Air Force considering A-10 replacement

a reply to: buckwhizzle

You could, but you wouldn't be able to carry very much with it, and they'd have to remove the gun to be able to generate enough lift to get airborne in anything but conventional flight mode.

There's a really good article on the A-10 insanity over at FoxtrotAlpha.

At What Point Does The USAF's War Against The A-10 Become Sabotage?

duplicate post. please ignore

originally posted by: TXRabbit
There's a really good article on the A-10 insanity over at FoxtrotAlpha.

At What Point Does The USAF's War Against The A-10 Become Sabotage?

I don't know anything about FA, but it seems to resonate in the last paragraph about not making money for the big Defence contractors and not getting those in high up positions 6 figure salaries. Very very sad state of affairs where the very few get rich at the expense of the poor (literally) grunt at the end of the line.

Similar to Rumsfeld pushing Blackwater getting paid more than the soldiers defending their bases.

It's just so morally wrong in a democracy.

I lose hope everyday that I can change anything, am just a slave.

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: TXRabbit
There's a really good article on the A-10 insanity over at FoxtrotAlpha.

At What Point Does The USAF's War Against The A-10 Become Sabotage?

I don't know anything about FA, but it seems to resonate in the last paragraph about not making money for the big Defence contractors and not getting those in high up positions 6 figure salaries. Very very sad state of affairs where the very few get rich at the expense of the poor (literally) grunt at the end of the line.

Similar to Rumsfeld pushing Blackwater getting paid more than the soldiers defending their bases.

It's just so morally wrong in a democracy.

I lose hope everyday that I can change anything, am just a slave.

I know Tyler Rogoway personally from FA and that guy is really good at his job. He used to run aviationintel.com until he got that gig. So i would reccommend his website to everyone.

originally posted by: buckwhizzle
a reply to: Zaphod58

Not knowing much about aircraft except for my love of the warthog.Would it be possible to put Osprey-type engines on the A-10?Or would that be too much.Thanks.

If you did that the gau would be useless because the thing would most likely drop out of the sky if it were fired. It wouldn't be able to generate enough thrust or lift to carry it either.

It'll be a sad day when they get rid of the A10. It says a lot about an aircraft when soldiers from a different nation across an ocean are fond of it. One on occasion when I was out on the ground in helmand our patrol was in the # and it was the A10 that got us out of a tricky spot. The compound walls over there are insanely thick and this one just crumbled in one long continuous cloud of dirt. It's a surreal sight looking up and looking right at the pilot go by because he is that low. When they are overhead the enemy keep their heads down. They save lives.

The fact they are so effective and so good at what they do is what makes them popular. I've no doubt they will still be effective for years to come. Tactical use of the airframe will provide a degree of survivability but with the advances in modern MANPADS and the ever growing circulation of effective anti air weapons their days are numbered. I don't think there will be another aircraft admired by the lads on the ground as much as this one. Or one as good at what it's built to do either. Future aircraft have technology on their side that the A10 didn't have the benefit of. But its a tough bugger and got the job done. Those are some big boots to fill.

originally posted by: boomer135

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: TXRabbit

There's a really good article on the A-10 insanity over at FoxtrotAlpha.



At What Point Does The USAF's War Against The A-10 Become Sabotage?

I don't know anything about FA, but it seems to resonate in the last paragraph about not making money for the big Defence contractors and not getting those in high up positions 6 figure salaries. Very very sad state of affairs where the very few get rich at the expense of the poor (literally) grunt at the end of the line.



Similar to Rumsfeld pushing Blackwater getting paid more than the soldiers defending their bases.



It's just so morally wrong in a democracy.



I lose hope everyday that I can change anything, am just a slave.

I know Tyler Rogoway personally from FA and that guy is really good at his job. He used to run aviationintel.com until he got that gig. So i would reccommend his website to everyone.

Well thats even sadder, that its likely true....

All the talk about a high threat environment and the survivability of the Hog is B.S. The Airforce's primary mission is to achieve air superiority in a conflict. Nothing an no one is safe if they can not accomplish that primary mission.

It is true with new tech the enemy in the field has many more options when dealing with low flying aircraft. Yet the army delivers troops into hostile environments using low and slow helicopters that just one golden BB can put out of commission.

As far as the Army being able to work on the A-10 there would be no problem. They work on much more technically challenged equipment all the time. IE a helicopter is an assortment of parts joined to do a mission that none of them want to do. Ask yourself this: Without air superiority who is safe on the ground or in the air with the sensors and munitions available today ?

The German Stuka dive bomber at one stage of WW2 struck fear into the hearts of their opponents until air defenses and opposing air superiority made them obsolete because of the losses. Russians developed a heavy hitting fixed wing aircraft to decimate the German Panzer divisions that worked quite well and its' development is still praised to this day as a turning point in the war.. The Sturmovik

youtu.be...
I personally believe the armed services of the USA need to be reorganized to actually win a high threat war and protect our ass sets. The Skyraiders and A-37s used in Vietnam would hang in there fighting long after the fast movers were back at base telling war stories. We had Uh-1h (Huey helicopters) provide close air support with nothing more than a door gunner and a M-60 machine gun until they were either shot down or more effect air support arrived on station. Very ineffective but it would keep the bad guys heads down and give them something else to shoot at besides the troops on the ground.

It really is a two way street as far as assets of the individual services go. I once had an Army officer bitching about the cost of one F-15 when compared to the Army's newest tank. He had said something like the Army could buy 5 or 7 tanks for the cost of one F-15.. My response was one F-15 could destroy his 7 tanks and shoot down enemy aircraft who also wanted to destroy his tanks all in a good days work. He was not pleased... Back to, without air superiority you are toast.

If will be interesting if and when our front line gold plated fighters actually have to go up against real opponents for air superiority and have to fly several missions a day due to their limited numbers. Hope the big boys in the planning departments got this one right or more lives will be lost due to piss poor planning and equipment. War sucks but it really sucks when you are getting your butt beat.

I sometimes wonder if some of the planners who once said guns are no longer needed on fighter aircraft are the ones still making the decisions for our armed services ?

a reply to: 727Sky

So according to you the only way to have air superiority is with 100% destruction of ground defenses? Because that's 90% of what is being talked about. In that case, no one has ever achieved air superiority. It's impossible to destroy all air defenses in a country.

NATO had air superiority over Iraq, twice, and still lost aircraft to ground defenses. They had air superiority in Yugoslavia, and lost aircraft to ground defenses. They had achieved air superiority over a large part of Vietnam, and guess what? They still lost aircraft to ground defenses. Air superiority doesn't mean that the ground defenses are completely destroyed, and the ground defenses are a serious threat to the A-10. It's slow, and it operates low, and deep in the threat envelope of those defenses, where other aircraft don't have to operate.

A hovering drone with 2 30mm guns with 5000 rounds each. It could also launch grenades and missiles. Low and slow and operated from the soldier on the ground.

a reply to: 727Sky

Comparing a Huey doing CAS in the jungles of Vietnam to an A-10 trying to do CAS in a contested threat environment is comparing apples to oranges. Yeah, the Huey and A-10 will work where the biggest threat is an AK-47 or the occasional RPG from below. They won't work on a battlefield to which the so called "Double Digit SAMs" and more capable MANPADS have proliferated.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The US also had air superiority in Afghanistan from day 1 and there were still multiple instances of SAM threats engaging coalition aircraft.

When is war becoming an OH&S reliant operation?
The A10 was designed from the ground up as a Tank Killer in the last years of the massed soviet attack threat.Hans Rudel gave his influence from flying the Ju87 during WW2 and survivability was one of the most important points he insisted on.A lot of ground attack aircraft during WW2 came from other specialties.P47 was initially an escort fighter,Typhoon and Tempest were to replace the Hurricane.Stuka was decimated during the BoB due to being vunerable to air threats when the RAF figured out their tactics.
Yes the A10 is getting old but survivability in the Battlefield as it is now still works.If they were suffereing constant losses to enemy fire than yes it needs looking at and replacing.Isn,t the reason the US is worried about next gen threats because of the next gen projects they are pushing forward with?
Keeping ahead by having a bigger stick isn,t the reason to kill off a platform that works.Didn,t they have the same drama with the first Gulf War when the Ah-64,s breaking down in the sand whereas the older Cobras did stirling work as they were easier to maintain and still have the firepower to take out tanks.

a reply to: Blackfinger

And finding out that your big gun isn't going to work well in a peer or near peer war, when you start losing them hand over fist is a bad way to win a war. You plan for the next war, not the one you just fought. In a peer or near peer war, the A-10 won't survive.

They're not talking about killing it off because it won't survive. It's getting old, and reaching the end of its life cycle. Even with the wing box being replaced to make them into C models, they're not going to last beyond 2027 either way. If they start on a replacement now, then they might have made first flight before then.

That's the same thinking they had with the Cold War..When that didn,t eventuate the world went to policing actions.Does the cold War mentality still survive but just with different nations?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I assure you I know the difference between air superiority and and ground based air defenses and am sorry if you could not discern that from my reply. If you think the F-35 can do the mission of the Hog until something else comes along then I hope you are correct for our troops sake. From what I have read both pro and con the F-35 appears to be another drawing board aircraft that after 10 or 20 years of expensive mods might make a real war fighter but even at that I will sit the next one out.

I think most of the stuff the US tax payers pay for these days in defense related matters is over priced and is a form of social security for the defense contractors and the heads of the programs when they leave the service. Not in every case but enough to make a thinking person wonder.

Since you seem to think the US Air Force is one step ahead of all others you should talk to some B-52 pilots or F-4 pilots who fought in Nam.. Ask them how fubar the frag orders were for the 52s and how many of our guys got killed because of no guns and # for missiles. The attitude that there are guys thinking about this stuff who are much smarter than you and me should be correct when salaries and education are looked at but unfortunately that seems to not always be the case due to politics and money..

Ground defense: Did you know that after the first three weeks of the incursion into Laos the First Cav had lost or had damaged all LOH-6 aircraft..There were no Loaches flying . That was due to ground fire from .51 cal and 23mm/37mm radar guided AAA and that was over 40 years ago so one needs to assume there are better things to knock an aircraft down now that does not cost a couple of million a shot..?

Air superiority: With the look down shoot down radars that many of our possible future first world enemies have if we do not clear the Skies of our enemies assets anything we are flying (even low level) will become an easy target and DRT.

Propaganda sometimes, and right on, at other times, but one needs to consider the propaganda element in everything we think we know and hear; especially with capabilities and cost when a new weapon system is proposed.

a reply to: 727Sky

I am very well aware of the problems in Vietnam. I'm also aware of many things most aren't about the F-35 that makes it more capable than you think.

But please, point out where I said the F-35 is a capable replacement for the A-10. I'm curious to see that.

You say you're aware of the difference yet all you talk about is the air to air threat. The danger to the A-10 is very real and much more than air to air.

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: 727Sky

Comparing a Huey doing CAS in the jungles of Vietnam to an A-10 trying to do CAS in a contested threat environment is comparing apples to oranges. Yeah, the Huey and A-10 will work where the biggest threat is an AK-47 or the occasional RPG from below. They won't work on a battlefield to which the so called "Double Digit SAMs" and more capable MANPADS have proliferated.

No argument from me for I totally agree

a reply to: Zaphod58

You say you're aware of the difference yet all you talk about is the air to air threat. The danger to the A-10 is very real and much more than air to air.

Agreed it is the nature of the mission.....Remember how many were ragging on the Brits and their losses during the Iraq war ? Their losses had more to do with the mission they were doing instead of the aircraft and tactics.
Up close and personal always has more risk than push a button from afar and watch the enemy disappear.

a reply to: big_BHOY

I've heard that retiring the hog will save the AF 4.2 billion. That's no slim pickin'. Plus the -35 will be a great CAS platform you just have to give it a chance. Don't get me wrong I love the hog, always have but it's time.