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.

 

A-10 Replacement... Any news?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: kingofyo1

true but new doesn't mean better.

the A-10 was built for places like the Kiber gap soviet tank hordes but found a new mission. CAS is a very niche role and it seems lucky that we had the A-10.

whatever comes next will be a copy of the master.




posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

one can only hope and pray! now CAS role is dead and gone it seems, and limited need for such a situation will be called for from OEF/OIF on. Now there will be skirmishes here and there where a call comes in and they send out one of the air tanks to brrrrrrrrrt a little
:devi0l: so i guess the next question arises, how will our needs develop new craft and maybe re-use some older black planforms?



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I had to laugh because there was an article about how the Air Force has said they ordered what they ordered on wings for the A-10s, and supposedly were refusing to buy more of them, then goes on to say how congress hadn't passed the new budget which funds more wings, and if they pass another CR they can't order more.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I said that there would not be any more A-10s. You should know that Zap.....



That battelfield have changed..... Clue.....



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

I keep forgetting how many people we have here with crystal balls and ties to the plans and capabilities office.

That being said, where did anyone say a word about new A-10s?
edit on 1/18/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


The A-10s will serve its case where the Russians and the Chinese dont have a interests. The US are looking for solutions to a replacement that would Challenge the Russians and the Chinese where they have common interests.


Not even the F-22 or the F-35 have a function here.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Thank you for proving my point.

That still didn't answer the question about new A-10s, but did beautifully to prove my other point.

No one here knows what plans and operations is up to, beyond what they've released publicly. We can all speculate, but declaring stealth, or carriers, or even the A-10 as useless or obsolete is not up to us, or what we now or think we know. The A-10 itself isn't survivable in a peer war, but that doesn't mean something similar is obsolete or won't be built.
edit on 1/18/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

There wont be a New type of A-10. There will be a replacement but it wont have a 30mm gun.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

You know this for certain huh? So what office do you work in at the Pentagon to have made this decision?



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I know this because i also have friends in special Places. NATO is a community working together......


Maybe Kongsberg is on that list.......



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Which is absolutely irrelevant. The Air Force who is the one that makes the decision on what the Air Force builds and buys and what the mission is, hasn't made that decision yet. NATO may be a community, and may get some input into plans and operations, and will be briefed on most of our capabilities, but has nothing to do with if the Air Force goes ahead with a CAS platform with a 30mm or not.
edit on 1/18/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

Which is absolutely irrelevant. The Air Force who is the one that makes the decision on what the Air Force builds and buys and what the mission is, hasn't made that decision yet. NATO may be a community, and may get some input into plans and operations, but has nothing to do with if the Air Force goes ahead with a CAS platform with a 30mm or not.



Okay... what ever you think. We will see what the future brings then wont we?

I Guess we have to wait for New topics then....... They will come when it comes to this issue.....



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

which is why the AF went on their own with the rq170 when they were initially working with the navy on the UCAV system. Once they saw that the research and testing had completed satisfactorily on the 170, they broke off their half of the ucav system and went forward with what they knew they wanted.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: kingofyo1

You are onto something. UAVs will take over the role of the A-10 in the future. These drones will carry a load that will be much more effective then the A.10 is today. I am not talking about just guided bombs, but also armed micro drones With a charge that will take out the targets they are programed to take out.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Contrary to what many people seem to think, NATO doesn't set US military policy, or anyone else's. Those decisions are the responsibility of the nation in question. When the Air Force comes out and says they're doing something, then that's one thing. But secondhand through NATO, or a NATO source, that is another.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: kingofyo1

The Air Force has long been known to go their own path when it comes to the future. It's bitten them in the ass more than once, and it will in the future again, but they're always going to go their own way on what they see is necessary.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

Contrary to what many people seem to think, NATO doesn't set US military policy, or anyone else's. Those decisions are the responsibility of the nation in question. When the Air Force comes out and says they're doing something, then that's one thing. But secondhand through NATO, or a NATO source, that is another.


They sure do. Who do think buyes Your stuff? If it is not NATO....... Its all part of a allienace.

You know that Norway have done their part when it comes to the F-35. We have bought Our chare of these jets. We are also a large part of the Development to this Aircraft. You also know about the New task at hand when it comes to the sensors right? NATO members want to secure them selves from the sensors the F-35 have, so that the the US dont have the abillity to gather specific information about their own nation?



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

That still doesn't change the fact that we have a lot of equipment that NATO and other alliance members don't, and never will. NATO isn't buying RQ-170s, or -180s, or a lot of other things, and weren't going to when the US built them in the first place. Just because NATO buys weapons to have commonality among members still doesn't mean that they set US policy, or UK policy, or Norwegian policy. There's a huge difference between commonality, and setting defense policy or equipment buying.
edit on 1/18/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


No, but that is not the point either. The US serves a purpose With the allience of NATO.


The US is nothing but a military entity within the alliance. Moste People dont see the Whole Picture. The US cant do anything like it is doing With out the support of the structure of its allies. Imagine sanction if you like.... That would never happened if the US dident get Allied support.


The US is like a sector within a bigger Picture. The US have one goal and that is to be a military structure. Its purpose is to deliver military support based on request.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

The US is not at the military whim of NATO. Just like every other member nation, they are going to set their own defense policy based on their needs, with alliances being secondary. Yes, the US is the big stick of NATO, but that doesn't mean that NATO sets our military policy or determines what equipment we buy. If we think there is going to be a need for something with a 30mm gun, and NATO doesn't, we're not going to decide not to buy it because NATO says so.

When NATO requests military assistance, just like with any other member nation, the request determines the assistance. If it's fighters for the Baltic, then F-15s or F-16s are sent. If it's CAS for Afghanistan, then bombers and A-10s are sent. If they don't need fighters, then fighters aren't sent, but are available. NATO doesn't say to the US, we need more reconnaissance, so you build the SR-72 and pay for it, so we can use it. The Pentagon determines there is a need for the SR-72, and will build it, and if they allow it, then it will be used by NATO to fulfill missions as required. When NATO starts funding US military acquisitions, they can determine what the US buys and what their military policies are.




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join