http://www.wired.com/2014/12/a10-warthog-isis/
Interesting how this has kept going while newer tech like the boeing-sikorsky rah-66 comanche never made it into production...
America’s Toughest, Ugliest Warplane Is Going Back Into Battle
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/a10-warthog-isis/
Interesting how this has kept going while newer tech like the boeing-sikorsky rah-66 comanche never made it into production...
The A-10 is my favorite plane of all time, and I love that it just refuses to die.
The USAF hates being bothered with CAS, but the Army can't do without planes in that role.
The A-10 is a monster of survivability, too. It's not a particularly high tech or maneuverable or powerful or even attractive plane, it's just very good at what it does and it's hard to kill.
The USAF hates being bothered with CAS, but the Army can't do without planes in that role.
The A-10 is a monster of survivability, too. It's not a particularly high tech or maneuverable or powerful or even attractive plane, it's just very good at what it does and it's hard to kill.
The last new one was built in 1984? That's frickin amazing!
Hell, the last B-52 rolled off the Boeing production line in 1962, and the Air Force still has nearly 100 of them in active service.
Yeah, the A-10 is one tough little fighter.
It's looks aren't as ugly as the damage it can cause. It is the bane of armored land vehicles, and eats tanks for breakfast. It will also have SAMs and AA for desert if it can get to them.
It's lower speed than other Aircraft meant for air-to-surface combat roles, such as the Tornado makes them perfect for strafing runs. Maneuverability isn't bad either, considering that the A-10 is most certainly not intended for any form of air-to-air purposes.
I think ISIS is gonna quickly learn to love to hate them.
Or at least that is what I've learned from using them in the Ace Combat games.
It's looks aren't as ugly as the damage it can cause. It is the bane of armored land vehicles, and eats tanks for breakfast. It will also have SAMs and AA for desert if it can get to them.
It's lower speed than other Aircraft meant for air-to-surface combat roles, such as the Tornado makes them perfect for strafing runs. Maneuverability isn't bad either, considering that the A-10 is most certainly not intended for any form of air-to-air purposes.
I think ISIS is gonna quickly learn to love to hate them.
Or at least that is what I've learned from using them in the Ace Combat games.
Yeah, the A-10 is one tough little fighter.
It's looks aren't as ugly as the damage it can cause. It is the bane of armored land vehicles, and eats tanks for breakfast. It will also have SAMs and AA for desert if it can get to them.
It's lower speed than other Aircraft meant for air-to-surface combat roles, such as the Tornado makes them perfect for strafing runs. Maneuverability isn't bad either, considering that the A-10 is most certainly not intended for any form of air-to-air purposes.
I think ISIS is gonna quickly learn to love to hate them.
Or at least that is what I've learned from using them in the Ace Combat games.
Edit: please delete double post
It's looks aren't as ugly as the damage it can cause. It is the bane of armored land vehicles, and eats tanks for breakfast. It will also have SAMs and AA for desert if it can get to them.
It's lower speed than other Aircraft meant for air-to-surface combat roles, such as the Tornado makes them perfect for strafing runs. Maneuverability isn't bad either, considering that the A-10 is most certainly not intended for any form of air-to-air purposes.
I think ISIS is gonna quickly learn to love to hate them.
Or at least that is what I've learned from using them in the Ace Combat games.
Edit: please delete double post
Last edited:
Though the B-52s are bit like grandfathers old axe.
There would be comparatively few original spec parts left after the upgrades that have been done over the years.
Not surprised at all about the comeback.
That "thing" is powerful as heck and works near flawlessly. It is a well understood system, resilient and perfect for the current combat environment.
It surprised me when the A10 was on the chopping block because the ground troops apparently loved it and there were few alternatives and despite being an old model it still packed a heavy punch (hell.. they even attacked Superman and the Supervillains with some!
).
Good that wisdom won over the "Old stuff is not needed when you have shiny new high tech toys" mantra.
That "thing" is powerful as heck and works near flawlessly. It is a well understood system, resilient and perfect for the current combat environment.
It surprised me when the A10 was on the chopping block because the ground troops apparently loved it and there were few alternatives and despite being an old model it still packed a heavy punch (hell.. they even attacked Superman and the Supervillains with some!
).Good that wisdom won over the "Old stuff is not needed when you have shiny new high tech toys" mantra.
Call of Duty Advanced Warfare have a brief moment in one cutscene where updated A-10's (basically the wings and engines have been replaced but the hull's are the existing ones) roll in in the 2050's.
The way things are going, it's going to happen, these things really do get the job done. Although I really wouldn't call them ugly, I've seen far far uglier fighter aircraft.
The way things are going, it's going to happen, these things really do get the job done. Although I really wouldn't call them ugly, I've seen far far uglier fighter aircraft.
When I was in the Air Force, I was stationed at Eielson AFB. We had A-10's stationed there, so I got to work with them very closely. They talk about the distinctive sound an AK-47 makes when its fired, nothing compared to 30mm rotary cannon. It's a sound I still remember to this day.
Here is a picture of one I took on base.
We did a lot of training out by Blair Lake, where the A-10's practice range was. They were super quiet, they could easily sneak up on you.
ETA: The A-10's prototypes were built in Farmingdale NY, at the Grumman facility. It is now a movie studio. http://www.grummanstudios.com
Here is a picture of one I took on base.
We did a lot of training out by Blair Lake, where the A-10's practice range was. They were super quiet, they could easily sneak up on you.
ETA: The A-10's prototypes were built in Farmingdale NY, at the Grumman facility. It is now a movie studio. http://www.grummanstudios.com
Yeah, I remember all those A-10s flying around at Eielson. They fielded F-18s, too, didn't they?
The A-10 ends up on the chopping block because the USAF hates having a CAS role. It has nothing to do with the A-10 being a bad plane or not having a job to do. Clearly, it could be doing this job pretty much forever, and there's nothing that comes close to replacing it. It's just stupid USAF politics, like they're too "good" to be backing up Army guys on the ground. The brass want everything to be about air denial and BVR strikes.
The A-10 ends up on the chopping block because the USAF hates having a CAS role. It has nothing to do with the A-10 being a bad plane or not having a job to do. Clearly, it could be doing this job pretty much forever, and there's nothing that comes close to replacing it. It's just stupid USAF politics, like they're too "good" to be backing up Army guys on the ground. The brass want everything to be about air denial and BVR strikes.
At the time I was there 1987 to 1990, they only had the A-10's, KC-135's, RC-135's, OV-10's and a few helicopters. I know the A-10's were replaced by F-16's sometime in the 90's but not sure of actual date. I also know they had a squadron of F-15's there for a short time, not sure of timing or for how long.
You are 100% correct about why the A-10's were always up for cancellation. It never had anything to so with actual aircraft but the mission the Air Force saw for itself. The A-10's should be ceded to the Army. Believe it or not but the Army still has it's own Air Force and they would fit in perfectly.
ETA: The Air Force also has its own Navy, I actually got to ride on one of the ships.
You are 100% correct about why the A-10's were always up for cancellation. It never had anything to so with actual aircraft but the mission the Air Force saw for itself. The A-10's should be ceded to the Army. Believe it or not but the Army still has it's own Air Force and they would fit in perfectly.
ETA: The Air Force also has its own Navy, I actually got to ride on one of the ships.
The Russians have a comparable plane that is referred to as the "Frogfoot."
It was the Gulf War that soured the Air Force on the A-10. I'm quoting from memory that may be faulty, but the A-10 force was 5% of the aircraft being used and took 20% of the losses. The Air Force doesn't like losses. They aim for a less than 3% loss rate on combat missions.
It surprised me when the A10 was on the chopping block because the ground troops apparently loved it and there were few alternatives and despite being an old model it still packed a heavy punch (hell.. they even attacked Superman and the Supervillains with some!
I'm in no way any sort of expert on these matters, but from what I understand, the A-10 and the Apache helicopter have similar roles. My brother-in-law flies the Apache and has told me a bit out it's capabilities and background, and it sounds similar to the A-10 (built to kill tanks, similar armaments, can take a beating, etc.) If the A-10 were to go away, how well do you think it could be replaced by the Apache?
For pure tank-busting, the A-10 wins. That said, the AH-64 isn't without its advantages:
* Doesn't need a runway to land.
* Longer range.
* Better suited to loitering.
AH-64 is less survivable, though, and can't carry the weapons payload of an A-10. Apaches are harder to fly in a hot zone, too--it's easy to crash them or get all shot up, and they certainly can't take the pounding of an A-10.
* Doesn't need a runway to land.
* Longer range.
* Better suited to loitering.
AH-64 is less survivable, though, and can't carry the weapons payload of an A-10. Apaches are harder to fly in a hot zone, too--it's easy to crash them or get all shot up, and they certainly can't take the pounding of an A-10.
Being faster also is better for avoiding AA and SAM fire, and unfortunately, helicopters lack afterburners.
The A-10 might be stuck at subsonic speeds, but it is still definitely faster than an Apache.
Being able to speed in and out of a hot zone definitely can have it's advantages.
The A-10 might be stuck at subsonic speeds, but it is still definitely faster than an Apache.
Being able to speed in and out of a hot zone definitely can have it's advantages.
Then I don't see why the Air Force doesn't just give their A-10s to the Army, seeing as how they seem to want them more. Unless the Air Force just wants to scrap the fleet for parts.
An aircraft like the F-16 would be an inefficient role replacement for the A-10, because as I've found out in air-combat simulator games, being able to go at low air-speeds is very important if you want be able to shoot at ground targets effectively.
If I tried that in aircraft meant for supersonic speeds, they'd often stalled, and, well there are times when I smacked into something, like the side of a valley or mountain, because I was going too fast. There were also times when I'd overshoot a target, and have to come around for another pass.