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 Moving Forward With A-10 Replacement Option

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun

A patrol or squad is trapped by a bunch of baddies and you have a couple of F-35s lift off from a close base to save the day? Not a good use of war weapons. And who cares what it CAN carry in tacked on munitions if they are not strategic weapons? A cannon for Heaven's sake! Man, it took a lot engineering to tuck that sucker in there. How much did that cost?


After it has used its stealth to open the door it can then freely move through the open door with 'tacked on weapons' that are much more useful than a big gun and if doesn't need stealth to open the door then it can still be operating closer to the trapped squad thanks to its speed.

Its all going to be lasers by the time the A-10 retires anyway, pew pew instead of Braaaaap!








edit on 16 4 2016 by Forensick because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

What about the attack Osprey?

foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Bfirez

One of the military aviation groups on FB used this article. I made the mistake of actually being logical and saying that the A-10 is, unfortunately, the most logical place to cut. Jesus talk about a mistake.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Lol sounds fun, got a link?



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Bfirez

I'll dig it up this evening when I'm on the laptop. I had to walk away when some guy told me MC was NOT Mission Capable, but was Mission Critical and talking about Mission Critical rates of the B-1, B-52, and B-2 in a third world country was lame.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Can't forget about those Critical Missions, they're Critical after all....



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Bfirez

It really was pretty lame to talk about Mission Critical rates in a third world country, considering that two of the three platforms haven't been based in theater in like 8 years and one hasn't even been in theater in almost that long.

Check your messages.
edit on 4/18/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Never try to talk to people that think they A-10 is the be all end all. It is some of the most painful things in the world trying to convince people we need an A-10 replacement just on age alone. Don't even try to mention that the gun doesn't really do its primary function well anymore vs modern armor. Its like trying to tell congress we don't need any more Abrams.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle


We probably do need something, though. The DoD should be able to do much more given it's budget. We all know an audit is way overdue.

Something like the A-10 should be so simple and fiscally responsible to maintain and deploy. I think something with a similar planform as the A-10 would work with some better electronic countermeasures built in, ability to communicate and work directly with 5th-gen fighters, upgraded engines that take advantage of advancements in the field, and most importantly a new cannon that will free up a good portion of that Volkswagen for more fuel and more loiter time.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Caughtlurking

The problem, and I'll keep pointing this out until I'm blue in the face if I have to, is the generational system. Instead of making something that works for a specific mission, they're trying to fit everything into a generation.

And each generation costs exponentially more than the last. In 1998 an F-15C cost just under $30M. Seven years later, and one generation more advanced, an F-22 cost $150M. The F-35A is down just under $100M, but that's just airframe cost. The engine is another $10-15M.

Yes, an audit is overdue, but a paradigm shift needs to occur now rather than later.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You're right; of course, haven't said you weren't. The money is going somewhere. If the consumer aviation, automobile, etc can do it cheaper generationally I don't understand why the government can't. That's why the audit would clear a lot off air. Money always leaves a trail. I remember doing inventory on equipment to go to turn in because it was decommissioned and the command buying new gear and sending that to be destroyed rather than just admitting it was lost. That's the kind of blatant waste going on.

No one gets fired and paradigms don't shift without undeniable evidence.
edit on 21-4-2016 by bra1nwash because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Reopen the Cavalry branch as a combined arms element and give it to us.
Screw the treaty we have had Mohawks for decades it's time for change.
edit on 21-4-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join