Home
Latest images
Register
Log inA-10: The Sound of the Angry Dragon? What does that sound like ??
megacombat.net/usaf-a-10-gau-8-the-sound-of-the-angry-dragon/
megacombat.net/usaf-a-10-gau-8-the-sound-of-the-angry-dragon/
+8
Werewolf
mrtravisgood
nemrod
George1
Zivo
TR1
Mr.Kalishnikov47
Chrisa
12 posters
A-10 Thunderbolt II:
Chrisa- Posts : 8
Points : 20
Join date : 2012-02-27
GarryB- Posts : 40541
Points : 41041
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I think the gun of the A-10 is the most overrated US weapon there is.
Against ground targets using HE ammo the rate of fire is too high, and in terms of armour penetration... it was only effective against older tanks that had very thin top armour on the turrets and rear engine deck.
A 7 barrel gun that only puts out 30mm shells at 4,200 rpm is not that amazing... the Mig-27 had a much smaller and much lighter 6 barrel gun that is not the size of a small car, that doesn't need an external power supply and electric motor that takes up space too.
The Soviet gun fires at 6,000 rpm and was intended to fire very short bursts of HE shells... which it did very effectively.
For the same role the A-10 has for its gun they chose a fixed twin barrel 30mm cannon that fires at 3,500rpm for a fraction of the size and weight of the A-10s gun.
More importantly because it doesn't need to wind up and hits its rate of fire almost instantly a short burst with the Russian weapons will probably put the round on target faster.
My opinion of the A-10 is that it is a B-25 built around a gun that is much bigger than it needs to be.
The Soviets had a choice, and they chose the Su-25. The alternative was a much bigger aircraft with RD-33 5 ton thrust engines (minus the AB) and a payload and performance very similar to the A-10.
It was going to have either a 45mm or a 57mm twin barrel gun slung externally under the centreline and have a twin barrel 23mm tail gun for self defence it was rejected in favour of the smaller, lighter, faster Su-25.
Against ground targets using HE ammo the rate of fire is too high, and in terms of armour penetration... it was only effective against older tanks that had very thin top armour on the turrets and rear engine deck.
A 7 barrel gun that only puts out 30mm shells at 4,200 rpm is not that amazing... the Mig-27 had a much smaller and much lighter 6 barrel gun that is not the size of a small car, that doesn't need an external power supply and electric motor that takes up space too.
The Soviet gun fires at 6,000 rpm and was intended to fire very short bursts of HE shells... which it did very effectively.
For the same role the A-10 has for its gun they chose a fixed twin barrel 30mm cannon that fires at 3,500rpm for a fraction of the size and weight of the A-10s gun.
More importantly because it doesn't need to wind up and hits its rate of fire almost instantly a short burst with the Russian weapons will probably put the round on target faster.
My opinion of the A-10 is that it is a B-25 built around a gun that is much bigger than it needs to be.
The Soviets had a choice, and they chose the Su-25. The alternative was a much bigger aircraft with RD-33 5 ton thrust engines (minus the AB) and a payload and performance very similar to the A-10.
It was going to have either a 45mm or a 57mm twin barrel gun slung externally under the centreline and have a twin barrel 23mm tail gun for self defence it was rejected in favour of the smaller, lighter, faster Su-25.
Mr.Kalishnikov47- Posts : 293
Points : 336
Join date : 2012-02-26
Age : 36
Location : U.S.A
GarryB wrote:I think the gun of the A-10 is the most overrated US weapon there is.
My opinion of the A-10 is that it is a B-25 built around a gun that is much bigger than it needs to be.
The Soviets had a choice, and they chose the Su-25. The alternative was a much bigger aircraft with RD-33 5 ton thrust engines (minus the AB) and a payload and performance very similar to the A-10.
It was going to have either a 45mm or a 57mm twin barrel gun slung externally under the centreline and have a twin barrel 23mm tail gun for self defence it was rejected in favour of the smaller, lighter, faster Su-25.
That's basically all the A-10 is, a much less efficient, gold plated, SU-25. I'm American and even I'll admit to that. I guess it'll take going to war with a country that isn't still using outdated export version T-72's for them to realize that.
GarryB- Posts : 40541
Points : 41041
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The thing is that the A-10 is a serious compromised and optimised design yet its make it back with one engine shot out doesn't seem to be that much better than the much smaller and faster Su-25.
I would think that taking out that huge gun and replacing it with that rather nice 25mm cannon they had on their AV-8s, it would take up a fraction of the space and free up the nose area for night vision and radar detection sensors.
The old gun and its power supply system were the size of a small car, so replacing it with a couple of 25mm cannon would allow either more ammo to be carried or more fuel or both.
I rather suspect that if the BMPs in the new brigades get new 45mm or 57mm guns that the air force and navy will look at adopting that calibre too... especially if they introduce the guided shells, which would mean high rate of fire is no longer needed and the individual shells will be much more likely to get a kill.
A 57mm HE shell with laser guidance would weigh about 3kgs with each shell likely able to take out light vehicles with one hit and of course with laser guidance one or two shots per vehicle would be all you need...
Against a well equipped enemy the A-10 is in serious trouble... even with its engines spaced wide apart the 20-25kg warhead of a TOR missile or Pantsir-S1 or even Tunguska will take it down.
I would think that taking out that huge gun and replacing it with that rather nice 25mm cannon they had on their AV-8s, it would take up a fraction of the space and free up the nose area for night vision and radar detection sensors.
The old gun and its power supply system were the size of a small car, so replacing it with a couple of 25mm cannon would allow either more ammo to be carried or more fuel or both.
I rather suspect that if the BMPs in the new brigades get new 45mm or 57mm guns that the air force and navy will look at adopting that calibre too... especially if they introduce the guided shells, which would mean high rate of fire is no longer needed and the individual shells will be much more likely to get a kill.
A 57mm HE shell with laser guidance would weigh about 3kgs with each shell likely able to take out light vehicles with one hit and of course with laser guidance one or two shots per vehicle would be all you need...
Against a well equipped enemy the A-10 is in serious trouble... even with its engines spaced wide apart the 20-25kg warhead of a TOR missile or Pantsir-S1 or even Tunguska will take it down.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-07
Well, the A-10 fleet has actually received a fleet wide modernization (A-10C), while the Su-25SM program started earlier, still have less airframes, and the upgrade itself seems to be of a more economical nature. But, different worlds...
Zivo- Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.
GarryB wrote:The thing is that the A-10 is a serious compromised and optimised design yet its make it back with one engine shot out doesn't seem to be that much better than the much smaller and faster Su-25.
I would think that taking out that huge gun and replacing it with that rather nice 25mm cannon they had on their AV-8s, it would take up a fraction of the space and free up the nose area for night vision and radar detection sensors.
The old gun and its power supply system were the size of a small car, so replacing it with a couple of 25mm cannon would allow either more ammo to be carried or more fuel or both.
I rather suspect that if the BMPs in the new brigades get new 45mm or 57mm guns that the air force and navy will look at adopting that calibre too... especially if they introduce the guided shells, which would mean high rate of fire is no longer needed and the individual shells will be much more likely to get a kill.
A 57mm HE shell with laser guidance would weigh about 3kgs with each shell likely able to take out light vehicles with one hit and of course with laser guidance one or two shots per vehicle would be all you need...
Against a well equipped enemy the A-10 is in serious trouble... even with its engines spaced wide apart the 20-25kg warhead of a TOR missile or Pantsir-S1 or even Tunguska will take it down.
I've always thought the Su-25 was the superior CAS aircraft, it's a smaller target, more maneuverable, better climb rate, plus it's combat proven against properly equipped armies (Georgia '08). But, the one advantage to using the large internal 30mm cannon is that it reduces the need to have drag inducing munitions hanging off the wings, *looks at Su-25 armed to the teeth with rocket pods*
Both aircraft are fine examples of cold war era tank killers, but I have to agree, the A-10 is one of, if not the most overrated weapon in the US arsenal.
GarryB- Posts : 40541
Points : 41041
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Both aircraft are subsonic... drag really isn't an issue.
The problem I see is that against a real enemy getting close enough to fire a 30mm cannon at the target means you are pretty much in range of MANPADS and return fire from cannon.
The aircraft themselves are fundamentally different in that the A-10 seems to be optimised for attacking enormous numbers of tanks, hense the 30mm cannon and the Mavericks, while the Su-25 is more of a real CAS aircraft that is called up when the infantry find a tough nut they can't crack.
Hense the Su-25 carries bombs and rockets which leave it vulnerable to enemy ground fire.
What really bothers me of course is that western so called experts BS on and on about how the A-10 is optimised for the CAS role with its engines widely separated to protect it from SAMs and it has armoured this and that, whereas the Su-25 has badly located engines.
The thing is that when faced with modern MANPADS the A-10 doesn't seem to be any safer than Su-25s as both seem to be able to make it back with one hit and neither make it back with two.
Another thing is of course the general ignorance in the west where the myth that the Soviets "copied" the frogfoot and... those stupid incompetent fools copied the wrong aircraft because apparently they copied the A-9.
Well in actual fact there was no copying involved at all and there was competition between Sukhois Su-25 and Ilyushon Il-104... the latter having performance very similar to the A-10 with a 7+ ton payload and the RD-33 engines of the Mig-29, and a much more powerful gun. They initially fitted it with a twin barrel 30mm cannon but there were plans for a 45mm or 57mm gun down its centreline.
The lighter, simpler, cheaper frogfoot was tested in Afghanistan and was accepted into service based on its performance.
In the anti armour role the Frogfoot would certainly have benefitted from the TV and IR guided models of Kh-25, but at the time the Russian AF just paid lip service to guided air to ground weapons in terms of actually buying them.
The problem I see is that against a real enemy getting close enough to fire a 30mm cannon at the target means you are pretty much in range of MANPADS and return fire from cannon.
The aircraft themselves are fundamentally different in that the A-10 seems to be optimised for attacking enormous numbers of tanks, hense the 30mm cannon and the Mavericks, while the Su-25 is more of a real CAS aircraft that is called up when the infantry find a tough nut they can't crack.
Hense the Su-25 carries bombs and rockets which leave it vulnerable to enemy ground fire.
What really bothers me of course is that western so called experts BS on and on about how the A-10 is optimised for the CAS role with its engines widely separated to protect it from SAMs and it has armoured this and that, whereas the Su-25 has badly located engines.
The thing is that when faced with modern MANPADS the A-10 doesn't seem to be any safer than Su-25s as both seem to be able to make it back with one hit and neither make it back with two.
Another thing is of course the general ignorance in the west where the myth that the Soviets "copied" the frogfoot and... those stupid incompetent fools copied the wrong aircraft because apparently they copied the A-9.
Well in actual fact there was no copying involved at all and there was competition between Sukhois Su-25 and Ilyushon Il-104... the latter having performance very similar to the A-10 with a 7+ ton payload and the RD-33 engines of the Mig-29, and a much more powerful gun. They initially fitted it with a twin barrel 30mm cannon but there were plans for a 45mm or 57mm gun down its centreline.
The lighter, simpler, cheaper frogfoot was tested in Afghanistan and was accepted into service based on its performance.
In the anti armour role the Frogfoot would certainly have benefitted from the TV and IR guided models of Kh-25, but at the time the Russian AF just paid lip service to guided air to ground weapons in terms of actually buying them.
George1- Posts : 18519
Points : 19024
Join date : 2011-12-23
Location : Greece
Proposed Retirement of A-10 Aircraft: Background in Brief
The Administration’s fiscal 2015 budget proposed to retire the entire fleet of A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft beginning in FY2016. This report covers the background to that decision and legislative action as of the end of 2014.
Background
The A-10 was designed in the 1970s to perform air interdiction, battlefield air interdiction, and close air support.1 It was principally designed to attack large masses of Soviet tanks and other armored vehicles. From 1975 to 1984, the Air Force acquired 713 A-10 aircraft.
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the A-10 was refocused on the close air support role.
As of November 2013, 289 A-10s remained in the force, of which 160 were in the active Air Force, 27 in the Air Force Reserve, and 102 in the Air National Guard. Subsequent reporting indicates the number has now reached 283, although CRS does not yet have data showing the distribution of those aircraft among components.
Therefore, 430 A-10s have been retired, lost, or stricken from the rolls due to damage.5 This includes all of the early A-10A models; the current Air Force inventory is entirely improved A-10Cs.
Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/proposed-retirement-of-a-10-aircraft-background-in-brief-61923/#ixzz3P2yfbkTd
The Administration’s fiscal 2015 budget proposed to retire the entire fleet of A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft beginning in FY2016. This report covers the background to that decision and legislative action as of the end of 2014.
Background
The A-10 was designed in the 1970s to perform air interdiction, battlefield air interdiction, and close air support.1 It was principally designed to attack large masses of Soviet tanks and other armored vehicles. From 1975 to 1984, the Air Force acquired 713 A-10 aircraft.
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the A-10 was refocused on the close air support role.
As of November 2013, 289 A-10s remained in the force, of which 160 were in the active Air Force, 27 in the Air Force Reserve, and 102 in the Air National Guard. Subsequent reporting indicates the number has now reached 283, although CRS does not yet have data showing the distribution of those aircraft among components.
Therefore, 430 A-10s have been retired, lost, or stricken from the rolls due to damage.5 This includes all of the early A-10A models; the current Air Force inventory is entirely improved A-10Cs.
Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/proposed-retirement-of-a-10-aircraft-background-in-brief-61923/#ixzz3P2yfbkTd
George1- Posts : 18519
Points : 19024
Join date : 2011-12-23
Location : Greece
US Needs A-10 Attack Planes Fleet to Fight IS
nemrod- Posts : 839
Points : 1333
Join date : 2012-09-12
Age : 59
- Post n°10
[Desert Storm] A-10 this false hero, and the true metaphor of the US Barbary
nemrod Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:05 am
The goal of this post is not to write again the history, everyone knows the story, but to give another view about events that are clearly not showed, easing the explanations of US triumph and its supposed superiority. Chieftly, by the distrust because US and western provide us all informations.
We have all this single image of the A-10, beside F-15 as the demonstration of US suprematy regarding technology.
During a long time I was fascinated when I used to read that the A-10. Indeed, this fighter-bomber in 1991 destroyed more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces.
The immediat reflexe is to think that US erase iraqi air defense, nothing run, the US technology triumphed in anyway. And nothing match with US war machine.
The immediat images that I've seen in a numbers of newspapers, Internet after were the following pictures :
Tanks maybe T-55, T-62?, and we can distinguish BMP1
Here we can see military vehicles, beside many civilians vehicles.
Here we can see clearly T-55, T-59-?- destroyed or abandonned ?
These 3 photos represented what we could see the real iraqi debacle, and indeed, it belongs Iraqis, and they lost all this hardware.
I was estonished because we are here in front of many contradictions. It was said that US had the total control of the Iraqi sky. In your view, what total control of the sky mean ? At first no iraqi aircraft could take off, and hence the total control of Iraqi movements, at least the heavies vehicles, like tanks, armored vehicles.
It is notworthy to recall that in 1967, Israel during few days of battle has the total control of egyptian sky, and invaded all the Sinai.
At First this photo showed a M2 Bradley burnt claimed to be destroyed by a T-72.
Well, destroyed by the T-72 ? Where is F-15 ? A-10 ? US coalition has the control of the sky no ? Something that is not clear. After, we learnt Iraq managed successfully to send more than hundred of its fleet into Iran, including Ilyushin 76, and several dozen of fighters too.
In fact we realized the that the control of the iraqi sky by the coaltion was far to be obvious. Well, what about the destruction of these armored vehicles in the three first photos ?
The reality, it was one of the worst war crime in the modern era. The epic of barbary, that is the essence of US military since the world war II when they bombed, and slaughtered civilians in Germany, Japan-with atomic bomb against civilians, US knew perfectly that Japan was at that time at knees-, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Serbia.
This is what Joyce Chediac said about this event :
Now you can tell that your hardware as A-10, and AH-64 are the best, and scored several hundreds of vehicles, and you can swagger saying there are the invicible....nevertheless, they scored against unarmed adversary. It is the evidence of the epic of barbary, and extrem cowardice. No wonder why US panic when they say and adversary comparable to them.
No wonder that they need 5 to 10 tacky F-15 in order to down 1 Mig-29 -in the best cases aam missiles has PK around 4-5%, hence you need to launch between 20, 25 aam missiles in the hope to reach a target -. The control of Iraqi sky was never total, because many iraqi fighters managed to defy US coalition, even in the last days, furthermore US coalition admitted they lost at least 75 aircrafts, however, as everyone know, this figure comes from DOD, and the real casualities must be at least the double. Soviet/russsian technology was really more than efficient, but US won not because they had a superioirty in technology, at first because Saddam did not want to fight. He gave confidence to US, we know all what confidence to US mean. The tragic end Ghadaffi, Saddam, Milosevic is the proof of US promess.
And the second reason of US success is the Hype.
We have all this single image of the A-10, beside F-15 as the demonstration of US suprematy regarding technology.
During a long time I was fascinated when I used to read that the A-10. Indeed, this fighter-bomber in 1991 destroyed more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces.
The immediat reflexe is to think that US erase iraqi air defense, nothing run, the US technology triumphed in anyway. And nothing match with US war machine.
The immediat images that I've seen in a numbers of newspapers, Internet after were the following pictures :
Tanks maybe T-55, T-62?, and we can distinguish BMP1
Here we can see military vehicles, beside many civilians vehicles.
Here we can see clearly T-55, T-59-?- destroyed or abandonned ?
These 3 photos represented what we could see the real iraqi debacle, and indeed, it belongs Iraqis, and they lost all this hardware.
I was estonished because we are here in front of many contradictions. It was said that US had the total control of the Iraqi sky. In your view, what total control of the sky mean ? At first no iraqi aircraft could take off, and hence the total control of Iraqi movements, at least the heavies vehicles, like tanks, armored vehicles.
It is notworthy to recall that in 1967, Israel during few days of battle has the total control of egyptian sky, and invaded all the Sinai.
At First this photo showed a M2 Bradley burnt claimed to be destroyed by a T-72.
Well, destroyed by the T-72 ? Where is F-15 ? A-10 ? US coalition has the control of the sky no ? Something that is not clear. After, we learnt Iraq managed successfully to send more than hundred of its fleet into Iran, including Ilyushin 76, and several dozen of fighters too.
In fact we realized the that the control of the iraqi sky by the coaltion was far to be obvious. Well, what about the destruction of these armored vehicles in the three first photos ?
The reality, it was one of the worst war crime in the modern era. The epic of barbary, that is the essence of US military since the world war II when they bombed, and slaughtered civilians in Germany, Japan-with atomic bomb against civilians, US knew perfectly that Japan was at that time at knees-, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Serbia.
This is what Joyce Chediac said about this event :
I want to give testimony on what are called the "highways of death." These are the two Kuwaiti roadways, littered with remains of 2,000 mangled Iraqi military vehicles, and the charred and dismembered bodies of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, who were withdrawing from Kuwait on February 26th and 27th 1991 in compliance with UN resolutions. [...] This one-sided carnage, this racist mass murder of Arab people, occurred while White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater promised that the U.S. and its coalition partners would not attack Iraqi forces leaving Kuwait. [...] How did it really happen? On February 26, 1991 Iraq had announced it was complying with the Soviet proposal, and its troops would withdraw from Kuwait. According to Kuwaiti eyewitnesses, quoted in the March 11, 1991 Washington Post, the withdrawal began on the two highways, and was in full swing by evening. Near midnight, the first U.S. bombing started. Hundreds of Iraqis jumped from their cars and their trucks, looking for shelter. U.S. pilots took whatever bombs happened to be close to the flight deck, from cluster bombs to 500 pound bombs. Can you imagine that on a car or truck? U.S. forces continued to drop bombs on the convoys until all humans were killed. So many jets swarmed over the inland road that it created an aerial traffic jam, and combat air controllers feared midair collisions.
Now you can tell that your hardware as A-10, and AH-64 are the best, and scored several hundreds of vehicles, and you can swagger saying there are the invicible....nevertheless, they scored against unarmed adversary. It is the evidence of the epic of barbary, and extrem cowardice. No wonder why US panic when they say and adversary comparable to them.
No wonder that they need 5 to 10 tacky F-15 in order to down 1 Mig-29 -in the best cases aam missiles has PK around 4-5%, hence you need to launch between 20, 25 aam missiles in the hope to reach a target -. The control of Iraqi sky was never total, because many iraqi fighters managed to defy US coalition, even in the last days, furthermore US coalition admitted they lost at least 75 aircrafts, however, as everyone know, this figure comes from DOD, and the real casualities must be at least the double. Soviet/russsian technology was really more than efficient, but US won not because they had a superioirty in technology, at first because Saddam did not want to fight. He gave confidence to US, we know all what confidence to US mean. The tragic end Ghadaffi, Saddam, Milosevic is the proof of US promess.
And the second reason of US success is the Hype.
nemrod- Posts : 839
Points : 1333
Join date : 2012-09-12
Age : 59
As most of the US weaponneries.GarryB wrote:I think the gun of the A-10 is the most overrated US weapon there is.
Against ? Against what ?GarryB wrote:
Against ground targets using HE ammo...
That fires chieftly against defenseless ennemy, when this ennemy retreat. It is easy to gun ennemy defenseless.GarryB wrote:
For the same role the A-10 has for its gun they chose a fixed twin barrel 30mm cannon that fires at 3,500rpm....
Untill now, in spite of what US assert, contrary to SU-25, the A-10 as AH-64 prove nothing.GarryB wrote:
It was going to have either a 45mm or a 57mm twin barrel gun slung externally under the centreline and have a twin barrel 23mm tail gun for self defence it was rejected in favour of the smaller, lighter, faster Su-25.
George1- Posts : 18519
Points : 19024
Join date : 2011-12-23
Location : Greece
Subpanels Finish Work, A-10's Fate Unresolved
WASHINGTON — Six House Armed Services Committee sub-panels have signed off on their portions of a Pentagon policy bill, leaving contentious issues like the A-10 attack plane's future to be decided by all HASC members.
The subcommittees on Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning moved quickly through what HASC calls public markups, most approving their parts of the bill in five or 10 minutes.
Complete coverage of the 2016 budget
As is the committee's custom, its Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee opted against addressing whether to reverse an Air Force proposal to retire its A-10s in its section of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
"That's definitely a full committee issue," a HASC Republican aide told reporters.
A-10 proponents, including former Thunderbolt pilot Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., are expected to angle to keep the planes flying when the full committee marks up the legislation next Wednesday.
“That's definitely a full committee issue.”
HASC aide on the A-10
She penned a recent New York Times op-ed arguing to block the Air Force's retirement plans for what would be the second consecutive year. But a McSally spokesman has not responded to an inquiry about her plans for a possible A-10 amendment at the full HASC markup.
A Democratic HASC aide told reporters the matter "has taken up less time this year" among staffers and members than in the run-up to last year's NDAA markup because "the facts haven't changed," he said.
HASC aides briefed reporters throughout the day on Wednesday, but declined to disclose specific program funding lines or numbers of platforms the legislation would authorize the armed services to purchase.
WASHINGTON — Six House Armed Services Committee sub-panels have signed off on their portions of a Pentagon policy bill, leaving contentious issues like the A-10 attack plane's future to be decided by all HASC members.
The subcommittees on Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning moved quickly through what HASC calls public markups, most approving their parts of the bill in five or 10 minutes.
Complete coverage of the 2016 budget
As is the committee's custom, its Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee opted against addressing whether to reverse an Air Force proposal to retire its A-10s in its section of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
"That's definitely a full committee issue," a HASC Republican aide told reporters.
A-10 proponents, including former Thunderbolt pilot Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., are expected to angle to keep the planes flying when the full committee marks up the legislation next Wednesday.
“That's definitely a full committee issue.”
HASC aide on the A-10
She penned a recent New York Times op-ed arguing to block the Air Force's retirement plans for what would be the second consecutive year. But a McSally spokesman has not responded to an inquiry about her plans for a possible A-10 amendment at the full HASC markup.
A Democratic HASC aide told reporters the matter "has taken up less time this year" among staffers and members than in the run-up to last year's NDAA markup because "the facts haven't changed," he said.
HASC aides briefed reporters throughout the day on Wednesday, but declined to disclose specific program funding lines or numbers of platforms the legislation would authorize the armed services to purchase.
George1- Posts : 18519
Points : 19024
Join date : 2011-12-23
Location : Greece
Buyers Wanted? Boeing Looks to Sell Retired A-10 Warthogs to Allies
As the US Air Force continues its push to retire its fleet of A-10 attack aircraft, Boeing Co. has started looking to sell the Cold-War era warplanes abroad.
Boeing is now talking to the Air Force about potentially selling the gunship – commonly referred to as the "Warthog" – to US allies, according to Chris Raymond, a vice president at the Chicago-based aerospace giant.
"There's been talk about what the international opportunities might be," he was quoted as saying by DoD Buzz while at the Paris Air Show.
"We're going to stay close to the US Air Force in this case. They have to make some decisions about what they actually have that they're willing to declare as excess defense articles and so it's really not our place to speculate on that."
Any deal with foreign governments will only happen if the Air Force gets approval for its proposal to retire the fleet of nearly 300 Warthogs over the next several years.
The retirement would save an estimated $4.2 billion a year and free up maintainers for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a stealthy multi-role fighter jet and the Pentagon's most expensive program, DoD Buzz reported.
But the Warthog has been able to narrowly escape retirement – so far – thanks to Congress, which values the plane's ability to provide close air support to ground troops.
To date, the United States is the only country to have ever operated the plane.
The Warthog was developed in the 1970s as a close air support aircraft by Fairchild Republic, which went out of business in the 1980s.
Boeing, which took over for the original manufacturer, is currently in the process of providing 173 sets of new wings – among other upgrades – to the remaining A-10 fleet.
Even as the Air Force looks to retire the Warthog, American military commanders have used it to strike militants from the so-called Islamic State (IS) terror group in Iraq and Syria, DoD Buzz reported.
Billed as a "low-cost counterterrorism" system, the modernized A-10 is clearly being aimed at Middle Eastern customers, International Business Times reported. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia may be two of the likely buyers, according to IBT sources who cited Boeing's close relationship with both states.
But before any potential sale of the A-10 to a foreign military, US Air Force officials will have to decide what their force structure will be, Raymond, the Boeing VP, told DoD Buzz.
"We need to see what they want to do first and then we'd certainly want to try to help market some of those around the world, if they choose to want to do that."
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150617/1023455469.html#ixzz3dJx8aFOI
As the US Air Force continues its push to retire its fleet of A-10 attack aircraft, Boeing Co. has started looking to sell the Cold-War era warplanes abroad.
Boeing is now talking to the Air Force about potentially selling the gunship – commonly referred to as the "Warthog" – to US allies, according to Chris Raymond, a vice president at the Chicago-based aerospace giant.
"There's been talk about what the international opportunities might be," he was quoted as saying by DoD Buzz while at the Paris Air Show.
"We're going to stay close to the US Air Force in this case. They have to make some decisions about what they actually have that they're willing to declare as excess defense articles and so it's really not our place to speculate on that."
Any deal with foreign governments will only happen if the Air Force gets approval for its proposal to retire the fleet of nearly 300 Warthogs over the next several years.
The retirement would save an estimated $4.2 billion a year and free up maintainers for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a stealthy multi-role fighter jet and the Pentagon's most expensive program, DoD Buzz reported.
But the Warthog has been able to narrowly escape retirement – so far – thanks to Congress, which values the plane's ability to provide close air support to ground troops.
To date, the United States is the only country to have ever operated the plane.
The Warthog was developed in the 1970s as a close air support aircraft by Fairchild Republic, which went out of business in the 1980s.
Boeing, which took over for the original manufacturer, is currently in the process of providing 173 sets of new wings – among other upgrades – to the remaining A-10 fleet.
Even as the Air Force looks to retire the Warthog, American military commanders have used it to strike militants from the so-called Islamic State (IS) terror group in Iraq and Syria, DoD Buzz reported.
Billed as a "low-cost counterterrorism" system, the modernized A-10 is clearly being aimed at Middle Eastern customers, International Business Times reported. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia may be two of the likely buyers, according to IBT sources who cited Boeing's close relationship with both states.
But before any potential sale of the A-10 to a foreign military, US Air Force officials will have to decide what their force structure will be, Raymond, the Boeing VP, told DoD Buzz.
"We need to see what they want to do first and then we'd certainly want to try to help market some of those around the world, if they choose to want to do that."
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150617/1023455469.html#ixzz3dJx8aFOI
Guest- Guest
"After more than four decades in service, the A-10 Warthog is due for a replacement. So says the U.S. Air Combat Command.
What's more, ACC says it's already "thinking about" fielding such a replacement. But what might that replacement be?
Last week, we got a clue. As reported by Reuters, the Air Force has recently begun evaluating Textron's (NYSE:TXT) Scorpion fighter jet as a potential 21st-century replacement for the 20th-century Warthog.
Quoting Air Force Gen. Herbert Carlisle, head of ACC, Reuters reports that the Air Force has done "some research" on Textron's new budget-priced Scorpion. And Carlisle thinks the plane just might be what the Air Force needs to perform close-air support in "contested environments" that could prove lethal to the A-10." Replacement maybe?
What's more, ACC says it's already "thinking about" fielding such a replacement. But what might that replacement be?
Last week, we got a clue. As reported by Reuters, the Air Force has recently begun evaluating Textron's (NYSE:TXT) Scorpion fighter jet as a potential 21st-century replacement for the 20th-century Warthog.
Quoting Air Force Gen. Herbert Carlisle, head of ACC, Reuters reports that the Air Force has done "some research" on Textron's new budget-priced Scorpion. And Carlisle thinks the plane just might be what the Air Force needs to perform close-air support in "contested environments" that could prove lethal to the A-10." Replacement maybe?
mrtravisgood- Posts : 37
Points : 39
Join date : 2015-10-30
Age : 45
Location : Wisconsin
I agree that the A-10 is outdated and needs to be replaced with something similar to the SU-25. But as a Former Forward Observer, it was nice to see an aircraft that can get down low and flay slow enough to lay down those rounds and bombs with precision to help me and my fellow comrades out of tight places. The A-10 has saved my ass many times and I will be forever grateful for it and sad to see it go, but it does need to go.
Werewolf- Posts : 5928
Points : 6117
Join date : 2012-10-25
mrtravisgood wrote:I agree that the A-10 is outdated and needs to be replaced with something similar to the SU-25. But as a Former Forward Observer, it was nice to see an aircraft that can get down low and flay slow enough to lay down those rounds and bombs with precision to help me and my fellow comrades out of tight places. The A-10 has saved my ass many times and I will be forever grateful for it and sad to see it go, but it does need to go.
Leave me this freedom to take a little scepticism about your profession in the field of observers when an A-10 has to safe your ass. No offense meant.
mrtravisgood- Posts : 37
Points : 39
Join date : 2015-10-30
Age : 45
Location : Wisconsin
No offense taken.
Airbornewolf- Posts : 1523
Points : 1589
Join date : 2014-02-06
Location : https://odysee.com/@airbornewolf:8
mrtravisgood wrote:I agree that the A-10 is outdated and needs to be replaced with something similar to the SU-25. But as a Former Forward Observer, it was nice to see an aircraft that can get down low and flay slow enough to lay down those rounds and bombs with precision to help me and my fellow comrades out of tight places. The A-10 has saved my ass many times and I will be forever grateful for it and sad to see it go, but it does need to go.
sadly, the fact remains there is no suitable replacement for the A-10 ready. The A-10's reputation and battlefield performance speaks for itself. short turn rate, 30MM nose cannon and its dedicated ground role made in an excellent CAS aircraft.
just asking, you know an CAS aircraft as dedicated and armoured as the A-10?. that is equal or better than the Warthog?. Among NATO there is none. The U.S should have overhauled the Thunderbolt 2 with an modernization project and upgrade it to an thunderbolt 3 package.
I disagree with your statement it has to go, to this day and age it remains an effective CAS platform with remarkable flight characteristics and amour with no equal among NATO forces.
mrtravisgood- Posts : 37
Points : 39
Join date : 2015-10-30
Age : 45
Location : Wisconsin
I stand corrected Airbornewolf. Good point. I have been out for few.
Guest- Guest
Airbornewolf wrote:mrtravisgood wrote:I agree that the A-10 is outdated and needs to be replaced with something similar to the SU-25. But as a Former Forward Observer, it was nice to see an aircraft that can get down low and flay slow enough to lay down those rounds and bombs with precision to help me and my fellow comrades out of tight places. The A-10 has saved my ass many times and I will be forever grateful for it and sad to see it go, but it does need to go.
sadly, the fact remains there is no suitable replacement for the A-10 ready. The A-10's reputation and battlefield performance speaks for itself. short turn rate, 30MM nose cannon and its dedicated ground role made in an excellent CAS aircraft.
just asking, you know an CAS aircraft as dedicated and armoured as the A-10?. that is equal or better than the Warthog?. Among NATO there is none. The U.S should have overhauled the Thunderbolt 2 with an modernization project and upgrade it to an thunderbolt 3 package.
I disagree with your statement it has to go, to this day and age it remains an effective CAS platform with remarkable flight characteristics and amour with no equal among NATO forces.
Isnt A10 at the same time platfom with highest friendly fire rate in USAF? They will have to go eventually due to age of airframes, last one was built... 30 years ago exacly, wich means average fleet age is probably nearing 32-33 years. Take also in count how many flying hours they had during all this time, US tends to fly their machines alot.
Personally as an Air Defence guy i dont think platforms like A10 will last for much longer, gun strafing and similar stuff work aganist Talibans, i wouldnt try it aganist someone who actually has proper IADS. I personally always prefered more something of a AMX International type as modern CAS. I again do not think F35 is good CAS platfom either.. actually i find it absurd flying CAS with something that costs 150million.
I think CAS platforms in future will go to stuff like Textron Scorpion, Aero L-159 Alca or maybe even Yak 130 derivates, cheap, light, low operating costs and similar as possible to advanced trainers.
Airbornewolf- Posts : 1523
Points : 1589
Join date : 2014-02-06
Location : https://odysee.com/@airbornewolf:8
mrtravisgood wrote:I stand corrected Airbornewolf. Good point. I have been out for few.
Ive been myself an FAC'er among other tasks in 2006 and 2008 in Afghanistan, so im familiar with capability's of NATO strike craft. A-10's where heavy air assets, they could not remain on station for long and had quite an heavy payload. In regard to that they only show up in critical conflicts or get re-assigned and show up empty with an partial main cannon magazine left to spend before RTB to KAF.
Having A-10's assigned meanth an heavy workload to "distribute" their payloads to targets and setting them up for the Gun-Runs because of their short turn rate. Talk about stress writing down their payloads, their short attack corridors and the deployment of their main gun.
Great aircraft, and i am the first one on this forum to say some piece of NATO equipment is a piece of shit if it is. but the A-10 is perfect for its designed task. its really a flying brick. its not fast, you do not hurt it easily and you especially do not want to stand in front of it.
Airbornewolf- Posts : 1523
Points : 1589
Join date : 2014-02-06
Location : https://odysee.com/@airbornewolf:8
Militarov wrote:
Isnt A10 at the same time platfom with highest friendly fire rate in USAF? They will have to go eventually due to age of airframes, last one was built... 30 years ago exacly, wich means average fleet age is probably nearing 32-33 years. Take also in count how many flying hours they had during all this time, US tends to fly their machines alot.
Personally as an Air Defence guy i dont think platforms like A10 will last for much longer, gun strafing and similar stuff work aganist Talibans, i wouldnt try it aganist someone who actually has proper IADS. I personally always prefered more something of a AMX International type as modern CAS. I again do not think F35 is good CAS platfom either.. actually i find it absurd flying CAS with something that costs 150million.
I think CAS platforms in future will go to stuff like Textron Scorpion, Aero L-159 Alca or maybe even Yak 130 derivates, cheap, light, low operating costs and similar as possible to advanced trainers.
Yes, but its not because of the aircraft its because the USAF is so short on Pilots they are send up on stimulants to do combat again and again in multiple missions a day. an collumn of vehicles in the desert with dust trails is hard to distinguish from your "own" vehicles. add exhaustion to that and your are set for Blue on Blue.
And indeed, A-10's been in nasty incidents like that. But its not the aircraft's fault or the pilot himself. its the U.S government waging war's that in practice its unable to fight.
Take my word for it, hearing an U.S A-10 pilot over the HF CAS frequency realizing he just strafed an British platoon with his 30 MM cannon is not something you forget.
your assumption of an A-10 flying into defended airspace is not accurate either, its an easy target to Air Defense and its standard NATO procedure to have an anti-fighter craft escorting these A-10's in this case. there things where designed in mind to wreck havoc on advancing soviet tanks in europe. and Yes, they fly in pairs in Afghanistan as the Taliban pose no credible AA threat.
The F-35 itself is so bad, an mig 21 will shoot it out of the sky. i wont get even into that latest piece of shit of Lockheed Martin.
Guest- Guest
Airbornewolf wrote:Militarov wrote:
Isnt A10 at the same time platfom with highest friendly fire rate in USAF? They will have to go eventually due to age of airframes, last one was built... 30 years ago exacly, wich means average fleet age is probably nearing 32-33 years. Take also in count how many flying hours they had during all this time, US tends to fly their machines alot.
Personally as an Air Defence guy i dont think platforms like A10 will last for much longer, gun strafing and similar stuff work aganist Talibans, i wouldnt try it aganist someone who actually has proper IADS. I personally always prefered more something of a AMX International type as modern CAS. I again do not think F35 is good CAS platfom either.. actually i find it absurd flying CAS with something that costs 150million.
I think CAS platforms in future will go to stuff like Textron Scorpion, Aero L-159 Alca or maybe even Yak 130 derivates, cheap, light, low operating costs and similar as possible to advanced trainers.
Yes, but its not because of the aircraft its because the USAF is so short on Pilots they are send up on stimulants to do combat again and again in multiple missions a day. an collumn of vehicles in the desert with dust trails is hard to distinguish from your "own" vehicles. add exhaustion to that and your are set for Blue on Blue.
And indeed, A-10's been in nasty incidents like that. But its not the aircraft's fault or the pilot himself. its the U.S government waging war's that in practice its unable to fight.
Take my word for it, hearing an U.S A-10 pilot over the HF CAS frequency realizing he just strafed an British platoon with his 30 MM cannon is not something you forget.
your assumption of an A-10 flying into defended airspace is not accurate either, its an easy target to Air Defense and its standard NATO procedure to have an anti-fighter craft escorting these A-10's in this case. there things where designed in mind to wreck havoc on advancing soviet tanks in europe. and Yes, they fly in pairs in Afghanistan as the Taliban pose no credible AA threat.
The F-35 itself is so bad, an mig 21 will shoot it out of the sky. i wont get even into that latest piece of shit of Lockheed Martin.
I never said they would fly alone into defended airspace, however they would not last very long no matter what is giving them support aganist good equiped oponent and trained oponent today. It might have worked aganist Iraq and their 25 year old export air defence systems coupled with jamming, A10s could fly around unchallenged.
However how many missions they flew in Yugoslavia, which lets be honest wasnt really very good equiped oponent? Very few compared to the rest of the fleet, and only close to Albanian border as much as possible to evade air defence which they had issues dealing with. CAS will be needed in future too, however A10 gun waving doctrine is part of history, will be used few more years till these low intensity wars in Afganistan, Iraq, Syria are over and after that it will die out on global scene. Will exist still in these low intensity conflicts but i dont think anyone will again build whole CAS platfom around gun like it was A10.
GarryB- Posts : 40541
Points : 41041
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The A-10 will go because the USAF doesn't love it and thinks it will be fighting WWIII in which the future life expectancy of an A-10 will be rather low... with Pantsir-S1 reaching out to 20km and Pantsir-SM reaching 40km and of course S-350 etc etc it is just too dangerous for future aircraft over the battlefield. Even with IFVs armed with modern EO sights and 57mm cannon with guided shells it is going to be very difficult for CAS aircraft of any type.
The point is that the US doesn't fight equal enemies with conventional weapons, and the a-10 still has a lot to offer.
I don't love the A-10 but I don't hate it either..
I think the gun is the biggest problem... it is basically a B-25 sized aircraft built around a huge 30mm gatling gun the size of a small car along with its electric motor and ammo bin.
If I was upgrading it I would ditch the 30mm gun and replace it with the single barrel 25mm guns they were fitting to the AV-8IIs... fixed single barrel guns with decent rate of fire that offered good penetration and HE capacity in a much more compact weapon.
Without the big 7 barrel muzzle in the nose you can fill it with all sorts of electronics and EO turrets... don't need to develop from scratch... take the stuff developed for the Commanche like MMW radar and thermal imaging sights etc etc.
Less cannon ammo (if you need guns just carry gun pods) and add fuel for better loiter performance and of course fit the aircraft with DIRCMS to protect it from MANPADS... and armour to protect it from small arms fire.
The point is that the US doesn't fight equal enemies with conventional weapons, and the a-10 still has a lot to offer.
I don't love the A-10 but I don't hate it either..
I think the gun is the biggest problem... it is basically a B-25 sized aircraft built around a huge 30mm gatling gun the size of a small car along with its electric motor and ammo bin.
If I was upgrading it I would ditch the 30mm gun and replace it with the single barrel 25mm guns they were fitting to the AV-8IIs... fixed single barrel guns with decent rate of fire that offered good penetration and HE capacity in a much more compact weapon.
Without the big 7 barrel muzzle in the nose you can fill it with all sorts of electronics and EO turrets... don't need to develop from scratch... take the stuff developed for the Commanche like MMW radar and thermal imaging sights etc etc.
Less cannon ammo (if you need guns just carry gun pods) and add fuel for better loiter performance and of course fit the aircraft with DIRCMS to protect it from MANPADS... and armour to protect it from small arms fire.
Guest- Guest
GarryB wrote:The A-10 will go because the USAF doesn't love it and thinks it will be fighting WWIII in which the future life expectancy of an A-10 will be rather low... with Pantsir-S1 reaching out to 20km and Pantsir-SM reaching 40km and of course S-350 etc etc it is just too dangerous for future aircraft over the battlefield. Even with IFVs armed with modern EO sights and 57mm cannon with guided shells it is going to be very difficult for CAS aircraft of any type.
The point is that the US doesn't fight equal enemies with conventional weapons, and the a-10 still has a lot to offer.
I don't love the A-10 but I don't hate it either..
I think the gun is the biggest problem... it is basically a B-25 sized aircraft built around a huge 30mm gatling gun the size of a small car along with its electric motor and ammo bin.
If I was upgrading it I would ditch the 30mm gun and replace it with the single barrel 25mm guns they were fitting to the AV-8IIs... fixed single barrel guns with decent rate of fire that offered good penetration and HE capacity in a much more compact weapon.
Without the big 7 barrel muzzle in the nose you can fill it with all sorts of electronics and EO turrets... don't need to develop from scratch... take the stuff developed for the Commanche like MMW radar and thermal imaging sights etc etc.
Less cannon ammo (if you need guns just carry gun pods) and add fuel for better loiter performance and of course fit the aircraft with DIRCMS to protect it from MANPADS... and armour to protect it from small arms fire.
Well or just reduce size of the gun, going for Vulcan like AMX International did is legit imo, fill it with AP/HE mix of rounds and whoala, you have huge amount of space remaining for electronic and other equipment.
Similar topics