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 58
    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 (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-17 08:59:45 AM
10 votes:

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.
2013-09-17 09:23:41 AM
8 votes:
Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
defense-update.com
DAR [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 09:00:42 AM
4 votes:
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 09:24:31 AM
3 votes:

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 10:55:16 AM
2 votes:

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 10:10:31 AM
2 votes:
I love A-10 threads.. they're like pizza/burger/barbecue threads.
2013-09-17 10:04:40 AM
2 votes:

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 09:47:28 AM
2 votes:

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 09:28:37 AM
2 votes:

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 09:25:14 AM
2 votes:

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 09:17:36 PM
1 votes:

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 05:52:54 PM
1 votes:
I need CAS, send in a drone!

SAID NO GROUND-POUNDER EVER!
2013-09-17 04:58:06 PM
1 votes:

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 03:59:39 PM
1 votes:

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 03:55:39 PM
1 votes:
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 12:46:46 PM
1 votes:

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 12:43:26 PM
1 votes:

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 12:36:36 PM
1 votes:

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 12:31:08 PM
1 votes:

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


If this is sarcasm, well done.
2013-09-17 12:28:17 PM
1 votes:
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 12:25:41 PM
1 votes:

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 12:23:48 PM
1 votes:

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 12:23:20 PM
1 votes:

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 11:39:41 AM
1 votes:

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 11:27:57 AM
1 votes:
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 11:19:31 AM
1 votes:
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 11:19:09 AM
1 votes:

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 10:59:31 AM
1 votes:
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 10:59:07 AM
1 votes:

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 10:29:50 AM
1 votes:

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 10:21:36 AM
1 votes:

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 10:16:38 AM
1 votes:

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 10:14:52 AM
1 votes:

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 10:13:22 AM
1 votes:

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 10:11:45 AM
1 votes:

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 10:05:21 AM
1 votes:
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 10:05:00 AM
1 votes:

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 10:04:53 AM
1 votes:
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 10:04:51 AM
1 votes:
Christ, they've been trying to get rid of the A-10 since before Kosovo.
2013-09-17 10:03:13 AM
1 votes:

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 09:42:18 AM
1 votes:

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 09:42:12 AM
1 votes:

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 09:41:59 AM
1 votes:

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 09:40:55 AM
1 votes:

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 09:35:39 AM
1 votes:

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 09:35:02 AM
1 votes:

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 09:33:25 AM
1 votes:
Couldn't this serve in place of the A-10?

community.warplanes.com
2013-09-17 09:29:03 AM
1 votes:

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 09:27:25 AM
1 votes:

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 09:25:59 AM
1 votes:

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 09:25:10 AM
1 votes:

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 09:24:18 AM
1 votes:

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


You're kidding, right?
2013-09-17 09:24:03 AM
1 votes:
One Nation, One Plane, All Missions: The F-35
2013-09-17 09:21:18 AM
1 votes:
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 09:20:21 AM
1 votes:

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 09:18:50 AM
1 votes:
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 08:52:26 AM
1 votes:
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 08:27:49 AM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 58 of 58 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report