PM

netcentric: Desert Storm was 20 years ago... sorry, but time has passed you by


We once thought that jets and missiles had made dogfighting irrelevant. That was before Korea. We were wrong.

Sometimes it's nice to hold onto what's perceived as old stuff, just so we can make sure the new thing is actually better.

Wasn't the M-16 on its 4th generation before the Marines gave up the BAR?
 
2013-09-17 12:33:08 PM

Smoky Dragon Dish: You know what else was fantastic?   Battleships,  8" towed guns,  A-1 skyraiders

The United States still has towed artillery.


Fun fact: Markos Moulitsas, founder of Daily KOS, was an artillery specialist (MLRS/Lance Fire Direction Specialist), and served between 1989-92.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-17 12:34:17 PM

SuperNinjaToad: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]
[www.darkgovernment.com image 368x259] [www.sldinfo.com image 720x540]

This should put everyone's mind at ease.. no worries A-10's replacement is100X more capable.


And carries 100x less armor. And is 100x less capable of suppressing fire.

The JSF is a nice plane for GPS bombing from 30,000ft, not so much for mud pounding at 500ft.
 
2013-09-17 12:36:36 PM

liam76: SuperNinjaToad: no worries A-10's replacement is100X more capable

If this is sarcasm, well done.


you do realize that F-35s are no longer in R & D and actualoperational fighters have been sent to active duty units right?
 
2013-09-17 12:36:44 PM
Smoky Dragon Dish: 
 ... You cannot say that about the options to replace the A-10.

Slightly off the subject, does your fark handle have anything to do with you job? Vis-a-vis NR-KPPs?



hehe...   the A-10 has aleady been replaced.    It just doesn't know it.


network centric warfare.  ( ie:  hangout with the JSTARs pukes for a week )
 
2013-09-17 12:43:07 PM

netcentric: Smoky Dragon Dish: 
 ... You cannot say that about the options to replace the A-10.

Slightly off the subject, does your fark handle have anything to do with you job? Vis-a-vis NR-KPPs?

hehe...   the A-10 has aleady been replaced.    It just doesn't know it.

network centric warfare.  ( ie:  hangout with the JSTARs pukes for a week )


Civilian or contractor?  Military?
 
2013-09-17 12:43:26 PM

SuperNinjaToad: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]
[www.darkgovernment.com image 368x259] [www.sldinfo.com image 720x540]

This should put everyone's mind at ease.. no worries A-10's replacement is100X more capable.


You must work for Lockheed...
 
2013-09-17 12:43:49 PM

Gleeman: SuperNinjaToad: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]
[www.darkgovernment.com image 368x259] [www.sldinfo.com image 720x540]

This should put everyone's mind at ease.. no worries A-10's replacement is100X more capable.

And carries 100x less armor. And is 100x less capable of suppressing fire.

The JSF is a nice plane for GPS bombing from 30,000ft, not so much for mud pounding at 500ft.


not exactly true.. the AF's F-35A has the new GAU 12 gun with the Nammo 25mm Apex round that is more accurate than even the Gau-8.  It does carry less rounds than the A-10 however improved accuracy makes up for it.
 
2013-09-17 12:45:03 PM

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.


Bullshiat!

upload.wikimedia.org

We got our own ships too.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-17 12:45:25 PM
Whose going to drop napalm in the middle of a couple of friendly platoons if we get rid of the A-10s?

/I wonder if they ever figured out which pilot dropped the napalm on Moore's troops or if they ever wanted to figure it out. Poor guy.
/"Charlie, call that SOB off of us. CALL HIM OFF!"
 
2013-09-17 12:46:46 PM

SuperNinjaToad: liam76: SuperNinjaToad: no worries A-10's replacement is100X more capable

If this is sarcasm, well done.

you do realize that F-35s are no longer in R & D and actualoperational fighters have been sent to active duty units right?


Here's one at Eglin AFB:
https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!data=!1m4!1m3!1d5268!2d-86.54514 2 !3d30.4804882!2m1!1e3&fid=7">https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!dat a=!1m4!1m3!1d5268!2d-86.545142 !3d30.4804882!2m1!1e3&fid=7
 
2013-09-17 12:47:52 PM

Smoky Dragon Dish: netcentric: Smoky Dragon Dish: 
 ... You cannot say that about the options to replace the A-10.

Slightly off the subject, does your fark handle have anything to do with you job? Vis-a-vis NR-KPPs?

hehe...   the A-10 has aleady been replaced.    It just doesn't know it.

network centric warfare.  ( ie:  hangout with the JSTARs pukes for a week )

Civilian or contractor?  Military?


COD MW2
Battlefield 3
+ Scouting (BSA)
 
2013-09-17 12:48:05 PM

Publikwerks: SuperNinjaToad: liam76: SuperNinjaToad: no worries A-10's replacement is100X more capable

If this is sarcasm, well done.

you do realize that F-35s are no longer in R & D and actualoperational fighters have been sent to active duty units right?

Here's one at Eglin AFB:
https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!data=!1m4!1m3!1d5268!2d-86.54514 2 !3d30.4804882!2m1!1e3&fid=7">https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!dat a=!1m4!1m3!1d5268!2d-86.545142 !3d30.4804882!2m1!1e3&fid=7


Try again:
http://www.google.com/maps/preview#!data=!1m4!1m3!1d5268!2d-86.54514 2! 3d30.4804882!2m1!1e3&fid=7
 
2013-09-17 12:48:27 PM

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


I prefer the EM-50


www.websophist.com
 
2013-09-17 12:49:44 PM
Nevermind my second link, the first one is ugly but works.
 
2013-09-17 12:49:59 PM

maudibjr: I love watching the A-10's fly in the MD ANG.

A new long range bomber seems like the program to scrap


I have seen them fly up the bay before they are awesome. And they move slow enough so you can see them.
 
2013-09-17 12:50:12 PM

Publikwerks: BTW -I don't think the A-10 should be retired. I think it should be moved to the ANG. I think it's the perfect ANG plane.


The process of rotating them out of the ANG is on-going, I'm pretty sure in the direction of abandoning them altogether. At least here in Fort Smith, Arkansas.

In early 2012 the Air Force planned to realign the 188th Fighter Wing and replace its 20 A-10 aircraft, converting the 184th FS to operate the General Atomics [MQ-9 Reaper] remotely piloted aircraft (RPA).

The first two have already left. It is unclear if the MQ-9 will physically be here.
 
2013-09-17 12:51:10 PM

Smoky Dragon Dish: netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: ...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.

...


You know what else was fantastic?   Battleships,  8" towed guns,  A-1 skyraiders

The United States still has towed artillery.


The one Janes' book I never got around to buying when I was younger was Jane's Book of Towed
Artillery.

Of course, when I first heard about it I thought it was Jane's book do TOAD Artillery, which brought an
image like this to mind:

b.vimeocdn.com

/Would love to meet this Jane.  She sounds like my kind of woman.
 
2013-09-17 12:51:22 PM

netcentric: Smoky Dragon Dish: netcentric: Smoky Dragon Dish: 
 ... You cannot say that about the options to replace the A-10.

Slightly off the subject, does your fark handle have anything to do with you job? Vis-a-vis NR-KPPs?

hehe...   the A-10 has aleady been replaced.    It just doesn't know it.

network centric warfare.  ( ie:  hangout with the JSTARs pukes for a week )

Civilian or contractor?  Military?

COD MW2
Battlefield 3
+ Scouting (BSA)


ha ha.

/Favored
 
2013-09-17 12:53:32 PM

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.


The Apache Longbow is pretty damned impressive, and can do a lot, but I still think they are more complementary than redundant. I said it last time this was on here; Between the Stealth Fighter, the A-10, The Apache, and the Spectre Gunship, we don't need anything else for offensive firepower in our Air Force. Add in the Navy's carrier based force, and we really just need support and transport aircraft with those 2 planes and 1 helicopter.
 
2013-09-17 12:54:35 PM

maudibjr: I love watching the A-10's fly in the MD ANG.

A new long range bomber seems like the program to scrap


Yeah, why would we need a new long range bomber? Between Stealth Fighters that refuel in the air, and drones, we have all of the reach we need. Nothing, NOTHING, can take out armor like an A-10.
 
2013-09-17 12:55:23 PM

dittybopper: r 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.


CAS dedicated ground attack aircraft should be flown by the army.
 
2013-09-17 12:57:31 PM

MadMattressMack: 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.

FTFA: "Sources say the Army is interested in obtaining A-10s should the Air Force decide to retire the twin-engine jets, which have been flying since the 1970s."

Looks like the Army is saying we're sick of this shiat.


Aren't most of the A-10s that see any actual combat with the state-run Air National Guards and not US Air Force nor US Army?
 
2013-09-17 01:02:50 PM

Smoky Dragon Dish: dittybopper: Fano: 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.

...

Basically, I was saying (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) that the Air Force isn't a real military service.


How to Tell the Difference Between the Branches of the US Armed Forces!
If you give the command "SECURE THE BUILDING", here is what the different services would do:
The NAVY would turn out the lights and lock the doors.
The ARMY would surround the building with defensive fortifications, tanks and concertina wire.
The MARINE CORPS would assault the building, using overlapping fields of fire from all appropriate points on the perimeter.
The AIR FORCE would take out a three-year lease with an option to buy the building.



hahahaha, that's mah boyz, typical jarhead WAAAAUUGGH attitude :D

Would it be a bad or a good idea to turn the A-10s over to them, I wonder...?
 
2013-09-17 01:04:22 PM

yves0010: I did that all the time in Red Alert 2. Get the Anti Tank G.I.s and set them on a defensive line with regular G.I.s and you got a good Anti personnel and anti tank defense. Back them up with some anti air tanks and you're golden.


Hey, it works for me in Battlefield 3 now when I play an engineer.  Just chase those tanks down and hide behind a rubble pile while you reload your SMAW or RPG 2-3 times.  Hell, I'm calling the Joint Chiefs right now!
 
2013-09-17 01:04:41 PM

Son of Thunder: adragontattoo: jankyboy: [latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com image 600x328]RIP Cobra Rattler

That was one of the main reasons I loved Cobra as a kid.

No kidding.  One of my first nerdgasms back in the day was when I found out that the Rattler is based on a real plane.
Young Me: "Holy poop, that cannon with wings EXISTS?!?"


the absolute coup de grace arrive when i played sierra's a-10 tank killer. even the documentation gave a wargasm with tidbits that the cannon has to be fired at a downward angle or else the plane would stall. a cannon that throws milkbottle sized depleted uranium slugs at like 1000/minute.
 
2013-09-17 01:05:05 PM

DjangoStonereaver: Smoky Dragon Dish: netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: ...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.

...


You know what else was fantastic?   Battleships,  8" towed guns,  A-1 skyraiders

The United States still has towed artillery.

The one Janes' book I never got around to buying when I was younger was Jane's Book of Towed
Artillery.

Of course, when I first heard about it I thought it was Jane's book do TOAD Artillery, which brought an
image like this to mind:

[b.vimeocdn.com image 300x300]

/Would love to meet this Jane.  She sounds like my kind of woman.


Anytime I hear towed artillery, I think the same thing.
 
2013-09-17 01:05:18 PM

SuperNinjaToad: liam76: SuperNinjaToad: no worries A-10's replacement is100X more capable

If this is sarcasm, well done.

you do realize that F-35s are no longer in R & D and actualoperational fighters have been sent to active duty units right?


It is still in DT (OT maybe concurrent).
It hasn't employed most (if not all) ord in that diagram in flight in other than test capacity.
They have just begun the pilot training so non test pilots can fly it.
It hasn't seen any combat.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-31/combat-ready-dates-for-f-35- j ets-set-by-u-s-military.html

It is scheduled to be combat ready for the USAF in DEC 2016 and for the Navy in Feb 2019.

So until it has demonstrated those capabilities in combat I wouldn't be claiming there are no worries abotu it replacing the A-10 without sarcasm.
 
2013-09-17 01:05:42 PM

belhade: washington-babylon: 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 image 676x506]

[www.portviewfitout.co.uk image 683x440]

Did they really put an AT4 on there? "We got an empty pylon and some leftover rocket launchers over there, make it happen"?

AFKobel: skrame: 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.

I'm not saying that's a danger... but most of the members of the teams I find myself on these days deserve a good TKing.

Can't wait for Ghosts.


Yep, THIS. I do have to say that the one thing I personally hate the most is the Hunter-Killer drone (single and swarm) I ALWAYS am the preferred target for those things.
 
2013-09-17 01:06:48 PM
Good riddance I say, maybe our tax dollars can be spent fixing pot holes & cleaning hipsters out of the park instead!
 
2013-09-17 01:08:18 PM

Fano: Son of Thunder: adragontattoo: jankyboy: [latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com image 600x328]RIP Cobra Rattler

That was one of the main reasons I loved Cobra as a kid.

No kidding.  One of my first nerdgasms back in the day was when I found out that the Rattler is based on a real plane.
Young Me: "Holy poop, that cannon with wings EXISTS?!?"

the absolute coup de grace arrive when i played sierra's a-10 tank killer. even the documentation gave a wargasm with tidbits that the cannon has to be fired at a downward angle or else the plane would stall. a cannon that throws milkbottle sized depleted uranium slugs at like 1000/minute.


I think they stopped using DU in favor of tungsten, since it's more enviromentally friendly.

/PESHE
// Funny like I'm a clown?
 
2013-09-17 01:15:10 PM
The A-10 is a vastly overrated piece of garbage, especially after the "upgrade" to A-10C. The best CAS platform the USAF has is actually the F-15E, but you won't hear the Air Force talking up any -15 model since they're chasing the -22 and -35.
 
2013-09-17 01:18:33 PM
Let's not kid ourselves that this is about The Troops! and what's best for fighting Homeland's wars. The dirty little secret is our government, the committees on defense, appropriations, etc, nor the Pentagonites have the remotest idea what The Next War will look like. It's all speculation.

So what's left is (A) Generals and Admirals working to advance their careers through their projects; and (2) Representatives and Senators working to get re-elected by directing the Generals' and Admirals' projects to their constituencies in the hopes of getting re-elected.

How about instead of building more military hardware, we pledge to NOT GO FIGHTING UNNECESSARY WARS (which is all of them since WWII, except Gulf War 1 and Afghanistan, until Bush the Younger diverted all the assets to Iraq), and then invest those people and national assets to rebuilding US infrastructure.

Sure, it sounds like Socialism and really, who the fark wants to go to a show displaying new paving machines, cranes, and bridge-building equipment when you can go to the Joint Services Open House at Joint Base Andrews, climb on tanks and APCs, handle the hardware, and watch military aircraft tooling around overhead? PATRIOTISMS! TRRROOOPS!!! 'Cause, the soldiers are BOOTSTRAPPY and know what they're getting into and do more hard fighty sufferin' stuff before you've even had breakfast so they're protecting your FREEDOMS from Terror.

Yeah, right.
 
2013-09-17 01:18:40 PM

DoBeDoBeDo: 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!

My problem is that when the other team calls it in those three passes get minimum 5 kills a pass.  When I call it in I get 3 passes and 3/4 of the kills are TKs.

I think the pilots are against me.


Just so you are aware, someone sent me a message the other day that said, and I quote:

"Hardcoar is 4 virgins and regular play losers"

So, you should take that advice to heart.  Apparently, core play, where you can empty two magazines into someone and they can still turn and noob tube you, is better game play.

Loser.
 
2013-09-17 01:30:10 PM

The Southern Dandy: 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.

Bullshiat!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 641x362]

We got our own ships too.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x563]


Didn't Elliot Carver have one of those boats?

/Watched it the other night and that was the first thing I thought of
//There's no news, like bad news
///Teri Hatcher FTW
////Slashies
 
2013-09-17 01:44:50 PM

Smoky Dragon Dish: dittybopper: Fano: 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.

...

Basically, I was saying (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) that the Air Force isn't a real military service.

How to Tell the Difference Between the Branches of the US Armed Forces!
If you give the command "SECURE THE BUILDING", here is what the different services would do:
The NAVY would turn out the lights and lock the doors.
The ARMY would surround the building with defensive fortifications, tanks and concertina wire.
The MARINE CORPS would assault the building, using overlapping fields of fire from all appropriate points on the perimeter.
The AIR FORCE would take out a three-year lease with an option to buy the building.


Marines would call in arty strike or set charges and level the building. If you want it secured from the enemy, it is only way to be sure.

/if only orbital nukes were an option.
//disclamer: I am a leatherneck
 
2013-09-17 01:45:05 PM

AFKobel: DoBeDoBeDo: 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!

My problem is that when the other team calls it in those three passes get minimum 5 kills a pass.  When I call it in I get 3 passes and 3/4 of the kills are TKs.

I think the pilots are against me.

Just so you are aware, someone sent me a message the other day that said, and I quote:

"Hardcoar is 4 virgins and regular play losers"

So, you should take that advice to heart.  Apparently, core play, where you can empty two magazines into someone and they can still turn and noob tube you, is better game play.

Loser.


I got reported last night because I was just screwing around playing HC Domination and some dude kept camping with 2 trophy systems and an LMG.  Pretty good setup.  So I made it my goal to kill him instead of going for the capture points.   After the 4th straight kill (I took him out then sat in his spot waiting for him to come back :) ).

He messages me that he was reporting me for "Not playing the game right".

I love gaming online.
 
2013-09-17 01:55:19 PM

DoBeDoBeDo: AFKobel: DoBeDoBeDo: 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!

My problem is that when the other team calls it in those three passes get minimum 5 kills a pass.  When I call it in I get 3 passes and 3/4 of the kills are TKs.

I think the pilots are against me.

Just so you are aware, someone sent me a message the other day that said, and I quote:

"Hardcoar is 4 virgins and regular play losers"

So, you should take that advice to heart.  Apparently, core play, where you can empty two magazines into someone and they can still turn and noob tube you, is better game play.

Loser.

I got reported last night because I was just screwing around playing HC Domination and some dude kept camping with 2 trophy systems and an LMG.  Pretty good setup.  So I made it my goal to kill him instead of going for the capture points.   After the 4th straight kill (I took him out then sat in his spot waiting for him to come back :) ).

He messages me that he was reporting me for "Not playing the game right".

I love gaming online.


Reminds me of when objective-mode gaming first started getting popular in FPS games rather than just deathmatch.
 
2013-09-17 01:59:26 PM

Anayalator: Looks more like a puma to me.


Stop making up animals.
 
2013-09-17 01:59:45 PM

belhade: Did they really put an AT4 on there? "We got an empty pylon and some leftover rocket launchers over there, make it happen"?


Pretty sure that's a LUU pod.

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


Here's the thing: The Hawg can't actually do that, either. There's a reason live Mavericks aren't mounted next to the main landing gear anymore. Real-world limitations have been reducing its real-world capacity for years, but if you're towing it out to a spot for an air show, you can stuff as many dummies on it as you like.
 
2013-09-17 02:00:13 PM

DORMAMU: Smoky Dragon Dish: dittybopper: Fano: 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.

...

Basically, I was saying (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) that the Air Force isn't a real military service.

How to Tell the Difference Between the Branches of the US Armed Forces!
If you give the command "SECURE THE BUILDING", here is what the different services would do:
The NAVY would turn out the lights and lock the doors.
The ARMY would surround the building with defensive fortifications, tanks and concertina wire.
The MARINE CORPS would assault the building, using overlapping fields of fire from all appropriate points on the perimeter.
The AIR FORCE would take out a three-year lease with an option to buy the building.

Marines would call in arty strike or set charges and level the building. If you want it secured from the enemy, it is only way to be sure.

/if only orbital nukes were an option.
//disclamer: I am a leatherneck


There are several versions of this joke I have heard or seen online.  Most of them say exactly that.
 
2013-09-17 02:00:52 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: Anayalator: Looks more like a puma to me.

Stop making up animals!

 Why don't we just call it the chupathingy?
 
2013-09-17 02:15:29 PM

WhoopAssWayne: Valiente: You can't run an empire with hand puppets, 'Murica.

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


Sounds a bit gay, really. Good thing your education system has created a generation that has loads of self-esteem over an inability to read a map.
 
2013-09-17 02:17:34 PM
A-10 thread, no Powerglide?
images1.wikia.nocookie.net

/those feels
 
2013-09-17 02:18:09 PM

The Southern Dandy: 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.

Bullshiat!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 641x362]



That's an attack aircraft?

I've got several friends who have both piloted and sat in the SIGINT operators positions in those aircraft.  They never told me they were *ARMED*.


/Technically, RU-21's, but the same basic airframe.
 
2013-09-17 02:21:11 PM
The A-10 is a solid aircraft, but it's not completely irreplaceable.  The Marine Corps uses AV-8B's and AH-1W's to perform the same function.  The big advantage that the A-10 has is that it is much easier to maintain than many other platforms, particularly in hostile environments.

I would always prefer air support from a Marine Corps aircraft because I think they spend more time training for air support missions, but the A-10 would be my second choice for cross service support behind the AC-130.  It's a crime that so few AC-130 squadrons exist.
 
2013-09-17 02:37:44 PM

netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: ...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."


Well.... that is a very grunty thing to say.   Oooo Rah!    Get down there on the deck and fly slow and GUN baby !!

"You want those enemy troops to hear it coming..."

so they can turn the AAA on you.  And shoot an SA7 up the pipe and you flip over and nose in....

Great system you got there sport....

Let's look at the results: From the GW1
A-10  kills:
More than 900 Iraqi tanks
more than 2,000 other military vehicles
estimated 1,200 artillery pieces
A-10s also shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon. The first of these was shot down by Captain Robert Swain over Kuwait on 6 February 1991, marking the A-10's first air-to-air victory.

Total A-10 losses: Seven. Four were shot down in combat, 3 returned to base, but were written off due to the heavy damage they took.

So, yeah, My stupid plan...isn't my stupid plan....It's the USAF's and it lead to the A-10 being the single most effective combat aircraft during Desert Storm.


Sport.

Desert Storm was 20 years ago...   sorry, but time has passed you by

...sport


You know what else was fantastic?   Battleships, 8" towed guns,  A-1 skyraiders


Forgive me, but I don't see the realistic need for a 700 Billion dollar program that would drop million dollar missiles/bombs to replace an effective, proven, and more than capable airframe that does the same, better, with plain old bullets. Give me a bit I'll look up the A-10s numbers regarding combat effectiveness in the more recent conflicts. Beside the point: Yeah, a .50 sniper rifle is a damn sexy weapon, more than capable, of say...breeching a door. But would you use one with the much more durable, more portable 12 gauge Remington 870 military variant (based off of a +60 year old design) is available?

Newer isn't always better, chum.
 
2013-09-17 02:54:06 PM

ModeratelyProfane: Newer isn't always better, chum.


Kabar, as one example.
 
2013-09-17 03:01:33 PM

DoBeDoBeDo: He messages me that he was reporting me for "Not playing the game right".


How long were you banned for?  Because that's a serious charge right there.
 
2013-09-17 03:02:42 PM

Gerrok: I would always prefer air support from a Marine Corps aircraft because I think they spend more time training for air support missions, but the A-10 would be my second choice for cross service support behind the AC-130.  It's a crime that so few AC-130 squadrons exist.


Only if you're playing Call of Duty. The AC-130 has only one job, and some pretty serious limitations, which is why there are so few of them. The need for them nowadays is in a few very specific roles and nothing more. They aren't as accurate as the games make them out to be, either.

I wouldn't call the AC-130 overrated the way the A-10 is, though. It's just all the rage on the Internet thanks to MW2 onward. The A-10 on the other hand... it either needs a REAL model upgrade (the C model one is a disastrous joke) and new airframes or it needs to go away.
 
2013-09-17 03:02:51 PM

AFKobel: DoBeDoBeDo: He messages me that he was reporting me for "Not playing the game right".

How long were you banned for?  Because that's a serious charge right there.


I guess he was...
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
...gaming the system
 
2013-09-17 03:08:02 PM
This article means we're about to pound the fark out of some country.  They carried on about cutting the A-10 fleet for a couple years before we destroyed 1/3 of Iraq's army with them.
Who knows, maybe the airframes will start to wear out this time.
Lol.
 
2013-09-17 03:09:48 PM

2wolves: ModeratelyProfane: Newer isn't always better, chum.

Kabar, as one example.


I need someone to teach me how to fight with a Kabar. I has one and I love the thing dearly.
 
2013-09-17 03:15:43 PM

Valiente: WhoopAssWayne: Valiente: You can't run an empire with hand puppets, 'Murica.

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

Sounds a bit gay, really. Good thing your education system has created a generation that has loads of self-esteem over an inability to read a map.


Listen Commie, the only thing that needs to read a map is our missiles, and they can do that just fine.
 
2013-09-17 03:17:32 PM

dittybopper: The Southern Dandy: 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.

Bullshiat!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 641x362]


That's an attack aircraft?

I've got several friends who have both piloted and sat in the SIGINT operators positions in those aircraft.  They never told me they were *ARMED*.


/Technically, RU-21's, but the same basic airframe.


My bad!  I didn't pick up on the "attack" aspect.
 
2013-09-17 03:17:48 PM
Ever since I was little A-10s have been constantly flying overhead out of Davis-Monthan AFB. They've been doing it for decades.
It would be weird to not see them anymore.
 
2013-09-17 03:29:09 PM

C18H27NO3: Ever since I was little A-10s have been constantly flying overhead out of Davis-Monthan AFB. They've been doing it for decades.
It would be weird to not see them anymore.


It sucks, but you get used to it....

//Used to have P-3 flying overhead.
//BRAC, you suck
 
2013-09-17 03:31:27 PM

Cid_Highwind:  The A-10 on the other hand... it either needs a REAL model upgrade (the C model one is a disastrous joke)


How so? Explain.
 
2013-09-17 03:55:39 PM
www.fly-fighter-jet.com

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.
 
2013-09-17 03:59:39 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.


The omnipresent fear that the pilot will pass out and crash on top of you tends to cause that.
 
2013-09-17 04:07:12 PM

toraque: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.

The omnipresent fear that the pilot will pass out and crash on top of you tends to cause that.


That was fixed.
 
2013-09-17 04:08:51 PM
Cid_Highwind:Only if you're playing Call of Duty. The AC-130 has only one job, and some pretty serious limitations, which is why there are so few of them. The need for them nowadays is in a few very specific roles and nothing more. They aren't as accurate as the games make them out to be, either.

I wouldn't call the AC-130 overrated the way the A-10 is, though. It's just all the rage on the Internet thanks to MW2 onward. The A-10 on the other hand... it either needs a REAL model upgrade (the C model one is a disastrous joke) and new airframes or it needs to go away.


I've never played Call of Duty.  Hell, I don't think I've played a FPS in years.

The reason why the AC-130 is so good at fire support missions is because it can take the time to figure out who is who.  All other aircraft do attack runs, but the AC-130 can spend the time to understand the field before it engages.
 
2013-09-17 04:11:54 PM
Let's see... Mothballing a depleted uranium spitting tank killer versus getting a handful of varied aircraft that can carry tank killing missiles that won't spew heavy metals into the environment.

And there's probably twice as many tank breaking missiles in our inventory as tanks in the world.
 
2013-09-17 04:30:08 PM
The AIR FORCE would take out a three-year lease with an option to buy the building.

Fark you AFRPA, you and your biatch buddy AFCEE.  Go fark yourselves.
 
2013-09-17 04:54:46 PM

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.


Technically the US Army does have a small amount of fixed wing aircraft, but they are all light transports or observation/intelligence gathering platforms.  (The C-23 Sherpa comes to mind, as does the RC-12 Guardrail), but they don't have any fixed-wing tactical aircraft.

The US Army would take those Warthogs in a flat moment if the USAF didn't want them, which the USAF doesn't want to give up.  The Air Force doesn't want the A-10 Warthog because it's ugly, slow, low-tech and completely against what the USAF loves (fancy, fast, high-tech). . .but they'd hate EVEN MORE if the US Army got fixed wing tactical aircraft.  Interservice rivalries are a biatch like that.

Rock and a hard place.
 
2013-09-17 04:58:06 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.


Not everyone.

People on the ground don't give a fark.  The Raptor is an air-to-air platform only.  No close air support capability.  No ability to directly influence land warfare.  It is outstanding at air superiority, the best air superiority fighter ever built by mankind. . .but for all you rule the air, the battle is ultimately won by the boots on the ground, and for that you need soldiers and/or marines and they need air support (of which the A-10 is the most outstanding aircraft for that role ever built, it's as good for CAS as the F-22 is for air superiority).
 
2013-09-17 05:52:54 PM
I need CAS, send in a drone!

SAID NO GROUND-POUNDER EVER!
 
2013-09-17 05:53:11 PM

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.


It is sad you really think like that.
 
2013-09-17 06:46:33 PM

jankyboy: [latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com image 600x328]RIP Cobra Rattler


Oh HELL yes.  My favorite GI Joe toy.
 
2013-09-17 06:52:34 PM

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!


Actually, I am NOT making a case for getting rid of the A-10.  In fact, in another post I actually said that I hope that they do not get rid of it.  I was merely pointing out that if they do get rid of it that the Army does have within its arsenal the means to compensate for the loss of the A-10.
 
2013-09-17 06:58:17 PM

sultros: 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.


I fully understand close air support.  I was merely pointing out that if the A-10 is removed from service that the Army would be able to compensate for the loss of that particular weapon's platform.  In fact, if you go through and read all of my posts you will note that not once did I say that the military should get rid of it.  There is a huge difference between saying "The Army does not need it!" and "The Army will be able to manage without it."   So lighten up, Francis, and unbunch your panties.
 
2013-09-17 07:01:32 PM

Ricardo Klement: 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.



img.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-17 07:06:47 PM

GardenWeasel: How so? Explain.


It added a bunch of items of questionable value that like to break. The A-10 is a mechanically robust aircraft, but it's really rough on its own electronics every time the gun fires (vibrations, plus the cooling fans suck in gun gasses). That by itself doesn't have to be a major issue, but it doesn't seem like a lot of care was put into engineering the upgrade, so swapping out a malfunctioning part is much more time-consuming and difficult than it should be. That, and at this point the jets are 30+ years old. The spare parts they're repaired with have been repaired and sent back out many times over. Stuff breaks just 'cause it's old. They are operating well past their design life. To put it another way, "we're stuffing more electrons in these jets than they know what to do with."

IMO, if we're to keep the A-10, the best approach would be to go whole-hawg (sorry) and start checking into the feasibility of producing new ones, eliminating obsolete equipment (that's still there just because removing it from existing aircraft would be more expense than it's worth), modernized for better compatibility with current upgrades, with more modularity and better engines.   Oh, and build a two-seat version. Heresy, I know, but freeing up the pilot to fly the jet while the WSO handles the pod work will do wonders for bombing accuracy and overall lethality.

But that's pretty much a pipe dream. The Air Force is hell-bent on making the F-22 and F-35 work, and for that, they're crapping on their workhorses like the F-15 and A-10. As old and dodgy as the A-10 is, the F-35 is no replacement for it.
 
2013-09-17 08:15:36 PM
LesserEvil:As for ground combat... again, eyes have very little to do with it. Nonetheless, these aren't fully autonomous drones we are talking about. Pilots are controlling some aspects that AI (can probably do, but) can't be fully trusted to do.

From someone's linked article:
Flying low and slow, the A-10s strafed the Taliban. The aviators' eyesight-and the bird's-eye view through the Warthog's big round canopy-was instrumental. "Even with all our top-of-the-line tools today, we still rely on visual references," the pilot said.

THE major drawback to drones is the lack of situational awareness. Solve that with more bandwidth and sensors, and we can discuss the other merits of the platform, but the tech isn't there yet.

That said, I think there IS an argument for designing a drone that fills the AC-130 mission profile.

// CSB:  I spent the day in the woods with an awesome sensor system, but I had to turn off the automatic features and do the work manually. I love it when it works, but there are still no substitutes for the Mk1 eyeball with a brain behind it.
 
2013-09-17 08:37:26 PM

Kittypie070: 2wolves: ModeratelyProfane: Newer isn't always better, chum.

Kabar, as one example.

I need someone to teach me how to fight with a Kabar. I has one and I love the thing dearly.


Find a non-SCA medieval group that does live steel.  Your profile says you're in Hell, aka Ohio, so look about.  You may want to see if there is a fencing group around for the footwork and balance (not kendo).
 
2013-09-17 08:45:27 PM

Kittypie070: 2wolves: ModeratelyProfane: Newer isn't always better, chum.

Kabar, as one example.

I need someone to teach me how to fight with a Kabar. I has one and I love the thing dearly.


Hold round end.  Make sure pointy end is towards the bad guy.  Stab.  Stab.  Stab.  Stab.  Stab.  Clean blade.  Go home.
 
2013-09-17 08:49:33 PM

Mock26: Ricardo Klement: 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.


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-17 08:52:10 PM

Cid_Highwind: But that's pretty much a pipe dream. The Air Force is hell-bent on making the F-22 and F-35 work, and for that, they're crapping on their workhorses like the F-15 and A-10. As old and dodgy as the A-10 is, the F-35 is no replacement for it.


The F-22 is a spectacular aircraft. The F-35 is primarily a replacement for the F-18 and also a replacement for the Harrier. It's really being driven by the Dept. of the Navy, not the Air Force.
 
2013-09-17 09:17:36 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.


TOO FAST

/waves nicely to the eltee
 
2013-09-17 09:51:19 PM

Silverstaff: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.

Not everyone.

People on the ground don't give a fark.  The Raptor is an air-to-air platform only.  No close air support capability.  No ability to directly influence land warfare.  It is outstanding at air superiority, the best air superiority fighter ever built by mankind. . .but for all you rule the air, the battle is ultimately won by the boots on the ground, and for that you need soldiers and/or marines and they need air support (of which the A-10 is the most outstanding aircraft for that role ever built, it's as good for CAS as the F-22 is for air superiority).


Nice newslettter, in a cyan green, Hope you likeee.
 
2013-09-17 09:57:58 PM

Kittypie070: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.

TOO FAST

/waves nicely to the eltee

clydewoman.files.wordpress.com
Too fast? ermagherd.  Slow downs.....
 
2013-09-17 10:05:25 PM

A10Mechanic: I need CAS, send in a drone!

SAID NO GROUND-POUNDER EVER!


THIS
 
2013-09-17 10:15:00 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: A10Mechanic: I need CAS, send in a drone!

SAID NO GROUND-POUNDER EVER!

THIS


What I suspect is the absolute best use of drones, from a ground-pounder's perspective, is overwatch while they're sleeping out on patrol. Just another pair of eyes to make sure they're not slaughtered because some green meat fresh in from the world needs to catch up on his beauty sleep.
 
2013-09-17 11:23:26 PM

Ricardo Klement: Mock26: Ricardo Klement: 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.


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 229x354]


OK, fair enough.  But that proves nothing except that in that situation a Hellfire missile barely scratched an M-1 tank.  I am pretty sure that in that particular war our troops were not going up against M-1 tanks.  Now how does the Hellfire fare against the tanks of other nations.  THAT is the question that truly matters.  How it fares against our own tanks is irrelevant.
 
2013-09-17 11:25:51 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: A10Mechanic: I need CAS, send in a drone!

SAID NO GROUND-POUNDER EVER!

THIS


That is a crock of crap.  If the unit gets the job done the ground pounder is not going to care if it is an A-10, a drone, an F-15, a hot air balloon, a B-17 or a Sopwith Camel.
 
2013-09-17 11:30:01 PM

Mock26: Ricardo Klement: Mock26: Ricardo Klement: 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.


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 229x354]

OK, fair enough.  But that proves nothing except that in that situation a Hellfire missile barely scratched an M-1 tank.  I am pretty sure that in that particular war our troops were not going up against M-1 tanks.  Now how does the Hellfire fare against the tanks of other nations.  THAT is the question that truly matters.  How it fares against our own tanks is irrelevant.


Probably pretty well against the vast majority of tanks we face.
 
2013-09-17 11:48:08 PM

Ricardo Klement: Mock26: Ricardo Klement: Mock26: Ricardo Klement: 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.


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 229x354]

OK, fair enough.  But that proves nothing except that in that situation a Hellfire missile barely scratched an M-1 tank.  I am pretty sure that in that particular war our troops were not going up against M-1 tanks.  Now how does the Hellfire fare against the tanks of other nations.  THAT is the question that truly matters.  How it fares against our own tanks is irrelevant.

Probably pretty well against the vast majority of tanks we face.


Oh, wait, was I supposed to be a monumental ass when replying to your post?  If so, my sincerest of apologies.  I sometimes forget and act civilized on Fark.

:-D
 
2013-09-18 01:51:58 AM

Kittypie070: 2wolves: ModeratelyProfane: Newer isn't always better, chum.

Kabar, as one example.

I need someone to teach me how to fight with a Kabar. I has one and I love the thing dearly.


1/leave kabar in sheath
2/use a firearm
 
2013-09-18 02:17:19 AM

bukijin: Kittypie070: 2wolves: ModeratelyProfane: Newer isn't always better, chum.

Kabar, as one example.

I need someone to teach me how to fight with a Kabar. I has one and I love the thing dearly.

1/leave kabar in sheath
2/use a firearm


Awwwwwww :(
 
2013-09-18 03:14:11 AM
Are you talking about fighting or playing at fighting ?

fighting with a knife (for what it is worth)...
knife is sharp so you don't need much (any) force to do lethal damage. Forget big slashes or big lunges which give them a chance to take it off you.

never point it at yourself - cut away from yourself - grip it firmly

2 possible strategies are to keep it hidden or to use it as a guard. A knife is better at attack than defense but if they have a weapon then go for their fingers.

knife is just one weapon in your arsenal so think about fighting not fighting-with-a-knife.

Any incident involving a knife is going to be beyond nasty and become an abattoir really quickly so it better be a life or death situation.

unarmed defense a knife is impossible.


Never trust your own personal safety to some free advice from some random guy on the internet. Find a good teacher if you really want to know.
 
2013-09-18 06:42:54 AM

Silverstaff: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.

Not everyone.

People on the ground don't give a fark.  The Raptor is an air-to-air platform only.  No close air support capability.  No ability to directly influence land warfare.  It is outstanding at air superiority, the best air superiority fighter ever built by mankind. . .but for all you rule the air, the battle is ultimately won by the boots on the ground, and for that you need soldiers and/or marines and they need air support (of which the A-10 is the most outstanding aircraft for that role ever built, it's as good for CAS as the F-22 is for air superiority).


That is highly dependent on what you are fighting.

Outside of tanks I would prefer a cobra flying around if I was on the ground.
 
2013-09-18 08:24:40 AM

Mock26: Ricardo Klement: Mock26: Ricardo Klement: Mock26: Ricardo Klement: 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.


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 229x354]

OK, fair enough.  But that proves nothing except that in that situation a Hellfire missile barely scratched an M-1 tank.  I am pretty sure that in that particular war our troops were not going up against M-1 tanks.  Now how does the Hellfire fare against the tanks of other nations.  THAT is the question that truly matters.  How it fares against our own tanks is irrelevant.

Probably pretty well against the vast majority of tanks we face.

Oh, wait, was I supposed to be a monumental ass when replying to your post?  If so, my sincerest of apologies.  I sometimes forget and act civilized on Fark.

:-D


Plus, really, there are a host of reasons why that particular hellfire didn't penetrate that particular tank. Weird things happen in war, and black swans abound. (On of the chief problems with classic wargames is their inability to capture highly unlikely results that empirically happened.)
 
2013-09-18 08:30:19 AM

liam76: Silverstaff: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.

Not everyone.

People on the ground don't give a fark.  The Raptor is an air-to-air platform only.  No close air support capability.  No ability to directly influence land warfare.  It is outstanding at air superiority, the best air superiority fighter ever built by mankind. . .but for all you rule the air, the battle is ultimately won by the boots on the ground, and for that you need soldiers and/or marines and they need air support (of which the A-10 is the most outstanding aircraft for that role ever built, it's as good for CAS as the F-22 is for air superiority).

That is highly dependent on what you are fighting.

Outside of tanks I would prefer a cobra flying around if I was on the ground.


Not sure. If given the choice, one thing I'd want to know is what their relative loiter times are. If I can have the A-10 for 2 hours and the AH-1 for 1 hour, I might go for the A-10 regardless of target. That should help inform your decision as to whether you prefer one aircraft over another.
 
2013-09-18 08:48:32 AM

Ricardo Klement: their relative loiter times


Good point.
 
2013-09-18 12:47:18 PM
sprawl15: 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.

For those of us who aren't in the know, can you take a step back and explain this to us? Boeing is basically on the hook for spec-less open-ended contract?
 
2013-09-18 01:21:38 PM

SuperNinjaToad: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]
[www.darkgovernment.com image 368x259] [www.sldinfo.com image 720x540]

This should put everyone's mind at ease.. no worries A-10's replacement is100X more capable.



Not according to Jane's Defense Weekly.
 
2013-09-18 04:03:12 PM

Ricardo Klement: Plus, really, there are a host of reasons why that particular hellfire didn't penetrate that particular tank. Weird things happen in war, and black swans abound. (On of the chief problems with classic wargames is their inability to capture highly unlikely results that empirically happened.)


One of the other problems is that when one side thinks out of the box, the box thinkers put them back in the box.
 
2013-09-18 04:17:52 PM

dittybopper: Ricardo Klement: Plus, really, there are a host of reasons why that particular hellfire didn't penetrate that particular tank. Weird things happen in war, and black swans abound. (On of the chief problems with classic wargames is their inability to capture highly unlikely results that empirically happened.)

One of the other problems is that when one side thinks out of the box, the box thinkers put them back in the box.


Yeah, no. That's not what I was talking about when I was talking "classic wargames". And much more is made of that Millennium Challenge than it deserves.

(Besides - you just flew lots of very expensive people, some of whom from thousands of miles away, and, what, you're NOT going to refloat the fleet and play again?)

You have to remember a game is only as good as the people who designed it. Don't let the fact computers were involved make you think there was substantial rigor in the realism of that game.
 
2013-09-18 04:25:04 PM

bukijin: Are you talking about fighting or playing at fighting ?

fighting with a knife (for what it is worth)...
knife is sharp so you don't need much (any) force to do lethal damage. Forget big slashes or big lunges which give them a chance to take it off you.

never point it at yourself - cut away from yourself - grip it firmly

2 possible strategies are to keep it hidden or to use it as a guard. A knife is better at attack than defense but if they have a weapon then go for their fingers.

knife is just one weapon in your arsenal so think about fighting not fighting-with-a-knife.

Any incident involving a knife is going to be beyond nasty and become an abattoir really quickly so it better be a life or death situation.

unarmed defense a knife is impossible.


Never trust your own personal safety to some free advice from some random guy on the internet. Find a good teacher if you really want to know.


[emphasis added for best parts]

Thank you :)
 
2013-09-18 04:38:55 PM

Ricardo Klement: The F-22 is a spectacular aircraft. The F-35 is primarily a replacement for the F-18 and also a replacement for the Harrier. It's really being driven by the Dept. of the Navy, not the Air Force.


The F-22 is spectacular on paper and at air shows. Its FMC rate is spectacular...ly bad.

Remember, there's more than one version of the F-35, and the Air Force has fully committed to the F-35A, which is intended to replace the F-16 and A-10.
 
Displayed 316 of 316 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report