- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 33,522
- Reaction score
- 10,826
- Location
- Between Athens and Jerusalem
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I love the A10 but its very much a niche aircraft, highly susceptible to ground fire and with minimal air to air defense.
how about the B52? drop it, keep the A10.Then you have to say what aircraft you want given up.
The F35 is by far the superior aircraft, and when production costs are factored in its about the cost of the super hornet with significant performance superiority.
I love the A10 but its very much a niche aircraft, highly susceptible to ground fire and with minimal air to air defense. Low and slow will do that. A10's are used like other strike fighters-its guns are used only after its expended its bomb load, and the gun is less effective and more dangerous to innocents. Bombs are the most effective weapon-not guns.
The F35 brings more weapons (also more advanced) to the fight, has well over twice the speed and 3 times the range.
I think the A10 would be a good aircraft for our arab allies in fighting terror, and if needed they could be easily destroyed by our more modern aircraft.
If it's going to save billions by sacking it then it is not as cheap as you think
Also, those pictures of damaged A-10s; They got hit. A drone dropping a bomb or laser guided missile from 10,000 feet would be hit a lot less and not a big problem if it goes down.
Ya wanna know something? I think somebody forgot to tell the A-10 that it is so susceptible.
We have had A-10s return home with absolutely staggering battle damage, and the pilots were safe and many times the aircraft was quickly patched up and returned to service. Entire engines blown off by SAMs, half of wings blown off, body shredded with 23mm explosive rounds, armor piercing rounds, even RPGs.
What you are making a mistake in, is in confusing susceptible (likely to be harmed by) and vulnerable (likely to be damaged-destroyed by). By your definition, tanks are susceptible to small arms fire, but they are not really vulnerable to it. The Warthog is specifically designed to throw off battle damage which would destroy any other aircraft in the US inventory. And ironically, it's very low speeds and low altitude capability actually protect it from a lot of air defense missile systems.
Ironically, it's only real major enemy comes from ground based anti-aircraft guns (like the Zu-23). But even then, it takes a lot of hits from one to take down an A-10.
how about the B52? drop it, keep the A10.
A drone is not a CAS aircraft. A "bomb or laser guided missile from 10,000 feet" just does not happen in a CAS role. And we do not use drones in CAS at all unless it is absolutely that or the friendly forces are about to be wiped out.
Talk apples and apples, not tomatoes and grapefruit. The CAS is a CAS aircraft. Drones and aircraft that drop bombs are 10,000 feet are not CAS aircraft. Might as well say the F-15 is a nuclear bomber because it can drop a nuclear bomb.
A drone is not a CAS aircraft. A "bomb or laser guided missile from 10,000 feet" just does not happen in a CAS role. And we do not use drones in CAS at all unless it is absolutely that or the friendly forces are about to be wiped out.
Talk apples and apples, not tomatoes and grapefruit. The CAS is a CAS aircraft. Drones and aircraft that drop bombs are 10,000 feet are not CAS aircraft. Might as well say the F-15 is a nuclear bomber because it can drop a nuclear bomb.
Im not denying its a tough aircraft. But it was designed in the days when low altitude SAMs weren't a significant threat (they were primitive), and so anti aircraft fire was seen as the bigger threat.
In the modern battlefield they are simply unsafe-this is why they only fly in low threat environments. Another similar aircraft-the frogfoot isn't flying in Russia/Ukraine right now because modern missiles are dropping them like its cool.
If missiles are fired-whos safer the low/slow A10 or the F35?
CAS is a job. If the job can be done with LGBs and Mavericks(or whatever they use these days), then that is CAS. I do not think drones are going to be a major CAS platform, but the issue is not altitude.
Yes, altitude actually is the issue.
Unless you have absolutely no concern for friendly fire casualties. Being low means you get better visuals on where each side is, and can place the ordinance with more precision where it needs to go.
Ive been reading up on this and the purpose of CAS is to accurately deliver munitions as quickly as possible. With guided munitions, altitude is very much a plus because it keeps the aircrew safer while allowing excellent accuracy. In fact thats how the A10 is largely used these days, it flies the same patterns as other fighters, and drops bombs from altitude, guns are only used when bombs are expended, and they aren't guided. On top of this, the A10 has significantly less range and must be "babysat" by more capable fighters should a threat appear.
Not sure where you are going with this really. The Soviet Strela-2 and Strela-3 were already in use by this time, and had shot down at least 40-50 aircraft in Vietnam by 1975. The SA-7/SA-13 was a considerable threat even before the A-10 was designed. And this threat was taken in careful consideration in the design of the aircraft.
Unlike conventional fighters where the engines were inside the body of the fighter (F-15/F-16), the engines for the A-10 were built not only outside of the aircraft, but on pylons extending it away from the body. Since MANPADs (then and now) were designed to go after the engines, this helped to keep the damage only to the engine, and lessen damage to the aircraft itself. And the specifications were that the aircraft would be able to fly even on only one engine.
So sorry, this threat was as real then as it is now, and was taken into consideration when the aircraft was built.
For the Ukraine, your claims are largely worthless. This is a "Battle between a Fascist state and a local popular uprising", and the Russians have deployed limited (or no) resources, and their Air Forces have not been involved at all really, with any of their aircraft.
As for missiles fired at which aircraft, it depends on which missile and where. You can not make this a simple black-white answer like this. But by and large, I would say the A-10. It has defensive countermeasures, just like the F-35. It also is a rugged and durable aircraft, designed to take a lot of damage. It has 2 engines and can fly on 1, the F-35 has a single engine. In combat, it operates below the level if the most powerful surface-to-air missiles, the F-35 operates directly in their peak vulnerability window.
The only real threat to an A-10 during a mission is from direct fire land weapons (like the ZU-23) and MANPADS. And it's design takes that firmly in mind. An aircraft generally has to be at least 500 meters in altitude before any RADAR guided missiles can even be fired at it, A-10s only fly at altitudes like that when loitering, or flying to-from a mission. During missions when they are most vulnerable they are flying at altitudes much lower then that. "Low" is exactly what keeps them safe from the vast majority of missile systems. Missiles other then MANPADs (or vehicle mounted MANPADs like the AVENGER) simply can't be fired at targets that low.
Sorry, but remember what my profession was for many years. Do you really want to go into battle with me on what air defenses can and can not do? Think on this, why do you think our biggest worry as the crew of a PATRIOT system was a helicopter like the HIND getting through our outer defenses? Hundreds of millions of dollars in advanced technology air defense missiles, and we were most scared of a helicopter. Because just like the A-10, it was armored, had a strong punch, and it was just to damned low for us to shoot it down.
That is why I specified LGBs and Mavericks.
A few questions though, have anti-air missiles improved in the last 40 years? Are they more or less of a threat now? A10's were restricted in the gulf war because they were taking too many hits, other aircraft were not-why?
Are low/slow aircraft more or less susceptible to anti-air defenses?
Im not saying you are incorrect by any means, im saying how do you explain this?
A drone is not a CAS aircraft. A "bomb or laser guided missile from 10,000 feet" just does not happen in a CAS role. And we do not use drones in CAS at all unless it is absolutely that or the friendly forces are about to be wiped out.
Talk apples and apples, not tomatoes and grapefruit. The CAS is a CAS aircraft. Drones and aircraft that drop bombs are 10,000 feet are not CAS aircraft. Might as well say the F-15 is a nuclear bomber because it can drop a nuclear bomb.
I'm sure they can use drones in a close support role. They can then even relay the images from the drone to the ground commander and thus make extra sure they have the right target. There are indeed little drones that are used at company level to provide air reconnaissance to the guys on the ground.
And I am sure they do not because of safety reasons (plus the fact that drones are reserved for specific strike missions, they do not carry much ordinance).
But tell you what. If you are right, prove it by giving some references that drones have indeed been used in CAS. Otherwise, you are just making things up.
The modern concept of United States Department of Defense UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) is to have the various aircraft systems work together in support of personnel on the ground.
No, actually it would not be profitable for any one to make them.
And we are going to have more because they are cost effective.
The air force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for quite some time. Your random conspiracy nonsense based on zero evidence does not fit.
New aircraft are going to be expensive and slow to get online. That has alot to do with the high expectations put on them. In the long run, those expectations are good things.
Or we could fly something more effective and more apt to actually be able to get off the ground when needed.
U.S. Military UAV tier system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm sure they can use their drones in close support if they wish to. It might mean they have to take out some of the explosive. But they were using concrete filled "bombs" in the invasion of Iraq to avoid collateral damage. Easy in operation modification.
A question: It seems to me the Army's Apache helicopter and the A-10 have quite a bit of mission overlap. You seem to have expertise in these matters. Is there quite a bit of overlap?
A remembrance: My late father was a USAF pilot. He liked the A-10 but said it would never find favor with the USAF because it was not a "pilot's airplane."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?