A10 Warthog

[Eric Coffey]

Originally Posted by Bob Kontak

Who is the swarm director when only a 20 meter buffer is required ASAP?

Or what about when something goes TU and you have a "fly away" incident with a large swarm of heavily armed drones.

[oldE]

It seems to me many of the Warthog supporters are anticipating re-fighting the last war.
The Hogs were designed to kill a lot of heavy armor in a non-secure environment. There may never have been an aircraft so admirably suited for that purpose.
Who now has large numbers of tanks? Do we expect to be putting steel on target with a bunch of Putin's armored units? (a real possibility, the way things are going).
What is the threat these days? What do the guys on the ground need to back them up?
It may be fine to say "Overkill sounds about right", but bigger is not always better.
What is the mission? What will accomplish the mission? The Hog might not be the answer, any more than the Vietnam era Spad or the Typhoon.
Spam report on #82 made.
Best
Les

[cashflyer]

They may be a bunch of rusty old T-55s, but Russia has almost twice the number of tanks as the USA. China has just a few hundred more than us.

Canada has almost 200, and they are right in our back yard.
Ya can't be too careful, if you know what I mean.


Possible wars to come? Syria has 4500 Soviet tanks.
How many of those will be in the hands of Isis?


Tank Strength by Country
and this one for cross reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country

[Por_sha911]

Both the AT-6 and A-29 are single engine planes (lower survivability if hit). The AT-6 relies heavily on computer technology. Neither one has 30 mm armor piercing rounds. Neither one can carry half the rounds of the A10. Neither one is very well suited for landing in rough terrain.

Aside from the Predator drone's Reaper model, the A-10 Thunderbolt II is the cheapest aircraft to operate in terms of both flight hours and individual procurement costs. The A-10's low costs are due to the plane's rugged but functional structural designs.

Built like a flying tank for maximum survivability, the A-10 can be serviced even at remote or less-equipped bases and facilities, since a majority of the aircraft's parts are interchangeable — including the engines.

Chart Shows Hourly Cost Of Military Aircraft - Business Insider

“The A-10 is the best ‘close attack’ plane ever made, period,” Sprey tells me. “But the Air Force hates that mission. They’ll do anything they can to kill that plane.” He says retiring the iconic A-10, a twin-engine attack jet with 30-mm cannons that hit with 14 times the kinetic energy of the 20-mm guns mounted on America’s current fleet of supersonic fighters, became an article of faith among high ranking Air Force officers, generations of whom had been raised to believe in the redemptive power of technological innovation.

The WWII-Era Plane Giving the F-35 a Run for Its Money | Motherboard

The F-35 is supposed to be the A-10 replacement: Cost per hour: $67,550
Cost A-10 per hour: $11,500

That said, CHEAPER IS NOT BETTER. ITS JUST CHEAP.
Maybe you won't mind sending your son into battle with the cheapest possible plane above him.

[onewhippedpuppy]

T-6 published cost per flight hour is a little over $2k, 20% the cost of the A-10. Having known A-10 pilots and mechanics I can tell you for a fact that they spend more time undergoing maintenance than flying, I've spent time on the flight lines with them. The AT-6 and A29 can easily operate out of austere airfields, the logistics train associated with the A-10 makes such operations nearly impossible. As for the cannon, that's great. How is that in any way relevant to modern warfare?

[Por_sha911]

Don't be a cheap ____ with someone else's life.

You keep ignoring other stats.
Single engine. Fuel tanks in proximity to engine. Virtually no ability to use rough terrain. Unable to penetrate armored defenses like military vehicles, tanks, bunkers.

Put your son under the protection of the T6. I'll put mine (and my butt) with the A10.

Conversation over. You don't care and you're not going to change my mind.

[lsineon]

The Army loves the A10. For some reason that doesnt matter to the folks in DC that write the checks.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Don't be a cheap ____ with someone else's life.

You keep ignoring other stats.
Single engine. Fuel tanks in proximity to engine. Virtually no ability to use rough terrain. Unable to penetrate armored defenses like military vehicles, tanks, bunkers.

Put your son under the protection of the T6. I'll put mine (and my butt) with the A10.

Conversation over. You don't care and you're not going to change my mind.

Actually I retorted your "facts", most of which are wrong, in previous posts. Fuel tank in proximity to the engine, which is totally blatantly wrong. Ability to use rough terrain, blatantly wrong. Ability to penetrate hardened targets, blatantly wrong. But that's ok, obviously the TLC documentary you watched on the A-10 has made you an expert. I do agree with one point you made - obviously nobody is going to change your mind on the incorrect information that you know with such certainty.

[Cajundaddy]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Since it is a close air support aircraft, why not turn it over to the Army? It is really for their benefit. Bring back the "Army Air Corp"!

This makes the most sense to me. The AF brass hates em cause they are low tech and the army loves the damn things. Give em to the army and let them control their own close air support while continuing to develop and test drone technology.

We have a long time friend who was a hog pilot and my FIL is Lt Col USMC ret. There is no aircraft manned or unmanned that these guys appreciated more.

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Show me real stats on an aircraft that can do what the A10 can do to the enemy AND protect our servicemen on the ground and in the air at the same time.

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Actually I retorted your "facts", most of which are wrong, in previous posts. Fuel tank in proximity to the engine, which is totally blatantly wrong. Ability to use rough terrain, blatantly wrong. Ability to penetrate hardened targets, blatantly wrong. But that's ok, obviously the TLC documentary you watched on the A-10 has made you an expert. I do agree with one point you made - obviously nobody is going to change your mind on the incorrect information that you know with such certainty.

It may come as a shock to you that your opinions (that you claim are facts) is not going to pass for documented proof.

My mind can be changed. Give me some links to places that back up your claims so that I may see the errors from my research. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

[Mike Billings]

Photo of the A-10's Integrated Flight and Fire Control Computer going for a ride in my 993!

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

It may come as a shock to you that your opinions (that you claim are facts) is not going to pass for documented proof.

My mind can be changed. Give me some links to places that back up your claims so that I may see the errors from my research. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

Sorry but I'm not an internet commando. I spent three years of 12+ hour days making the AT-6 into a viable CAS platform, testing it with the USAF, and working through evaluations with a number of domestic and foreign entities. I know the airplane inside and out because I lived it. I also spent a significant amount of time working competitive intelligence on the A29 because it was our primary competitor. In addition, because our aircraft utilized the mission computer from the A-10 I spent days at the Lockheed location that does their system integration work, meeting with A-10 pilots and crew at Ft. Smith AR, and talking with A-10 crew on the flightline at Davis-Monthan AFB. So I have a little more background than what can be captured with a copy/paste of an internet link. Care to qualify your experience with the topic?

Originally Posted by Mike Billings

Photo of the A-10's Integrated Flight and Fire Control Computer going for a ride in my 993!

It's the CICU! I've carried a few of those myself, not a compact SOB.

[Mike Billings]

Matt, if you worked that much on AT-6, you must be quite familiar with our past or present crew at Flight Visions/CMC/Esterline in Sugar Grove, IL.

I'll take most of the credit/criticism for the design of the FV-4000/Cockpit 4000 display computer.

The good old days! (1997-2007)

[onewhippedpuppy]

Absolutely Mike! It was not easy getting the LM and CMC systems to co-exist on the same aircraft.

[Scuba Steve]

Originally Posted by Mike Billings

Photo of the A-10's Integrated Flight and Fire Control Computer going for a ride in my 993!

FOD caps????

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Sorry but I'm not an internet commando. I spent three years of 12+ hour days making the AT-6 into a viable CAS platform, testing it with the USAF, and working through evaluations with a number of domestic and foreign entities. I know the airplane inside and out because I lived it. I also spent a significant amount of time working competitive intelligence on the A29 because it was our primary competitor. In addition, because our aircraft utilized the mission computer from the A-10 I spent days at the Lockheed location that does their system integration work, meeting with A-10 pilots and crew at Ft. Smith AR, and talking with A-10 crew on the flightline at Davis-Monthan AFB. So I have a little more background than what can be captured with a copy/paste of an internet link. Care to qualify your experience with the topic?

Now it makes more sense. You have a personal bias against the A-10. I don't think it is intentional however, because you worked on the other aircraft it would be hard to admit that the competitor is better.
It doesn't take a "rocket surgeon" to search and post some real facts instead of biased opinion. Since you can't produce any, "your honor, I rest my case".

[Mike Billings]

Originally Posted by Scuba Steve

FOD caps????

Thanks Steve. Laughing now. Today I would have that sealed up.

Funny I would drive the A-10 HUD to the EMI test facility every day strapped into the passenger seat in my '80 Caprice for a month or two. It was secured with the seat belt and was so tall it cut the headliner going over bumps. There was two occasions when a guy in the oncoming traffic recognized the green combiner glass and make a huge expression wondering what that was doing in a rusted '80 Chevy.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Now it makes more sense. You have a personal bias against the A-10. I don't think it is intentional however, because you worked on the other aircraft it would be hard to admit that the competitor is better.
It doesn't take a "rocket surgeon" to search and post some real facts instead of biased opinion. Since you can't produce any, "your honor, I rest my case".

Lol, whatever dude. Try to get out more, there's a whole world outside of the Internet.

Originally Posted by Mike Billings

Thanks Steve. Laughing now. Today I would have that sealed up.

Funny I would drive the A-10 HUD to the EMI test facility every day strapped into the passenger seat in my '80 Caprice for a month or two. It was secured with the seat belt and was so tall it cut the headliner going over bumps. There was two occasions when a guy in the oncoming traffic recognized the green combiner glass and make a huge expression wondering what that was doing in a rusted '80 Chevy.

I once had to pick up some inert Hellfires in a rental F150 at a freight facility in Tucson and drive them to a range in BFE AZ. I had to go through a Border Patrol checkpoint to get to the airstrip that we were operating out of. Amazing and somewhat concerning that they didn't ask any questions about the dude in a rental truck with four boxes marked as Missiles hanging out the bed.

[911_Dude]

[Tobra]

Maybe they knew you were coming Matt. Would only take a few phone calls.