A-10 Worthless POS

[williepete]

The A-10 is long in the tooth and will have to be replaced soon. Here is an explanation of the design philosophy that went into building the A-10. Sound principles that worked well. No need to reinvent the wheel when designing a replacement.

The Amazing A-10 Warthog Fighter Jet






-----------------------------------------------------

 

[Mushroom]

Let's see if I can understand this, the Op doesn't like the A-10 and claims that perhaps the AH-64 or perhaps the AH-1 would be a good replacement for it. Well let's consider this for a moment, if I were to take a Russian 23MM and hit the A-10 several times and it keeps hitting back and flys home, and the consider the fact the AH-64 and the AH-1 can be brought down with small arms fire the OP's quote is somewhat off the mark.

I chalk most of this off to the kind of amateuristic things I read all the time from those who do not understand the military.

The attack helicopters have their role, but it is not the same as that of an Attack Fighter. In fact, most today do not even know what the original role of the AH was in the first place.

In the 1950's and 1960's, the tank was one of the most expensive items in the military arsenal, short of a heavy bomber. And the early lightly armored helicopters were one of the least expensive. But in the US any aircraft required an officer to fly.

So the Army vastly increased it's Warrant Officer program, and rapidly developed the early anti-tank helicopters. It was figured that they could throw away 4 helicopters in exchange for 1 tank if the Warsaw Pact ever came streaming into Central Europe. And they could easily operate along the edge of the battle area, something fighters and bombers have a hard time doing.

But dumping entire specialized classifications of a weapon system without an equal replacement is always a recipe for disaster. The advent of modern tanks has not eliminated the role of the tank destroyer, the advent of better machine guns did not eliminate the need for a rifleman. Grenade launchers did not eliminate the need for light mortars or hand grenades.

In a modern battlefield, aircraft all have their areas of operation. Helicopters and attack fighters generally operate just on the edge of the battlefield. Helicopters on a local level normally directly supporting the units they are assigned to, fighters like the hog responding to where more help is needed. Fighters normally operate overhead, engaging other fighters to keep them from attacking our ground forces. Bombers try to penetrate and operate behind the enemy lines.

A lot of the problem here is that a lot of people in here with little to no comprehension of theatre wide strategy and tactics assume that the wars we have been involved in the last 15 years is how it always has been, and always will be. It is not, fighting against such technologically inferior opponents is actually quite unusual, and it took months and years to organize our military to work effectively against them.

And if we change everything to only meet this kind of threat, then we are crippled if we have to face an enemy that is closer to our capabilities, like Russia, China, or even Brazil or India. Each of those nations has some pretty good technology, training, and doctrine, along with a lot of other countries.

If we scrapped all of our Attack Fighters, we will then be in a world of hurt if we need them in a future conflict. Deciding to kill them makes about as much sense to me as deciding that since the short bed and long bed pickups do anything a medium bed can do, then the manufacture of all standard medium bed pickups should be cancelled.

 

[toastman]

I believe the A 10 was mainly built fir the purpose of taking out tanks. But as we can see, the U.S isn't fighting enemies with tanks or APV's.
Having said that, the A10 is awesome (gun run!) and there's a reason it's still in service after all these years.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I believe the A 10 was mainly built fir the purpose of taking out tanks. But as we can see, the U.S isn't fighting enemies with tanks or APV's.
Having said that, the A10 is awesome (gun run!) and there's a reason it's still in service after all these years.

And that reason is that it is still friggin Awesome!

 

[Mushroom]

I believe the A 10 was mainly built fir the purpose of taking out tanks. But as we can see, the U.S isn't fighting enemies with tanks or APV's.

We are not fighting enemies with tanks or APVs now.

That does not mean we will not be doing so again in the future.

Remember, in 1991, the Allied Coalition destroyed over 1,700 Iraqi tanks from the air. More then half of them were destroyed by the A-10.

So each time the A-10 proves itself in battle, the cries for its extinction by Air Force generals become more intense and hysterical. Since the first Gulf War, where the A-10 outperformed every other aircraft even though the Stealth fighter got all the hype, the Air Force has been quietly mothballing the A-10 fleet. During the first Gulf War, the A-10s destroyed more than half of the 1,700 Iraqi tanks knocked out by air strikes. A-10s also took out about 300 armored personnel carriers and artillery sites. At the end of the war there were 18 A-10 squadrons. Now they've been winnowed down to only eight.

Why The Generals Hate The A-10

And do you really think that the US will never have to fight tanks ever again? Might as well decommission all of our troop transports, since it is unlikely we will never again do an amphibious assault.

Stop trying to compare the current conflict with historical conflicts. That is a sure route to complete failure.

 

[toastman]

I believe the A 10 was mainly built fir the purpose of taking out tanks. But as we can see, the U.S isn't fighting enemies with tanks or APV's.

We are not fighting enemies with tanks or APVs now.

That does not mean we will not be doing so again in the future.

Remember, in 1991, the Allied Coalition destroyed over 1,700 Iraqi tanks from the air. More then half of them were destroyed by the A-10.

So each time the A-10 proves itself in battle, the cries for its extinction by Air Force generals become more intense and hysterical. Since the first Gulf War, where the A-10 outperformed every other aircraft even though the Stealth fighter got all the hype, the Air Force has been quietly mothballing the A-10 fleet. During the first Gulf War, the A-10s destroyed more than half of the 1,700 Iraqi tanks knocked out by air strikes. A-10s also took out about 300 armored personnel carriers and artillery sites. At the end of the war there were 18 A-10 squadrons. Now they've been winnowed down to only eight.

Why The Generals Hate The A-10

And do you really think that the US will never have to fight tanks ever again? Might as well decommission all of our troop transports, since it is unlikely we will never again do an amphibious assault.

Stop trying to compare the current conflict with historical conflicts. That is a sure route to complete failure.

I'm not comparing anything. I was merely staying how he U.S has not fought armies with tanks recently as a potential reason for people wanting it extinct.
No one knows what kind if wars America will fight in the future. But if the other belligerent has tanks, you can bet the A-10 will be there.

BTW, i can think of more useless aircrafts in the U.S's arsenal.

 

[Mushroom]

I'm not comparing anything. I was merely staying how he U.S has not fought armies with tanks recently as a potential reason for people wanting it extinct.
No one knows what kind if wars America will fight in the future. But if the other belligerent has tanks, you can bet the A-10 will be there.

BTW, i can think of more useless aircrafts in the U.S's arsenal.

Honestly, I can't think of any that are "useless".

However, I can think of several that are obsolete, and need to be replaced. A great many of our aircraft are older then the pilots that fly them.

The majority of our aircraft are now in excess of 25 years old, many of them approaching 50 years old. And ironically, one of the newest and most effective aircraft was retired after only 25 years of service.

So what exactly do we have in service that is "useless"?

 

[westwall]

The B-2 comes to mind. At 2 billion a pop you can have that (which can be brought down by a bird strike) or you can have a fully equipped and manned Ohio Class sub.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Expensive isn't the same as useless.

Sure the B-2 program had huge cost overruns that combined with reduction in fleet made it outrageous in price, but the end result having an extremely low observable plane that can take off in Missouri and deliver ordinance around the world in heavily contested airspace isn't useless.

 

[westwall]

Expensive isn't the same as useless.

Sure the B-2 program had huge cost overruns that combined with reduction in fleet made it outrageous in price, but the end result having an extremely low observable plane that can take off in Missouri and deliver ordinance around the world in heavily contested airspace isn't useless.

The B-2 is worthless. The B-1 can do the exact same job at a fraction of the cost and by using ALCM's can deliver ordnance to multiple targets in a single sortie that the B-2 can't do. Stealth technology is cute but it's applications are very limited. There are so many compromises that have to be made to the aircraft to maximize the stealthiness that its overall capabilities are greatly reduced compared to conventional aircraft.

Don't get me wrong I like the F-22, a very stealthy aircraft, and I think a replacement for the F-117 is necessary (though I certainly wouldn't classify it as a fighter!) that ability to place a PGM on a pinpoint target is indeed a wonderful thing. But a stealthy large bomber? Give me a break.

 

[SteadyMercury]

The B-2 is worthless. The B-1 can do the exact same job at a fraction of the cost and by using ALCM's can deliver ordnance to multiple targets in a single sortie that the B-2 can't do.

Hah hah what?

I'd love to hear you how a B-2 can't deliver ordinance to multiple targets in a single sortie. A B-2 can carry 16 JDAMs, 16 JSOWs, 16 JASMs, 16 nuclear bombs, or (I think) 32 CBU-97s are you seriously claiming they must all be used on one single target?

What ordinance are you thinking the B-1 carries that makes it capable of engaging multiple targets when the B-2 cannot?

Stealth technology is cute but it's applications are very limited. There are so many compromises that have to be made to the aircraft to maximize the stealthiness that its overall capabilities are greatly reduced compared to conventional aircraft.

Everything is a tradeoff, but bottom line the B-2 carries a heavy payload for a long range and can penetrate airspace that B-52 and B-1 would be at far more risk of operating in.

 

[SteadyMercury]

All for one target per sortie...

 

[westwall]

All for one target per sortie...

Currently only the B-52 carries the ALCM, the B-2 may get one as the powers that be dream up yet another high cost project to squander money on. They realized that the B-2 is really limited so now wish to upgrade its effectiveness with the cruise missile. As far as the conventional weaponry, once again I can have 7 B-1's with crew for the cost of ONE of your B-2's.

So, which do you think is more effective? ONE bomber with 50,000 pounds of ordnance or 7 with 125,000 pounds of ordnance EACH?



Hardpoints: six external hardpoints for 50,000 pounds (23,000 kg) of ordnance (use for weapons restricted by arms treaties[94]) and three internal bomb bays for 75,000 pounds (34,000 kg) of ordnance.
Bombs:
84× Mk-82 Air inflatable retarder (AIR) general purpose (GP) bombs[166]
81× Mk-82 low drag general purpose (LDGP) bombs[167]
84× Mk-62 Quickstrike sea mines[168]
24× Mk-84 general purpose bombs
24× Mk-65 naval mines[169]
30× CBU-87/89/CBU-97 Cluster Bomb Units (CBU)[N 2]
30× CBU-103/104/105 Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) CBUs
24× GBU-31 JDAM GPS guided bombs (Mk-84 GP or BLU-109 warhead)[N 3]
15× GBU-38 JDAM GPS guided bombs (Mk-82 GP warhead)[N 4]
48x GBU-38 JDAM (using rotary launcher mounted multiple ejector racks)[170]
48x GBU-54 LaserJDAM (using rotary launcher mounted multiple ejector racks)[170]
24× AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)
96× or 144× GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb GPS guided bombs[N 5] (not fielded on B-1 yet)
24× AGM-158 Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)
24× B61 or B83 nuclear bombs (no longer carried)[169]

 

[SteadyMercury]

Okay first things first, you said the B-1 can strike multiple targets in one sortie with ALCMs which was a huge advantage over the B-2 which cannot. It seems after some googling you figured out the B-1 doesn't even carry the ALCM? That is pretty funny.

So let's settle that first, are you still standing by this about ALCMs, and in a more general sense are you standing by a claim that the B-2 cannot engage multiple targets per sortie?

The B-1 can do the exact same job at a fraction of the cost and by using ALCM's can deliver ordnance to multiple targets in a single sortie that the B-2 can't do.

I love the bonus of your post, a picture of what looks like a conventional ALCM, that which the B-1 doesn't carry.

For the record they both carry JASSM, the cruise missile most likely to be fired be either one.

 

[SteadyMercury]

So, which do you think is more effective? ONE bomber with 50,000 pounds of ordnance or 7 with 125,000 pounds of ordnance EACH?

You're confusing weapon store maxes with max total payload, but regardless bottom line for the ordinances they are carrying in most combat missions today the B-1 can carry 24 and the B-2 can carry 16, three rotary launchers on the B-1 versus two on the B-2. They aren't flying B-1Bs with shit strapped onto external hardpoints, and they aren't carpet bombing with them.

However effectiveness is more than max payload, it depends on the mission. What was the first sortie in Operation Iraqi Freedom over Baghdad? Six B-2s from Whiteman that hit 92 targets. Why B-2 and not B-1? Contested airspace, the B-2 was a more suvivable platform.

You keep talking cost cost cost and yes I know the B-2 cost too much, but again something being overpriced doesn't make it worthless. There are mission profiles where the B-2 is the best plane in the world to have, and that isn't worthless. I'm looking at this from the perspective of we have the planes, both B-1 and B-2. We aren't going back in time, they exist. In this reality world of having existing planes, a bomber that can fly stealthy and deliver a large payload at intercontinental ranges isn't worthless.

 

[westwall]

Okay first things first, you said the B-1 can strike multiple targets in one sortie with ALCMs which was a huge advantage over the B-2 which cannot. It seems after some googling you figured out the B-1 doesn't even carry the ALCM? That is pretty funny.

So let's settle that first, are you still standing by this about ALCMs, and in a more general sense are you standing by a claim that the B-2 cannot engage multiple targets per sortie?

The B-1 can do the exact same job at a fraction of the cost and by using ALCM's can deliver ordnance to multiple targets in a single sortie that the B-2 can't do.

I love the bonus of your post, a picture of what looks like a conventional ALCM, that which the B-1 doesn't carry.

For the record they both carry JASSM, the cruise missile most likely to be fired be either one.

Yes, I misspoke. The B-52 is currently the only one that can launch the ALCM (the nuclear one). The B1 has the ability but they haven't cleared it to do so yet. Yes the B2 can drop lots of bombs. Just not as many as the B1 or B-52 for that matter. I was referring to the nuclear option where the B-52 still reigns supreme thanks to the ALCM. It can hit multiple targets with nukes that the B1 and B2 can't.

I am a bit un focused as I am doing three things simultaneously so am not able to give this very much attention. I will be on later and can give more attention to the subject at that time.

 

[westwall]

So, which do you think is more effective? ONE bomber with 50,000 pounds of ordnance or 7 with 125,000 pounds of ordnance EACH?

You're confusing weapon store maxes with max total payload, but regardless bottom line for the ordinances they are carrying in most combat missions today the B-1 can carry 24 and the B-2 can carry 16, three rotary launchers on the B-1 versus two on the B-2. They aren't flying B-1Bs with shit strapped onto external hardpoints, and they aren't carpet bombing with them.

However effectiveness is more than max payload, it depends on the mission. What was the first sortie in Operation Iraqi Freedom over Baghdad? Six B-2s from Whiteman that hit 92 targets. Why B-2 and not B-1? Contested airspace, the B-2 was a more suvivable platform.

You keep talking cost cost cost and yes I know the B-2 cost too much, but again something being overpriced doesn't make it worthless. There are mission profiles where the B-2 is the best plane in the world to have, and that isn't worthless. I'm looking at this from the perspective of we have the planes, both B-1 and B-2. We aren't going back in time, they exist. In this reality world of having existing planes, a bomber that can fly stealthy and deliver a large payload at intercontinental ranges isn't worthless.

That was done purely for propaganda purposes. The first mission in Desert Storm was the Apache Hellfire strike that took out the radars that allowed the F-117's to pass over the frontier undetected. The most efficient strikes were probably those fired by the Missouri. The object is getting the most bang for your buck and the B2 is so bloody expensive that there are MANY other platforms that can do the same basic jobs for a fraction of the cost.

That's the point.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Yes, I misspoke. The B-52 is currently the only one that can launch the ALCM (the nuclear one). The B1 has the ability but they haven't cleared it to do so yet. Yes the B2 can drop lots of bombs. Just not as many as the B1 or B-52 for that matter. I was referring to the nuclear option where the B-52 still reigns supreme thanks to the ALCM. It can hit multiple targets with nukes that the B1 and B2 can't.

So the first argument in your opinion that the B-2 is "worthless" is based on whether it can carry a standoff nuclear weapons?

Come on dude, that is a serious reach.

Either way you are again incorrect, the B-2 was designed to hit multiple targets with nuclear weapons.

 

[SteadyMercury]

That was done purely for propaganda purposes. The first mission in Desert Storm was the Apache Hellfire strike that took out the radars that allowed the F-117's to pass over the frontier undetected.
That's the point.

No, it was done because the B-2 was the best bomber for the mission. The Apache/F-117 operations you were talking about were in Gulf War I in 1991, B-2 were first to hit in Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

But since you bring up the F-117, why would they use those instead of F-16/F-15/F-18 that carry larger payload? Think about that, and how it relates to your claims the B-2 is worthless because of payload comparisons to B-1s.

The object is getting the most bang for your buck

Actually no, the object is to accomplish a mission without loss of pilot or equipment and the cost of the B-2 doesn't make it worthless.

 

[Mushroom]

The B-2 comes to mind. At 2 billion a pop you can have that (which can be brought down by a bird strike) or you can have a fully equipped and manned Ohio Class sub.

Uhhh, to bad they are less then half that much though, only around $700 million.

Plus the Ohio class is actually a 1970's era boat. Estimates of a replacement are actually at around $6 billion each.

SSBN-X Future Follow-on Submarine

Nice fail though, nice fail.

Currently only the B-52 carries the ALCM, the B-2 may get one as the powers that be dream up yet another high cost project to squander money on.

And once again, you fail to grasp what it actually is you are talking about.

Why on earth would a Stealth Bomber even need an ALCM (Air-Launched Cruise Missile). The very idea of such a weapon was to increase the survivability of our bombers by allowing them to have a "shoot and scoot" capability. Move in close to the target, fire the missile and run away. This way their survivability goes way up by not having to actually enter enemy airspace.

Something the Stealth achieves through a different technique.

And think about it. A stealth aircraft works by reducing RADAR and heat signatures. Cruise missiles are not stealthy, and the bomber might as well hang out a giant sign in flashing neon screaming "HEY, HERE I AM! AND I JUST SHOT SOMETHING AT YOU!"

Oh, and finally, we do not use "standard cruise missiles" on our B-1 bombers. The US air launched cruise missile, the AGM-86 is to long to fit in a B-1. They can only be launched from the B-52.

Know your weapons, know your weapons. I find it really rather funny that you keep going on and on about ALCMs from a B-1, while the only ALCM they can even carry is the relatively new AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), which is non-nuclear, and intended to take out air defense, air bases and C&C sites.

Oh, and has only been out for 5 years.

Research, do some. Weapons you want to talk about, know them.

Simply making things up as you go along is the most sure way to get busted by us who actually know what we are talking about, and know how to do research.