A-10 Worthless POS

[Imissbush]

Didn't they once claim that the B-52 was obsolete and should quickly be replaced?

At least 56 years ago.

LOL, sure was, I believe the Pentagon said we needed the B-1 to replace it. That's another POS on the junk pile now.

Also, I love how the a-10 was suppose to "loiter" over the battlefield. Never, ever did that plane fulfill its mission as it was designed. Sure, I Iraq it killed sitting ducks on a highway, but a p-51 Mustang could of done that

 

[whitehall]

As usual the fat asses in the Pentagon rely on the current stupid political agenda in order to keep the Georgetown booze flowing and the liberal babes sucking data. The A-10 would be the prime weapon in Afghanistan except that American forces in Afghanistan have been sucking wind and every Army leadership knows it.

 

[Moonglow]

The A-10 Warthog is a great tank buster.

 

[longly]

The A10 is best damn close air support weapon ever made. If the Air force doesn’t want it give it to the Marines or Army. I have some strong feeling about scrapping them.

 

[Indofred]

I took a look at recorded combat losses for the A10.
I took a look at the effectiveness as a close support aircraft.
I took a look at the losses due to mechanical faults.
I took a look at the F35's abilities in the same role against that of the A10.

Scrapping the A10 would be bloody stupid.

 

[SayMyName]

I love the Warthog. There was always a deep sense of comfort back in the old days when seeing one go into a circle pattern around your position. You knew that they could see things you couldn't and would respond with the wrath of God upon the enemy once called for help. Just something beautiful, sitting around eating a C-ration, and looking up at how effortlessly it would fly, even though it carried its own weight in ordinance and weapons.

 

[Edgetho]

I have a few trips to Afghanistan and I can tell you before the ROE was changed we used the A-10 a lot. I owe my life to some damn fine A-10s and pilots.

When I was in 'Nam, we didn't have the A-10 (of course) but we had the A-1.

A Naval Aircraft that was theoretically outdated and given to the Vietnamese Air Force.

Believe me when I tell you (I don't care either way) I called in a lot of Air Strikes in support from my position on the ground.... Super Sabres, Spooky, Huey Gunships and once, the new Cobra Gunship with the 40mm in the nose.

And nothing was as intimidating as the A-1.

Nothing.

I can only imagine the capabilities of the A-10.

As to being shot down by bad guys?

Guess what? Any of them can be shot down. Any of them. Even the F-22. But you don't expose Ground Attack Aircraft to Mach II Fighter Jets unless you're an idiot. Which explains a lot.

If you don't have Air Supremacy or even Air Superiority, you send in some Fast Movers with the Ground Support Aircraft.

Sheesh.

I guess the Brass in the Pentagon feels the A-10 and the Apache do essentially the same job and they don't want redundant weapons systems.

They're wrong. They're the same ******* geniuses that declared the day of the Dogfight was over when they produced the F4 without a Gun, only missiles.

******* Idiots. I swear to God, I think the higher these guys go, the higher they're promoted, the stupider they get.

Most of them are theoreticians anyway with their noses stuck so far up Politicians' asses they couldn't recognize a Battlefield from a 100 feet away.

Most of them have never seen one anyway. Except maybe in a bunker from a satellite feed.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I have a few trips to Afghanistan and I can tell you before the ROE was changed we used the A-10 a lot. I owe my life to some damn fine A-10s and pilots.

When I was in 'Nam, we didn't have the A-10 (of course) but we had the A-1.

A Naval Aircraft that was theoretically outdated and given to the Vietnamese Air Force.

Believe me when I tell you (I don't care either way) I called in a lot of Air Strikes in support from my position on the ground.... Super Sabres, Spooky, Huey Gunships and once, the new Cobra Gunship with the 40mm in the nose.

And nothing was as intimidating as the A-1.

Nothing.

I can only imagine the capabilities of the A-10.

As to being shot down by bad guys?

Guess what? Any of them can be shot down. Any of them. Even the F-22. But you don't expose Ground Attack Aircraft to Mach II Fighter Jets unless you're an idiot. Which explains a lot.

If you don't have Air Supremacy or even Air Superiority, you send in some Fast Movers with the Ground Support Aircraft.

Sheesh.

I guess the Brass in the Pentagon feels the A-10 and the Apache do essentially the same job and they don't want redundant weapons systems.

They're wrong. They're the same ******* geniuses that declared the day of the Dogfight was over when they produced the F4 without a Gun, only missiles.

******* Idiots. I swear to God, I think the higher these guys go, the higher they're promoted, the stupider they get.

Most of them are theoreticians anyway with their noses stuck so far up Politicians' asses they couldn't recognize a Battlefield from a 100 feet away.

Most of them have never seen one anyway. Except maybe in a bunker from a satellite feed.

speaking of Vietnam era

back when i lived in Minnesota

i used to on occasion rent

a Cessna 172 xp military version

very stable plane

 

[MikeK]

[...]

I guess the Brass in the Pentagon feels the A-10 and the Apache do essentially the same job and they don't want redundant weapons systems.

They're wrong. They're the same ******* geniuses that declared the day of the Dogfight was over when they produced the F4 without a Gun, only missiles.

******* Idiots. I swear to God, I think the higher these guys go, the higher they're promoted, the stupider they get.[...]

That's not it. These guys don't reach their level of success by being stupid. Some of these politicians in uniform get their marching orders from special interests within the Military Industrial Complex. They are told what to order on the basis of what is best for the industry -- not what's best for the troops or the taxpayers.

Consider what Colin Powell did when he was told to by his master, George W. Bush. Knowing what he said was false or extremely unlikely he deliberately and calculatedly sent thousands of the troops who trusted him to die or be maimed in Iraq.

 

[Politico]

Idiot.

A reeeealy big idiot.

An insult to big idiots.

 

[Edgetho]

[...]

I guess the Brass in the Pentagon feels the A-10 and the Apache do essentially the same job and they don't want redundant weapons systems.

They're wrong. They're the same ******* geniuses that declared the day of the Dogfight was over when they produced the F4 without a Gun, only missiles.

******* Idiots. I swear to God, I think the higher these guys go, the higher they're promoted, the stupider they get.[...]

That's not it. These guys don't reach their level of success by being stupid. Some of these politicians in uniform get their marching orders from special interests within the Military Industrial Complex. They are told what to order on the basis of what is best for the industry -- not what's best for the troops or the taxpayers.

Consider what Colin Powell did when he was told to by his master, George W. Bush. Knowing what he said was false or extremely unlikely he deliberately and calculatedly sent thousands of the troops who trusted him to die or be maimed in Iraq.

Do you look under your bed for military-industrialists every evening before you say nighty-night?

You should.

And don't forget to take your cellphone into the shower with you; they know when you're most vulnerable

 

[RoadVirus]

A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have

Yup folks, proof that even morons can use a computer..... Like we needed any more proof here on this board.......

How can someone hate an airplane that flings milk bottle sized shells out of a rotary cannon while making the sound of a wet fart?

That's a very....colorful description.

But anyway...i like the A-10. The Warthog is one mean bastard.

 

[1776]

Shitstain....so a helo is faster than an A-10.....which has 2 jet engines?

A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have

 

[1776]

The A-10 is a flying tank, its gun on the front can shoot armor piercing rounds. It can carry missiles and bombs. It is a mini Army all to itself.

The Taliban go into hiding when A-10s swoop into an area. They know the pilots can slice them with a variety of weapons and the A-10 is relatively quiet coming towards you....you only feel the blast or the rounds in your body.

 

[longknife]

Here's another view of the Warthog – Save The A-10 Warthog And Trash The F-35 Flying Turkey! @ Aviation: Save The A-10 Warthog And Trash The F-35 Flying Turkey! « Feral Jundi

A great piece I really enjoyed reading. Makes a whole lot of sense. Especially from someone who seems to really know about military aircraft.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have

Uh...

A-10: Close Air Support Wonder Weapon Or Boneyard Bound? « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

Air Force Chief Says Cutting A-10 Fleet Would Save $3.7 Billion; NDAA Blocks A-10 Retirement « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

Rather than listening to some know-nothing here, read what experts think.

 

[westwall]

Didn't they once claim that the B-52 was obsolete and should quickly be replaced?

At least 56 years ago.

LOL, sure was, I believe the Pentagon said we needed the B-1 to replace it. That's another POS on the junk pile now.

Also, I love how the a-10 was suppose to "loiter" over the battlefield. Never, ever did that plane fulfill its mission as it was designed. Sure, I Iraq it killed sitting ducks on a highway, but a p-51 Mustang could of done that

No, the Mustang would have suffered the very fate you think the A-10 would. And for the record there are several A-10's that have been hit by AAA and flew safely back to base.

Once again you prove how woefully ignorant of reality you are. Nothing new with you it seems...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

From what I heard the ground Troops loved the A-10 which they affectionately called "the warthog". The A-10 could come in low and slow and kick the doo-doo out of enemy troops. Hell, they used prop planes in Korea and Vietnam for the same reason. The times have changed and the fat asses in the Pentagon no longer want to fight or take responsibility for the deaths on both sides in a freaking battle. The A-10 is no longer useful because the fat asses set the rules so you couldn't use it. The US Troops in Afghanistan have to get permission practically from the Secretary of Defense to call in an artillery strike and Troops have to hold their fire and risk their lives rather than take a chance in a court martial if a rag head civilian is killed.

Jealous Air Force brass wanted a plane that could do what army helos could do. It NEVER did what it was suppose to do, cold war ended, and if it had tried it would have been pounded by Soviet AA fire. It was slow, vulenarable and not easily replaced. Junk, the only ones that like it are people that fight battles in their dreams

NOTHING provides better ground support then the A-10.
Shit that would drop a helo,the A-10 shrugs off like a light rain.
You dont know shit.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

War only leads to mayhem and destruction.

Are you sure? I swear someone told me it's all sweetness and lovin.

 

[SteadyMercury]

A-10 is an amazing aircraft that has proven useful in surprisingly varied roles compared to it's original design mission of busting up eastern-block tanks rolling into Europe.

That said, weapons and sensors have changed a lot over the decades and with PGM cost going down while accuracy goes up the way to best approach close-air-support won't always be low flying daylight gun/bombing runs like the A-10 is best at.

People say the F-35 can't do what the A-10 does and they are correct, but that doesn't mean F-35 can't work well in a CAS mission, it would just do it differently and there would be some trade-offs. An F-35 would loiter high enough to be out of reach of gunfire and MANPADS using a far superior sensor suite and data links to other elements to compensate for the altitude difference, deploying weapons like SDB2 in support ground troops. This makes the survivabiity of the A-10 airframe a bit less relevant to the mission.

The way the A-10 works certainly has advantages, but there are also advantages to a the F-35s being higher with a much larger sensor footprint and much better nighttime capability. F-35 can also get to the target area much quicker, if you are calling in an airstrike there can be a difference if one plane can be overhead in 20 minutes and another 40 minutes.

I suspect UAVs will have a bigger and bigger role in CAS in the future anyway since nothing can touch their combination of cost, loiter time, and real-time battlefield recon capabilities. Designed form the ground up to carry weapons like SDB2 and Griffin they will have a much bigger impact than a Predator with a hellfire strapped to a wing.