4 ms·

A lot of straw horses being set free here. The primary weapon against tanks carried by the A-10 is the Maverick missile. The GAU-8 can do wonders against a tan

by greedo 11y ago

A lot of straw horses being set free here. The primary weapon against tanks carried by the A-10 is the Maverick missile. The GAU-8 can do wonders against a tank especially perforating the upper engine deck etc, but it's really designed for destroying soft targets in combination with unguided rocket pods or CBUs. Comparing it's accuracy with PGMs (that it can carry as well) is disingenuous. Oh, and you seem to be forgetting that the A-10 has had Litening pods for quite a while, giving excellent targeting and ID capabilities. The A-10 is one of the cheapest a/c the USAF flies, excluding drones which still can't compare with the Hog for effectiveness. There's a lot to be said for the Mark One eyeball in the cockpit. The cost for flying the A-10 would be even lower if the service wasn't continually gutting its support infrastructure. The Texan/Tucano light prop a/c is always trotted out as the cheap alternative, but the disadvantages are huge. No self-deploy capability, no survivability against MANPADS, single engined so lower ability to overcome mechanical issues, and kleenex for armor against groundfire.

the_ancient 11y ago
Show me a working program, for a working aircraft, that has been tested in actual combat then we can talk about replacing the A-10 Most of the conversation about the A-10 seems to focus on the fact the Airforce need to free up resources for the F-35, and the combination of the F-16, F15, and F35 can replace the A-10 completely. I believe this to be false, and doubly so when the F-15 and F16 are also suppose to be replaced with the F-35.... The worst aircraft ever designed by the US Military..
- jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
  SOCCOM evaluated the Tucano and loved it. The program to acquire them for US inventory was killed (and went back and forth a couple times, might be something screwy there or just the usual bureaucratic stuff). We did chose them for the ~20 aircraft we're giving the Afghan Army. They're well proven in low intensity conflict across South America.
  - greedo 11y ago
    Yup, SOCOM likes them because they're able to cherry pick equipment without having to worry about whether it's suitable for the entire Army. They have always had custom aircraft, whether it was Little Birds, or the Stealth Blackhawk. But that doesn't mean the Army should choose what SOCOM likes; different roles, and funding. The reason the Tucano and its ilk are popular is low cost and easier training. Getting the Afghan AF up to speed on maintaining a high bypass turbofan and its supply chain is several magnitudes harder than a proj job.
ecnal 11y ago
There is no reason to keep the A-10 around if its only role is a Maverick/Paveway truck chilling at altitude and plinking targets with Sniper/Litening. There are plenty of aircraft that can do that /and keep doing it when there are angry little men on the ground who don't want them to/, something the A-10 can't do.
gozur88 11y ago
>The GAU-8 can do wonders against a tank especially perforating the upper engine deck etc, but it's really designed for destroying soft targets in combination with unguided rocket pods or CBUs. If the gun was really designed to destroy soft targets you wouldn't need anywhere near the muzzle velocity. You'd carry something a lot lighter and you'd carry much more ammo. No, the gun was designed to destroy tanks. For anything else it's overkill.

by greedo 11y ago

the_ancient 11y ago

Show me a working program, for a working aircraft, that has been tested in actual combat then we can talk about replacing the A-10 Most of the conversation about the A-10 seems to focus on the fact the Airforce need to free up resources for the F-35, and the combination of the F-16, F15, and F35 can replace the A-10 completely. I believe this to be false, and doubly so when the F-15 and F16 are also suppose to be replaced with the F-35.... The worst aircraft ever designed by the US Military..

jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
SOCCOM evaluated the Tucano and loved it. The program to acquire them for US inventory was killed (and went back and forth a couple times, might be something screwy there or just the usual bureaucratic stuff). We did chose them for the ~20 aircraft we're giving the Afghan Army. They're well proven in low intensity conflict across South America.
- greedo 11y ago
  Yup, SOCOM likes them because they're able to cherry pick equipment without having to worry about whether it's suitable for the entire Army. They have always had custom aircraft, whether it was Little Birds, or the Stealth Blackhawk. But that doesn't mean the Army should choose what SOCOM likes; different roles, and funding. The reason the Tucano and its ilk are popular is low cost and easier training. Getting the Afghan AF up to speed on maintaining a high bypass turbofan and its supply chain is several magnitudes harder than a proj job.

ecnal 11y ago

There is no reason to keep the A-10 around if its only role is a Maverick/Paveway truck chilling at altitude and plinking targets with Sniper/Litening. There are plenty of aircraft that can do that /and keep doing it when there are angry little men on the ground who don't want them to/, something the A-10 can't do.

gozur88 11y ago

>The GAU-8 can do wonders against a tank especially perforating the upper engine deck etc, but it's really designed for destroying soft targets in combination with unguided rocket pods or CBUs. If the gun was really designed to destroy soft targets you wouldn't need anywhere near the muzzle velocity. You'd carry something a lot lighter and you'd carry much more ammo. No, the gun was designed to destroy tanks. For anything else it's overkill.