Author Topic: New wings for the A-10  (Read 987 times)

Offline Nath[BDP]

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1267
Re: New wings for the A-10
« Reply #15 on: September 04, 2013, 06:25:51 PM »
Why?

Is there another aircraft that we have in inventory that can do they job they do?

see

A-10s have had a bad track record for friendly fire.  Even though an Apache blew up a Bradley in the first Gulf War, being able to get in close with a powerful camera (not to mention a 30mm cannon, albeit nowhere near the lethality of the A-10s) drastically reduces the friendly fire incidents.

The Battle of Nasiriyah shows what can happen when A-10s and friendly vehicles end up in the same target box.  The A-10s just don't have the optics to identify a friendly vehicle quickly and efficiently in the fog of war.  The book "Ambush Alley", with first person narratives of the Marines in the battle claims that 20 Marines and at least 3 AAVs were destroyed by A-10s.  An official investigation after the battle showed a lower number of Marines and AAVs destroyed, though it was hard to determine since both flight data tapes from the two A-10s involved were accidentally lost or taped over.

Anyhow, the Longbow Apache has excellent cameras/flir and a very cool fire control radar that can even positively ID a camel (not to mention tell the difference between a BMP and an AAV).

Thanks
++Blue Knights++
vocalist of the year


Offline titanic3

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4235
Re: New wings for the A-10
« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2013, 06:27:58 PM »
A-10s have had a bad track record for friendly fire.  Even though an Apache blew up a Bradley in the first Gulf War, being able to get in close with a powerful camera (not to mention a 30mm cannon, albeit nowhere near the lethality of the A-10s) drastically reduces the friendly fire incidents.

The Battle of Nasiriyah shows what can happen when A-10s and friendly vehicles end up in the same target box.  The A-10s just don't have the optics to identify a friendly vehicle quickly and efficiently in the fog of war.  The book "Ambush Alley", with first person narratives of the Marines in the battle claims that 20 Marines and at least 3 AAVs were destroyed by A-10s.  An official investigation after the battle showed a lower number of Marines and AAVs destroyed, though it was hard to determine since both flight data tapes from the two A-10s involved were accidentally lost or taped over.

Anyhow, the Longbow Apache has excellent cameras/flir and a very cool fire control radar that can even positively ID a camel (not to mention tell the difference between a BMP and an AAV).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCUgBwdqwak

Friendly fire occurs at 7:10

  the game is concentrated on combat, not on shaking the screen.

semp

Offline Nath[BDP]

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1267
Re: New wings for the A-10
« Reply #17 on: September 04, 2013, 06:33:42 PM »
++Blue Knights++
vocalist of the year


Offline Nefarious

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15858
Re: New wings for the A-10
« Reply #18 on: September 04, 2013, 07:09:36 PM »
The first engine shipped in 1971.
They are rated for 2,000 hours "on wing" time and have been updated several times during their history to improve durability and longevity.

With over 13 million flight hours, these engines are some of the most reliable and durable engines, currently, in the air.

They shared a similar engine GE TF34 to the Navy's S-3 Viking. My father served 20 years in the Navy, Serving aboard 5 different carriers. After he became an officer in the early 80s he took a cruise on the Nimitz with VS-38 and the World famous Red Griffins.

After he retired we moved to the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia, which is not to far from the Fairchild plant in Hagerstown, MD. I remember seeing A-10s every once in a while. One time I saw one very low while tubing on the Potomac River. Another time my dad and I were driving home and heard them closing relativley low. My dad turned to me and said "S-3 Vikings" and overhead passed a pair of Thunderbolts. Your ears never forget I suppose.  :lol
There must also be a flyable computer available for Nefarious to do FSO. So he doesn't keep talking about it for eight and a half hours on Friday night!

Offline Dragon Tamer

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2047
Re: New wings for the A-10
« Reply #19 on: September 04, 2013, 08:08:17 PM »
I have a feeling that this is a political discussion in the making...

I think the A-10 should be kept in service, it's a great looking plane and a great weapons platform.

wow.  what negligence.

Question, are you just going to bash this plane and piggy back off of other peoples posts, or are you going to come up with an original idea to support your inexplicably pessimistic outlook on this situation?

In the pilots defense, no friendlies were called at that position. They saw a vehicle that they suspected posed a thread to their safety. If I was in that situation I would have done the same thing.

Offline titanic3

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4235
Re: New wings for the A-10
« Reply #20 on: September 04, 2013, 08:10:55 PM »
I have a feeling that this is a political discussion in the making...

I think the A-10 should be kept in service, it's a great looking plane and a great weapons platform.

Question, are you just going to bash this plane and piggy back off of other peoples posts, or are you going to come up with an original idea to support your inexplicably pessimistic outlook on this situation?

In the pilots defense, no friendlies were called at that position. They saw a vehicle that they suspected posed a thread to their safety. If I was in that situation I would have done the same thing.

POPOV 35 attacked before getting 100% confirmation from the controllers, and even with POPOV 36's remarks about being unsure. It was a mistake, yes, but they could've prevented it had POPOV 35 not been so anxious to score some kills. I don't feel any hate towards the guy but that was just carelessness.

  the game is concentrated on combat, not on shaking the screen.

semp

Offline doright

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
Re: New wings for the A-10
« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2013, 09:47:54 PM »
Don't overlook that the updated A10Cs are capable of carrying the same litening and sniper targeting pods as some of the fast movers.
Armaments 3:9 "Fireth thee not in their forward quarters lest thee be beset by 200 imps and be naughty in their sight."

Offline Nath[BDP]

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1267
Re: New wings for the A-10
« Reply #22 on: September 04, 2013, 10:11:43 PM »

Question, are you just going to bash this plane and piggy back off of other peoples posts, or are you going to come up with an original idea to support your inexplicably pessimistic outlook on this situation?

In the pilots defense, no friendlies were called at that position. They saw a vehicle that they suspected posed a thread to their safety. If I was in that situation I would have done the same thing.

see

POPOV 35 attacked before getting 100% confirmation from the controllers, and even with POPOV 36's remarks about being unsure. It was a mistake, yes, but they could've prevented it had POPOV 35 not been so anxious to score some kills. I don't feel any hate towards the guy but that was just carelessness.

+1
++Blue Knights++
vocalist of the year


Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
Re: New wings for the A-10
« Reply #23 on: September 05, 2013, 10:02:07 AM »
I can believe the bit about needing new wings for existing airframes. There are quite a few A10 fuselages in the DM AFB boneyard missing their wings after they were pulled to use as replacements.

As far as friendly fire is concerned, that is a situation that has happened ever since the invention of ranged weapons and will happen again as long as people continue to engage in warfare. To sit in judgement from the safety of your home keyboard is rather hypocritical, particularly if you have never even served anywhere.

There is a ton of difference in using a hovering platform at 25' altitude vs one that is moving about 400 MPH in a much more vulnerable altitude in the arena with modern radar guided guns as well as missiles. It's not a video game with instant zoom and "god's eye" cameras available to look over the battlefield. Nothing in either system can instantly define what is a red target vs a blue target and placement of troops / equipment in a fluid environment is never predictable all the time. Even the vaunted IFF can falter. Those folks do the best job they can and have an enviable record in regards to friendly fire, more so than ever before. People and machines are fallible.

There simply is no other airframe in the AF inventory that can do the same job of close ground support as the A10. Many of the blue suiters have zoomie fixation and forget that there is more to the conflict than simply airspace control and fast but limited ordinance delivery. Combat takes time and if you can't loiter while the situation develops, you reduce the impact you have on the battle field.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: New wings for the A-10
« Reply #24 on: September 05, 2013, 10:08:43 AM »
Well, their "enviable record" might not sound so enviable if you ask their allies. Especially the British who have been on the receiving end all too often. Among NATO troops friendly fire is almost synonymous with trigger happy Americans.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline saggs

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1250
      • www.kirksagers.com
Re: New wings for the A-10
« Reply #25 on: September 05, 2013, 10:32:48 AM »
This isn't new.


At Hill AFB in Utah have been replacing A-10 wings for at least 4 years, probably longer.

To suggest retiring them is ludicrous, no other aircraft comes close to filling the mission profile the A-10 does, plus with the updated wings they have better payload and are good for several thousand more flight hours. 

Offline SEraider

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1755
Re: New wings for the A-10
« Reply #26 on: September 05, 2013, 10:49:13 AM »
This isn't new.


At Hill AFB in Utah have been replacing A-10 wings for at least 4 years, probably longer.

To suggest retiring them is ludicrous, no other aircraft comes close to filling the mission profile the A-10 does, plus with the updated wings they have better payload and are good for several thousand more flight hours. 

About 15 years ago they were talking about replacing the A-10 with the F-16C.  Supposedly, specially equipped (gondo's for tanks) F-16C could go low and slow and carry the same arms as the A-10 and be able to dogfight if necessary.  I guess that won't happen.  :)
* I am the embodiment of Rule #14
* History is only recent.
* Stick and Stones won't break my bones, but names could "hurt" me.

CO Screaming Eagles

Offline Dragon Tamer

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2047
Re: New wings for the A-10
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2013, 07:41:39 PM »
I think having something like that would work much better if the two units can operate side by side. Versatility in your weapons is never a bad thing. I would suspect that would be financially improbably though.