My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.

wastedfly wrote:Nothing in life is the end all be all.

Other than lazyness. Now EVERYONE has that bugaboo.

Relax wrote:... and build A-10 replacements so as to lower maintenance costs on a 40 year old platform along with few more air superiority fighters along with ditching the B1B and most all AH-64s. I am not certain F15E has any place in the Air Force either on a cost basis.

Ensign Re-read wrote:

Relax wrote:... and build A-10 replacements so as to lower maintenance costs on a 40 year old platform along with few more air superiority fighters along with ditching the B1B and most all AH-64s. I am not certain F15E has any place in the Air Force either on a cost basis.

One caveat I would add to that is to build the "B" two-seat version, then bring it up to the "C" standards in other respects. In other words... Build a new "D".
.

Relax wrote:... and build A-10 replacements so as to lower maintenance costs on a 40 year old platform along with few more air superiority fighters along with ditching the B1B and most all AH-64s. I am not certain F15E has any place in the Air Force either on a cost basis.

Relax wrote:

Ensign Re-read wrote:
One caveat I would add to that is to build the "B" two-seat version, then bring it up to the "C" standards in other respects. In other words... Build a new "D".
.

Unlike a Helo that can hover, and therefore can swivel its gun 180 degrees to lay down fire, an A-10 has to pretty much align with its target via its flight controls and fire. In otherwords, a single human in a helo cannot swivel the gun and fly the helo at the same time. The A-10 does not have this "problem". Instead the A-10 has the problem that it was upgraded with a targeting pod for entering coordinates. Flying the A-10 with one hand+2feet+throttle+gun+targeting a moving cursor via a different joystick via helmet mounted camera targeting sight may be too much workload along with identifying Friend or Foe. So, far this has not proven to be true.

PS. There is a way to make the A-10 more of a STOL version than it already is. Increase the Horizontal stabilizer area. Ultimately one can make the stabilizer area the same area as the foreplane. Of course this decreases stability as a gun platform, so no free lunch. Besides max usefulness of an A-10 is the simple fact it can lift upwards of 20,000lbs of ordinance from a paved runway. It has hardpoints for "normal" operations of 16,000lbs 8 tons of ordinance. That is en enormous number of Hellfire missiles or bombs, or PAVEWAYS, or...

Zakharra wrote:
A helo can't mount or shoot the 30MM cannon the A-10 uses either, and they are far more vulnerable to ground fire from assault rifles and machineguns. It's hard to hit an A-10, and the A-10s are built to withstand punishment.

Relax wrote:

Zakharra wrote:
A helo can't mount or shoot the 30MM cannon the A-10 uses either, and they are far more vulnerable to ground fire from assault rifles and machineguns. It's hard to hit an A-10, and the A-10s are built to withstand punishment.

In fairness to the Helo it does mount a 30mm gun. It is not as powerful(caliber). It is not aimed at destroying armor, but rather vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles in a pinch. Destroying houses and bunkers. Attack Helos are also designed to withstand small arms fire as has been proven many times by both Russian and American Attack helicopters. Several Apaches were eventually written off due to small arms fire in Afghanistan for instance, but all of them returned to base. Not true in Iraq, but you get the jist.

Zakharra wrote:

Relax wrote:
In fairness to the Helo it does mount a 30mm gun. It is not as powerful(caliber). It is not aimed at destroying armor, but rather vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles in a pinch. Destroying houses and bunkers. Attack Helos are also designed to withstand small arms fire as has been proven many times by both Russian and American Attack helicopters. Several Apaches were eventually written off due to small arms fire in Afghanistan for instance, but all of them returned to base. Not true in Iraq, but you get the jist.

There's not a helo around that can carry the same 30mm cannon the A-10 carries. Well, not and be able to fly and shoot well. The A-10 30mm is long and heavy, any 30mm a helo carries is going to be a lot shorter and lighter, An A-10 is also built to soak up a lot of damage and still fly. An attack helicopter can soak up some damage, but it is a lot less than what an A-10 can take and they can be targeted by machine guns

"Close" in Close Air Support refers, in doctrinal terms, refers to the level of integration required between air assets and ground forces, not to the proximity between air and land assets. In operationnal terms, it means that when operating within the Land Component Commander's area of responsibility (between the FLOT and the FSCL) and in concrete terms, anytime the enemy is within the LCC's weapons effects (in horizontal range and altitude) When those criteria are met, pilots need to talk to and be authorized by a ground commander in order to employ weapons and even fly in that airspace.

You can fly very effective CAS from a distance (and is even desired in some situations to keep an element of surprise). Most often, the modern weapons will be 1000 times more effective than conventionnal weapons while minimizing risk to the aircraft and aircrew. Not to say that risk cannot be taken (and we, in the cockpit sure don't make those risk decisions, we are given guidance from the theater and from the national political and strategic levels), but in all cases, I am confident that if allied forces need help, we will. But if we can minimize risk and have greater effect why should we keep using archaic weapons and tactics?

As Max said, plus:

If you want to provide both friendly and enemy troops with an airshow, complete with flaming wrecks smashing into the ground in a most spectacular fashion, then "traditional" CAS is most definitely the way to go. As much of a case can be made for that as can be made for horse cavalry.

Battlefield conditions change.

The important thing is that the right things blow up, not how they blow up.

Helicopters do not provide CAS. Doctrinally, Attack Helicopter units are manoeuvre units - light on armour, lots of firepower, and rotary wings instead of tracks or big knobby tires.

Relax wrote:In fairness to the Helo it does mount a 30mm gun. It is not as powerful(caliber). It is not aimed at destroying armor, but rather vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles in a pinch. Destroying houses and bunkers. Attack Helos are also designed to withstand small arms fire as has been proven many times by both Russian and American Attack helicopters. Several Apaches were eventually written off due to small arms fire in Afghanistan for instance, but all of them returned to base. Not true in Iraq, but you get the jist.

Zakharra wrote:There's not a helo around that can carry the same 30mm cannon the A-10 carries. Well, not and be able to fly and shoot well. The A-10 30mm is long and heavy, any 30mm a helo carries is going to be a lot shorter and lighter, An A-10 is also built to soak up a lot of damage and still fly. An attack helicopter can soak up some damage, but it is a lot less than what an A-10 can take and they can be targeted by machine guns

Relax wrote:Scratches head... Wonders if a certain someone can read. If one can, why repeat exactly what someone else wrote unless said certain someone cannot comprehend what was written?

Look up what the term CALIBER means in artillery guns.