4 ms·

So get rid of the USAF / fold it back into the Army, this way the Navy has an air wing, and the Army has an air wing. Large sky battles are unlikely to happen e

So get rid of the USAF / fold it back into the Army, this way the Navy has an air wing, and the Army has an air wing. Large sky battles are unlikely to happen ever again... the USAF was designed to deal with those, right around when they had become obsolete. Hooray for Parkinson's laws. The A-10 is a magnificent brute of a plane and does exactly the job it was designed to do, very well... so of course they want to mothball it. I wonder how hard it would be to make it carrierable, or how hard it would be to string a bunch of barges together to make a floating airfield for it (and use a standard carrier for mechanical support).

krapht 12y ago
The A10's minigun is ineffective at killing modern main-battle tanks, so I wouldn't say it's a raging sucess. In addition, it would certainly be blown up immediately if it came within shooting distance of a tank by any number of man-portable anti-air missiles. What it can do is provide reasonable close air support against Toyota pickups and infantry, but replacement parts for the plane or the molds to create them don't exist. The A10's titanium airframe will soon need wholesale replacement as it reaches its fatigue limit, so the entire plane would need to be remanufactured. A drone-based replacement would be far more cost efficient. I don't see why mothballing the A10 is a poor decision.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  > The A10's minigun is ineffective at killing modern main-battle tanks, so I wouldn't say it's a raging sucess. I love those improvised battle tanks by the guerrilas that the US has been encountering in their last 30 years of wars.
  - remarkEon 12y ago
    Yeah good thing no one we're dropping bombs on today has any armored vehicles. http://defensetech.org/2015/01/07/us-airstrikes-agaisnt-isis-destroy-184-humvees-and-58-tanks/ http://defensetech.org/2015/01/07/us-airstrikes-agaisnt-isis...
    - venomsnake 12y ago
      US also don't have boots on the ground. And it's not as if ISIS has the vaguest idea how to use what it has.
      - remarkEon 12y ago
        Yes that's right there's no one over there right now and that hardware is a black box impervious to anyone figuring out how to use it. http://www.stripes.com/news/us/1-000-soldiers-from-the-82nd-airborne-headed-to-iraq-1.320194 http://www.stripes.com/news/us/1-000-soldiers-from-the-82nd-...
    - vacri 12y ago
      You make it sound like the A-10 doing close-support is the only way the US has to destroy a tank from the air.
- douche 12y ago
  As far as I can tell from this list[1], five A-10s have ever been shot down, while destroying at least 1500 battle tanks and AFVs[2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United... [2] http://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/statistics.htm http://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/statistics.htm
  - tiatia 12y ago
    Wow. This is the equivalent of three Rudels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel
    - blywi 12y ago
      Ironically some input from Rudel was apparently used during the development of the A-10. At least this is mentioned on the Wikipedia page linked above.
- protomyth 12y ago
  "I don't see why mothballing the A10 is a poor decision" Because we do not have any aircraft that can stay on station above our troops stuck out in the middle of nowhere and keep them safe by shooting for multiple hours. Every other aircraft (drone include) is a drop-a-few-and-leave. That is not good enough. Where have we faced modern main-battle tanks? We should remove close air support from the Air Force's mission and give it back to the Army.
  - Symmetry 12y ago
    I thought the AC-130 was pretty good at that. It's even worse at not getting shot down of course but could provide fire support for just as long and over a wider area.
    - protomyth 12y ago
      I haven't heard of an AC-130 doing it, but the folks that I talk to mention the A-10 often. More of a sharp shooter thing instead of an area effect thing.
- jleyank 12y ago
  Prove this statement. Given that the A-10 shoots from above, that's where the armor's thinner. DU penetrators do a fair bit of damage, independent of the rumoured radioactive burst upon compression. Couple of rounds in the engine probably turn the tank into a bunker.
- philwelch 12y ago
  > What it can do is provide reasonable close air support against Toyota pickups and infantry So can helicopters, drones, and Harriers.
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    No actually they can't. Well maybe Harriers but helicoptors are vulnerable because they enemy has manpads and drones have too much lag for close air support.
- vacri 12y ago
  In addition, it would certainly be blown up immediately if it came within shooting distance of a tank by any number of man-portable anti-air missiles. Why do man-portable anti-air missiles only exist near tanks?
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  I wonder what a drone built on the same philosophy as the A-10 ("We built the most awesome machine gun ever, let's strap a plane to it") would look like.
- tsotha 12y ago
  >The A10's minigun is ineffective at killing modern main-battle tanks, so I wouldn't say it's a raging sucess. Heh heh. No. There isn't a tank in the world that can survive an attack from the GAU-8. And it's not a "minigun". A minigun is, you know, small. The A-10 also can carry a variety of missiles and bombs to get the job done. I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, though. Sniper pods have made "low and slow" unnecessarily risky.
- nate_meurer 12y ago
  > "The A10's minigun is ineffective at killing modern main-battle tanks" This is the most ignorant comment in this entire thread. Please go read about the A10's gun -- the GAU-8/A. There is no mobile armor in the world that can withstand even short bursts of fire from it.
- greedo 12y ago
  Minigun? Have you seen the size of the shell fired by the GAU-8? It's designed to shoot through the top of the tank, either the turret, or the engine. Quite easy to do, even against modern tanks. Now whether it can do so against modern air defenses is to be determined. And the primary anti-tank weapon of the A-10 isn't its gun, but the Maverick missile.
chernevik 12y ago
They were designed for strategic bombing, which was certainly a compelling mission during the Cold War. I think it still is. Sure, there is less nuclear tension. But the idea was always to ensure that no general, no matter how drunk, could imagine actually succeeding with a first strike. That's still the right posture. If anything, I'd worry that some Russian might think _we_ might successfully launch first, and so jump the gun in a "use them or lose them" decision. MAD only really works when _both_ sides are demonstrably convinced they can't strike first. Also: I bet the A-10 too underpowered for carrier launch. It's designed to loiter, not dogfight -- it probably doesn't have the acceleration to lift from a carrier deck.
slowmovintarget 12y ago
The real trouble with the A-10 is that it cannot fit modernized avionics. What needs to happen is a redesign of the A-10 airframe with modern maintenance characteristics. Instead we got this obsession with multi-role nonsense that led to the F-35 ball of crap over both an A-10 successor and the F-22!

krapht 12y ago

The A10's minigun is ineffective at killing modern main-battle tanks, so I wouldn't say it's a raging sucess. In addition, it would certainly be blown up immediately if it came within shooting distance of a tank by any number of man-portable anti-air missiles. What it can do is provide reasonable close air support against Toyota pickups and infantry, but replacement parts for the plane or the molds to create them don't exist. The A10's titanium airframe will soon need wholesale replacement as it reaches its fatigue limit, so the entire plane would need to be remanufactured. A drone-based replacement would be far more cost efficient. I don't see why mothballing the A10 is a poor decision.

venomsnake 12y ago
> The A10's minigun is ineffective at killing modern main-battle tanks, so I wouldn't say it's a raging sucess. I love those improvised battle tanks by the guerrilas that the US has been encountering in their last 30 years of wars.
- remarkEon 12y ago
  Yeah good thing no one we're dropping bombs on today has any armored vehicles. http://defensetech.org/2015/01/07/us-airstrikes-agaisnt-isis-destroy-184-humvees-and-58-tanks/ http://defensetech.org/2015/01/07/us-airstrikes-agaisnt-isis...
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    US also don't have boots on the ground. And it's not as if ISIS has the vaguest idea how to use what it has.
    - remarkEon 12y ago
      Yes that's right there's no one over there right now and that hardware is a black box impervious to anyone figuring out how to use it. http://www.stripes.com/news/us/1-000-soldiers-from-the-82nd-airborne-headed-to-iraq-1.320194 http://www.stripes.com/news/us/1-000-soldiers-from-the-82nd-...
  - vacri 12y ago
    You make it sound like the A-10 doing close-support is the only way the US has to destroy a tank from the air.
douche 12y ago
As far as I can tell from this list[1], five A-10s have ever been shot down, while destroying at least 1500 battle tanks and AFVs[2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United... [2] http://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/statistics.htm http://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/statistics.htm
- tiatia 12y ago
  Wow. This is the equivalent of three Rudels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel
  - blywi 12y ago
    Ironically some input from Rudel was apparently used during the development of the A-10. At least this is mentioned on the Wikipedia page linked above.
protomyth 12y ago
"I don't see why mothballing the A10 is a poor decision" Because we do not have any aircraft that can stay on station above our troops stuck out in the middle of nowhere and keep them safe by shooting for multiple hours. Every other aircraft (drone include) is a drop-a-few-and-leave. That is not good enough. Where have we faced modern main-battle tanks? We should remove close air support from the Air Force's mission and give it back to the Army.
- Symmetry 12y ago
  I thought the AC-130 was pretty good at that. It's even worse at not getting shot down of course but could provide fire support for just as long and over a wider area.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    I haven't heard of an AC-130 doing it, but the folks that I talk to mention the A-10 often. More of a sharp shooter thing instead of an area effect thing.
jleyank 12y ago
Prove this statement. Given that the A-10 shoots from above, that's where the armor's thinner. DU penetrators do a fair bit of damage, independent of the rumoured radioactive burst upon compression. Couple of rounds in the engine probably turn the tank into a bunker.
philwelch 12y ago
> What it can do is provide reasonable close air support against Toyota pickups and infantry So can helicopters, drones, and Harriers.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  No actually they can't. Well maybe Harriers but helicoptors are vulnerable because they enemy has manpads and drones have too much lag for close air support.
vacri 12y ago
In addition, it would certainly be blown up immediately if it came within shooting distance of a tank by any number of man-portable anti-air missiles. Why do man-portable anti-air missiles only exist near tanks?
spiritplumber 12y ago
I wonder what a drone built on the same philosophy as the A-10 ("We built the most awesome machine gun ever, let's strap a plane to it") would look like.
tsotha 12y ago
>The A10's minigun is ineffective at killing modern main-battle tanks, so I wouldn't say it's a raging sucess. Heh heh. No. There isn't a tank in the world that can survive an attack from the GAU-8. And it's not a "minigun". A minigun is, you know, small. The A-10 also can carry a variety of missiles and bombs to get the job done. I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, though. Sniper pods have made "low and slow" unnecessarily risky.
nate_meurer 12y ago
> "The A10's minigun is ineffective at killing modern main-battle tanks" This is the most ignorant comment in this entire thread. Please go read about the A10's gun -- the GAU-8/A. There is no mobile armor in the world that can withstand even short bursts of fire from it.
greedo 12y ago
Minigun? Have you seen the size of the shell fired by the GAU-8? It's designed to shoot through the top of the tank, either the turret, or the engine. Quite easy to do, even against modern tanks. Now whether it can do so against modern air defenses is to be determined. And the primary anti-tank weapon of the A-10 isn't its gun, but the Maverick missile.

chernevik 12y ago

They were designed for strategic bombing, which was certainly a compelling mission during the Cold War. I think it still is. Sure, there is less nuclear tension. But the idea was always to ensure that no general, no matter how drunk, could imagine actually succeeding with a first strike. That's still the right posture. If anything, I'd worry that some Russian might think _we_ might successfully launch first, and so jump the gun in a "use them or lose them" decision. MAD only really works when _both_ sides are demonstrably convinced they can't strike first. Also: I bet the A-10 too underpowered for carrier launch. It's designed to loiter, not dogfight -- it probably doesn't have the acceleration to lift from a carrier deck.

slowmovintarget 12y ago

The real trouble with the A-10 is that it cannot fit modernized avionics. What needs to happen is a redesign of the A-10 airframe with modern maintenance characteristics. Instead we got this obsession with multi-role nonsense that led to the F-35 ball of crap over both an A-10 successor and the F-22!