Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: XxDaSTaRxx on September 04, 2014, 08:14:28 PM
-
Sad news gents, the A-10 will be seeing the last of her days soon. After all the work she's done, they decided to piss in 'er face and replace her with the Rubbish Helicopter-CAS jet one night stand child.
(http://images.gizmag.com/hero/f35b-stealth--fighter.jpg)
:bhead This makes me so mad
http://news.usni.org/2014/02/25/pentagon-retiring-air-forces-u-2-10-warthog-latest-budget-deal
No plane like the A-10 can ever have a freedom cannon of the degree she did :(
-
It is a great airplane. Modern day version of the A-1.
Things go in cycles, in our next war the U.S. will realize it needs a slow, tight turning CAS aircraft. And we will design one, just in time for peace.
-
See Rule #14
-
Drones still have pilots. In fact, a recent article came out that said that some of the pilots are getting PTSD.
Now the Tomahawk Cruise Missile has been flying purely automated missions for years. It could attack several targets with its intertial guidance system, all without any human input after it was launched.
-
They cant make humans into machines, but they sure can make machines do the things, no human would ever do.
-
I'm not following you. Give me some examples of what you are talking about.
-
It's not so much a stupid decision as it is one being made on the basis of an unvoiced criteria which isn't about putting the most sensible tools in the right hands but about egos, golf courses careers and simple greed. Same as it ever was I suppose, but the mendacity galls me.
-
They cant make humans into machines, but they sure can make machines do the things, no human would ever do.
The flying genetic mine. Has the data base of all your people's genetic iD, it flys around looking for people and if your not on the list Kaboom. Simple, clean and effective. Typographical errors? Things happen. Dubious morality? What are we 6?
Thing is there are and have been throughout history people that have been willing or even eager to do much worse. But automation can do extremely stupid things that you didn't want it to so point very much taken. I ask myself don't people watch SciFi?
-
How does it test DNA from the air?
-
See Rule #14
-
Because it rhymes...
Who knew we still flew the U-2?
-
See Rule #14
-
How does it test DNA from the air?
A very sharp 7 inch long sampling needle or a gentle cotton swab of your inside cheek, you decide. The decision effects the detonation algorithm though.
-
See Rule #14
-
i love when the a-10's fly the low over the river i live on...we share the river with canada :)
-
Piloted drones are not the future. Autonomous machines with the authority to kill is the future, and that future is closer than most people think.
-
I don't get it.
A-10s replaced by F-35s?
Seriously?
So, we'll have F-35s attacking tanks (well, not for the foreseeable future...) supported by the Royal Navy flying interdiction missions (well, not for the foreseeable future...) and the RAAF flying bombing sorties (well, not for the foreseeable future...)
All eggs, meet the basket.
Russkies and Chinese must be laughing their tulips off.
(C'mon, seriously? A-10 really out, in favour of the F-35? Seriously?)
-
Here's a short video about the warthogs design. [urlThe story of the A-10 and why the F-35 cannot replace it.
http://wimp.com/storyreplace/][/url]
-
Oh God, not Pierre Sprey again! :bhead
-
I've been a HOG lover all my life, and I have never seen anything come close to being better at its roll. One day someone may make a better aircraft, but as i see it, the trend to build crap and make it "stealthy" sells... so i don't see a replacement for it soon...
The A-10 is in the area of the B-52, its damned good at its job because damned smart people worked on making it. People who know a work week was not 36-hrs long, and a job wasn't just for the amount of money you could get from it.
-
ok, I am going to be the stupid one in the room - That pic in the OP is not an A10. Not sure I get the point of the pic.
Thanks
<flame suit on>
-
ok, I am going to be the stupid one in the room - That pic in the OP is not an A10. Not sure I get the point of the pic.
Thanks
<flame suit on>
The pic is of the F-35...the A-10 replacement :cheers:
-
Oh God, not Pierre Sprey again! :bhead
Hey, it's America. PT Barnum, Steve Jobs, etc.
-
I wish people wouldn't listen to everything they find on the internet.
-
I've been a HOG lover all my life, and I have never seen anything come close to being better at its roll.
What is its roll rate?
-
What is its roll rate?
Ba dum tiss!
-
Use to love watching the 111th FW Hogs outta Willow Grove NAS. I once watched a pair of A10s make lower level passes over Lake Nockamixon here in PA ...... They hung out around the lake for what seems like half an hr Those guys were having a blast. Very sad news indeed. I kinda liked living in a world where I was protected by such a wonderful aircraft.
-
absolutely makes no sense at all the A10 it's probably one of the best close air support for our people on the ground besides the egg beaters flying around.
-
For the cost of less than a squadron of F-35's, we are giving up the absolute best CAS aircraft, bar none. What an absolute crock of crap and a waste of money.
The F-35 program is an abysmal failure. The aircraft is never going to meet it's expectations as a catch all, do all. The US and other participants were fools for agreeing to this garbage.
-
First off Im not a fan of retiring it because the costs of keeping them flying is minimal.
But it is a different world and a different tactical environment compared to when the A10 first flew. 1976 is the Year I graduated HS and the year USAF first started fielding them. At the time there were no precision ground support weapons. No drones. No precision artillery. Smart shells for USN ships....ect Some of the shells seek out enemy armor on their own. We have an awful lot of ways to kill tanks now, with high precision, that we didnt have in the '70s. AND support troops on the ground.
We all know the real reason the A10 is going. Im just saying its a different reality now almost 40 years later, not that i agree with it.
-
I wish people wouldn't listen to everything they find on the internet.
Get off my thread, Time-traveling thread-ruining wizard!
EDIT: And if we go by that....
1) Russia is not invading the Ukraine
2) Ebola doesn't exist
3) ISIS is a branch of the Red Cross that gives away teddy bears
Must I continue?
-
First off Im not a fan of retiring it because the costs of keeping them flying is minimal.
But it is a different world and a different tactical environment compared to when the A10 first flew. 1976 is the Year I graduated HS and the year USAF first started fielding them. At the time there were no precision ground support weapons. No drones. No precision artillery. Smart shells for USN ships....ect Some of the shells seek out enemy armor on their own. We have an awful lot of ways to kill tanks now, with high precision, that we didnt have in the '70s. AND support troops on the ground.
We all know the real reason the A10 is going. Im just saying its a different reality now almost 40 years later, not that i agree with it.
Agreed but the weapons system proved itself extremely useful in 91 and (not that I can speak for the veterans on this board who have been cradled under its protection in Iraq) but if there was ever a more viable weapon system that this government needs I can't think of one. I guess d like to hear some of our vets opinion like A rack that direction or US Ranger.....
-
Prior to Desert Shield/Storm, the USAF was actively planning the drawdown and retirement of the Hog. When it was deployed to the sandbox and started dropping the bad guys like flys there was a renewed appreciation for its unique, purpose built capability. Other aircraft were tasked to do the same job at times, but just couldn't come close to taking them down like the Hog did. Additionally, debriefs of captured Iraqi troops revealed that they were terrified when the black cross showed up in the sky. If they didn't crawl in a hole and disappear, it was certain death when it pointed at them. Afterwards, the Hog had a new life.
-
Get off my thread, Time-traveling thread-ruining wizard!
EDIT: And if we go by that....
1) Russia is not invading the Ukraine
2) Ebola doesn't exist
3) ISIS is a branch of the Red Cross that gives away teddy bears
Must I continue?
Like I said, I wish people wouldn't believe everything they read on the internet.
-
Like I said, I wish people wouldn't believe everything they read on the internet.
Shoo!
-
I just think that A-10 (and most 4th gen fighters for that matter) will have a very hard time in a modern IADS environment.
-
I just think that A-10 (and most 4th gen fighters for that matter) will have a very hard time in a modern IADS environment.
Maybe, maybe not. In Iraq, we killed their eyes early on and then had our way with them. The Hogs ripped them a new one when tasked to do so.
...and on the rare occasion that the camel jocks could hit something, the Hog still came home.
(http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac270/puma44/50321589b38f55d6eebfc6794a3779bb_zps16ec43a7.jpg)
(http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac270/puma44/fb9f03194b1441b79b1d3e92b1044535_zps5ffeca44.jpg)
-
Here's the F-35's gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKbZj_BW_bA
Fires the same 25mm round as the M242 Bushmaster on the M2/M3 Bradley series.
-
The A-10s did not fair well against manpads. Two were shot down in the Iraq War invasion from manpads. It is a new threat environment.
-
The 'hog is the reason Muslims don't eat pork! :lol
-
I would like to see on paper how the replacement for the A10, the F35, is going to accomplish the same mission with the same survivability. The number one threat to CAS aircraft is and likely will be for a long time is AAA. Guns. Next down that list is Manpads. Two systems that Stealth and whizzy expensive technologies the F35 will be using won't help much against. Especially manapds that are optically/laser tracked and targeted.
I wouldn't argue the point that on the first day of war vs a well equipped enemy, that the F35 is likely to be more survivable in the battle space than the A10. It's just what comes after that I'm concerned with, after the C3 and enemy's eyes and ears have eaten HARMs and other missiles and are gone or greatly degraded. In future wars that end up being similar to the wars of Afghanistan and especially Iraq, then having aircraft like the A10 around, which is cheaper, faster to turn around and maintain, and more survivable to the remaining threats of AAA and Manpads - then I think it would be greatly missed. The F35 doesn't have the loiter time or systems and weapons that are specifically made for the CAS mission, plus it's a very expensive asset to risk down low at those altitudes where even rifle fire is a potential threat/risk, much less dedicated AAA systems. I'm not saying the F35 won't be a good system for what it's built for, but I don't think anyone ever envisioned it to be taking over the A10's role, so unless the A10 no longer has a role (ha ha), then I don't see how retiring the A10, whatever the costs involved, is a good decision. Just my opinion.
Regarding $, the Secretary for the Air Force and his top 3 Generals have all said that the A10 program will save them tons in overhead and costs. The recent numbers are 1% of the 110,000,000,000 of the yearly budget for the AF, and those A10 savings will only be programmed for the first 3 years after it being retired. Doesn't sound like a pile of money to me, considering the lost capability.
One solution I think that would work great - the Regular Force Army has said it needs to take the AH64 Apaches away from many Guard units due to the budget and cuts and so on. Ok fine. Why not replace those lost Guard Apaches with Air Force A10s? Move them to the Guard, they've already said they would LOVE this idea, and can figure their budget out to do it. Of course, the Air Force will say they don't need the A10, but they won't want to give it up to the Army either, and lose control of the CAS part of their budget, but I would hope somebody up top would say too bad, you gave it up, now it's going to be used by units more invested in the ground game to begin with.
-
The F-35 will just do what the F/A-18 is doing now, but do it better. In Iraq, someone is either on the ground designating a target, or a specific building is being targeted. Same for close air support in Afghanistan. Unguided bombs are being used far less due to collateral damage (and plain old inaccuracy). You can drop a guided bomb from 20,000 feet ten miles out if you know what you want to hit.
-
What you are describing isn't wrong IMO Dave, it's just that you're describing two completely different missions. Hitting buildings, fixed targets, and other things that don't move is one thing, close air support is a completely different mission and problem. I agree, the F35 due to its advanced sensors, fusion of them, as well as the weapons it'll carry should make it better than the current Gen 4.5 fighters in attack missions. Those missions however are NOT the same thing as close air support.
Also Dave, the A10 already carries and employs the same weapons you're talking about. On board targeting pods, laser and gps guided bombs, missiles as well with the Mavs, and so on. CAS isn't always the sort of mission where you can have a troop on the ground designating point targets with a designation unit. CAS in Afghanistan was much of the time show of force, extremely low overflights as well as strafing runs with the 30mm. Troops in contact - it isn't just so simple as sitting there holding a beam on your threats, in fact, the whole point of "support" of the CAS acronym is that troops could need HELP due to being suppressed badly themselves as often as not.
The A10 carries advanced weapons and sensors, and COULD perform the same attack missions as the F35 due to having those weapons and sensors. Would you want it to be the aircraft you were going to send in to do such things? No, the F35, F16/15/etc/etc are able to perform that mission better for a number of reasons. Well, is the reverse not also true regarding the CAS takings for the A10? The A10 is better for the CAS mission for the same number of reasons that other gen 4.5 and 5 fighters are better at other ground attack missions.
Some quotes from a recent A10 Article on one of the defense dailies: The entire article is here: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-rationale-for-retiring-the-a-10-warthog-is-bu-1562789528
So why can't the F-16, or eventually the F-35, take up the battlefield interdiction and close air support role if the A-10 was sent to the boneyard? Well they can, and in the case of the F-16 it already does. The difference is that these assets were never optimized for such roles during their multi-role oriented design phase, which ended in a product of compromise by its very nature. The A-10 is unique in that it can get down low, rapidly build situational awareness and begin prosecuting targets much faster than the F-16 can. The F-16 and F-35, even with their incredible avionics (especially in the F-35's case), are not designed to fly down low, under weather if need be, to pick apart the enemy's ground formations, and absorb enemy fire in the process. In fact, many question if the USAF will even risk its $100M+ fragile stealthy F-35s in such a manner at all.
Traditionally, fighters like the F-16, F-15E, and eventually the F-35, strike from medium altitude using precision guided weapons and come down for strafing and show of force runs momentarily, and probably not at all against an enemy with robust air defenses. This remoteness in relation to the battle below means it takes more time for an aircrew to build up a picture of what is going on and who is exactly where, and this added time can mean lives lost.
The A-10 community's ability to get into the CAS fight faster than any other fixed wing close air support platform also stems from its almost laser like focus on this single mission. In comparison, the F-16 and F-15E pilots have to spend a large amount of their dwindling flight training hours for missions other than CAS. The biggest of which is air-to-air combat training which can including radar intercepts and basic fighter maneuvers. This may take up as much as 40% of an F-16 flight crew's regular training time, whereas in the Warthog a pilot's air-to-air training is limited to employing the cannon and AIM-9M/L Sidewinder against low flying aircraft and helicopters alone, something it does extremely well incidentally.
Close air support is a very demanding mission, one where an aircrew's skill set can be rapidly diminished if training is not constant. As the war in Afghanistan winds down, and as US multi-role fighter units go back to their standard training regimens, many of these skills will atrophy. By keeping the A-10 in service, we know that the lessons learned over the last decade and a half of near constant wartime fast jet close air support action will not be lost. In other words, the A-10 community is a kind of close air support brain-trust that has more value than just the capability they offer to battle planners at any given time. This is a gray area of air combat, where knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge in combat operations can be wiped out by creating a "brain-drain" of the communities that are most focused on evolving and safeguarding this unique and demanding skill set. In this case that community is the A-10 community and canning the entire A-10 fleet would result in more than just a close air support brain-drain, it will be brain-execution.
-
I dont think there is any one answer to what "replaces the A10". The airplane was designed to be a tank killer in a major steel on steel engagement in northern Europe. It did the same job pretty good in the Mideast as well, and showed itself as a good assist to boots on the ground as well wherever it was deployed. Which was a job not envisioned by its designers. The reason being, of course, manpads.
Hit an armored column and run like hell. "Loitering" is something that gets you killed in an A10 against an adversary that has its act together. Luckily we had them mostly flying against ones that didnt and yeah the A10 became the platform of choice to call in and bring on the heat when troops were engaged. It was faster then a Helicopter and could loiter longer. AND it carried a hell of a lot of pain.
But every system meets its end. The A10s mission will be replaced by fast movers, modern ones, FAR more capable artillery, Drones,missiles, and Bombers loitering with smart bombs from 250 lbs to 2,000. And the precision of what they deliver is like something from a sci-fi movie when compared even to Gulf-2.
40 years is a good run for a war plane.
-
I spent 2 yrs working on the F-8K Crusader as an AE with VC-10 on GTMO, I was sad when I heard it had been retired.
However, after seeing what the F-14 Tomcat was doing, I felt a little better!
RAM
-
Yes, the A-10 is getting long in the tooth. They've already swapped wings on all of them and there is simply only so much you can do to prolong the service life of an aircraft. We're facing the same problem with our aging fleet of F-16s; they're all F-16As from the early '80s, and despite numerous upgrades and new wings we're flying up the last hours of those airframes. What then can you replace the A-10 with that is available now? The F-35 is the natural choice; it isn't ideal, but considering the alternatives it is the best choice. Building new A-10s is prohibitively expensive, and I'm assuming buying SU-25s from Russia is out of the question, what US aircraft currently in production or in development is better suited for the job?
-
Yes, the A-10 is getting long in the tooth. They've already swapped wings on all of them and there is simply only so much you can do to prolong the service life of an aircraft. We're facing the same problem with our aging fleet of F-16s; they're all F-16As from the early '80s, and despite numerous upgrades and new wings we're flying up the last hours of those airframes.
Yet there hasn't been a B-52 built since 1963, and the Air Force expects to have THOSE in service into the 2040s or beyond...
The fact is there's a trillion dollar elephant in the room the military is desperate to justify the cost for, so they're going to try to force it into a role it wasn't built for. What the Air Force SHOULD do is turn the A-10 over to the Army to supplement the attack helicopter fleet in the CAS role. Too bad the Air Force is too butthurt over the idea of the Army operating their own fixed-wing aircraft and not have to rely on them for CAS.
Stupid inter-service rivalry.
-
It's the flying hours not the age that matters. After the wing swap in 2012 the A-10 could also fly until 2040 or so unless retired early. It all depends on how much they fly them, especially in combat. They WILL be replaced eventually regardless of how much you don't want that to happen. Nothing lasts forever.
-
90% of all fighting aircraft will eventually be replaced by remotely controlled unmanned drones.
Cheaper and can be made just as effective. And little no no risk for those who pilot them. Not to mention aircraft can be designed to fly in envelopes and to sustain Gforces a human could never tolerate
-
90% of all fighting aircraft will eventually be replaced by remotely controlled unmanned drones.
Cheaper and can be made just as effective. And little no no risk for those who pilot them. Not to mention aircraft can be designed to fly in envelopes and to sustain Gforces a human could never tolerate
And drones have been proven to be hijackable.
-
90% of all fighting aircraft will eventually be replaced by remotely controlled unmanned drones.
Cheaper and can be made just as effective. And little no no risk for those who pilot them. Not to mention aircraft can be designed to fly in envelopes and to sustain Gforces a human could never tolerate
I hope there is a back up contingency for when our satellites are all hacked, jammed or destroyed. As awesome as it is, dependence on all this technology is our Achilles heel.
-
Its not just the flying hours that stresses an airframe but also the type of flying thats done with them. Bombers get beat up some when we've had to have them in dense air when forced to change their attack profiles but its been a long time since we've had to do that. So they fly mostly slow with no high stress maneuvers. But correct me if Im wrong, I dont believe that stressed airframes has been used as a reason they are being sent to the bone yard. The A10-C has enough flying hours left on its frame to remain a credible deterrent. While we would have to cut down the fleet we could still retain a credible A10 fleet.
And despite its age and so called tech disadvantage we keep getting into asymmetric fights against opponents unable to defend against it.
Like I said. I dont agree with retiring them all.
-
I hope there is a back up contingency for when our satellites are all hacked, jammed or destroyed. As awesome as it is, dependence on all this technology is our Achilles heel.
The A-10 does rely on a lot of technology....
For the A-10 to operate in units like she does when flying with wingmen in DCS, she requires a lot of communication and know how to work as a unit. Say you've got a TGP view on a column of Russian Main Battle Tanks.
You could broadcast the location and orientation of the TGP over the TAD to members within your group ID, allowing your mates to see what your seeing at the same location in the press of the button. Formation maverick releases are common practice in my squad, when on ops on the server firing range. In simulator mode, there are no icons for enemy vehicles. You've got to find then via the maverick or TGP seekers. Once you do find the GVs, you can relay the location to your formation.
Rifling mavericks in unison takes a lot of communication, and if you don't all clarify targets you could end up with two very expensive missile on the same target.
.
Tech is the upper hand that the A-10 has in the battlefield when operating in units.
-
Its not just the flying hours that stresses an airframe but also the type of flying thats done with them. Bombers get beat up some when we've had to have them in dense air when forced to change their attack profiles but its been a long time since we've had to do that. So they fly mostly slow with no high stress maneuvers. But correct me if Im wrong, I dont believe that stressed airframes has been used as a reason they are being sent to the bone yard. The A10-C has enough flying hours left on its frame to remain a credible deterrent. While we would have to cut down the fleet we could still retain a credible A10 fleet.
And despite its age and so called tech disadvantage we keep getting into asymmetric fights against opponents unable to defend against it.
Like I said. I dont agree with retiring them all.
They're not being retired yet. The USAF have been trying to retire them since the day the Army forced them to get the plane in the first place, but the politicians stopped it this time like they always have done. But eventually they will be replaced by F-35s.
-
Over half the U.S. F-16D fleet is grounded due to longeron cracks.
I'm not sure of the exact composition of the F-16 or A-10, but I can say that aluminum experiences age hardening. It gets old (~30 years), and it gets brittle.
-
Yes, the A-10 is getting long in the tooth. They've already swapped wings on all of them and there is simply only so much you can do to prolong the service life of an aircraft. We're facing the same problem with our aging fleet of F-16s; they're all F-16As from the early '80s, and despite numerous upgrades and new wings we're flying up the last hours of those airframes. What then can you replace the A-10 with that is available now? The F-35 is the natural choice; it isn't ideal, but considering the alternatives it is the best choice. Building new A-10s is prohibitively expensive, and I'm assuming buying SU-25s from Russia is out of the question, what US aircraft currently in production or in development is better suited for the job?
Not buying it, are you telling me that to build a new off the shelf A-10 cost as much as it does to build an F-35?
-
Probably a lot more considering they'd have to build a whole new production line for it.
-
Probably a lot more considering they'd have to build a whole new production line for it.
throw in the fact that once the A10 was built it would work, vs. the F35 todate. still not buying it.
-
They'd have to reinvent the A-10 first... All the tooling and jigs, all the parts. It's been out of production for 30 years and they scavenging the bone yard for parts just to keep them flying. Buy it or not.
-
Other than reading a few books and tidbits on the issue, I'm not an expert on the A10. However, from all I've learned nothing in the world can deliver the direct firepower via 30mm cannon, direct fire rockets, indirect fire rockets, a multitude of bombs, AND take the damage that it can. That means it can loiter until the enemy crawls out its hole. Plus, there is something to be said for its ability to fly low-n-slow and do so enough to have the pilot be seen saluting the troops on the ground as it flies over.
I'm not sold on the F35 being able to do all that.
Me thinks the Harrier would be better to have vs the F35 for close fire support missions. I guess I'll read some more.
-
They're not being retired yet. The USAF have been trying to retire them since the day the Army forced them to get the plane in the first place, but the politicians stopped it this time like they always have done. But eventually they will be replaced by F-35s.
Yes, it will be replaced by the F35 - due to lack of alternatives. The F35 program has sucked up all available resources and that is part of the reason that a new CAS plane is not currently under development. A large chunk of CAS is going to be taken over by drones, but I do not think it is wise to rely on them 100%. F35 will fill up that role when needed, but not because it is good for it - because it is the only option that was made available.