Sign in to follow this  
mp170.6

Aviation Fans

737 posts in this topic

Geeze.  Reading up on the Sioux City crash.  Engine goes out, and takes out the hydraulics.  Sounds like they had three people in the cockpit, one a passenger that had flight experience to land that sucker.  

 

This one is a compilation of like news and other coverage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geeze.  Reading up on the Sioux City crash.  Engine goes out, and takes out the hydraulics.  Sounds like they had three people in the cockpit, one a passenger that had flight experience to land that sucker.  

 

This one is a compilation of like news and other coverage.

 

Yeah, for sure, I can't believe 185 people survived that crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome thread.  Makes me want to learn more.  I don't have a favorite or anything but I do think A-10s are pretty awesome.

You and every grunt who ever needed close air support thinks A-10s are awesome but the Air Force wants to retire them to save the money for the new cash cows. We're about to get a lesson in defense politics.

 

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/05/15/will-the-a-10-dodge-retirement-and-get-new-wings/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and every grunt who ever needed close air support thinks A-10s are awesome but the Air Force wants to retire them to save the money for the new cash cows. We're about to get a lesson in defense politics.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/05/15/will-the-a-10-dodge-retirement-and-get-new-wings/

That whole idea baffles me. The f-35 is NOT a replacement for the a-10, any more than a stryker equipped with space age sensors can replace an Abrams. The f-35 (imo) is being pushed forward simply because so much coin has already been invested. Yeah, its probably a good replacement for the f-16. Sure, it can replace the harrier (though vstol aircraft are a waste in my opinion).

But for the dirty mud moving, you need an a-10 platform. Something has to be available when an apache/cobra cant get in because of the anti air threat. Hornets, f-16s etc are nice but arent cost efficient (in terms of fuel and munitions) as the a-10

Time to repeal the amendment barring the army from operating fixed wing aircraft. I understand why the air force would want to do away with the hogs for a more dedicated strike aircraft...but the guys on the ground arent really interested in a deep penetration strategic aircraft...we want the the one thats gonna loiter overhead and clear lanes in front of us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That whole idea baffles me. The f-35 is NOT a replacement for the a-10, any more than a stryker equipped with space age sensors can replace an Abrams. The f-35 (imo) is being pushed forward simply because so much coin has already been invested. Yeah, its probably a good replacement for the f-16. Sure, it can replace the harrier (though vstol aircraft are a waste in my opinion).

But for the dirty mud moving, you need an a-10 platform. Something has to be available when an apache/cobra cant get in because of the anti air threat. Hornets, f-16s etc are nice but arent cost efficient (in terms of fuel and munitions) as the a-10

Time to repeal the amendment barring the army from operating fixed wing aircraft. I understand why the air force would want to do away with the hogs for a more dedicated strike aircraft...but the guys on the ground arent really interested in a deep penetration strategic aircraft...we want the the one thats gonna loiter overhead and clear lanes in front of us

I don't actually think the Air Force wants the F-35s but they'll get them and like them, mission be damned. I've never likes the idea of adapting a single platform to multiple missions. It doesn't work. For the money and manhours required, the A-10 is a huge bargain that is well adapted to its mission. I'm sure Glen could say more about this but the time and expense of maintaining the F-22 and F-35 is going to become crippling if it hasn't already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't actually think the Air Force wants the F-35s but they'll get them and like them, mission be damned. I've never likes the idea of adapting a single platform to multiple missions. It doesn't work. For the money and manhours required, the A-10 is a huge bargain that is well adapted to its mission. I'm sure Glen could say more about this but the time and expense of maintaining the F-22 and F-35 is going to become crippling if it hasn't already.

That movie i posted (final countdown) is great because its kind of the tail end of the 'glory years', where the carriers had several platforms for different missions. Fighter, light attack, medium attack, anti sub etc. This was before the hornet took over every role.

Totally get the cost saving aspect, but certain things you cant do without.

Also read the navy f-35 wont carry a gun...thought we learned that lesson already.

Good call on the f-111. Turned out to be a great plane. Great medium strike platform, strategic and tactical as well as elint/sead (raven). But the utter failure it was as a fighter led to the f-14. Maybe that happens with the jsf too.

The jsf will not replace the a-10. And were going to regret it when its gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new brimstone multi-racks on an a-10 with the gun and SDBs would be pretty unrivaled in terms of fire support.

The only thing i can remotely see being as effective would be say a b-52 with a vietnam era load of light (250 lb) smart munitions and a guy on the ground with a reliable designator. Something like that i can see being a decent replacement in terms of CAS, but again i would assume it would cost far more than 30MM rounds (and very fuel efficient engines)

The f-35 replacing the a-10 is a lesson that should have been learned when the p-47 wrecked the panzer groups in the 2cd war, the a-1s outdid the phantoms in vietnam and the hogs outperforming every cas platform the last 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arch, from your behind the scenes knowledge, how are the f-15s holding up in terms of where the sukhoi series is?

And a few other nerd questions, but how are the newer block export 16s vs ours? I like the conformal fuel packs, that seems like a great idea but not sure about performance.

Lastly, whats the industry think of the eurofighter. Thats one of the few out of the country platforms i really like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both the 15 and 16 export versions are more up to date than ours because all the USAF money has to go towards Lockheed's new toys. Korea, Singapore, Israel, Saudi all have a more modern version of the strike eagles. It's still a great performing medium range platform that can escort itself in and out of target areas. If the USAF wanted to incorporate the newer radar and infrared packages they could fly them another 25 years. They may still outlast the 22.

 

The Typhoons are great airplanes but the price is insane for what's essentially a modernized F-16. Technology makes it easier to rely on a single engine platform and I love the 27mm cannon, although only 150 rounds limits it.

 

The big deal these days is the ordnance. Your platform should be able to deliver all the newest weapons and do so with sufficient range and defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats what i was assuming. I like the f-22, but i think the f-15 should be kept up to top standard. We'll never be able to buy enough raptors to replace the eagle fleet, so it only makes sense to keep it top grade and have a layered defense.

Edited by ten ocho recon scout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That movie i posted (final countdown) is great because its kind of the tail end of the 'glory years', where the carriers had several platforms for different missions. Fighter, light attack, medium attack, anti sub etc. This was before the hornet took over every role.

Totally get the cost saving aspect, but certain things you cant do without.

Also read the navy f-35 wont carry a gun...thought we learned that lesson already.

Good call on the f-111. Turned out to be a great plane. Great medium strike platform, strategic and tactical as well as elint/sead (raven). But the utter failure it was as a fighter led to the f-14. Maybe that happens with the jsf too.

The jsf will not replace the a-10. And were going to regret it when its gone.

 

Old attack planes never die, they just get sold to third world nations.

 

Mexico proudly flies it's Northrop F-5 E

 

527280as.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does the raptor do in air to ground? Seems like they incorporated that capability to justify the cost.

The raptor is a beast, and im glad its on our side, but like you said its a luxury. Unless things with russia really go bad (they wont), its kind of overkill for what were facing.

The limit comes from the stealth aspects. It limits payload and location but it makes it ideal for data linking to extend the visual range of the other bomb droppers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big deal these days is the ordnance. Your platform should be able to deliver all the newest weapons and do so with sufficient range and defense.

 

given the ordnance that we're using, is the plane that delivers it as important now as it used to be? the A10 is known as a tank buster, but is it vital that THAT plane be the one that delivers THAT ordnance? can the ordnance be adapted for use on another plane? this is probably a very civilian question, so thanks for your patience in answering.

 

i'm enjoying this conversation, arch and ocho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

given the ordnance that we're using, is the plane that delivers it as important now as it used to be? the A10 is known as a tank buster, but is it vital that THAT plane be the one that delivers THAT ordnance? can the ordnance be adapted for use on another plane? this is probably a very civilian question, so thanks for your patience in answering.

i'm enjoying this conversation, arch and ocho.

a"A-10 was built for close air support. High maneuverability at low speed and low altitude. 30 mm cannon and enough avionics to allow it to deliver more sophisticated air to ground missiles with infrared or tv guidance. Very durable and constructed with redundant systems that can handle the inevitable AAA hits. Other aircraft can deliver the missiles but will have survivability questions. F-35 won't even have a gun as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

given the ordnance that we're using, is the plane that delivers it as important now as it used to be? the A10 is known as a tank buster, but is it vital that THAT plane be the one that delivers THAT ordnance? can the ordnance be adapted for use on another plane? this is probably a very civilian question, so thanks for your patience in answering.

i'm enjoying this conversation, arch and ocho.

Plus 1 to what arch said.

Youre right tank in that the munition ca be delivered by any number of platforms (generally speaking). But you have certain situations where a smart munition needs a sensor that a certain aircraft doesnt have.

Then you have to figure certain planes obviously carry a lot more than others. One my main complaints in terms of the sexy/fast jet aircraft for CAS (close air support) is that they cant haul as much. A hornet can deliver just about everything in the inventory. The problem is it doesnt have much range, and henerally 2 of its 5 air to ground stations are taken up with extra gas.

The beauty of the a-10 for cas is a few specific area. Like arch said, its designed bery rugged so it can wjrvive ground fire far more than the more well known planes like f-16s, f-18s etc (with its weakness being enemy aircraft).

More so though (imo) is that it carries far more munitions than any fast jet can. The gun itself is about as good on the support role as any bomb/missile. And its far more cost efficient to shoot the gun thaN deliver a bomb/missile.

So the difference beteween an a-10 and say an f-18 to the grunt is simple. The hornet can knock out a hard target for you just as good as an a-10. The problem is it can only knock one or two out so to speak before its out of ammo. And with the amount of gas fast jets eat, the hornet may only be on station for 20 minutes or so. The a-10 on the other hand can loiter on station for an hour or so. With its ability to do that, and the amount of weapons it can carry (and roughly 20 seconds of trigger on the gun) the a-10 can do multiple strikes for you before hes out of ammo. Thats a big deal to the guy on the ground

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a good comp for the difference between the 20mm cannon carried on the F series planes vs the 30mm carried on the a-10. And the advantage of the gun over a bomp is that (for the most part) you can get in a lot closer with a gun. One of the tactics the north koreans developed, which the vietnamese perfected and those we fight now is to 'hug' us, meaning fight so close too make the use of air and artillery impossqible for the liklihood of hitting your own people. In afghanistan especially (the taliban being far better technically than the iraqis ever were) the fighting is up close, rifleman to rifleman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  


  • AngelsWin.com Ad-free Membership Options