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 ?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I think planes like the A-10 and B-52 will be a testimony to brilliance of the aircraft designers of old. People may knock them for not being "pretty" planes but who needs to look pretty when you do your job that good.


The A-10 will be around for some time to come. All this talk about the JSF replacing it is waaaaaay premature. They tried it in 1990 with the F-16 CJ and it was a disaster. Can the JSF hold up to the kind of damage a CAS aircraft has to absorb? Doubtful




posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Yeah these planes are great, funny this thread should come up as I saw one the other day heading towards our airport................ I've NEVER seen one around here before. There wasn't an airshow or anything going on, the only thing I can think of is difficult terrain landing practice, the Air Force sends down some C-130's and C-141's for this every once in awhile.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
The A-10 will be around for some time to come. All this talk about the JSF replacing it is waaaaaay premature. They tried it in 1990 with the F-16 CJ and it was a disaster. Can the JSF hold up to the kind of damage a CAS aircraft has to absorb? Doubtful


No, the CJ was to replace the RF-4G Wild Weasel. It was NOT intended to replace the A-10 in any way, shape, or form.

The F-16C was supposed to replace it with the 30 mm gun pod, but it was found to be too fast to do a good job as a CAS aircraft. Now that we have GPS weapons, the argument is again starting that the F-16 can take over the A-10's mission with 500lb LGBs or GPS guided weapons.

I, for one, do not think that the F-16 has the ability to do the job. A few well placed hits and it is done for. Whereas the A-10 is known to take a licking and keep on ticking.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 05:42 PM
link   
The intended replacement for the A-10 was the A-7F, a stretched, re-engined afterburning version of the Corsair, I believe it was cancelled around 1984.


GD

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
hope they upgrade the main gun with a more powerfull version of its gun. they are allready developing a chaingun which uses electromagnetics to shoot the bullets.


That would be sweet...



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   
yeah the A-10, B-52 and the SU-25 are perfect examples of how simple, low tech workhorses can do their job perfectly.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I love the A-10. That 30mm will rittle any armor. But wut if there was a larger version, similar to the AC-130 but smaller?? Possiblly with a 75mm cannon??? The gun could also be used for all-around ground attack. Im thinkin crew of 3 : Pilot, Gunner, Nav/Spotter. Twin engine max speed 450mph. Armament: 75mm cannon and 20 or 30 mm gatling. Im not sayin the A-10 is obsolete im just saying their could very easily be a larger more powerful version.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by GD

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
hope they upgrade the main gun with a more powerfull version of its gun. they are allready developing a chaingun which uses electromagnetics to shoot the bullets.


That would be sweet...


That wont happen, the A-10 was the only plane ever to be designed around this single gun, so its not going to be replaced by a mag gun or a metal storm type gun. The only weapon modifing that would happen to it (other then missiles) would be the guns amunition, like air burst.

I think the A-10 should retire, The F-35 along with all other craft can handle its work load. Plus they could get more money for newer jets if they pull the warthogs funding.

Pilots like them because when your getting shot at, its nice to know that you have bullet proof glass and basically surrounded by a titanium tub. But the planes these days are more about finnese, and you cant hit what you cant see.

I dont think the A-10 belongs in modernday warfare. It was great for its time, but if I was in charge of the decision then the A-10 would be phased out around 2010-2015.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Local Aircraft manufacturers Experimental Dept. I worked for now has A-10 in an "iron bird" stress jig doing life expectancy structural testing for the USAF to see just how far you can fly one past its 8000 hour intended life.

Think the cannon stays as is (which is just fine), but I know they are serious about keeping them around a long time. For the life of me I don't know why the Marines don't ask for them. The USAF hates them (the old SAC guard anyway) and the ground support mission in general.



posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 05:00 AM
link   
The first a/p model my oldest son and I completed together, was a beauty too. I recently uncovered it and after many years and moving it was alas religated to the scrap heap


The A-10 is one fine aircraft and still does a fine job for it's country.

Cheers~

Enigma



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GD

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
hope they upgrade the main gun with a more powerfull version of its gun. they are allready developing a chaingun which uses electromagnetics to shoot the bullets.


That would be sweet...


- A rail gun?

Doubt it.

They have been trying to perfect those (and - crucially - make them small and light enough) for decades (60yrs + if I recall rightly). Even with semi-conductors it hasn' t happened yet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the A10? Nice plane.

This is the way I see airpower going in the coming decades.

There's no one for the F22 etc etc to really fight A2A and anyone with anything approaching sophistaiced enough to do so who tries gets wiped in the first few hours or days. End of possible A2A combat.

That's why massive F22-type forces are a completely unnecessary luxury IMO......same with Typhoon too. We just are never going to ever use them for anything like the role they were intended for.

If a real fight happens you need bombers, fighter-bombers and/or cruise missiles and then your A10 type stuff to support ground forces who are still the only possible way to hold territory and deny it to ones' enemy.

[edit on 2-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


- A rail gun?

Doubt it.

They have been trying to perfect those (and - crucially - make them small and light enough) for decades (60yrs + if I recall rightly). Even with semi-conductors it hasn' t happened yet.

actually it does work and they have set the record. the 4km/s is the record using 6 metre rails.
and the rial gun on the A10 would probably cause the thing to stop going forward.
lol imagine that...."ok i'm lineing up the shot, fireing. HOLY SH**,I'M IN A DIVE!!!"



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- A rail gun?

Doubt it.

They have been trying to perfect those (and - crucially - make them small and light enough) for decades (60yrs + if I recall rightly). Even with semi-conductors it hasn' t happened yet.

actually it does work and they have set the record. the 4km/s is the record using 6 metre rails.
and the rial gun on the A10 would probably cause the thing to stop going forward.
lol imagine that...."ok i'm lineing up the shot, fireing. HOLY SH**,I'M IN A DIVE!!!"


Your assuming that rail guns have more recoil then gun powder. I dont know if they do or not, but I would assume that if anything they would have less recoil. Normal guns explode the powder which propels the bullet, but a rail gun is drastically different. It pushes the bullet until it gets to speed. So if it does have a recoil, it would be less then a normal guns recoil. (I think)

[edit on 2-11-2004 by Murcielago]



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 07:18 PM
link   
4 km/s ? thats like 4000 m/s. Are you sure those numbers are correct?



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
actually it does work and they have set the record.


- Devil, I know they can demonstrate the thing - and even do impressive stuff with it in tests - but I was under the impression that it was an enormous big piece of lab equipment that is still decades away from getting out of the lab....if ever.


the 4km/s is the record using 6 metre rails.


- 6 metres! See what I mean!?




and the rial gun on the A10 would probably cause the thing to stop going forward.
lol imagine that...."ok i'm lineing up the shot, fireing. HOLY SH**,I'M IN A DIVE!!!"


- Some people still imagine using them to put things into orbit!



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Why use the A-10?Because its cheap and easy to maintain.No need for F22s/J35s,with their expensive missles and their inablility to take hits.An A-10 can take quite a licking and still get home safely.You don't want to waste a precision missle on a tank when you can do the same with a 30mm gun from the A-10.Plus,the f22/J35 would just break if you sneezed on it,while the A-10 can stand a direct hit from a RPG.


[edit on 2/11/04 by W4rl0rD]



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by P_38lightning
I love the A-10. That 30mm will rittle any armor. But wut if there was a larger version, similar to the AC-130 but smaller?? Possiblly with a 75mm cannon??? The gun could also be used for all-around ground attack. Im thinkin crew of 3 : Pilot, Gunner, Nav/Spotter. Twin engine max speed 450mph. Armament: 75mm cannon and 20 or 30 mm gatling. Im not sayin the A-10 is obsolete im just saying their could very easily be a larger more powerful version.


75mm? It has been done already. The US had a B25 anti ship bomber that had a 75mm Sherman Tank canon mounted in the nose. One helluva punch!



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago Pilots like them because when your getting shot at, its nice to know that you have bullet proof glass and basically surrounded by a titanium tub. But the planes these days are more about finnese, and you cant hit what you cant see. I dont think the A-10 belongs in modernday warfare. It was great for its time, but if I was in charge of the decision then the A-10 would be phased out around 2010-2015.


Here is something for you to think about.

I was stationed up at Alaska and one summer there they had war games between the AFB's in Anchorage and Fairbanks and, believe it or not, they pitted the A-10's against the F-15's.

Everyone thought it was gonna be a washout.

But, in the end the A-10's won the War Game, and here is how. Because they are so heavy and slow of flight, the F-15's would get behind them and the A-10's would slow right down to a crawl, which also brought their nose up cause they are tail heavy, and the F-15' would overfly them and get 'shot' out of the sky.

Personally, my favorite craft is the F-15 Eagle - I don't believe there is a better Fighter Jet in the World.

But, you can't knock the Thundarbolt - that is one Majestic Bird...



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jesterbr549

Originally posted by Murcielago Pilots like them because when your getting shot at, its nice to know that you have bullet proof glass and basically surrounded by a titanium tub. But the planes these days are more about finnese, and you cant hit what you cant see. I dont think the A-10 belongs in modernday warfare. It was great for its time, but if I was in charge of the decision then the A-10 would be phased out around 2010-2015.


Here is something for you to think about.

I was stationed up at Alaska and one summer there they had war games between the AFB's in Anchorage and Fairbanks and, believe it or not, they pitted the A-10's against the F-15's.

Everyone thought it was gonna be a washout.

But, in the end the A-10's won the War Game, and here is how. Because they are so heavy and slow of flight, the F-15's would get behind them and the A-10's would slow right down to a crawl, which also brought their nose up cause they are tail heavy, and the F-15' would overfly them and get 'shot' out of the sky.

Personally, my favorite craft is the F-15 Eagle - I don't believe there is a better Fighter Jet in the World.

But, you can't knock the Thundarbolt - that is one Majestic Bird...


I disagree.It is a fat piece of titanium that is not majestic at all but does its job extremely well.

Oh yeah.For better jets,try MiG-31s,F-22s,Su-30/37s,F-14s and all other planes that can blast it out of the sky.

[edit on 2/11/04 by W4rl0rD]



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 12:21 AM
link   
sminkeypinkey - It would be a pretty hefty start up cost to build a satellite launching railgun, but over time it would easily pay itself off. But the problem with that is that satellites would have to be built far far stronger then they are today, which might take a good chunk out of the railguns customers.

Railguns are promising, and they will deffiniatly be used in future warfare.

Heres some examples of its uses.

The Navy future Destroyer called the DD(X) might have a railgun. It will be all electric, so it can divert power from the engines and use it to power up the gun.


Lockheed is working on an army railgun version.


They should be entering the US arsenal in under a decade.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join