Jump to content

If You Had Any Doubts of the Long Term Viability of the A-10C, Read This...


King39

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

Doesn't mean it's actually viable in a peer adversary war, it just means the Senate is telling them what to do. Even in the 1980s there was an assumption every A-10 would be shot down within two weeks of a Fulda Gap scenario World War III. That's part of why they were made so cheap to start with.

 

Look at the Senate Launch System... I mean Space Launch System compared to the alternatives coming out of SpaceX (i.e. Crew Dragon and the Super Heavy/Starship combo) and get back with me about how competent the US Senate is in regards to making aerospace decisions. The SLS program started before the Falcon 9 made it to orbit and hasn't flown once. It will cost $2-billion and drop it all in the drink every launch to put a single 6-person capsule into space. While the SH/SS will probably be closer to $100-million all-up, be comparable to a Saturn V in lift to LEO (with potentially dozens of passengers in a crewed version) and be fully reusable.


Edited by panton41

Windows 10 64-bit | Ryzen 9 3900X 4.00GHz (OC) | Asus Strix B450-F | 64GB Corsair Vengeance @ 3000MHz | two Asus GeForce 1070 Founders Edition (second card used for CUDA only) | two Silicon Power 1TB NVMe in RAID-0 | Samsung 32" 1440p Monitor | two ASUS 23" 1080p monitors | ASUS Mixed Reality VR | Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS | MFG Crosswind

 

A-10C Warthog | AV-8B Harrier (N/A) | F/A-18C Hornet | F-16C Viper | F-14B Tomcat | UH-1H Huey | P-51D Mustang | F-86F Saber | Persian Gulf | NTTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your criticism of the A-10C especially of the probable Cold War shortcomings of the design (except the one that all of them (A-10) would be shot down within 2 weeks - you are shorting the competency of the aircrew who fly them).

However, that scenario is long gone and and will (hopefully) never rear its ugly head again. The reason that the A-10C was saved from the Boneyard by Congress (the Senate alone does not control military appropriations) was how it ACTUALLY performed in the 15+ year war in Iraq and Afghanland. Notably memorialized by the late John McCain, as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in HIS committee hearing slamming Gen Welsh's attempts to retire the airframe for his (Welsh's) beloved fast-movers. "McCain slammed Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force Chief of Staff, saying the general was being "disingenuous" and that his answers were "embarrassing." regarding his attempts to justify replacing the A-10C with F-15's and 16's.

You should read this and the score of other articles regarding the reality of the effectiveness of the A-10C for it's intended purpose.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2016/03/03/mccain-slams-usaf-chief-welsh-on-a-10-effectiveness/ 

 

I can tell you from personal experience that knowing a 2-ship of A-10s were covering my team's ass as we inserted for CASEVAC was nothing short of motivating. And then hearing the sound of that gun bounce off those canyon walls and then the sound of the engines spooling up as they climbed out for another run is something which is to be appreciated.

As far as I (and the late Commander John McCain) is concerned the A-10C performs it's job superbly.

 

On a side note, all of the tactics which you know, based on DCS or whatever game you are playing is only a FRACTION of the REALITY of tactics protocol which is taught to A-10 drivers and then that, again, is a fraction of tactics taught at the 6-month USAF Weapons School. Keep that in mind the next time you feel inclined to disparage the A-10.

You shouldn't be so quick to drink the cool-aid.


Edited by King39
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do note that those "shot down within two weeks" estimates were A-10As going up against massed Soviet armor, defended by short range SAMs and Shilkas. That's a very hairy target to go up against with EO-only Mavs, rockets and dumb bombs (no CBU-97, either!). Today, such scenario isn't completely impossible (replace "Soviet" with "Chinese"), but the environment has changed completely. Rather than going in close with A-10s, huge tank formations would be handled by high-altitude bombing with CBU-105s, artillery-delivered SADARM munitions and attack helos with radar-guided Hellfires.

 

The A-10C, today, is a brilliant COIN, SAR, FAC and CAS aircraft. It was its secondary role during a "WW3 in Europe" scenario, but in a way, it was what it was initially designed for. Most conflicts today that the US intervenes in are against insurgents and vastly inferior enemies, where the A-10 really does work best, and even in a full-scale war, an A-10 can work with SHORAD, fighters and helos to increase survivability. It won't need to go into the lion's maw to tangle with the tanks, but rather hang over the FLOT and friendly territory, with only excursions beyond being to play Sandy for downed pilots. It won't be the tip of the spear, but a tip isn't of much use if you don't have a proper shaft, so to speak. 🙂

On 8/11/2021 at 3:46 AM, panton41 said:

While the SH/SS will probably be closer to $100-million all-up, be comparable to a Saturn V in lift to LEO (with potentially dozens of passengers in a crewed version) and be fully reusable.

The difference is, SLS works (nothing new there), and Starship... we don't know, but it was scaled back once already, and there's no guarantee it doesn't turn into a slightly rounder Space Shuttle. SLS, in full configuration, is hard to beat for sheer payload to orbit, especially by something designed for reusability. Just like the A-10, it's a matter of choosing between what we know to work, and something that might work at some point in the future. I think choosing the former isn't a bad idea, and if you think otherwise, I have two words for you: "Bomarc" and "Skybolt". 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a maintenance perspective it's a s*** or get off the pot kind of situation. Like any government system, supply is mired i  politics and Uncle Jim's Backyard contracts more than usefulness. Most issues affecting MC are a result of cobbling 4.5 gen systems into an old platform. A clean sheet redesign is needed with gen 5 systems integration and much more advanced propulsion to increase the capabilities of an A-10 like platform and make maintenence easier than it is. If they can prototype the next gen A2A in a year they can do the same for a CAS centric bird like what gave birth to the A-10 in the 70s to begin with.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Ryzen 5 3600 (4.1Ghz), 32 GB DDR4, Sapphire R9 390X Nitro, Fatal1ty B450 K4

TrackIR, Warthog Stick and Throttle, CH Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2021 at 5:23 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

The difference is, SLS works (nothing new there), and Starship... we don't know, but it was scaled back once already, and there's no guarantee it doesn't turn into a slightly rounder Space Shuttle. SLS, in full configuration, is hard to beat for sheer payload to orbit, especially by something designed for reusability. Just like the A-10, it's a matter of choosing between what we know to work, and something that might work at some point in the future. I think choosing the former isn't a bad idea, and if you think otherwise, I have two words for you: "Bomarc" and "Skybolt". 

Except, you know, Starship has actually flown, albeit a prototype and only a few tens of kilometers. There real, visible progress and an aggressive timetable. We know from previous SpaceX efforts that might not arrive on schedule, but it'll arrive.

 

SLS is... doing what exactly? They burned $20 billion to make a single, barely functional, core stage (it shut down without warning during a full-duration burn) using mostly recycled tech from 50 years ago? Turns out rockets aren't actually like Kerbal Space Program and you can't just put together parts like Legos and the SLS is basically a totally new design hobbled by being forced to use technology developed during the Nixon administration.

 

And let's not get into the absolute farse of flat-out deadly engineering mistakes Boeing has been involved over the last few years. It's to the point the US military is rejecting deliveries because of manufacturing flaws. Heck, Boeing has messed up so badly that FAA type certification, which was once the gold-standard a lot of other nations accepted for own aviation boards, has been sullied by the 737-Max, 777x and 787 approvals.

 

And, lol, no. SLS in full configuration is going to drop billions into the ocean, maybe once a year, for the equivalent of a Saturn I payload. SH/SS is going to outlift the Saturn V to LEO AND be fully reusable. And, there's a mass production line being built for SS/SH with an eventual goal of hundreds being built. There's hundreds of Raptor engines just sitting in a warehouse right now and they cost about $200,000 each for airliner engine type reuseability.

On 8/12/2021 at 10:42 AM, zinhawk said:

From a maintenance perspective it's a s*** or get off the pot kind of situation. Like any government system, supply is mired i  politics and Uncle Jim's Backyard contracts more than usefulness. Most issues affecting MC are a result of cobbling 4.5 gen systems into an old platform. A clean sheet redesign is needed with gen 5 systems integration and much more advanced propulsion to increase the capabilities of an A-10 like platform and make maintenence easier than it is. If they can prototype the next gen A2A in a year they can do the same for a CAS centric bird like what gave birth to the A-10 in the 70s to begin with.

 

Well, there's a reason the USAF is looking at existing turboprop designs for COIN operations. In actual, real world use the A-10 hasn't been doing much that a modern version of the A-1 Sandy couldn't be doing for a lot less money. Take some of the combat ready trainers you see in DCS World, add modern, computerized avionics and bombsights, and you'll actually have some pretty capable designs.


Edited by panton41
  • Like 1

Windows 10 64-bit | Ryzen 9 3900X 4.00GHz (OC) | Asus Strix B450-F | 64GB Corsair Vengeance @ 3000MHz | two Asus GeForce 1070 Founders Edition (second card used for CUDA only) | two Silicon Power 1TB NVMe in RAID-0 | Samsung 32" 1440p Monitor | two ASUS 23" 1080p monitors | ASUS Mixed Reality VR | Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS | MFG Crosswind

 

A-10C Warthog | AV-8B Harrier (N/A) | F/A-18C Hornet | F-16C Viper | F-14B Tomcat | UH-1H Huey | P-51D Mustang | F-86F Saber | Persian Gulf | NTTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, panton41 said:

There's hundreds of Raptor engines just sitting in a warehouse right now and they cost about $200,000 each for airliner engine type reuseability.

 

Let's not get carried away too far with the marketing BS.

Until a Raptor engine shows anywhere near the "on-wing" time and cycles of an actual airlliner engine.

Oh wait, it can't - it needs to be pulled after each flight. Too bad.

 

16 hours ago, panton41 said:

Well, there's a reason the USAF is looking at existing turboprop designs for COIN operations. In actual, real world use the A-10 hasn't been doing much that a modern version of the A-1 Sandy couldn't be doing for a lot less money. Take some of the combat ready trainers you see in DCS World, add modern, computerized avionics and bombsights, and you'll actually have some pretty capable designs.

 

The USAF is trying to reduce cost.

An A-29 (as much as I like it) cannot replace an A-10. It can't fly as fast, high, far or with the same payload. And it can't deploy on a tanker.

You can always scale down. Until the day you can't.

 

A replacement of the A-10 needs a more capable airplane than just a converted trainer.

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, many people are surprised that there are things that are slower than the Hog. 🙂 Also, the A-10 has amazing endurance. This is particularly important when flying Sandy, since it's got to stay up there until the job is done, no matter what. This goes really well with its large payload. 

 

IMO, the best replacement for the A-10 would be a subsonic tactical bomber with an integrated 360 degree laser designator, a crapton of smart bombs in the bay and underwing hardpoints for Mavs and APKWS. Today, smart munitions seem to be more important than gun runs (as fun and morale-raising as the latter are) and to employ those, you don't really need armor. Bombers tend to have long range and good endurance, anyway, so it all points towards something not unlike the F-111 or Su-24 (sans the swing wing and with airliner engines). The aircraft should be designed to stay above MANPADS ceiling and rain guided munitions from above. Note that unlike the F-111 or the Mudhen, it would have no expensive radars, just an ECM pod. 

 

As for SpaceX, I'll believe the hype when they fly something more than a Starship-shaped water tower. 🙂 Falcon 9 was also overhyped, I could probably afford to launch a 1kg to LEO with my own savings, but it's not exactly "Space for everyone" (or even "Space for upper middle class and up"), and besides, the cited cost per kg is never what you actually have to pay to get something up there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space x starship is nothing more than a tin can with the engine underneath.
there are technologies that could save a lot of costs to get out of the earth's atmosphere. such as the space elevator that would transport astronauts to some kind of outpost in space or spaceport.
I think that if humanity wants to conquer space, ships should not be built on earth but in space where there is no atmosphere, only in this environment can you reach and develop new experimental technologies to attempt inter-space travel.


Edited by Xilon_x
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A-10 in Iraq/Afghanistan:

 

  You do not need a plane that size, with that payload, that capability, and a 30mm tankbuster to shoot robed men with Aks.

 

 

 

''How it feels to have an A-10 overhead and hear the brrrt''

 

  Irrelevant. Real life is not an action movie. The only thing that matters is whether support is delivered in a timely and effective fashion, whether that's a burst of 30mm gun rounds or a smart bomb or a accurately deployed concrete block is irrelevant.

 

 

 

Cost vs reward

 

  If you're not engaging a near peer adversary, then it is more reasonabke to have larger numbers of cheaper simpler aircraft for low intensity operations, reserving the more expensive and maintenance intensive aircraft for ''real'' wars.

 

 

 

''Fifth gen CAS platform''

 

  Why? It's not 1970/1980 anymore. A2G is a relatively easy role to conduct, any aircraft with a Tpod is as effective as any other aircraft with a Tpod. CAS can and has been conducted by literally everything, including heavy bombers. The defining criteria for CAS, due to proximity to friendlies, is accurately deploying weaponry on the correct target. In 2020 literally any aircraft can do that, provided the pilot doesn't err.

 

 

 

 

 

  As much as people like to (correctly) criticise politicians, half the ''experts'' and veterans aren't any better. For all of the history of warfare, the biggest mistake militaries have consistently made was NOT adjusting to the times and continuing to do the same things, the same ways, until somebody finally stomped them into the ground (much to their surprise). In modern times, this goes x10 when technology has advanced so dramatically over the last 10-15 years, 30 years, and leave alone the last 50-60 years.A-10 in Iraq/Afghanistan:

  You do not need a plane that size, with that payload, that capability, and a 30mm tankbuster to shoot robed men with Aks.

 

''How it feels to have an A-10 overhead and hear the brrrt''

  Irrelevant. Real life is not an action movie. The only thing that matters is whether support is delivered in a timely and effective fashion, whether that's a burst of 30mm gun rounds or a smart bomb or a accurately deployed concrete block is irrelevant.

 

Cost vs reward

  If you're not engaging a near peer adversary, then it is more reasonabke to have larger numbers of cheaper simpler aircraft for low intensity operations, reserving the more expensive and maintenance intensive aircraft for ''real'' wars.

 

''Fifth gen CAS platform''

  Why? It's not 1970/1980 anymore. A2G is a relatively easy role to conduct, any aircraft with a Tpod is as effective as any other aircraft with a Tpod. CAS can and has been conducted by literally everything, including heavy bombers. The defining criteria for CAS, due to proximity to friendlies, is accurately deploying weaponry on the correct target. In 2020 literally any aircraft can do that, provided the pilot doesn't err.

 

 

  As much as people like to (correctly) criticise politicians, half the ''experts'' and veterans aren't any better. For all of the history of warfare, the biggest mistake militaries have consistently made was NOT adjusting to the times and continuing to do the same things, the same ways, until somebody finally stomped them into the ground (much to their surprise). In modern times, this goes x10 when technology has advanced so dramatically over the last 10-15 years, 30 years, and  leave alone the last 50-60 years.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case it was the usage that changed, not the aircraft, which they didn't foresee.

Considering US air doctrine is based on air superiority, it makes the long loiter time of the A-10C fit even better to what it became than what it was designed for. That's the hard thing to swallow, how the arguments are even stronger now than they were, for a slow COIN ops loiterer with cheap(er) hourly cost (than the fast jets).

There was an assumption way back that swing/multirole was the thing that costed the least by unification of the airframe counts, so that engineering, parts and support were condensed into one, but it never really counted in on station time to the equation - how many other airframes can go back to station, loiter for an hour and return to the same firefight a bit later? That's two missions for everyone else.

We don't know what the future holds, but it's difficult to imagine support of ground troops in a permissive airspace just disappearing. I'd like to see Navies manage to get closer to the A-10 mindset. The one place you need a good loiter time is in a force projection scenario on a carrier.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2021 at 5:25 AM, Xilon_x said:

Space x starship is nothing more than a tin can with the engine underneath.
there are technologies that could save a lot of costs to get out of the earth's atmosphere. such as the space elevator that would transport astronauts to some kind of outpost in space or spaceport.
I think that if humanity wants to conquer space, ships should not be built on earth but in space where there is no atmosphere, only in this environment can you reach and develop new experimental technologies to attempt inter-space travel.

 

 

A space elevator is a science fiction curiosity that's impossible with realistic material science. At least for the foreseeable future.

 

On 8/15/2021 at 10:11 AM, Bremspropeller said:

 

Let's not get carried away too far with the marketing BS.

Until a Raptor engine shows anywhere near the "on-wing" time and cycles of an actual airlliner engine.

Oh wait, it can't - it needs to be pulled after each flight. Too bad.

 

I think you're confusing the RP-1/LOX powered Merlin with the MH4/LOX powered Raptor. The main issue with rapid reuse of the Merlin engine is that RP-1 is sooty, which means they need to be checked over and possibly cleaned. Methane/LOX burns clean and without soot, so quick turnaround is certainly possible. I don't think any Raptor have flown more than one flight, and most of those involved RUD. But, in test-bench type conditions they've shown the kind of reliability needed to rapid turnaround. Certainly, better than RS-25 which needed a total rebuild after every flight.

 

On 8/15/2021 at 10:11 AM, Bremspropeller said:

 

 

The USAF is trying to reduce cost.

An A-29 (as much as I like it) cannot replace an A-10. It can't fly as fast, high, far or with the same payload. And it can't deploy on a tanker.

You can always scale down. Until the day you can't.

 

A replacement of the A-10 needs a more capable airplane than just a converted trainer.

 

It's not like the A-10 was known for performance. Flying far, high and fast compared to the A-10 isn't exactly a hard bar to beat here. Nearly all of the early submission on the A-X program were turboprop and it was only after the S-3 Viking went into service that a jet because feasible on the second round of submissions (and of those three submissions one was still turboprop).

 

For low-intensity operations the A-29 (or AT-6) are perfectly fine, and for other roles just about anything that can drop a guided bomb from medium altitude will do. It's not like the A-10 goes out load for bear with its maximum payload every flight. Even in heavy CAS operations during Desert Storm a typical payload was six Mk82s (or CBU-52s) with proximity fuzes and two Maverick missiles and even that cause them to have problems with poor performance. (Hogs in the Sand, Wyndham)

 

Heck, the B-1 fleet is about to fall out of the sky due to lack of maintenance and fatigue because it's proved such a capable CAS aircraft.

Windows 10 64-bit | Ryzen 9 3900X 4.00GHz (OC) | Asus Strix B450-F | 64GB Corsair Vengeance @ 3000MHz | two Asus GeForce 1070 Founders Edition (second card used for CUDA only) | two Silicon Power 1TB NVMe in RAID-0 | Samsung 32" 1440p Monitor | two ASUS 23" 1080p monitors | ASUS Mixed Reality VR | Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS | MFG Crosswind

 

A-10C Warthog | AV-8B Harrier (N/A) | F/A-18C Hornet | F-16C Viper | F-14B Tomcat | UH-1H Huey | P-51D Mustang | F-86F Saber | Persian Gulf | NTTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, panton41 said:

Even in heavy CAS operations during Desert Storm a typical payload was six Mk82s (or CBU-52s) with proximity fuzes and two Maverick missiles and even that cause them to have problems with poor performance. (Hogs in the Sand, Wyndham)

Yeah, good luck loading up a turboprop combat trainer with 6xCBU and 2xMav. That's exactly why you need something like an A-10, if you fill every hardpoint available on just about any airframe, its performance will suffer. Not a problem for multiroles, since they've got performance to spare, but if you start out with a small aircraft, then practical loadouts are even smaller. A B-1, while a great CAS aircraft, is way too expensive due to being designed as strategic bomber. I'm not saying A-10's replacement couldn't be a turboprop, but it should be larger rather than smaller.

 

Quote

Certainly, better than RS-25 which needed a total rebuild after every flight.

...and which, I would remind you, burned hydrogen, the cleanest fuel there is. LOX-Methane is certainly better than RP-1, but that's not the only thing that makes an engine reusable or not. Particularly, Raptor runs on a cycle which involves hot oxygen gas, which tends to try to oxidize the pipes and the turbopump that it's driving. Test stand conditions are one thing, actual flight is another, and RS-25 could run quite a while, too, if it needed to. Not to mention Raptor's burn times are nowhere near those of the jet engines, even on test stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, panton41 said:

I think you're confusing the RP-1/LOX powered Merlin with the MH4/LOX powered Raptor. The main issue with rapid reuse of the Merlin engine is that RP-1 is sooty, which means they need to be checked over and possibly cleaned. Methane/LOX burns clean and without soot, so quick turnaround is certainly possible. I don't think any Raptor have flown more than one flight, and most of those involved RUD. But, in test-bench type conditions they've shown the kind of reliability needed to rapid turnaround. Certainly, better than RS-25 which needed a total rebuild after every flight.

 

That's not my point. My point is that I'd like a single Raptor/ Merlin/ Fairy Dust engine run for thousands of consequtive cycles and hours, without being overhauled or even taken off the booster even once.

 

It's precisely then, when we can start talking "airliner type reusability".

 

13 hours ago, panton41 said:

t's not like the A-10 was known for performance. Flying far, high and fast compared to the A-10 isn't exactly a hard bar to beat here.

 

It is, for a prop.

Especially taking payload/ range into the calculation.

 

13 hours ago, panton41 said:

For low-intensity operations the A-29 (or AT-6) are perfectly fine, and for other roles just about anything that can drop a guided bomb from medium altitude will do.

 

Both the A-29 or a souped up AT-6 are falling short when it comes to tanker-support. Also, they'll suffer when taking higher payloads and when flexibility of payloads carried on the wing is required, eg several different warhead-sizes on one mission.

 

13 hours ago, panton41 said:

It's not like the A-10 goes out load for bear with its maximum payload every flight. Even in heavy CAS operations during Desert Storm a typical payload was six Mk82s (or CBU-52s) with proximity fuzes and two Maverick missiles and even that cause them to have problems with poor performance.

 

Any airplane suffers in high DA. So do the prop-jobs. So they'll haul even less.

 

 

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know of a few US and allies soldiers who wished those girls and their A-10 were available right now...

 

Win 11Pro. Corsair RM1000X PSU. ASUS TUF Gaming X570-PLUS [WI-FI], AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 3D, Sapphire Radeon RX 7900 XTX Nitro+ Vapor-X 24GB GDDR6. 32 GB G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series (4 x 8GB) RAM Cl14 DDR4 3600. Thrustmaster HOTAS WARTHOG Thrustmaster. TWCS Throttle. PICO 4 256GB.

WARNING: Message from AMD: Windows Automatic Update may have replaced their driver by one of their own. Check your drivers.

M-2000C. Mirage F1. F/A-18C Hornet. F-15C. F-5E Tiger II. MiG-29 "Fulcrum".  Avatar: Escadron de Chasse 3/3 Ardennes. Fly like a Maineyak.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2021 at 12:34 AM, Mars Exulte said:

A-10 in Iraq/Afghanistan:

 

  You do not need a plane that size, with that payload, that capability, and a 30mm tankbuster to shoot robed men with Aks.

 

 

 

''How it feels to have an A-10 overhead and hear the brrrt''

 

  Irrelevant. Real life is not an action movie. The only thing that matters is whether support is delivered in a timely and effective fashion, whether that's a burst of 30mm gun rounds or a smart bomb or a accurately deployed concrete block is irrelevant.

 

 

 

Cost vs reward

 

  If you're not engaging a near peer adversary, then it is more reasonabke to have larger numbers of cheaper simpler aircraft for low intensity operations, reserving the more expensive and maintenance intensive aircraft for ''real'' wars.

 

 

 

''Fifth gen CAS platform''

 

  Why? It's not 1970/1980 anymore. A2G is a relatively easy role to conduct, any aircraft with a Tpod is as effective as any other aircraft with a Tpod. CAS can and has been conducted by literally everything, including heavy bombers. The defining criteria for CAS, due to proximity to friendlies, is accurately deploying weaponry on the correct target. In 2020 literally any aircraft can do that, provided the pilot doesn't err.

 

 

 

 

 

  As much as people like to (correctly) criticise politicians, half the ''experts'' and veterans aren't any better. For all of the history of warfare, the biggest mistake militaries have consistently made was NOT adjusting to the times and continuing to do the same things, the same ways, until somebody finally stomped them into the ground (much to their surprise). In modern times, this goes x10 when technology has advanced so dramatically over the last 10-15 years, 30 years, and leave alone the last 50-60 years.A-10 in Iraq/Afghanistan:

  You do not need a plane that size, with that payload, that capability, and a 30mm tankbuster to shoot robed men with Aks.

 

''How it feels to have an A-10 overhead and hear the brrrt''

  Irrelevant. Real life is not an action movie. The only thing that matters is whether support is delivered in a timely and effective fashion, whether that's a burst of 30mm gun rounds or a smart bomb or a accurately deployed concrete block is irrelevant.

 

Cost vs reward

  If you're not engaging a near peer adversary, then it is more reasonabke to have larger numbers of cheaper simpler aircraft for low intensity operations, reserving the more expensive and maintenance intensive aircraft for ''real'' wars.

 

''Fifth gen CAS platform''

  Why? It's not 1970/1980 anymore. A2G is a relatively easy role to conduct, any aircraft with a Tpod is as effective as any other aircraft with a Tpod. CAS can and has been conducted by literally everything, including heavy bombers. The defining criteria for CAS, due to proximity to friendlies, is accurately deploying weaponry on the correct target. In 2020 literally any aircraft can do that, provided the pilot doesn't err.

 

 

  As much as people like to (correctly) criticise politicians, half the ''experts'' and veterans aren't any better. For all of the history of warfare, the biggest mistake militaries have consistently made was NOT adjusting to the times and continuing to do the same things, the same ways, until somebody finally stomped them into the ground (much to their surprise). In modern times, this goes x10 when technology has advanced so dramatically over the last 10-15 years, 30 years, and  leave alone the last 50-60 years.

 

 

You misunderstand, politics includes military leadership and the entire industrial complex, not just the suits in congress.

 

There was an important third word. Fifth Gen systems integration. I'm not talking stealth jets, just the pod, information sharing systems, and ECM being included in the design from the ground up. Think F-35 brains, in an actually good CAS platform. Sure lots of things can drop bombs, but not many can loiter and keep a high Mission Capable rate like the A-10 which is incredibly important to CAS. B-1 needs 3 jets to just launch 1 and the gun will still be important when the computers inevitably fail in a 21st century peer to peer fight.

 

Main point is that the A-10 is not going to stay around forever as suggested in the OP. Certainly will not last my career. It needs rebuilt with lessons learned or replaced all together with something fully vested in CAS or the AF just needs to give it up and hand that mission over to the Army and Marines.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Ryzen 5 3600 (4.1Ghz), 32 GB DDR4, Sapphire R9 390X Nitro, Fatal1ty B450 K4

TrackIR, Warthog Stick and Throttle, CH Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/19/2021 at 12:27 PM, Bremspropeller said:

 

That's not my point. My point is that I'd like a single Raptor/ Merlin/ Fairy Dust engine run for thousands of consequtive cycles and hours, without being overhauled or even taken off the booster even once.

 

It's precisely then, when we can start talking "airliner type reusability".

 

The simplest answer is "We don't know" but when do know that the SLS is going to drop five designed-for-reuse RS-25 into the drink with every launch while the Merlin/Rapton will see reuse. At the end of the day that's better.

 

As for the A-10, it's deader than dead in the long-term. In the event of a peer-advisory war they'll all be shot down within days and against dirt farmers living in mud shacks there's simply more cost-effective designs.

Windows 10 64-bit | Ryzen 9 3900X 4.00GHz (OC) | Asus Strix B450-F | 64GB Corsair Vengeance @ 3000MHz | two Asus GeForce 1070 Founders Edition (second card used for CUDA only) | two Silicon Power 1TB NVMe in RAID-0 | Samsung 32" 1440p Monitor | two ASUS 23" 1080p monitors | ASUS Mixed Reality VR | Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS | MFG Crosswind

 

A-10C Warthog | AV-8B Harrier (N/A) | F/A-18C Hornet | F-16C Viper | F-14B Tomcat | UH-1H Huey | P-51D Mustang | F-86F Saber | Persian Gulf | NTTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, panton41 said:

The simplest answer is "We don't know" but when do know that the SLS is going to drop five designed-for-reuse RS-25 into the drink with every launch while the Merlin/Rapton will see reuse. At the end of the day that's better.

 

Still no Airliner-reusability.

 

4 hours ago, panton41 said:

As for the A-10, it's deader than dead in the long-term. In the event of a peer-advisory war they'll all be shot down within days and against dirt farmers living in mud shacks there's simply more cost-effective designs.

 

Well, SpaceX could nuke'em from space.

So ein Feuerball, JUNGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...