|
Davin Valkri posted:Not to butt in, but think the reason they "don't count" is that they started life as cargo planes before being converted to ground support work.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
I'd give my right ball to see a 747 making GBS threads nuclear tipped cruise missiles out the tail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:I'm sure the AC-47 and AC-130 don't count for :reasons: too. Probably because they weren't dedicated ground attack airframes. The thing is neither the USAAF nor the USAF ever purpose built aircraft for CAS because multi-roll aircraft were that much more useful in every way imaginable. Aircraft designers have never been able to flat out assume that air superiority was a given and it takes some really loving permissive air space for dedicated ground attack aircraft to do their jobs. Christ, just look at what happened to the purpose-made CAS aircraft the Germans and Soviets fielded in WW2 once fighters got in among them. Ju-87s would get tore right the gently caress up, and despite all the legends of the nigh invincible IL-2 the reality is that they got shot down in pretty loving large numbers as well if left unescorted. Dudes like Hartmann sure as poo poo weren't logging 350+ kills just jousting with B17s. On the other hand, take your average high altitude fighter and slap a bunch of ordinance on it and it makes anywhere from a good (P-47, P-38) to passable (P-51) ground attack aircraft once the skies are clear. And if it gets jumped on the way to the target? Jettison ordinance and you're a fighter again. While some of that has changed in the last 50 years, the fundamentals still hold pretty true. A (theoretical, working) F-35 can lob jdams as well as an A-10, but no way in hell is an A-10 going to survive as long as an F-35 against an airborn opponent designed and built in the post-Brezhnev era.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
You guys are confusing dedicated ground attack with dedicated CAS platform.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:You guys are confusing dedicated ground attack with dedicated CAS platform. True, the A-10 isn't strictly a "dedicated CAS platform" either. The whole idea of killing tank columns in the Fulda Gap is air interdiction, not CAS. The whole discussion is an exercise in finding a True Scotsman, which is sort of my point. The closest thing to dedicated CAS in the US inventory is probably the AC-130-- there is a whole section of the JFIRE FM dedicated to working with them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Servicio en Espanol posted:Do Air Force pilots like the Warthog? I'm sure they do. Does that matter to the Air Force as an institution? Nope. It's also a dumb argument that "The Air Force has designed exactly one close air support aircraft in its history," The Air Force has never designed a clean sheet early warning or C2 aircraft, designed only one clean sheet photo recon aircraft, and never designed a clean sheet electronic attack aircraft. The Air Force cares about these missions, but it's far more common to adapt an existing airframe than to develop an entirely new one. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Sep 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
As much as everyone loves the A-10, it's got to be reaching its sunset years. Over 20 years ago it was a bad idea to use it in anything but a super permissive environment. A-10s and Tornados getting popped lead the the 10,000 foot minimum height in Gulf War 1 and anti-air weapons sure haven't gotten worse since then. The GAU-8, the fancy gun it's built around has an effective range of 4,000 feet and a Max of 12,000. If you are stuck at an altitude where you need to start using strictly munitions other planes can use and ALSO actually defend themselves from air threats you really gotta start looking at what the A-10 brings to the table another plane doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Probably because they weren't dedicated ground attack airframes. Every aspect of the US military has been built around the assumption that we'd have air superiority. This is why the Russians have invested a ridiculous amount of energy and resources into hordes of serious, dedicated AA systems and we have a couple theatre-defense missile systems (we use for defeating Scuds) and Stingers strapped to Humvees. I don't know why we are throwing that out the window and assuming that the attack missions we've been routinely calling in since 1991 are somehow the aberration here and what is really coming down the pike is a Tom Clancy wet dream of existential war against a reinvigorated and implacable Sino-Russian Pact and we accidentally locked our keys inside the F-22 cockpits. The thinking here reminds me a lot of how the USAF approached ground support in Vietnam since "pfffft no big thing guys I'll just send a Thud over there to drop some bombs and bammo done be out in five seconds" which turns out to have been really not very effective. What were the effective CAS platforms? Twenty-five year old piston-engine Skyraiders the Air Force snagged from the Navy. There seems to be this idea that things like "loiter ability" or "visually confirming targets aren't cattle/orphanages/allies/refugees" is obsolete and I don't really buy it. I don't necessarily think the A-10 is the Platonic ideal of ground attack aircraft, but I certainly don't see the Air Force even pretending they are going to fill that role with even something like Super Tucanos either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Are there any reasons why we can't just sell the A-10s to SWAT teams and such and then when we hear the bRRRRRRRRT it means pot smokers and gun owners are getting their rather violent comeuppance?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm not sure who you think runs "the Air Force as an institution" (Hint: it's pilots.) Wrong (it's the generals at the Pentagon.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Who are mostly pilots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Servicio en Espanol posted:Wrong (it's the generals at the Pentagon.) Oddly, the vast majority of AF generals are pilots. E:F,b standard.deviant fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Sep 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Who are mostly pilots. They were. Now they are bureaucrats fighting other bureaucrats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:Oddly, the vast majority of AF generals are pilots. A-10 pilots?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
jsdrwho19999 posted:A-10 pilots? Actually as I understand it, the head of the Air Force is an ex-A-10 pilot. This was considered to be very interesting at the time of his appointment by the GiP Air Force thread at the time because they knew the Air Force establishment hated the A-10.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
Servicio en Espanol posted:Every aspect of the US military has been built around the assumption that we'd have air superiority. This is why the Russians have invested a ridiculous amount of energy and resources into hordes of serious, dedicated AA systems and we have a couple theatre-defense missile systems (we use for defeating Scuds) and Stingers strapped to Humvees. Oh, come now, US SHOARD systems are pretty hilarious, but our long range SAMs are top notch and not just against TBMs. There's really no better option in the world than modern Patriot if you absolutely must shoot down a few TBMs, cruise missiles, UAVs, ARMs, and LO FW aircraft all at the same time. It is telling that the UAE is getting all of its long range SAMs and missile defense from the US and getting the latest, greatest SHORAD systems from Russia. quote:I don't know why we are throwing that out the window and assuming that the attack missions we've been routinely calling in since 1991 are somehow the aberration here and what is really coming down the pike is a Tom Clancy wet dream of existential war against a reinvigorated and implacable Sino-Russian Pact and we accidentally locked our keys inside the F-22 cockpits. It's not just fear that A-10s will get bounced by MiGs and Sukhois, which I agree is a strange concern. A-10s just are not very good at dealing with modern MANPADS or SHORAD systems, which are proliferating more and more. The last time the US went up against a double-digit SAM threat was roughly never. That kind of environment would challenge our Air Force as is and would effectively be a no A-10 zone until the IADS were rolled back. I tend to agree with worries about A-10s and their long term effectiveness. I also have some serious loving doubts that the Air Force will properly fill the hole in capabilities that will be left by the retiring of the A-10.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Forgot about this. You are right, the Air Force does care about AWACs and whatnot. That's why they aren't cancelling them with no replacement in sight. Other roles, like photo reconnaissance or w/e, I expect the Air Force feels like they can eliminate the need for a manned role entirely through drones and satellites, as we are seeing now. As an aside, the Army is making noises about picking up and operating the A-10 themselves if the Air Force does retire them. This is a bluff, because I don't think the Army is willing to make that kind of financial investment right now. However, it is worth noting that the Army has made this threat several times before, since the early '90s at least, whenever the Air Force starts talking about retiring the A-10. Again, it goes all the way back to the Air Force's attitude towards close air support and the Army's Cheyenne attack helicopter response, maneuvers in a bureaucratic war going back arguably to the Key West Agreement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Servicio en Espanol posted:You are right, the Air Force does care about AWACs and whatnot. That's why they aren't cancelling them with no replacement in sight. Other roles, like photo reconnaissance or w/e, I expect the Air Force feels like they can eliminate the need for a manned role entirely through drones and satellites, as we are seeing now. standard.deviant fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Sorry to interrupt A-10 Chat, but today marks 30 years since Col. Petrov decided not to start WWIII. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/09/the-man-who-saved-the-world-by-doing-absolutely-nothing/280050/
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:Sorry to interrupt A-10 Chat, but today marks 30 years since Col. Petrov decided not to start WWIII. One of the few times where "Na, its probably nothing" was the correct response to an alarm bell going off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:Given the basically-100% overlap between potential enemies who have large masses of tanks and potential enemies who have short-range air defense that forces the A-10 out of gun range, there isn't a real benefit to using the A-10 at all over F-15Es/MQ-9s/etc. Instead of pretending pilots can make meaningful friend-or-foe determinations with their eyes at A-10 speeds (which, while slower than most other fixed wing aircraft, are still high enough to make that a non-trivial task), why not just embrace EO/IR technology that's tied to a laser designator? I guess we'll see! The Air Force has been trying to shut down the A-10 project and get out of the CAS game practically since its inception so it is really amazing that it has lasted this long. Smart weapons have been utilized several times in the past decades by the Air Force as a trump card in eliminating the need for the A-10 in favor of driveby jet bombchuckers, but they haven't managed to make it stick. I'm skeptical that the same AF mentality that led to this whole issue coming to a head in the late 60s/early 70s is the right way forward now, regardless of the latest technological promises they are making.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Servicio en Espanol posted:I guess we'll see! The Air Force has been trying to shut down the A-10 project and get out of the CAS game practically since its inception so it is really amazing that it has lasted this long. Smart weapons have been utilized several times in the past decades by the Air Force as a trump card in eliminating the need for the A-10 in favor of driveby jet bombchuckers, but they haven't managed to make it stick. I'm skeptical that the same AF mentality that led to this whole issue coming to a head in the late 60s/early 70s is the right way forward now, regardless of the latest technological promises they are making. standard.deviant fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
My military fantasy is a A-10 done up in the form of a twin mustang.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:Do you think it's worth it to keep the airframe in use for the gun alone? You ask this in a TFR thread? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Sperglord Actual posted:You ask this in a TFR thread? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:The only unique capability of the A-10 is its gun. Do you think it's worth it to keep the airframe in use for the gun alone? The A-10 has more to it than the gun which makes it a good CAS platform, it had an 85% mission capable rate, a single loss during the Iraq War, and great loiter time. However, this isn't specifically about the A-10*, planes come and go**, but we aren't even pretending that we are going to seriously fill that role. *Well it was about the Air Force establishment hating the A-10 (it does) but now it is moved on to their distaste for the CAS mission. **Except for the B-52.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
The Air Force has also been pushing BVR air-air missile capabilities over visual range engagements / dogfighting for roughly fifty years, that hasn't worked out in any real-world case and it's unlikely it ever would outside a total-war scenario, yet it remains a core argument for the F-22 and even more so the F-35. Either tech eventually makes the impossible possible, or it doesn't. The difference this time with the A-10 is that no one's really suggesting replacing it with high-speed air-superiority jet fighters, they're talking about replacing it with cheap, high-endurance UAVs. Preferably in numbers that'll give them coverage on the battlefield we'll never be able to afford with manned jets. The technological hurdles (latency, camera resolution etc) have fairly obvious current-tech solutions. What you're left with is that the A-10 has that big fuckoff cannon and nothing smaller than an AC-130 has anything comparable; if you think you really need that kind of zoot to supress a couple dudes hiding in a wadi, well, eventually the -35's groverlaser will be able to roast them from the heavens I guess
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:The Air Force has also been pushing BVR air-air missile capabilities over visual range engagements / dogfighting for roughly fifty years, that hasn't worked out in any real-world case and it's unlikely it ever would outside a total-war scenario, yet it remains a core argument for the F-22 and even more so the F-35. Either tech eventually makes the impossible possible, or it doesn't. UAVs are the obvious solution, but the Air Force is pushing the F-35, not some Cyberdyne Systems Predator upgrade package. Whenever they the technology they have working with these Drone-16s has sufficiently matured we'd be set. If the Air Force goes for it. But We aren't quite there yet, either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:Granted, it's cool as poo poo. On the other hand, if we were buying airplanes based on cool factor alone, we'd have an entire air force made of these: I believe you mean these   Servicio en Espanol posted:a single loss during the Iraq War Yeah, there've been two of those. Total losses in 1991 were seven - four shot down and three scrapped after returning home. 2003 was a completely different kettle of fish. You're being pretty misleading by not including that context. also for context in 1991 out of US air losses, the A-10/OA-10 led the pack. I don't think it's coincidental the A-6 and AV-8B were next in line, given their mission profiles. I don't have my handy source book on this which tabulated average shootdowns per sortie/per number of planes deployed, but my recollection is that the A-10 did not do well in that regard either. Psion fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Servicio en Espanol posted:UAVs are the obvious solution, but the Air Force is pushing the F-35, not some Cyberdyne Systems Predator upgrade package. Whenever they the technology they have working with these Drone-16s has sufficiently matured we'd be set. If the Air Force goes for it. But We aren't quite there yet, either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
MQ-9 Reaper, now armed with Hugfire missiles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Servicio en Espanol posted:The A-10 has more to it than the gun which makes it a good CAS platform, it had an 85% mission capable rate, a single loss during the Iraq War, and great loiter time. However, this isn't specifically about the A-10*, planes come and go**, but we aren't even pretending that we are going to seriously fill that role. There was a single loss during the Iraq war because the Air Force wasn't willing to risk them in the CAS mission until they could operate in a near 100% permissive airspace. This was mostly because the moment the A-10s were permitted to engage targets at low level during Desert Storm (which was in February after the integrated air defense network had already been annihilated) 4 of them promptly got shot down by short range IR SAMs/MANPADS along with a shitload seriously damaged.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
Servicio en Espanol posted:The A-10 has more to it than the gun which makes it a good CAS platform, it had an 85% mission capable rate, a single loss during the Iraq War, That's because it was kept out of the SAM envelopes that meant it suffered 6 losses out of the 9 hit by IR SAMs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Alaan posted:MQ-9 Reaper, now armed with Hugfire missiles. I was just reading the wiki about the Reaper and I'm surprised they have only made about 57 of them so far. I thought we had > 100 by this point. e: They apparently crash all the time too. Plinkey fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:I was just reading the wiki about the Reaper and I'm surprised they have only made about 57 of them so far. I thought we had > 100 by this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
What's the name of that bomb that throws out anti-tank skeet? Doesn't that basically do what the A-10's gun does (to armour) but from higher and with more adaptability in airframes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Vindolanda posted:What's the name of that bomb that throws out anti-tank skeet? Doesn't that basically do what the A-10's gun does (to armour) but from higher and with more adaptability in airframes? Sensor-fused weapon. It's pretty cool and all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:I was just reading the wiki about the Reaper and I'm surprised they have only made about 57 of them so far. I thought we had > 100 by this point. That's because the air force pilots insist on trying to land the things instead of letting an automated system do it. You can't tell a pilot that a computer can do his job better than he does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Maybe someone here can help me out. I'm trying to identify this tank: It's Korean War era, used by the US Army's 1st Cavalry Division. I have a second photo of it, but the museum I work at has a crappy scanner and it comes out way too dark to be helpful. The two machine gun turrets on the back are what are most unusual. Also the armor over the road wheels isn't something you see on American tanks very often, it reminds me of a M6, but doesn't look anything like one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
At first blush I'd say it is some sort of amphibious tank dveloped for the marines. Kinda like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Vehicle_Tracked The armor around the tracks looks fairly similar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 03:21
|
|