4 ms·

No good replacement. The military bet everything on the F35 which ended up being a pile of rubbish. The A10 can fly low enough and slow enough to do close air

by atonse 5y ago

No good replacement. The military bet everything on the F35 which ended up being a pile of rubbish. The A10 can fly low enough and slow enough to do close air support for ground troop, with that incredibly powerful Gatling gun. What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? Must be the power of the A10’s Gatling gun.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> > A10 can fly low enough and slow enough... ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. > What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? I don't think the USAF operate these platforms do they?
- imglorp 5y ago
  Vs helos: A-10 can carry 16,000 lbs of ordinance alone, including that brrrt stuff and 2000 lb bombs. AH-64 can carry 8,000 lbs, including fuel.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Yea but helicopters have their own advantages. So you’re trading some things like payload for maneuverability. Helicopters also don’t need a runway. Etc.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. Which is a big concern when… not fighting either.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    A lot of military planning is increasingly pivoting towards being prepared for peer or peer+ adversaries.
    - masklinn 5y ago
      It can't pivot towards that since it hasn't done anything else since 1945. The US has spent 75 years preparing to fight peer adversaries while fighting asymmetric guerillas. Especially the AF.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        But still running the A-10 is a good example of where that’s not true.
        masklinn 5y ago
        The A-10 was originally designed as a CAS and tank killer for the invasion of western europe by eastern troops and armor. It was never designed to fight against guerillas. The AF is still running the A-10 because they've not managed to get rid of it yet — not for lack of trying, but because when they try the army suggests taking it off their hands and if there's one thing the AF likes less than CAS, it's the idea of the Army getting fixed-wing units.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        Right but you get why it's not even remotely suitable for that role now? It's no longer a weapon system that's suitable for use against peer/+. It'd have absolutely no chance of getting that close to an advancing Russian force.
        masklinn 5y ago
        > Right but you get why it's not even remotely suitable for that role now? Which does not matter because it's not a role anyone actually needs. > It's no longer a weapon system that's suitable for use against peer/+. Which has not actually been needed in 75 years, unlike a weapon system suitable for use in asymmetric conflicts.
        5y ago
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> A10 can fly low enough and slow enough to do close air support for ground troop Against a an adversary with no anti-air capabilities. Like the Taliban. Whom we are no longer fighting. For the nation-state level conflicts we're gearing up for, the A-10 is a waddling duck. > why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? The AH-64 Apache has a top speed of 184 mph [1]; the A-10 439 mph [2]. The A-10 is also more-heavily armored, and can carry more ordinance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde...
- twic 5y ago
  The US may be winding down against the Taliban, but there are plenty more farmers with AKs around the world to fight. The US is not done with that kind of conflict by a very long chalk.
  - ianhawes 5y ago
    For the most part they _are_ done with that kind of conflict. And in situations where they do need to engage an adversary like that, it is far easier to use drones. I love the A-10, but it's effectiveness as CAS for adversaries with even low-level AA is decreased to a point that its less effective than the F-35.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      Are there any drone platforms that have a gun on them? Bullets are a lot cheaper than missiles. Predator drones get the job done when you just need a one-and-done missile shot. But a loitering gun in the sky is a fundamentally different weapon. ------ I think the issue is that the primary role of the A10, which was to destroy tanks, has basically disappeared. Tank armor has increased to the point where an A10's gun may not be reliable enough. The A10 exists as a cheap CAS role that it wasn't ever really designed for. A10 has a loiter time of 90 minutes, while AC-130 has a loiter time of 4.5 hours. The air-force would rather be sending in AC 130. ------- That being said: if the Army wants the A10, they should get the A10. Air Force's main job is air-superiority, ensuring the skys are clear for other operations.
geoduck14 5y ago
>What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? What about the Warren: https://www.duffelblog.com/p/army-to-name-new-attack-helicopter-after-elizabeth-warren https://www.duffelblog.com/p/army-to-name-new-attack-helicop...
- samcheng 5y ago
  IMO this kind of race-baiting, divisive satire doesn't belong on HN.
masklinn 5y ago
> Must be the power of the A10’s Gatling gun. It's also the carrying capacity, the speed to get on target, the ability to loiter (and take punishment), and that helos try to kill themselves as part of normal operations. One of the large initial motivations for the V-22 was how helos compromised operation eagle claw (the iran hostage rescue), and that was neither the first nor last high-stake op compromised by helos shitting the bed.

by atonse 5y ago

chrisseaton 5y ago

> > A10 can fly low enough and slow enough... ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. > What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? I don't think the USAF operate these platforms do they?

imglorp 5y ago
Vs helos: A-10 can carry 16,000 lbs of ordinance alone, including that brrrt stuff and 2000 lb bombs. AH-64 can carry 8,000 lbs, including fuel.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Yea but helicopters have their own advantages. So you’re trading some things like payload for maneuverability. Helicopters also don’t need a runway. Etc.
masklinn 5y ago
> ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. Which is a big concern when… not fighting either.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  A lot of military planning is increasingly pivoting towards being prepared for peer or peer+ adversaries.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    It can't pivot towards that since it hasn't done anything else since 1945. The US has spent 75 years preparing to fight peer adversaries while fighting asymmetric guerillas. Especially the AF.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      But still running the A-10 is a good example of where that’s not true.
      - masklinn 5y ago
        The A-10 was originally designed as a CAS and tank killer for the invasion of western europe by eastern troops and armor. It was never designed to fight against guerillas. The AF is still running the A-10 because they've not managed to get rid of it yet — not for lack of trying, but because when they try the army suggests taking it off their hands and if there's one thing the AF likes less than CAS, it's the idea of the Army getting fixed-wing units.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        Right but you get why it's not even remotely suitable for that role now? It's no longer a weapon system that's suitable for use against peer/+. It'd have absolutely no chance of getting that close to an advancing Russian force.
        masklinn 5y ago
        > Right but you get why it's not even remotely suitable for that role now? Which does not matter because it's not a role anyone actually needs. > It's no longer a weapon system that's suitable for use against peer/+. Which has not actually been needed in 75 years, unlike a weapon system suitable for use in asymmetric conflicts.
        5y ago

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> A10 can fly low enough and slow enough to do close air support for ground troop Against a an adversary with no anti-air capabilities. Like the Taliban. Whom we are no longer fighting. For the nation-state level conflicts we're gearing up for, the A-10 is a waddling duck. > why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? The AH-64 Apache has a top speed of 184 mph [1]; the A-10 439 mph [2]. The A-10 is also more-heavily armored, and can carry more ordinance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde...

twic 5y ago
The US may be winding down against the Taliban, but there are plenty more farmers with AKs around the world to fight. The US is not done with that kind of conflict by a very long chalk.
- ianhawes 5y ago
  For the most part they _are_ done with that kind of conflict. And in situations where they do need to engage an adversary like that, it is far easier to use drones. I love the A-10, but it's effectiveness as CAS for adversaries with even low-level AA is decreased to a point that its less effective than the F-35.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    Are there any drone platforms that have a gun on them? Bullets are a lot cheaper than missiles. Predator drones get the job done when you just need a one-and-done missile shot. But a loitering gun in the sky is a fundamentally different weapon. ------ I think the issue is that the primary role of the A10, which was to destroy tanks, has basically disappeared. Tank armor has increased to the point where an A10's gun may not be reliable enough. The A10 exists as a cheap CAS role that it wasn't ever really designed for. A10 has a loiter time of 90 minutes, while AC-130 has a loiter time of 4.5 hours. The air-force would rather be sending in AC 130. ------- That being said: if the Army wants the A10, they should get the A10. Air Force's main job is air-superiority, ensuring the skys are clear for other operations.

geoduck14 5y ago

>What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? What about the Warren: https://www.duffelblog.com/p/army-to-name-new-attack-helicopter-after-elizabeth-warren https://www.duffelblog.com/p/army-to-name-new-attack-helicop...

samcheng 5y ago
IMO this kind of race-baiting, divisive satire doesn't belong on HN.

masklinn 5y ago

> Must be the power of the A10’s Gatling gun. It's also the carrying capacity, the speed to get on target, the ability to loiter (and take punishment), and that helos try to kill themselves as part of normal operations. One of the large initial motivations for the V-22 was how helos compromised operation eagle claw (the iran hostage rescue), and that was neither the first nor last high-stake op compromised by helos shitting the bed.