It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Air Force considering A-10 replacement

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

Because the best systems on board are either classified, or get mentioned on line 50 of a 75 line blurb, so it's buried where if you blink you miss it.
I think it's just one of them aircraft that everybody loves to hate. Be good to finally see them in action in a live environment.




posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

It's hard not to. All anyone hears is this problem and that problem, and how much it is going to cost. Nothing about what it can really do.

I used to think it was a piece of junk that needed to go away as quickly as possible. Then I learned a few things that changed my mind.
edit on 2/20/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

500 rounds?
THAT won't last a full strafe sweep.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
The A-10 was made to kill Russian tanks in WW3. Tanks are becoming obsolete, because they are designed to fight opposing armies in battles of conquest, and to fight in concentrated formations. The battles of the future will be battles of occupation, and the typical enemy will not have armored task forces.

The A-10 no longer has its raison d'être.

The replacement for the A-10 would be a blimp. Long loiter time and tons of ordinance.

Or maybe a dedicated orbital platform.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

And around the time of Vietnam, aircraft didn't need guns because A2A was only going to be missiles from then on.
edit on 2/20/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I think a jack of all trades is probably the best idea to run with what with the global climate these days and the ever changing threat. You just don't want the good at everything master of nothing scenario with this aircraft what with the high hopes that are pinned on it. It says a lot about the GAU when people are more concerned with losing the 30mm cannon than the shift around in CAS platforms.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: justwanttofly
originally posted by: mbkennel

And what happens when modern air defense systems proliferate to countries that we might fight in the future? Even if the US isn't fighting the Russians, the Russian SAM systems that have been sold to another country that we are fighting will make quick work of the US's 4th gen fleet.

I think you mean the F-15E, not SE. The Silent Eagle hasn't been purchased by anyone yet.


I believe hes refering to the strike eagle, not the silent eagle. The F-15E.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: JedisonsDad
To Zaphod, boomer135, and other fellow airmen, how does this thread not have you bashing your head against a desk?

All I see in this particular thread is people defending the A-10 based on emotion, with complete disregard for actual facts, all because of either what they read on Wikipedia about technical specs, lack of knowledge about real world tactics, or "cool" factor.

Yes, the A-10 is a great plane, but it has its flaws. It is no longer working its original mission, it occasionally stumbles at its current mission, and it has performed past its life span. Dumping money into maintaining an outdated weapons system that no longer has a production line of parts coming is foolish. What was once a simple cheap fix, now gets more and more expensive due to parts availabily (or lack thereof).

A new platform just makes sense.


Im not defending it based on emotion. Im defending it based on the actual troops that praise the aircraft. The troops that call for CAS and specifically always ask for the A-10 over the viper or eagle. Those are the guys we need to be listening to, not the people who just look up the jet on wikipedia like you stated.

And i agree, it has its flaws. But where it excels is in the type of wars that weve been fighting for the last 15 years. I would love to see a new aircraft dedicated to the CAS mission, but its just not going to happen. The F-35 will take over the A-10s role and we need to get behind it so we can make it a better aircraft for the mission. Cause its going to happen, so why not help the program mature into something the troops on the ground will want?



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Semicollegiate

And around the time of Vietnam, aircraft didn't need guns because A2A was only going to be missiles from then on.


That must have been a funding thing about missile development. Seems to me a gun is a no brainer against turbo prop bombers.

On the other hand, when the missiles-only idea started, our planes were very fast but not dog-fighters. Like the F-102 and the F-106, our planes made to shoot nuke (if necessary) A2A against multitudes of bogeys. They were made fast so as to scramble and intercept in response to a surprise attack, but they would have been out numbered and so spending extra on maneuverability was a bad return on available resources. Better to get there quick, kill 4 to 1 with missiles, and return to base for a possible second sortie.

The weapons in the cold war were designed to fight WW3, mostly in Europe, against the Warsaw Pact. The IFF would be easier as the bogeys would be in big formations, or at least obviously from the East.

Everything about Vietnam was skewed from the basic mission of the Department of Defense, which was to win against an invasion of the West by the full power of the Communist Forces.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

It wasn't funding. Missiles were the future, and there weren't going to be any more dogfights. Since there weren't going to be dogfights, there was no reason for a gun to be mounted. That's why the F-4 didn't get one until the E model flew IIRC. They used gun pods prior to then.
edit on 2/20/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:07 AM
link   
The A-10 Thunderbolt isn't obsolete for engaging insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with the war on terror to go on for the forseeable future they should keep it. I like the AH-64 Apache for CAS, 30mm gun with 1200 rounds, Hellfire missiles and rockets, can hover and stay close to friendly ground units. Can also rearm and refuel from forward operating points and doesn't need a runway.
edit on 21-2-2015 by JimTSpock because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimTSpock
The A-10 Thunderbolt isn't obsolete for engaging insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with the war on terror to go on for the forseeable future they should keep it. I like the AH-64 Apache for CAS, 30mm gun with 1200 rounds, Hellfire missiles and rockets, can hover and stay close to friendly ground units. Can also rearm and refuel from forward operating points and doesn't need a runway.


The Apache is by far the most welcome sight in the skies if you're on the ground it's loved more than any other CAS platform. The Taliban would just down tools and spread to the four winds upon hearing it never mind actually seeing it. The only downfall it has is the fact it can be hit with anything from a MANPAD weapon to a dushka. It's more effective than the A-10 in my eyes.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Hornets would routinely do close-in runs in Afghanistan with only 500 rounds of ammo, many times less.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

It isn't comparable AT ALL to an A-10 as a CAS platform.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Well let's be real then. There's no evidence it is or isn't because they are just starting to fly now. I have faith and have heard some very telling information that once this aircraft sees action it won't disappoint. Every single fighter or bomber ever built has seen lots of hate and controversy before and even after its IOC, even the A-10. It's really no more of less with the -35.

In any conflict the need for stealth is what's called a "day one priority". Once the Air Force establishes superiority, the ground pounding begins. The -35 contributes to this with it's internal stores. It can then transition into a weapons hauler once air space has been opened, assisting troops on the ground. ONE aircraft, three phases of war. By the time it transitions to the CAS role, stealth is no longer a priority. And a -35 brimming with Hellfires is still stealthier than an A-10 with none.

Not saying we don't need a dedicated 5th gen CAS platform, we do...but until we get one the -35's going to do just fine.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Slightly off topic.

Sgt Paul Grahame is a man anyone in this thread should take a look at. He was a JTAC calling in 500lbers literally on top of his own head (5m between friendlies and Taliban) and directing the blast away from cut off troops. That's inside the danger close for 30mm.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7


It isn't comparable AT ALL to an A-10 as a CAS platform.


Its not?
breakingdefense.com...


Then why is it that a vast majority of CAS, +80%, is conducted with other aircraft using guided munitions?



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

AVAILABILTY comes to mind...



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

...might have something to do with it.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
So if there is a new CAS platform to replace A-10, and availability and expense of F-35 mean it won't be able to fill the role, or we are engaged in long term fighting against insurgents and not nations where the F-35 golden hammer is not worth using on rusty old nails, what would be an ideal, but modern design.

So we want a BFO gun, could a directed energy weapon, say in next 20 years replace the GAU-8 or what about some sort of rail gun?

It's got to be tough, engines on top? Self fixing fuel tanks, shielded cockpit and avionics, multiple redundant fly by fire system, that nano skin that heals itself.

ability to fly fast and slow, variable geometry or lift fan?

Missiles, guided FFAR types? More accurate but perhaps data linked to an awesome acquisition computer (what are the ones with tungsten darts?)

SDB - ability to carry lots

Able to carry so much ordnance and fuel and stay on station, lifting body, 2 pilots or semi autonomous to relieve fatigue, could ferry and loiter unmanned?

Awesome target pod with ability to track lots of small targets, perhaps linked to the ground operators to assist in situational awareness and really accurate aiming (say can fire a small guided missile through a window in a block of flats).

Anyone want to design it?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join