User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 10:46:18 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We need a low tech solution here, no need for an entirely stealth aircraft at 200 million per copy to beat up on insurgents. Emphasis long loiter time, pilot survivability, and BRRRRRRRRT-ability. Integrate modern sensors and some of the low observability lessons from other aircradt to improve manpad survivability. Call it a day and get them out to our guys ASAP. Step 1: get rid of the cannon |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 10:46:55 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cessna scorpion, this is what they want to replace the A10 http://i65.tinypic.com/bge5ns.jpg That thing's unit cost is not that much lower than an F-16. Operating costs are supposed to be a lot lower, though. We need a fleet of cheap bomb trucks to fight the kind of wars we have been fighting. I know jack shit about air support but there's no reason we should be flying the wings off of top of the line aircraft to bomb mud huts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 10:47:19 PM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 10:47:35 PM EDT
[#4]
Bring back the super tweet outstanding cas performance it has.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 10:49:39 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I stopped reading when I saw McSally's name. One of the worst officers I have ever met in my career. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 10:55:12 PM EDT
[#6]
It'll never happen. Current doctrine is multi-role aircraft that can go anywhere and do anything. The A-10 was a single mission aircraft like the F-15 eagle was as built for air superiority. The Strike eagle was another example of forcing a plane to do a mission that it was never designed to do.I doubt that they'll be another manned aircraft build in wing level numbers anymore. While it may happen for limited numbers of a particular airframe to be purchased for a mission specific role, manned aircraft with numbers in the hundreds are toast. As the technology for unmanned aircraft gets more refined by the day, the next large aircraft orders will be in that configuration. I liked the Hog, and enjoyed working on them for the last 16 years of my time in the AF, but it's day in the spotlight is over.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 11:05:07 PM EDT
[#7]
I can see a need for COTS like a Super Tocano. We aren't needing tank busting. Something with a long loiter time, can operate off short fields using a crew of a half dozen . And resupply via rotary craft.
It would be able to slow orbit at FL 250 out of sight of hostiles yet dive into action and drop hell on light skin at the most. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 11:10:34 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We need a low tech solution here, no need for an entirely stealth aircraft at 200 million per copy to beat up on insurgents. Emphasis long loiter time, pilot survivability, and BRRRRRRRRT-ability. Integrate modern sensors and some of the low observability lessons from other aircradt to improve manpad survivability. Call it a day and get them out to our guys ASAP. Those two points kind of contradict each other. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 11:13:01 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I stopped reading when I saw McSally's name. One of the worst officers I have ever met in my career. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 11:14:27 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IN for responses from actual Hog pilots....yeah, im one of em. In before the cas expert Sylvan also  Who is the expert on CAS? The gentleman on the ground calling it in and directing it or the gentleman delivering it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 11:25:26 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An upgraded A-10 would be awesome. Nigel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and... Martin: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten? Nigel: Exactly. Martin: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder? Nigel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where? Martin: I don't know. Nigel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? Martin: Put it up to eleven. Nigel: Elevn. Exactly. One louder. Martin: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder? [Pause.] Nigel: These go to eleven. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 11:27:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistorySweet! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 11:32:27 PM EDT
[#13]
Its a shame it probably wont happen. Single use aircraft are frowned upon in the USAF.
The Army has the AH64D/E. It does a damn good job, but lacks range and speed (Its a helicopter after all). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 11:40:02 PM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 11:46:15 PM EDT
[#15]
If I ran the budget there would be 4000 Warthogs in the air and 8000 F-16's. All newer planes would be discontinued.
Every new plane planned since these were invented seems to be more of a star wars fantasy than a financially responsible fighting machine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 11:47:58 PM EDT
[#16]
A guy on my airport last job in the AirForce was on the F-35 program. To hear him tell it the F-35 can do no wrong, fly circles around the A-10, hit more targets, and make toast.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 11:48:23 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistorySuper Tocano is quite a bit more costly but soil a fraction of any jet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 11:56:56 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Step 1: get rid of the cannon Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We need a low tech solution here, no need for an entirely stealth aircraft at 200 million per copy to beat up on insurgents. Emphasis long loiter time, pilot survivability, and BRRRRRRRRT-ability. Integrate modern sensors and some of the low observability lessons from other aircradt to improve manpad survivability. Call it a day and get them out to our guys ASAP. Step 1: get rid of the cannon You are basically giving our men a emasculated plane.  #nomoreemasculatedplanes  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:08:58 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I ran the budget there would be 4000 Warthogs in the air and 8000 F-16's. All newer planes would be discontinued. Every new plane planned since these were invented seems to be more of a star wars fantasy than a financially responsible fighting machine. And you'd get raped in a war with China or Russia with that aircraft mix. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:11:19 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are basically giving our men a emasculated plane.
#nomoreemasculatedplanes
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We need a low tech solution here, no need for an entirely stealth aircraft at 200 million per copy to beat up on insurgents. Emphasis long loiter time, pilot survivability, and BRRRRRRRRT-ability. Integrate modern sensors and some of the low observability lessons from other aircradt to improve manpad survivability. Call it a day and get them out to our guys ASAP. Step 1: get rid of the cannon You are basically giving our men a emasculated plane.
#nomoreemasculatedplanes
No. I'm giving you a plane with greater range, loiter and survivability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:29:40 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are basically giving our men a emasculated plane. #nomoreemasculatedplanes Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: We need a low tech solution here, no need for an entirely stealth aircraft at 200 million per copy to beat up on insurgents. Emphasis long loiter time, pilot survivability, and BRRRRRRRRT-ability. Integrate modern sensors and some of the low observability lessons from other aircradt to improve manpad survivability. Call it a day and get them out to our guys ASAP. Step 1: get rid of the cannon You are basically giving our men a emasculated plane. #nomoreemasculatedplanes |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:32:19 AM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:36:15 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you could convince a radar not to see an aircraft because it looked "stealthy" in the visible spectrum, you'd have a winner here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you could convince a radar not to see an aircraft because it looked "stealthy" in the visible spectrum, you'd have a winner here. Would that setup be better against MANPADS? 10% reduction in radar signature? Better than nothing and would buy it a few more years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:46:52 AM EDT
[#24]
Scrap the A-10. When scrapping, take the GAU-8 cannons and slap some treads under them. Helicopter the light armored vehicles to remote bases and when Haji rears his ugly head, a quick burst of 40-120x 30mm rounds fired between a canyon will create a nice dispersion and hit haji, his girlfriend(a goat) and anybody else who was dumb enough to follow him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 1:09:05 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would not A-7s be more all around versatile? Junk. Old junk. Old broken down junk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 1:14:25 AM EDT
[#26]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 1:14:59 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tell us about Air Land Battle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
IN for responses from actual Hog pilots....yeah, im one of em. In before the cas expert Sylvan also Tell us about Air Land Battle. Blitzfighter ftw! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 1:24:08 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm telling you, replace the 30mm with autoloading L7 105mm cannons. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How about a twin fuselage A-10 with 2 30mm guns.  I'm telling you, replace the 30mm with autoloading L7 105mm cannons. Get both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 4:12:11 AM EDT
[#29]
We should have 1k of those A10's and just go with Silent Eagles. That is the way I see it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 9:10:52 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We already have it. It's called the F-35. They tried o make the eame laughable claim about the F-16 in the 80s. It was a joke then, and it is a joke now. Thuds and F-4s were shitty for CAS for a number of reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 9:16:12 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cessna scorpion, this is what they want to replace the A10 Ya know, an updated A-37 would be a very capable and inexpensive plane to make and fly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 9:22:19 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ya know, an updated A-37 would be a very capable and inexpensive plane to make and fly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cessna scorpion, this is what they want to replace the A10 Ya know, an updated A-37 would be a very capable and inexpensive plane to make and fly. why jets over props? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 9:30:24 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
why jets over props? Less maintenance. More comfortable and less exhausting for the pilot. Ease of replacement in the field. Higher top end at flight level. Less stress on the air frame due to vibration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 10:09:41 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: why jets over props? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cessna scorpion, this is what they want to replace the A10 Ya know, an updated A-37 would be a very capable and inexpensive plane to make and fly. why jets over props? Greater thrust to weight, range, service ceiling (altitude), etc, and so on. And where would you put UARRSI for air refueling on single engine prop acft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 10:17:35 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Greater thrust to weight, range, service ceiling (altitude), etc, and so on. And where would you put UARRSI for air refueling on single engine prop acft. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cessna scorpion, this is what they want to replace the A10 Ya know, an updated A-37 would be a very capable and inexpensive plane to make and fly. why jets over props? Greater thrust to weight, range, service ceiling (altitude), etc, and so on. And where would you put UARRSI for air refueling on single engine prop acft. would you need refueling with a prop? pilot endurance would be a bigger issue than aircraft endurance for these missions. Ferry loadout would probably be over 10 hours. altitude needs to be above manpad range (16-20K AGL). Minimizing fuel consumption both for endurance and logistics reasons, STOL and rough field capability would trump. Enough power is enough. MOOOOOOOOORE doesn't always apply. If you acknowledge that there will never be CAS in the presence of IADS (which is current US doctrine and practice). This ain't for killing T62s in Poland and Czechoslovakia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 10:23:23 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you acknowledge that there will never be CAS in the presence of IADS (which is current US doctrine and practice). This ain't for killing T62s in Poland and Czechoslovakia. You are not a pilot. I'm patiently waiting for real experts in air power to explain why the M should drive the rest of the DOTMLPF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 10:24:44 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
why jets over props? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cessna scorpion, this is what they want to replace the A10 Ya know, an updated A-37 would be a very capable and inexpensive plane to make and fly. why jets over props? Because jet time looks cooler in the logbook and at the air line interview than turbo prop time does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 10:26:12 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because jet time looks cooler in the logbook and at the air line interview than turbo prop does. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cessna scorpion, this is what they want to replace the A10 Ya know, an updated A-37 would be a very capable and inexpensive plane to make and fly. why jets over props? Because jet time looks cooler in the logbook and at the air line interview than turbo prop does. A37 was a multi-engine jet. Your logic is irrefutable. I retract the question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 10:40:22 AM EDT
[#39]
.jpg)
I have never seen a photo of one of these in the air. Just drawings and a couple of static photos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 10:47:02 AM EDT
[#40]
How about we replace the A-10 with the F-4u corsair, and take the 50 cals and put it that revolving gunny thingiy. Now, we can has cheap braaaaaaaaaaaaaaps that are carrier capable.
Or does the Air Force need to spend $ on consultants and Lockheed Martin to make new "stealth" A-10's at the cost of billions of taxpayer dollars because we HAVE to have stealth, otherwise the chinese would win? Not saying we don't need to replace the A-10, but expanding the F-35 program to include whatever the fuck the A-10 does different instead of an entirely new program seems like a better solution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 10:49:35 AM EDT
[#41]
How 'bout we replace some of these Lawmakers
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 10:56:44 AM EDT
[#42]
"Port holes, we need port holes."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 11:39:06 AM EDT
[#43]
Replace it with the A11.
Duh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 11:43:29 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who is the expert on CAS? The gentleman on the ground calling it in and directing it or the gentleman delivering it? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: IN for responses from actual Hog pilots....yeah, im one of em. In before the cas expert Sylvan also Who is the expert on CAS? The gentleman on the ground calling it in and directing it or the gentleman delivering it?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 11:45:41 AM EDT
[#45]
Can someone explain the CAS mission of the Spectre vs A-10? Wouldn't the Spectre fill the current role better, or is it not enough firepower?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 11:50:22 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
would you need refueling with a prop? pilot endurance would be a bigger issue than aircraft endurance for these missions. Ferry loadout would probably be over 10 hours. altitude needs to be above manpad range (16-20K AGL). Minimizing fuel consumption both for endurance and logistics reasons, STOL and rough field capability would trump. Enough power is enough. MOOOOOOOOORE doesn't always apply. If you acknowledge that there will never be CAS in the presence of IADS (which is current US doctrine and practice). This ain't for killing T62s in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cessna scorpion, this is what they want to replace the A10 Ya know, an updated A-37 would be a very capable and inexpensive plane to make and fly. why jets over props? Greater thrust to weight, range, service ceiling (altitude), etc, and so on. And where would you put UARRSI for air refueling on single engine prop acft. would you need refueling with a prop? pilot endurance would be a bigger issue than aircraft endurance for these missions. Ferry loadout would probably be over 10 hours. altitude needs to be above manpad range (16-20K AGL). Minimizing fuel consumption both for endurance and logistics reasons, STOL and rough field capability would trump. Enough power is enough. MOOOOOOOOORE doesn't always apply. If you acknowledge that there will never be CAS in the presence of IADS (which is current US doctrine and practice). This ain't for killing T62s in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Your assertion suggests that the A-10 has no niche then. The A-10 is a low and slow performer with a long loiter time. And if a CH-53 can do in flight refueling, then a prop job sure can. Remember that the A-37 has a faster max speed than an A-10. If you have a small, manuverable, simple, rugged frame that can visit ATG and direct fire in CAS, that is really all the grunts want and need. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:28:25 PM EDT
[#47]
so you want low and slow with endurance.
The A-10s niche was precision before precision was universal. It wasn't survivable then, most likely. It was designed for interdiction, not CAS. Flying nap of the earth (or whatever the AF calls it) popping up for 2 seconds and taking a shot is NOT what an effective CAS platform is going to do because you can't get your orientation in 2 seconds. Which is why A-10s have disproportionate friendly fire incidents. The only advantage of the high velocity 30mm is killing archaic soviet armor and when it does have a fratricide incident, chances are it won't kill any good guys. In the 1970s, it filled a need. It had to kill the AH-56 comanche (which it did). The secondary mission set it was designed for, interdiction of 2nd echelon soviet armor in central europe against distributed, but not integrated, ADA, no longer exists. If you want to kill third worlders with DShKs and MANPADs in close proximity to friendlies, the last thing you want is something flying around nap of the earth waiting to get pot shots at them with a high velocity cannon round that detonates 3 feet under ground and kicks up dust. You want something that can buzz around for a considerable amount of time, with good SA, out of range of MANPADS and doesn't cost a fortune to maintain and operate. If you are going to go against somebody with IADS, (lulz), then you have the 2400 F35s and god only knows how many stealth bombers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:30:44 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who is the expert on CAS? The gentleman on the ground calling it in and directing it or the gentleman delivering it? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: IN for responses from actual Hog pilots....yeah, im one of em. In before the cas expert Sylvan also Who is the expert on CAS? The gentleman on the ground calling it in and directing it or the gentleman delivering it? The guy who is above both in the command structure that sees such a strategy is either working or not working. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:34:49 PM EDT
[#49]
What I think what might be great, is to have a drone the size of an attack aircraft from WW2, that is controllable by a Company Commander or probably like a RTO guy that follows him around. Make that aircraft a drone and armed with guided missiles and maybe a .50 cal gun to hit or harass the enemy from on-high. You wouldn't need to train pilots which are very expensive to train, and if you lose an aircraft it's not a big loss.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:35:49 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can someone explain the CAS mission of the Spectre vs A-10? Wouldn't the Spectre fill the current role better, or is it not enough firepower? The AC-130 is really better at CAS. But it's huge, expensive, and flies with a huge crew. For an A-10 replacement I agree with Sylvan. While less sexy a Super Tucano or similar aircraft is what we have needed. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
