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.

 

Once at risk of extinction, iconic Warthog plane lives on

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Didn't the pictures of the NK parade show their tanks having some man pads crudely welded to them?

So it's possible that even after the big SAMs are neutralised you couldn't use a hog as a tank buster.

Warfare is moving on, we could have a reaper with 6 hellfire assigned to patrols to give CAS.




posted on May, 27 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
How would it work repainting the Hogs with RAM and adding some Optical stealth systems?The A10 is only one link in the chain with offense..I would think a lot of the higher value assets would take out military infrastructure before the A10s went in..Has anyone done Wargames with known NK assets?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

They test fired a KN-06 today. From appearances it's the equivalent of the S300 and FT-2000. The missile is bigger than the S300 missile, but shorter in overall length. It seems to have a range of 150 km, compared to 70-90 for the S300.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Forensick

They test fired a KN-06 today. From appearances it's the equivalent of the S300 and FT-2000. The missile is bigger than the S300 missile, but shorter in overall length. It seems to have a range of 150 km, compared to 70-90 for the S300.


Both of which dwarf the stand of range of an A-10C which would be what, 14 km?



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 02:49 AM
link   
I love the A10. brrrrrrrrrrt!



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick
Maverick has a range of about 22kms..Hellfire is 8kms.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
We can't afford them because we're so busy rebuilding and upgrading aircraft that we've worn out flying missions they shouldn't have to fly. There is no reason to spend millions of dollars a mission top fly aircraft against people that have effectively no defenses.

They are busy rebuilding the tactical fighter fleets now, because they fought two major wars after a decade of cutbacks during the Clinton years. The fleet should have been regenerated in the early 2000s at the latest but this was impossible due to wartime needs.
But this is exactly why a focus on less platforms with greater loitering time and ammuniton capacity makes so much sense.
Instead of using dozen legacy fighter jets and a couple of tankers to get the neccessary ordnance in the AO, one strategic platform can do the same while requiring only a fraction of the logistical support a fighter squadron needs.
Sure, you wear out the bomber fleet. But is far more efficient to keep a couple of dozen bombers flying than ruining literally hundreds of fighter jets.



Remember that? We don't need the best weapons ever for every mission either.


No you dont. You need solutions that work within the current budget. How is it a solution to purchase yet another type of aircraft for a specific Mission, when the Air Force will have an impossible job to keep the current numbers of aircraft?
Purchasing aircrafts just because they might safe some money in a hypothetical future conflict ten years down the road doesnt make much sense. Especially not when you can get the job done with existing aircraft.

edit on 28-5-2017 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Right, keep wearing out the existing fleet instead of spending a little more money on something that could prove really useful. Yes they fought two wars, but if we had a better mix of forces we could have withdrawn at least part of the force before they were in the condition they are in now.

And we wonder why we are in such screwed up shape. Everyone wants super high tech or the shiniest new toy instead of having something that might not be used but could save us millions.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Exactly, a COIN platform could prove useful if the US decides to fight yet another low intensity conflict a decade down the road. But only if the other sides doesnt get their hands on some semi decent anti air capability until then. And only if the US actually deploys the neccessary troops and maintains airbases in the AO. A handful of SOF units wont do.
Not very likley to say the least.

Dont insist on arming yourself for yesterdays wars. Yes, a coin plartform would have been a great asset 15 years ago. But we are not living in the early 2000s anymore and we are not looking at major force deployment to the Middle East. The US is done fighting major ground wars in the Middle East. You wont deploy tens of thousands of troops with hundreds of COIN aircraft in support anytime soon. There is no political will for nation building anymore and most importantly, China in the Pacific is the next big thing to keep the tax dollars flowing. Adventures in the Middle East are not needed anymore, so they likley wont be happening any longer.

You simple cant fix the problem by pursuing a solution that would have work fine back then but doesnt work today. If you purchase a light attack aircraft today you just using money you need to rebuild the fighter fleet. You’ll end up making things worse, a couple of hundred A-29s or whatever wont help you one bit handling China in the Pacific.
Arm for the next mission, dont purchase what would have been a great addition a decade ago

edit on 28-5-2017 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Yeah, what was I thinking. We need to go super high tech and only buy the best, most bleeding edge technology for everything. We'll never fight another low intensity conflict again, so screw planning for that possibility.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I’m talking about using B-52Hs and B-1Bs to fulfill the CAS requirement, hows that bleeding edge?
Whether you like it or not, we wont see COIN on the scale of Iraq and Afghanistan again any time soon. Hence no need for a massive investment in a dedicated COIN aircraft.
Of course the US will get involved in low intensity conflicts in the future, but on a much smaller scale. This is already happening, just look at the comparatively small footprint the US has in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan right know. A decade ago they deployed 10 times as many troops to Iraq alone.
What do you think will happening when ISIS is finally defeated within the next couple of years? The US probably wont have any troops involved in COIN ops anymore save for some SOF units once ISIS is done.

Its the wrong time for purchasing a COIN platform. Its not needed anymore and there many other procurement programs which are much more important. Instead of betting on the off chance of another large COIN ops before 2030 its far more prudent to focus on the mission at hand – building up coventional forces to deter China.
Cancelt he COIN platform or if you really want to have it, merge it with T-X at least.

Anyway, lets get real for a second, do you really think LAAC will get anywhere? The Air Force barely has enough money to get the F-35 production going, given the hate for anything Air to Ground i see zero chance of this thing moving forward, no matter what i think about it.


edit on 28-5-2017 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: mightmight
Exactly, a COIN platform could prove useful if the US decides to fight yet another low intensity conflict a decade down the road. But only if the other sides doesnt get their hands on some semi decent anti air capability until then. And only if the US actually deploys the neccessary troops and maintains airbases in the AO. A handful of SOF units wont do.
Not very likley to say the least.

Dont insist on arming yourself for yesterdays wars. Yes, a coin plartform would have been a great asset 15 years ago. But we are not living in the early 2000s anymore and we are not looking at major force deployment to the Middle East. The US is done fighting major ground wars in the Middle East. You wont deploy tens of thousands of troops with hundreds of COIN aircraft in support anytime soon. There is no political will for nation building anymore and most importantly, China in the Pacific is the next big thing to keep the tax dollars flowing. Adventures in the Middle East are not needed anymore, so they likley wont be happening any longer.

You simple cant fix the problem by pursuing a solution that would have work fine back then but doesnt work today. If you purchase a light attack aircraft today you just using money you need to rebuild the fighter fleet. You’ll end up making things worse, a couple of hundred A-29s or whatever wont help you one bit handling China in the Pacific.
Arm for the next mission, dont purchase what would have been a great addition a decade ago


Your attitude is EXACTLY th ething that nearly got alot of pilots killed in Vietnam. Oh the era of dogfighting is dead. Remember that? No it just evolved was all it did.
And CHina trying to fight in the pacific? lol Sorry but they dont have the experience or the numbers needed(ship wise) to even sustain a war there.
Zaphods got the right idea and experience. you might want to pay attention kid and heed his words.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

And they're not using them primarily for CAS, they're using them over Syria. They're wearing out our TacAir doing CAS over Iraq and Syria.

The OA-X program may not go anywhere, but that was one of the points of retiring the A-10, and possibly an early retirement for the F-15. That frees up several billion dollars that can go to OA-X, or the F-35. But of course, neither one will be retired now, because Congress sees jobs and money going from their districts, so they're going to fight every move the Air Force tries to make to free up funding.

As for the F-35, they haven't ramped up production because of flight test delays. They won't make the final decision on full rate production until after they're into IOT&E and SDD is completed. They're planning to be up to 17 aircraft a month by 2019 or early 2020 in Fort Worth, with 600 aircraft delivered by then.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

No disrespect there Zaphod.
Your angle is not ignored.
But again, fate is what happens
while you are making logical plans.

Saavy?




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join