Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: XxDaSTaRxx on November 17, 2014, 09:36:21 PM
-
With the Air Force making desperate attempts to have the 'Hog put in scrapyards to rust, I wanted to see Aces High's player's input on this topic.
What do you all think of this, and do you or do you not support the 'Hog being "put down?"
EDIT: Personally, The only reason I can accept for retiring the A10 will be the introduction of a new A10 with two GAU8s.
-
Had been discussed recently: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=365690.0
And opened by you as well :)
-
Had been discussed recently: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=365690.0
And opened by you as well :)
Oops. :noid
-
I wouldn't mind the USAF getting rid of the A-10 as long as they gave them all to Army Aviation. :aok
-
(http://i1165.photobucket.com/albums/q586/eggshen2912/dead-horse_zpsecnjzu8w.gif) (http://s1165.photobucket.com/user/eggshen2912/media/dead-horse_zpsecnjzu8w.gif.html)
This discussion has in the past devolved into a locked political topic.
-
:noid
-
I think they should retire the A10's we have now.......... As soon as they open up a brand new production line for A10's.
-
No one carez about your A10's Whiskeh
-
No one carez about your A10's Whiskeh
Did you know that the A-10C can fire all of the 109K4's 30mm ammunition in less than a second? :angel:
-
Did you know that the A-10C can fire all of the 109K4's 30mm ammunition in less than a second? :angel:
I didn't know the A10C still uses 1940 era ammo. Minengeschlotz?
-
The A-10 has a dark history of friendly fire incidents. It is a very good illustration of how, even when visually identifying a target, it can still be confused for an enemy vehicle. One of the most horrific incidents occurred during the battle of Nasiriyah in 2003. A-10s blew up at least two USMC AAVs full of Marines with maverick missiles, and strafed several more. The optics of the A-10 couldn't distinguish an AAV (a very unique looking vehicle) from a BMP.
And people want to talk about 100 mile BVR kill shots in the F-35 and F-22. Not in our lifetime.
-
Could be the Army wanted the A-10s gone. It kind of stepped on their turf.
-
The A-10 has a dark history of friendly fire incidents. It is a very good illustration of how, even when visually identifying a target, it can still be confused for an enemy vehicle. One of the most horrific incidents occurred during the battle of Nasiriyah in 2003. A-10s blew up at least two USMC AAVs full of Marines with maverick missiles, and strafed several more. The optics of the A-10 couldn't distinguish an AAV (a very unique looking vehicle) from a BMP.
And people want to talk about 100 mile BVR kill shots in the F-35 and F-22. Not in our lifetime.
Yes, The A-10 has a rough history of Friendly Fire incidents. But is the A-10 the only aircraft which has a history of such?
This can be solved with new tech, rather than scrapping the whole thing.
-
(http://i1165.photobucket.com/albums/q586/eggshen2912/dead-horse_zpsecnjzu8w.gif) (http://s1165.photobucket.com/user/eggshen2912/media/dead-horse_zpsecnjzu8w.gif.html)
This discussion has in the past devolved into a locked political topic.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,365690.0.html
Doesn't look very locked to me, although yes, some people were rule 14'd.
And seeming as with the new elections....
The results may save the A-10's bacon.... or not
News with the Air Force and the Hill pushing on eachother for the retirement of the A-10 is never old. Something new about it comes up nearly every week in the paper. It isn't really beating a dead horse.
-
I think they should retire the A10's we have now.......... As soon as they open up a brand new production line for A10's.
hell ya
-
if they wanna scrap the Hog, well, they can park 'em at my house. sure I'll find use or two. :devil :airplane:
-
I wouldn't mind the USAF getting rid of the A-10 as long as they gave them all to Army Aviation. :aok
According to one of the former HAF guys I work with, the A-10s WERE offered to the Army at one point. Army turned them down.
Also, rumor is that the A-10 was not the first aircraft put on the budget chopping block. At least one other platform was offered up and the input from Congress was "no, but you still have to cut your budget," so the A-10 was offered up on the theory that no one would accept that and they'd go back to a previous plan or add money in the budget to keep the A-10...
Mike
-
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/12/10/a10-and-f35-win-in-spending-deal/
Interesting...
-
Boy you have to hand it to USAF for pulling this stunt off.
They had to pick one system to cut, the doing of which would not only give them everything THEY want but would also pull in the other services behind them. The Corp and the Army dont want their boys and girls hanging out there without a proper CAS system. Now neither USAF, the USMC, or USN want ANY reduction in F35 airframes for their air wings.
So instead of USAF having to fight its own sequestering battle they cunningly threaten to cut the one system that gave them leverage over the other services. So now the Army, The Corp, and the USN are all on board and the Govt. has no option but to keep printing monopoly money to keep the toy store rolling. Including keeping the A-10s active.
It very likely was all orchestrated by the four services who figured they could either hang separately or survive together.
Checkmate. :D
-
Pretty good analysis Rich, read the same thing on several defense sites since the word came down recently RE the A10. Funny stuff - don't you love it when a plan comes together.
Also, regarding the fratricide rates with the A10 - since it's down in the weeds, doing the lions share of the work when it comes to employing things that go boom, bang, and pow in close proximity to friendly troops, at a rate far higher than any other platform, isn't it obvious that it would have a higher rate of fratricide due to this fact?
Other aircraft and systems in recent conflicts have had notable fratricide rates as well. In fact, if you google the list of aircraft related fratricide incidents since 2001 in both major conflict zones, the A10 is really no more responsible than the F15, F16, AH64, and Harrier (both USMC and UK), in terms of numbers of incidents. Then when you take into account the typically much closer proximity the A10 has to friendly troops, the fact that air combat controllers can call in A10s closer than bomb equipped only aircraft, or a/c without a dedicated strafing gun like the Gau8 30mm - IMO it becomes pretty clear that the A10 crews are no worse than any other system out there, perhaps even better, again due to the frequency and proximity of their type of work to friendlies.
I personally think the USAF should have let the A10 go, and that if the Army was concerned enough about not having adequate CAS in future conflicts, THEY, as in the US Army, should be allowed to "take back" this sector of the air war game, and be able to provide its own systems for doing so - ie taking over the expense of the A10, and having Warrant officer pilot programs for it like the AH64, or created its own new aircraft/drone/whatever to do the same job. I always thought it made more sense for CAS and air combat that is completely ground related near the forward edge of the battle space, or in proximity to friendly ground troops, to be the Army's bailiwick anyhow, and since the AH64 is already doing that job, pairing it up with slower moving fixed wing stuff to supplement and complement it, with guys in Army uniforms, made more sense than having the AF or Navy do it.
-
(http://www.aero-farm.com/public/235595-F4D-1_inflight_refueling_NAN5-61.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/A-1H_602SOS_Jun1970.jpg)
-
The problem with relying on combat choppers for CAS is, and its getting worse and worse every year, that they are extremely vulnerable to manpads and shorter range, more mobile, point AA systems. They are even very vulnerable to standard AA gun tubes. Also they cant fly as high, are slower, and have a tougher time in bad weather. Attack choppers will never be a good "gold standard" as a CAS aircraft. They can, and often have, done the job adequately. But remember the Apache was designed to be a tank hunter, mostly at night, in the hilly forested terrain of northern Europe. They just arent fast enough, tough enough, have the range or loiter times, to be a primary CAS aircraft. The Army really doesnt want to see them used like that.
And UAVs just arent there yet. They cant carry enough ords and their operators will probably never be able to understand whats really happening on the ground while peering at a flat screen many miles away as compared to the real life, eye's on, 3D of a CAS pilot.
-
And UAVs just arent there yet. They cant carry enough ords
Which is weird since nothing stops you from converting an F15 to a UAV. It's actually surprising more combat aircraft are not unmanned, just think what an edge it gives to be able to make sustained high G turns without the pilot even noticing it. No AH blackout there, only the wings rip off.