A-10 warthog not being retired until 2022...and oh btw we're using depleted uranium bullets

a reply to: derfreebie

Justin wondering, but what DO you recommend irradiating the surface of the planet with, then? I once gathered up about 20 old Smoke detectors, salvaged the AM241 sources, mechanically shredded and pulverized the sealed source capsules and source material, and salted some 12 gauge wax/birdshot slugs with it. He'll of a defensive round. If one were to get shot with it, not only would there be numerous lead pellets for the surgeons to locate and remove, but the wound cavity is irreversibly contaminated with very fine particulate alpha and Gamma emitter. "All healed up? Good, here's some cancer of the everything-in-your-abdomen. Bet you won't mess with that dude again."

I'm absolutely not serious about that post, just for the record. It was an idea a friend of mine and I jokingly tossed around, along with wax slugs made with sand and dirty cat litter. We were just trying to think of the most ridiculously cruel things that shotgun shells could be packed with.

a reply to: Bedlam

DU density is nice, but two other properties of DU are vastly more important to making the GAU-8 and A-10 a viable tank killer.

1. Self sharpening penetrators: unlike tungsten based rounds a DU round actually keeps forming a new point as the rounds nose is sheared or ablated away. This gives it a hugely helpful boost in penetrating ability.

2. Behind armor effect: DU is also pyrophoric, meaning that as it penetrates a tanks armor the fragments and ablated particles begin to burn with major intensity. This means that even a penetrating hit to a non essential area will spew flaming debris three the interior.

These two factors are the only reason the A-10 and it's gun are still capable of busting up heavy armored formations. Take away the DU and the warthog will no longer be a tank killer.

originally posted by: roguetechie

Nothing wrong with a pyrophoric round.

a reply to: Bedlam

I agree completely.

That and it's self sharpening trick are two of the three major factors allowing the GAU-8 to be effective. Factor three is the axis of attack. Or put another way, you can't armor a tank against 30mm DU over its entirety. Even some AFV now sport frontal arc protection against 30mm rounds, their tops however are not this heavily armored.

The designers of A-10 realized that and set about building a system that excels at top attack. You see the same techniques now used on smart artillery munitions and atgm systems like javelin. Rather than try to build systems which punch through 1200 millimeters armor steel equivalent, they instead attack from altitude diving almost straight down into the tank roof which is usually much less well protected.

a reply to: roguetechie

If I recall correctly, the reactive armor systems aren't terribly effective against DU rounds, either, are they?
It's the self-sharpening property and overall density and hardness of the round.
Though, reactive armor is mainly designed for self-propelled ordinance from my understanding, such as the RPG, TOW, etc.

originally posted by: pfishy
I'm absolutely not serious about that post, just for the record. It was an idea a friend of mine and I jokingly tossed around, along with wax slugs made with sand and dirty cat litter. We were just trying to think of the most ridiculously cruel things that shotgun shells could be packed with.

I apologise for the late reply-- didn't check my box till this AM.
And really I don't recommend irradiating anywhere with depleted
000 sized dried blueberries, much less Uranium..
I should have put in a request (along with may others) for a sarc
smiley. I like the cat- ammoniated sand for buckshot: but that's
surely Hell for the inside of the tube. Still gotta sting though...

a reply to: pfishy

So when it comes to reactive armor the thing to remember is it's like bubble wrap for shipping stuff. Once you pop a bubble it no longer protects. Each tile is fairly large and at 80 rounds per second you're likely to put several rounds through the area one tile protects. Reactive armor is however designed to be very effective against apfsds rounds with secondary attention paid to HEAT/EFP style attacks. It works by literally driving a plate at a diagonal angle to the penetrating object using an explosive charge. This tends to upset the flight path and or even induce enough shearing stress to break the long thin dart apfsds rounds fire. It also works to break up gas jets and copper brass etc slugs from HEAT/EFP munitions.

Your questions have reminded me why I love the A-10 so much. It's in many ways an amazingly simple aircraft that was the product of truly brilliant engineering to make such a simplemachine employ an extremely sophisticated strategy for breaking armored formations!

The levels of finesse and carefully calculated synergies required for it to actually work are what I strive to emulate in my own engineering efforts.

a reply to: derfreebie

We'll, that's what an old smooth bore is good for. I wouldn't try to shoot it out of my Saiga.
As for the actual litter, we were discussing the virtues of using both types of 'feline-imparted additives' to better ensure the chance of severe infection. And actually, I have seen commercially produced shells that contain sand and dirt for pretty much the same purpose.

a reply to: roguetechie

I have to say, I love the A10 as well. It will be a sad day to see it relegated to the dustbin of combat history. Besides, no matter what the replacement craft is, I doubt the 'brrrrrt' will sound as sweet.

a reply to: pfishy

Exactly,

The A-10 and really many of the aircraft we depend on were the product of an era when a reform movement successfully held the multirole mafia at bay. What's sad is that the A-10 could be the replacement for the A-10 with a handful of downright affordable upgrades.

Newer engines, better sensors and electro optical gear, and the necessary equipment to use current and future weapon systems would benefit the aircraft greatly. Longer range and increased performance for close attack missions. Longer loiter time and higher altitude combined with PGM's and ISR gear would make it a very viable aircraft for cruising above MANPAD ceiling and providing real time data to groups on the ground spread over a wide area.

The best part is that should things hit the fan your observation aircraft and pgm truck can get down on the deck and wreck someone's world before they can overrun troops in the field. With these upgrades, A-10 could do this day or night rain or shine.

a reply to: roguetechie

You are absolutely correct. Sadly. The current airframe and power plants can support the upgrades you mentioned with minimal modification. And while I will argue that Multi-Role combat aircraft certainly have a place in modern combat, nobody in their right mind would send an F-22 or an F-35 against an advancing line of ground armor as anything but an absolute last resort.
Yes, obviously they can run a sortie from high altitude with a DAM or SOW, but on a rapidly evolving battlefield that capability is useless once your own troops are in close-quarters with the enemy. And what battlefield isn't rapidly evolving? So they would have to rely on SAM capabilities, but in that capacity they fall FAR short of the Warthog.

The Warthog is one of the finest military aircraft in service around the world.

Typically, because it is one of the best, the USAF establishment hates it. They've wanted to get rid of it since it's introduction. The USAF has never liked Close Air Support.

a reply to: Ohanka

Especially the modern commanders. They are making every effort to turn our Air Force into a "push button, go home" military branch.
Unfortunately, as we have seen time and time again, and should have figured out by now, very few of our potential or actual adversaries ever agree to play by those rules. Guerrilla warfare works when it's used against an army that depends on rigid strategy and shuns any PR issues. That's why the mountain men of the Appaliachians were so effective against the British forces during the American War of Independence. The British stuck to their time-honored strategies and techniques while the "uncouth local rabble" were ambushing their supply lines, sniping them from the forests, and *gasp* hiding behind cover instead of forming orderly, regimented combat lines. The Americans depended on their rifles every day to feed their families, and that amount of game hunting teaches you either stealth or how to fail and starve.

The modern enemies we face, (ISIS, for example) may have some artillery and armor seized from or surrendered by the troops they have defeated. And most of that is ours. But the Brass seems to limit their own perspective of ongoing combat to us facing an enemy that prefers to conduct warfare the way our forces do. And that's absolutely not the reality of the issue. CINC ties the hands of our military commanders so as to avoid any incidents that could tarnish his legacy. It well before now, but really got a running start during the Vietnam War. Johnson actually took a direct hand in framing certain rules of engagement and deciding what targets were off-limits because he didn't want to look even worse presiding over an unpopular war. Yes, exerting a reasonable efforts to minimize civilization casualties is certainly never the wrong decision. But fixed the rules governing that effort with near-absolute rigidity is harmful to the war effort, and just plain stupid. If your enemy is building chemical weapons to use on your, and using 3 of the ten rooms in a schoolhouse to do so, it is certainly a tricky call to make. But once you decide that particular school is off limits to protect the children, they will set up infrastructure in every school they can, because they know you don't have the spine to come after them there. Even though though they, themselves, don't care one bit that they're exposing the kids to Sarin or VX or whatever.
Ask an Oncologist how the US's current enemies should be fought. They'll tell you that, like any other cancer, you must try to damage as little healthy (civilian) tissue as possible. But if the tumor is in the femur, you cut the whole leg off, and give the knee, ankle and toes and honorable goodbye. When a cancer is involved, either it dies or the patient dies. And you can't dictate the rules of successful treatment to the tumor. It will spread, metastasize, and destroy as fast as it can. The only positive thing about cancer is that it isn't capable of waging a PR war against the doctor for killing a few healthy cells around it.
Until we can overcome the ridiculous idea that all warfare has modernized to the level of our own capabilities, we will win battles, get black eyes from the public, and never win the war.
I have an old demo tool (Hammer, hatchet, pry bar combo). It is a fantastic and versatile tool. Kobalt makes one with even more functions than mine now. And the rubber grip mine is torn. Does that mean I am going to throw it away? Not a chance. It's actually a more durable tool when used for its handful of intend purposes. And I have made a couple of minor tweaks to it that added ability. Does that mean I won't buy the newer Kobalt tool? Nope, already own one. But my older tool, for the three main intended functions, is sturdier and better suited. The Kobalt tool has so many different notches and holes in it to do new things that I honestly don't trust it's longevity.
The F-22 Raptor is (potentially, hopefully) a fantastic tool of war. As is the F-35 JSF. But they simply aren't designed to chew up earth and armor in close combat. Sure, they can cause some damage, but they have much lower survivability in those roless.
You wouldn't use a precision jewellers screwdriver to chisel marble for a statue. It might work for a minute, but it simply isn't up to the task. And demanding the marble soften itself to conform to the capability of your equipment is just f'ing stupid.

*large inhale*
Sorry for the rant, folks.

Much love,
pfishy

a reply to: coldkidc

The Air Force was planning to start mothballing the A-10 fighter in 2018 and retirement of all A-10s by 2021. But last month Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James said that the retirement of the A-10 would likely have to be delayed further as the military continues to rely on the low-and-slow attack plane for close-air support (CAS) missions flown against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria. Even more telling, the Air Force Material Command (AFMC) is bringing the depot line for A-10 maintenance and repair back up to full capacity[.

Nextbigfuture, Oct 27, 2016 - A-10 Fighter supporters have defeated the US Air Force leadership by delaying A-10 retirement indefinitely.

Just reading about space and stuff and saw this. Figured I'd share. So like the Energizer Bunny, the A-10 keeps going, and going, and going. So much for budget targets like Chuck Hagel wanted (ATS link here).

I do like the thing at airshows! All the swooping and diving and flare dropping for CAS. It is a real crowd pleaser.

a reply to: roguetechie

The future should be a standoff F-35 functioning as a comm-link and target identifier for a few UCAV's designed for ground attack.

Newer engines, better sensors and electro optical gear, and the necessary equipment to use current and future weapon systems would benefit the aircraft greatly. Longer range and increased performance for close attack missions. Longer loiter time and higher altitude combined with PGM's and ISR gear would make it a very viable aircraft for cruising above MANPAD ceiling and providing real time data to groups on the ground spread over a wide area.

That's what the F-35 has. What it doesn't have is a whole bunch of bullets and armor. If you outsource that to something cheap and optionally disposable......

If they are considering keeping the A-10, it means the UCAV's under development aren't working as well as they hoped.

As I understand, the A-10's gun, even with DU ammunition, is ineffective against modern armor (Iraq or Syria never had any), and those missions would be F-35, Apache with missiles, Abrams with AP rounds, and ground troops with Javelin.

I have had an A-10 round as a curio for years.



Is it possible this is a DU round? or does the color of the shell give it away to be something else?
(it is inert, of course)

a reply to: pryingopen3rdeye

Funny I never MET any prejudiced troopers .
They as I don't really understand Islam and until that NASTY third is dealt with all are suspicious because of FAITH the term "Rag head" may be a prejudicial term for YOU ,but like Charley or Kraut it isn't at all a racial hatred ,it's the current enemy and the name that stuck.and IT SURE AS HELL isn't common ,it isn't JUST their faith and how WE percieve it.
It IS changing if too slowly.
DU is naturally Pyrophoric (i.e., burns when it hits the target at high speed). That's why there is a light show when you watch videos of A10's hitting a target. Also explains the high incidence of radiation exposure for U.S. Service Personnel who come in contact with said targets.
JUST don't tell the VA they WILL NOT test for it.
I wonder if they will even recognize a civilian test in our care?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Also explains the high incidence of radiation exposure for U.S. Service Personnel who come in contact with said targets.

A lot of metals are pyrophoric to some degree. Radiation and pyrophoria are not related in any way.

Also, DU isn't very radioactive at all. You could be exposed to a lot of DU for a long long time and not show symptoms of 'radiation exposure'. Which is why M1A1's have DU in their armor and the guys don't come out with tentacles.

The problem with DU is that it's chemically poisonous.

originally posted by: charlyv
I have had an A-10 round as a curio for years.

OMG! OMG! RUUUUUN!

It resembles a GenDyn PGU-13/B HEI shell that they've removed the fuse from, probably gutted, and replaced the fuse with a dummy. The HEI fuse is normally red. Other than that, it looks pretty much identical.

There are other manufacturers of this shell and they are all different looking which is sort of odd, usually there's some conformity of appearance forced by the spec. Yellow bands/triangles/squares generally mean HE, for example, which fits here.