A-10 Warthog to stay in Service

annata said:
30 caliper? no I guess it would not anymore -and I've been to live fire exhibitions with a Cobra or was it an Apache?.. damn things are unreal.
How about the range. Suppose there was a battle near Raqqa -or the eastern desert- the A-10 could easily survive
anything IS could throw at it -except maybe hand held anti-aircraft missiles.

It could come in from Turkey's Incirlik do it's thing and then return. .where would a US helicopter base be?
I mean there must be some sound reasons they aren't retiring it now?
Click to expand...

They are fighting ISIS ground positions, artillery, trucks and APCs, with that 30mm gun, not state of the art tanks. Billy is talking crap.
 
annata said:
The US Air Force will delay retiring the A-10 -- a stalwart attack aircraft beloved by ground troops -- because of the ongoing fight against the Islamic State group, a military news site reported Wednesday.

Plans to postpone the mothballing will be outlined when the Pentagon submits its 2017 budget request to Congress next month, Pentagon officials speaking on condition of anonymity told Defense One.

Developed in the 1970s, A-10s can fly low and slow, and are famed for their tank-destroying capabilities and their heavy armor that makes them difficult to shoot down from the ground.

US ground forces delight at the distinctive sound of the highly maneuverable plane's massive cannon, which can drench a target with high-caliber firepower at a rate of about 70 rounds per second.

According to Defense One, Air Force officials have postponed immediate plans to retire the Warthog, as the plane is known, because of its utility in Iraq and Syria, where the United States is leading a coalition against IS jihadists.

The Air Force did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Senator John McCain, who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, welcomed the report.

"The A-10 fleet is playing an indispensable role in the fight against ISIL in Iraq and assisting NATO's efforts to deter Russian aggression in Eastern Europe," he said, using an alternative name for the IS group.

"With growing global chaos and turmoil on the rise, we simply cannot afford to prematurely retire the best close air-support weapon in our arsenal without fielding a proper replacement."

The A-10's retirement, proposed two years ago, was intended to free up cash to pay for newer planes, including the costly F-35 fighter jet.

In October, the Pentagon announced the deployment of 12 A-10s to the air base in Incirlik in southern Turkey to support anti-IS operations in Iraq and Syria.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-air-force-shelves-warthog-plane-retirement-amid-232648633.html
US Air Force shelves Warthog plane retirement amid IS fight: media
Click to expand...

:hand:
 
Hulagu Khan said:
The GAU 8, the sole thing the A-10 was designed around, can not penetrate tank armor anymore. A Super Cobra, or Apache, hell even a properly fitted Kiowa would be better (and cheaper) than a A-10.
Click to expand...
I understand the attraction. The A-10 was the B-17 of the first Gulf war but good lord....that was 26 years ago.
 
Borboletta said:
How about you actually do some research first, instead of just listening to others?

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/th...tting-rid-of-the-a-10-b32efd62f620#.1mmtw1brp
Click to expand...
Maybe you should practice what you preach and study modern military tactics and strategy. Tell me where there's been a major tank battle in recent history? Billy's right. Modern helicopters can perform in asymmetric operations better than an A-10 and cost far less to maintain and operate. That has nothing to do with the F-35. With modern smart weapons set-piece battles are a thing of the past. Field armies concentrated in forward positions are simply sitting ducks for these weapons. You want to fight 21st century battles with 20th century tactics and strategy which are not really viable unless in the very unlikely occurrence of a 20th century set-piece battle were to occur. More than likely it's going to be some asymmetric or guerilla warfare.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Maybe you should practice what you preach and study modern military tactics and strategy. Tell me where there's been a major tank battle in recent history? Billy's right. Modern helicopters can perform in asymmetric operations better than an A-10 and cost far less to maintain and operate. That has nothing to do with the F-35. With modern smart weapons set-piece battles are a thing of the past. Field armies concentrated in forward positions are simply sitting ducks for these weapons. You want to fight 21st century battles with 20th century tactics and strategy which are not really viable unless in the very unlikely occurrence of a 20th century set-piece battle were to occur. More than likely it's going to be some asymmetric or guerilla warfare.
Click to expand...

Now you are talking crap, the A-10s are perfect for taking out artillery, ground positions, tankers, armoured personnel carriers, trucks etc. In fact just about anything that ISIS possesses. They also provide ground support for the likes of the SAS and Delta forces. Oh and by the way, Apaches are vulnerable to surface to air missiles, RPGs and even small arms fire. Not my fault that you don't know that!

http://defense-update.com/newscast/0207/analysis/analysis-100207.htm
 
Last edited:
Borboletta said:
Now you are talking crap, the A-10s are perfect for taking out artillery, ground positions, tankers, armoured personnel carriers, trucks etc. In fact just about anything that ISIS possesses. They also provide ground support for the likes of the SAS and Delta forces. Oh and by the way, Apaches are vulnerable to surface to air missiles, RPGs and even small arms fire. Not my fault that you don't know that!

http://defense-update.com/newscast/0207/analysis/analysis-100207.htm
Click to expand...
So are helicopters but again....who masses those anymore?
 
Tom, I've forgotten more about military strategy, history, and doctrines than you will ever know. Taking out artillery in a A-10? When the S-300 (or soon the 400) is being proliferated to every nation who wants one? You're waxing nostalgic. Next thing you're going to say is that Battle Cruisers were a fine idea.
 
Hulagu Khan said:
Tom, I've forgotten more about military strategy, history, and doctrines than you will ever know. Taking out artillery in a A-10? When the S-300 (or soon the 400) is being proliferated to every nation who wants one? You're waxing nostalgic. Next thing you're going to say is that Battle Cruisers were a fine idea.
Click to expand...

Yes and why not? The artillery pieces have to stored in an arms dump somewhere prior to being deployed, the A-10 is ideal for attacking such locations. So excuse me for begging to differ with you, I was given to believe that you were a grunt in Iraq not a 3 star general. I mean give me strength ffs, are you seriously telling me that the GAU-8 is the only armament available to take out tanks?

USAF has decided not to sell the A-10 to its allies. Why this decision? Because selling the A-10 would run contrary to everything USAF was and is saying. USAF has for years, and against all evidence, maintained that the A-10 is unsurvivable and that fast jets can and will do its job – close air support – just as well if not better. Further, selling the A-10 would reduce – however slightly – prospects for F-35 sales. F-35 is primarily a ground attack aircraft, while A-10 does nothing but ground attack, and thus two are competitors. A-10 can also be easily maintained by countries they get sold to, which means no profits for Lockheed Martin and co. from lucrative maintenance contracts.

As it stands, greed and low selfishness will kill the A-10. USAF has no interest in close air support, and it seems that it will finally manage to get rid of the mission altogether.
Click to expand...

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/tag/a-10/
 
Borboletta said:
Now you are talking crap, the A-10s are perfect for taking out artillery, ground positions, tankers, armoured personnel carriers, trucks etc. In fact just about anything that ISIS possesses. They also provide ground support for the likes of the SAS and Delta forces. Oh and by the way, Apaches are vulnerable to surface to air missiles, RPGs and even small arms fire. Not my fault that you don't know that!

http://defense-update.com/newscast/0207/analysis/analysis-100207.htm
Click to expand...
that makes perfect sense - they seem ideal in any fight with ISIS -they have a lot more armament then copters, and they aren't so vulnerable
 
Hulagu Khan said:
Tom, I've forgotten more about military strategy, history, and doctrines than you will ever know. Taking out artillery in a A-10? When the S-300 (or soon the 400) is being proliferated to every nation who wants one? You're waxing nostalgic. Next thing you're going to say is that Battle Cruisers were a fine idea.
Click to expand...
Well they were...in 1890.
 
Borboletta said:
Sorry Mott, you usually make a lot of sense however this is not one of them.
Click to expand...
You're the one not making sense. Billy's analogy to battle cruisers is spot on. They don't fight ground engagements like that anymore. Smart weapons exist that can detect and take out, such assets at considerably greater distance with GPS level of precision at far lower cost. Enemies like ISIS don't mass assets in open areas as the know they are sitting ducks. You're not only a generation behind in weapons platforms but still stuck in the coldwar strategic and tactical paradigm.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're the one not making sense. Billy's analogy to battle cruisers is spot on. They don't fight ground engagements like that anymore. Smart weapons exist that can detect and take out, such assets at considerably greater distance with GPS level of precision at far lower cost. Enemies like ISIS don't mass assets in open areas as the know they are sitting ducks. You're not only a generation behind in weapons platforms but still stuck in the coldwar strategic and tactical paradigm.
Click to expand...

Yet the A-10 is being deployed and used successfully on a daily basis in Iraq and Syria, how do you explain that then? They are ideal for supporting the Peshmerga and Iraqi ground forces, not least from a morale point of view. As with so many Americans, you are fixated by technology which explains why the MIC were able to foist that monumental clusterfuck known as the F-35 on the armed services.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top