The Russians made up some baloney about Turkey financing the entire IS deal by buying ridiculous amounts of oil back when they decided that Turkish airspace was Turkish airspace, not Syrian or Russian. Then they proceeded to pay some random attention to oil related targets for a few days so they could go on about how Stronk Russia had crippled IS and Erdogan with their WW2 style area bombing, before resuming the wild, random bomb tossing against every building that Assad couldn't invite himself over to for tea with an hour's notice, with the idea that if you as inaccurately as the Russians, the civilians were bound to have joined the anti-regime forces eventually, so might as well bomb them right away.
Robbster, I can't say for certain, but I found the same video other places, and all say it was A-10s and AC-130s. They also all had the same green opening screen, so it looks like that was added from the source, which I think implies it came from someplace other than Russia. I also found footage of Russian attacks, and the targeting displays look very different than what's shown here.
Ken Cartwright
No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.
Yeah, that is definitely not Russian stuff. Most of their contributions have been in the form of Su-24s, look up the TGP footage from them. They don't even have guns, which sort of rules them out from being behind that.
Look up some DCS A-10C pics on these forums and compare the TGP pictures you see there if you want a really fast, detailed look at it. As sure as the sky is blue, that's American TGP footage, no doubt what so ever about it.
Foxtrot Alpha is a crap tier blog, and Rogoway really argues like a 5 year old.
Complains that the A-10 is being replaced by the F-35, because apparently multi-role jets can't do CAS. The USAF is micromanaged by politicians who wouldn't have given a care in the world unless it'd been for the social media outrage. The USAF is forced to keep the A-10 until they can replace it with a new dedicated attack jet. Facebook celebrates.
Then the USAF says they'll start looking at a new attack jet, and WiB, FA, etc. toss their toys out of the pram and start crying again. What even?
"Of course, none of this makes any sense at all, and is contradictory to the militarys own claims that the F-35 and other platforms can do the A-10's job."
Is he really that childish? The USAF still claims that, but they were forced to keep the A-10 under conditions that spoils it compared to other jets (can't be subjected to budget cuts despite the entire service being subjected to budget cuts mandated by the same politicians forcing them to keep the A-10 under said conditions).
"The Air Force likes to say that the A-10 is not survivable in a war against a modern peer-state competitor, or in laymans terms, a country with power on par with Americas. That is debatable on many levels, but the same can largely be said for the F-16 or F-15."
Ha. Ha. Ha. No.
"Additionally, the A-10 still has not reached its survivability potential. The addition of towed decoys, updated jamming pods and directed energy infrared countermeasures, when paired with the A-10's low-flying mission profile, would likely make them more survivable than any sub 5th generation fighter aircraft."
So it's okay to be shot at and rely solely on countermeasures to save your life, and the plane? That's right up there with the Russians claiming that their fighters will defeat incoming missiles with a Cobra maneuver and then force the stealth fighters that engaged them into dogfights. And "the A-10's low-flying mission profile"? Is this the 1990s? Last time I checked, the A-10s were flying up high with all the other jets dropping PGMs, because the Gulf War taught them that even AD systems that were outdated in the early '90s were too much for low, slow flying planes.
Attack planes used to be able to do more than CAS. The A-4, A-6 and A-7 all flew both CAS missions and deep strikes into Hanoi among many other missions. Then someone got the flawed idea of a plane with a gun that could kill thousands of Warsaw Pact MBTs in the Fulda Gap. I don't understand why such airframes should be shoehorned into the roles of the A-1 and OV-10, actual COIN planes, instead of designing a new COIN plane, or quite possibly buy more of the upgraded OV-10s that are already in service. The OV-10 can definitely fly low, even compared to the A-10, and it's definitely cheaper. It's a plane that has already demonstrated that it can be flown out of runways most people would dread to drive their car at, which along with being cheap demonstrated its capabilities in Vietnam.
They actually deployed Broncos? last time I heard they where just doing up some prototypes of this old bird for that that light attack prop deal. But wow, they deployed 2 of them? Crazy news for me. I always liked that little thing. Or I should say, the other 10.
If it ever gets hit that is. It's very small, far more nimble than the sluggish A-10, and very quiet. And with the upgrades it's had since Vietnam, the moment some dumb sap fires his Dushka at it, the pilot will have zero issues climbing a few thousand feet and dropping an LGB on him.
If "it might get damaged" is the prevailing concern, the A-10 should definitely be scrapped. The Gulf War illustrated both that it was by far the most likely plane to sustain a hit as well as the least likely plane to survive one.
If "it might get damaged" is the prevailing concern, the A-10 should definitely be scrapped. The Gulf War illustrated both that it was by far the most likely plane to sustain a hit as well as the least likely plane to survive one.
I think she'll and most A-10 pilots would highly disagree with you...
The Gulf War illustrated both that it was by far the most likely plane to sustain a hit as well as the least likely plane to survive one.
That's true as far as it goes, but it doesn't take into account the type missions it was flying.
It's sort of like saying A-10's aren't as survivable as KC-10's because the A-10 got hit and destroyed at a higher rate than the KC-10.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
If it ever gets hit that is. It's very small, far more nimble than the sluggish A-10, and very quiet.
You're joking, right? Much smaller, much more nimble aircraft got hit by ground fire and from defensive guns on bombers during WW2. Have you ever HEARD an A10? I doubt it, if you believe they're noisy. Here's a video I shot back in 2011.
An OV10 is louder, I've heard both. Even a King Air, MU2, or Turbo Commander is louder. An A10 will be firing its cannon at you before you'll hear the plane. And the rounds will hit before you'll hear the gun.
Quote:
And with the upgrades it's had since Vietnam, the moment some dumb sap fires his Dushka at it, the pilot will have zero issues climbing a few thousand feet and dropping an LGB on him.
I see you're trying to be facetious and use the argument the A10's adherents use. The problem is, it's true with the A10. The OV10, with its delicate construction, low power, slow speed (max speed is lower than the A10's cruising speed), and almost nonexistent payload, simply couldn't compete. You're aware that 81 were shot down during the Vietnam War, right? Apparently the NVA & VC had better hearing and eyesight in order to hit it.
Quote:
If "it might get damaged" is the prevailing concern, the A-10 should definitely be scrapped. The Gulf War illustrated both that it was by far the most likely plane to sustain a hit as well as the least likely plane to survive one.
249 USAF F16s flew 13,340 sorties during Desert Storm, vs 8,100 sorties by an unknown number of A10s. 3 F16s were lost, 1 to MANPADS, vs 4 A10s. Not bad for such an obsolete aircraft, as well as one designed to get down in the weeds. Of course you're going to lose more aircraft if you spend more time deep in the enemy's engagement envelope. Using your logic, ground forces should get rid of their infantrymen and only fight with artillery. After all, 90% of enemy casualties are caused by artillery, meaning the casualties suffered:casualties inflicted ratio of the infantryman is too high. Plus, as has been said a million times before, fast movers simply don't have the loiter time or the ability to deliver accurate fire when the enemy is danger-close, without endangering the friendly troops as well. And please don't bring up your SDBs again, because nothing has changed since the last time - 110lb of explosive going off danger close will hurt friendlies as much as enemies. Operation Anaconda showed that fast-movers can't strafe worth a damn, or make more than 2 or 3 passes before being out of ammo; both the F15E and F16 carry enough rounds for 5 seconds of firing, the F15 has 9 seconds' worth and the F18 just under 6. The A10? Enough for about 18 seconds of fire, anywhere from 9 to 18 strafing runs. Plus it can fly low enough and slowly enough for the pilot to see his target.
Quote:
In March 2016, the Air Force revealed it had begun studying future CAS aircraft to succeed the A-10 in low-intensity permissive conflicts like counterterrorism and regional stability operations, admitting that the F-35 is too expensive to operate in day-to-day roles
Sounds about right, buying an aircraft it can only afford to use on the highest-value missions...one of which air support of friendly ground troops isn't.
Phil
“The biggest problem people have is they don’t think they’re supposed to have problems.” - Hayes Barnard
Yup, sure. One A-10 that survives a hit means that the shot down ones also survived. That's exactly how things work. These aren't exactly complicated statistics.
If "it might get damaged" is the prevailing concern, the A-10 should definitely be scrapped. The Gulf War illustrated both that it was by far the most likely plane to sustain a hit as well as the least likely plane to survive one.
I think she'll and most A-10 pilots would highly disagree with you...
During the Gulf War, more A-10s were shot down than any other type of US combat aircraft (6 vs 4 AV-8B, which has the next highest loss rate). Among USAF aircraft, it had the highest loss rate by a huge margin (vs. 3 F-16, the next highest loss rate). All were hit with SAMs.
I've noticed a pattern here. People who fly, work on, or are supported in their mission by A10s have one opinion of it, and people who read books about aircraft, and who get their info from politicians in uniform who only look at the balance sheet and defense contractors looking for a new cash cow, have another opinion of it. I wonder why this dichotomy exists?
Phil
“The biggest problem people have is they don’t think they’re supposed to have problems.” - Hayes Barnard
Oh, ok. Do you want the link someone posted about this a while ago? You know, the one were e.g. one current F-16 pilot who'd also flown CAS missions in the A-10 had written a very expletive filled post about why the A-10 should've been scrapped yesterday?
If "it might get damaged" is the prevailing concern, the A-10 should definitely be scrapped. The Gulf War illustrated both that it was by far the most likely plane to sustain a hit as well as the least likely plane to survive one.
I think she'll and most A-10 pilots would highly disagree with you...
During the Gulf War, more A-10s were shot down than any other type of US combat aircraft (6 vs 4 AV-8B, which has the next highest loss rate). Among USAF aircraft, it had the highest loss rate by a huge margin (vs. 3 F-16, the next highest loss rate). All were hit with SAMs.
As has been pointed out time after time after time, when your mission puts you deep in the enemy's weapons envelope, you're going to take more losses than aircraft that operate outside that envelope.
Phil
“The biggest problem people have is they don’t think they’re supposed to have problems.” - Hayes Barnard
