Tied Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 MZW weighs in on the A-10's retirement. I would have to check my figures again, but I'm pretty sure the M14 was like 1.1 times as expensive as the M1, not 3 times as expensive. It was mediocre, though. F-35 will hopefully not be that bad. It at least isn't a warmed over, like, F-117 or something. In general, though, his argument checks out. What do HATO counties use for CAS? I always assumed it was a mix of rocket pods, LGBs, and mavericks on everything Besides the usual helicopter and drones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted November 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 These days? JDAMS, Paveways and Hellfires are the prevelent mix. Rocket pods are coming back into vogue with the PKWS (Guided Hydra 70 rockets) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Hellfires are far and away the most common, I think. You can put them on virtually anything, they carry a useful multpurpose payload, and they are very accurate. .mil stopped using "dumb" ordnance almost entirely, from the 2000s on, though there's still a lot in inventory. That includes rockets, though as Bele mentions, APKWS is changing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronezhilet Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 I have absolutely no knowledge what-so-ever of planes, but... ...I can't help but read the topic title in a heavily accented British voice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted November 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Hellfires are far and away the most common, I think. You can put them on virtually anything, they carry a useful multpurpose payload, and they are very accurate. .mil stopped using "dumb" ordnance almost entirely, from the 2000s on, though there's still a lot in inventory. That includes rockets, though as Bele mentions, APKWS is changing that. Theses days the ideal is if it's 'dumb', make it smart with bolt on tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm_kruger Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 I am officially hijacking this thread. It is now about posting the absolute dumbest A-10-related shit you can find. Skip to 7 minutes for a army guy saying that air superiority has no tangible benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Uh, that guy is an Air Force officer... And he's talking about it not having a direct, visible impact on the infantry's fight on the ground, not that it has no benefit at all. So it might not be the video that is dumb, here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm_kruger Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Well that's what I get for drinking before dinner. But I'd say that it's pretty untruthful/dumb to say that air superiority has no direct benefit to infantry when the army hasn't operated under contested skies since WWII, to the point of reducing medium/close range air defenses to Stinger missiles and hoping that the Air Force and Patriot batteries do their job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Yeah, you're totally missing his point, which is that there's a special relationship between A-10 pilots and the infantry. He's not saying that air superiority doesn't benefit infantry, he is saying that the infantry don't have a close relationship with air superiority elements and that the benefits they do get from air superiority aren't visible or tangible to them. Having a clear sky with no enemy aircraft isn't something the grunt is likely to notice, but an A-10 zooming in and blowing up the house full of bad guys is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 I'm still of the opinion that a combo of Ah-64s and multirole jets like the F-35 can basically fill the same role as the A-10. Need quick CAS? Jet. Need a platform to loiter around and shoot shit with a 30 mm cannon? Ah-64. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Also drones. Belesarius 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted November 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Predators with thermobaric hellfires seems to be pretty nasty. Also, shit like that new 40mm grenade launcher thing that can reach out to over a km. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperComrade Posted November 19, 2015 Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 LoooSeR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted November 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2015 I miss the OV-10. <3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 I'm still of the opinion that a combo of Ah-64s and multirole jets like the F-35 can basically fill the same role as the A-10. Need quick CAS? Jet. Need a platform to loiter around and shoot shit with a 30 mm cannon? Ah-64. Or any jet with dumb or laser guided bombs and rocket pods. The concept of a pure ground attack bird isnt obsolete, but so something like the A-10 is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 Hognose weighs in impassionedly on the A-10's stay of execution. One thing I don't get is this idea that F-35 "can't carry ordnance". Who says, the Washington Post? F-35A has four internal weapons pylons and six external weapons pylons, and a reported maximum load of 18K lbs, versus the A-10's 16K. Or does he mean that F-35's development isn't finished yet, so it isn't currently allowed to carry weapons? That's an entirely separate issue, having nothing to do with the design of F-35 itself.The A-10 is a better loitering bird, with a higher number of pylons and a massive cannon and better low-speed handling, true, but it's an old airframe and its maintenance costs will only increase, as the gap in capability between it and surrounding systems widens. Once it completes development it will be quite capable of performing a CAS mission, and probably better in several important ways than the A-10 (visibility and networking with on-station drones immediately come to mind).I love the A-10 a lot, but the rabble rousing about its retirement doesn't seem to be helping anybody except the A-10 maintenance contractors... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 The answer is why not have both? And one or two other options as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 The answer is why not have both? And one or two other options as well. fucking money thats why Sturgeon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Yeah, Don, the reason why not is that the Air Force's fleet (of everything, F-16s, A-10s, F-15s) is getting very old, and if they keep them in service long enough to meet their projected needs, their maintenance costs are going to shoot through the roof (they already are).We can't afford to keep the old birds in service, that's why it sounds so goddamn stupid to me when people talk about cancelling F-35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Were I a Murkan, I'd vote in favour of cancelling F-35 for LRSB. F-22 is dead (nobody wants to restart production), the rest are old (although still plenty good by any metric). Or make a stretched F-35 variant and leave the C model for the marines to wank over.* Long range stealth boat with large internal capacity seems to be where things are headed for the moment. Well, that and drones. * Also, I'd cancel the marines and give the army their name for brand recognition purposes. I promise that nobody would even notice. Belesarius 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Were I a Murkan, I'd vote in favour of cancelling F-35 for LRSB. F-22 is dead (nobody wants to restart production), the rest are old (although still plenty good by any metric). Or make a stretched F-35 variant and leave the C model for the marines to wank over.* Long range stealth boat with large internal capacity seems to be where things are headed for the moment. Well, that and drones. * Also, I'd cancel the marines and give the army their name for brand recognition purposes. I promise that nobody would even notice. The legacy fleet is good-ish. It won't stay that way forever. Fatigue is already an issue, and it pops its ugly head up now and again. If you cancel the F-35 there will be a a lot of other countries wondering what in the hell they're supposed to fly now. There will be brief enthusiasm for Gripen NG, Rafale, etc. until people realize that those aren't that much better than upgraded F-16s, and not remotely a match for the likes of the PAK-FA and J-20. F-35 is also the closest thing to a "long range stealth boat with large internal capacity" that's being produced, and from a non-evil country. F-35 has bigger internal bays than F-22 (and as of block 5 will match the internal missile capacity of the raptor), and it outranges the F-16 (which, let's not forget, had amazing range for a tactical aircraft of that size when it was introduced) once you start attaching weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm_kruger Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 The newest F-15Cs were delivered in 1985. The last F-16 was delivered in 2005 while (IIRC) the last batch of 20 Super Hornets will be delivered this year. Boeing is shutting down the F-15E and F/A-18 lines in 2017 (barring further orders) and Lockheed is saying 2018-2020 for F-16 production. 187 F-22s and 2,443 F-35s will be replacing 291 A-10s, 192 F-15Cs, most of the Air Force's 957 F-16s, 314 Navy and 229 Marine Hornets, and around 130 Harriers. Plus 600 or so F-15Es and F/A-18E/F when those start getting phased out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Seems that A-10s are primarily favored in CAS due to the pilots being trained in CAS rather than the A-10 being a vastly superior platform. Which makes complete sense, but Warthogians will still fetishize the GAU-8(but I can't really blame them for that). Sturgeon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted March 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/17/air-force-clarifies--10-retirement-plans/81902954/ First Warthogs to retire in two years. Interesting to note that the air force is admitting that they are loosing CAS ability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That’s Suspicious Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 Anyone got any good info on the YA-9? It'd be interesting to see what that could've turned out like in comparison too the A-10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.