It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Raptor sees the Warthog out

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 01:04 PM
I suspect that drones wil heavly paypoads and long loiter times will be the primary replacement for A-10s. With loiter times of up to 10 hours you could have close air support on hand right away all the time.

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 01:21 PM
I believe the A-10 had pretty much been decommissioned by the AF, or at least mostly given over to the ANG at the time of Gulf War I.

I personally think it's one of the most amazing attack aircraft ever built.
There were stories from Desert Storm of Iraqi soldiers surrendering to them (surrendering to a fixed wing aircraft, in a desert!).

I don't think there's anything in active inventory that can really replace it. The A-10 is a tough cookie, and the latest generations of aircraft wouldn't be able to take the beating the Warthog does.

I shall miss the A-10. I wish there wasn't a need for such an aircraft, but I'm glad this one came along.

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 02:45 PM
a reply to: MrSpad

I think you're right about UAVs. And I think helos will take over much of the base defense and TIC roles.

Do you guys and gals think this deployment will change some minds in congress/pentagon?

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 03:03 PM
a reply to: bally001Obama sent these guys bunches of stinger missiles from Libya which may prove to be detrimental to their use...

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 04:21 PM
a reply to: aholic

If anything it will strengthen there determination to keep the A-10. It was the AF that wanted to axe the A-10. Congress kept them in the inventory longer.
After we see some video of A-10 runs on ISIS, the cry that they still have a vital role will only get louder.

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 05:02 PM
a reply to: Sammamishman

Yes my thoughts exactly.

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 05:35 PM
HERE is their answer?

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 05:43 PM
a reply to: aholic

This is a dumb decision. Loiter time, quick deadly firepower, the psychological effect...

Its a flying tank. I am no expert but I dont know of another aircraft that can fly with half a wing missing, half a tail section, one engine and still land with messed up lang gear systems after being shot to hell. The A-10 is also the safest thing around for the pilot with a well armored cockpit.

This is a political decision to push more of the newer air frames. If keeping expenditure down and keeping soldiers alive was a priority then it would fly long into the future.

IMO they should have given it to the army or marines. Air force pilots like shiny sleek aircraft. Especially NEW shiny sleek aircraft....That has allot to do with it too...

edit on 10 3 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 06:09 PM
Oo-er...not sure about that A-29.
Wouldn't it make more sense to get the A-1 Skyraider operational again? (I keed, I keed!)

The A-10 was on its last legs (politically) in the early 1990s. What saved it was its amazing record in Iraq, and Afghanistan.
It's obviously a decent platform, and there's obviously a need (especially with the continual ME conflicts).
Perhaps a new A-X program? Warthog II?

Shoehorning fifth generation aircraft into the A-10 role seems to be a bit of a waste of technology. Kind of like taking a Bugatti Veyron off-road. Sure it'll work, but it won't be pretty. Better off taking a Land Rover.
The engine placement was not an accident either. No 5th gen has anything like it.

As with the Russian SU-25 and the A-10, a flying tank is a great weapon. Nothing fancy, minimal on-board equipment (remember the stories of A-10 drivers using the FLIR on their AGM-65s to see through the smoke?). Small turning radius, quiet, efficient.

I'm sure the AH-64 is a competent platform, and I haven't checked on the time over target stats against the A-10, or the range, but I'm sure there are arguments/missions for both.

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 06:45 PM
What about the Harrier? How's that compare?

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 07:44 PM
I am surprised they are sending the A-10 unless they converted it to unmanned, A-10u? lots of man pads over there hence the use of high level jets, see the Iraqis and Syrians losing helo's?

In regards to the A-10C, I think it's had its day, I fly one every day (DCS Warthog), I was flying circuits over an occupied city trying to find some tanks with the litening pod last night, 30 minutes I looked and couldn't find them!

with bandwidth and optics improving as they are, a light drone could fly overhead for hours with a rotating workforce sat comfortably in a non threat environment using the sensor package to scan, lots of pairs of eyes, better situational awareness and making better decisions to laser and guide in smart munitions from F-35 or others. Infinitely better than an A10 pilot loitering over a war zone.

I have been wondering, if you were shot down over ISIS territory, would you eject?

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 08:04 PM
a reply to: aholic

I kind of like the thought of ISIL staring down these things whilst crying for Allah and crapping themselves ...

Maybe I am being too harsh? ... Nah !

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 08:10 PM
The A-10 no longer needs or uses depleted uranium.

Depleted uranium was used to take out heavy tanks and has been replaced by hellfire missiles.

They now carry a mix of High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) rounds and High Explosive Incendiary tracer(HEIT)

There is so many weapons that can be packed by the A-10 that can not be packed by the F-35.

One of the strangest was putting 2 to 4 20mm or .50 cal gun pods under the wings for ground strafing.

The big thing with the warthog is that it can operate from dirt fields and can get down to knife fighting range on the targets.
Its also armored for close in work and can take a lot of damage.

The A-10 is the only aircraft with manual reversion, that means if the hydraulic system is shot out i can still fly.

The first thing a downed pilot is going to want to see is a warthog flying cover for him.
edit on 3-10-2014 by ANNED because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 08:42 PM
a reply to: ANNED

It really looks like we are getting a consensus here. I do wonder however the train of though in deploying these aircraft abroad. A platform that the Air Force is turning it's back on, why now?

Does the FSA or Iraqi army need CAS and we're too # scared to send an Army Combat Aviation Brigade?

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 03:46 AM

originally posted by: MrSpad
I suspect that drones wil heavly paypoads and long loiter times will be the primary replacement for A-10s. With loiter times of up to 10 hours you could have close air support on hand right away all the time.

Yep - they make a great deal more sense these days - no need for heavy armour, relatively cheap, pilots are easier to find and train.

Technology moves on - fighting ISIL with A-10's IS fighting the next war with the weapons of he last one - the A-10 was designed to crack open a Warsaw Pact tank assault - it's a great plane, but until Russia rolls a few Guards Divisions into Ukraine it isn't the right plane any more.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 04:04 PM
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

ISIS/ISIL has captured US-made and Russian made armored vehicles, heavy artillery, main battle tanks and short-range ballistic missiles. They captured two US-supplied divisions worth of modern equipment in Iraq.

They are an army, not just an insurgency. Don't underestimate them. They have defeated militaries (Iraq and Syria) on straight-up combat for strategic military depots and successfully captured them. They're the most powerful middle eastern army after Israel and Turkey, and maybe Iran.

I think they are in need quite a bit of A-tenning.
edit on 4-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 05:05 PM
a reply to: mbkennel

Russian made tanks do not make a Warsaw Pact armoured assault on western Europe - if you were around in the 1970's and interested in the Warsaw Pact you would remember that NATO was planning to be assaulted by anywhere from 75-130 divisions with up to 16,000 tanks (that JUST tanks - not including other armoured vehicles) - this congressional office report from 1976 provides an insight.

Drones are perfectly capable of taking out tanks, other vehicles, artillery - indeed I think that if current drone technology had been around in the 1970's the A-10 would never have been made in the first place - but regardless of that, the A-10 is made to fight the last way - the cold war turned hot at a time when it represented the cutting edge of technology.

It is no longer the cutting edge, and that particular cold war did not turn hot.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 06:11 PM
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

It may not be high tech.
It does however, have a particular sound to it as well as being a very visible marauder.

This does give a huge psychological advantage. It is also 'ol skool badass !

It is the equivalent to the Apache's big bro ! ... visibly threatening with well understood consequences.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 06:45 PM
a reply to: Timely

I wouldn't argue against any of that.

It just isn't enough.

ETA: You know all these arguments for keeping he A-10 are pretty much EXACTLY the same arguments for keeping horsed cavalry in the first part of the 20th century - including ht psychological ones - and they are also EXACTLY what causes armies to fight the next war with the weapons made for the last one!

edit on 4-10-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 06:54 PM
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Horses are still used as a Police tactic world wide.

The "Mounties" are known world wide.
They (horses) are large and intimidating at close quarters ... much like the A-10.

Maybe that is just enough ...

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in