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  
•       •       •

18505 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2013 at 9:08 AM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-17 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
 
Displayed 50 of 316 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report