Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
#4249944 - 04/15/16 02:58 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: axman]  
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
scrim Offline
Member
scrim  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
It's ok for the A-10 to get shot down a lot because of its mission, but it's not ok for the OV-10?

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4249945 - 04/15/16 02:59 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: scrim]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
NH2112 Offline
Veteran
NH2112  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
Jackman, ME
Originally Posted By: scrim
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 expilitive filled post about why the A-10 should've been scrapped yesterday?


One, huh? That's all you can come up with for real-world examples? rolleyes Find me a couple hundred former A10 pilots who say the same thing - you know, a statistically significant number - and then I'll take you seriously.


Phil

“The biggest problem people have is they don’t think they’re supposed to have problems.” - Hayes Barnard
#4249947 - 04/15/16 03:07 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: NH2112]  
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 116
radicaldude1234 Offline
Member
radicaldude1234  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 116
SoCal
Originally Posted By: NH2112

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.


Fundamental question: If you are required to operate deep within your enemy's weapons envelope to accomplish your mission while other aircraft can do so beyond said envelope, do you still have a good weapon system?

Think long bow vs mounted knight at Agincourt and rifle vs musket in the Revolutionary War here.

I've seen a lot of emotion on this topic and am going to play devil's advocate here.

Last edited by radicaldude1234; 04/15/16 03:10 PM.
#4249948 - 04/15/16 03:10 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: scrim]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
NH2112 Offline
Veteran
NH2112  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
Jackman, ME
Originally Posted By: scrim
It's ok for the A-10 to get shot down a lot because of its mission, but it's not ok for the OV-10?


I didn't say that. I said more OV10s were shot down in Vietnam than A10s during Desert Storm, because they're easier to shoot down. They're slower, not as maneuverable, carry next to nothing for armament, and are unarmored. The USAF lost 40% of its Broncos in Vietnam, between their first appearance in 1968 and the end of USAF combat operations. Not really the best aircraft to pick to make your point that 4 shot down out of 8100 sorties makes the A10 a loser.


Phil

“The biggest problem people have is they don’t think they’re supposed to have problems.” - Hayes Barnard
#4249955 - 04/15/16 03:27 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: radicaldude1234]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
NH2112 Offline
Veteran
NH2112  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
Jackman, ME
Originally Posted By: radicaldude1234
Originally Posted By: NH2112

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.


Fundamental question: If you are required to operate deep within your enemy's weapons envelope to accomplish your mission while other aircraft can do so beyond said envelope, do you still have a good weapon system?

Think long bow vs mounted knight at Agincourt and rifle vs musket in the Revolutionary War here.

I've seen a lot of emotion on this topic and am going to play devil's advocate here.


The thing is, other aircraft CAN'T. There simply is no other aircraft in the US military inventory that can perform the CAS mission as well as the A10. Dropping bombs on enemy positions 1/4 mile away or more isn't CAS. Strafing an enemy close enough that you could throw a hand grenade at them is.

It's about training as much as it is equipment. It's why an artillery battery XO is almost always attached to the HQ of the infantry unit being supported. It's why I'll never support getting rid of attack helicopters even though it doesn't take much more than a big enough rock thrown in the air to bring them down. It's because the job of the entire military is to kick the enemy's ass from somewhere within his envelope. And it's apparently not something you can pick up from books or watching testimony on C-SPAN.


Phil

“The biggest problem people have is they don’t think they’re supposed to have problems.” - Hayes Barnard
#4249958 - 04/15/16 03:39 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: axman]  
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
scrim Offline
Member
scrim  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
This is why I rather suspect you don't really grasp statistics. Really, more planes were shot down in the over a decade long American involvement in Vietnam than in the 100 hour Gulf War?

#4249967 - 04/15/16 04:07 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: NH2112]  
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 116
radicaldude1234 Offline
Member
radicaldude1234  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 116
SoCal
Originally Posted By: NH2112


The thing is, other aircraft CAN'T. There simply is no other aircraft in the US military inventory that can perform the CAS mission as well as the A10. Dropping bombs on enemy positions 1/4 mile away or more isn't CAS. Strafing an enemy close enough that you could throw a hand grenade at them is.


Why can't other aircraft perform CAS as well as the A-10? The CEP of a JDAM is about 5 meters and Hellfire missiles go where the laser is pointed so why can't they also blow people up?

Also, what makes other aircraft incapable of strafing? Vipers and Strike Eagles do it all the time. It's impressive to look at, but strafing is hardly the be all and end all of Close Air Support wink

Quote:
It's about training as much as it is equipment. It's why an artillery battery XO is almost always attached to the HQ of the infantry unit being supported. It's why I'll never support getting rid of attack helicopters even though it doesn't take much more than a big enough rock thrown in the air to bring them down.


Helicopters can also hover to hid behind obstacles, operate from fields a runway, and aren't asked to operate in heavily contested airspace...all of which aren't true for the A-10.

You're right about training, but let me point out that one of the best CAS outfits was the NY ANG Squadron at Syracuse. They operated A-10s and then switched over to F-16s all the while maintaining their fearsome reputation for being brutally effective at CAS. They now operate Predators, but that's another story for another time smile


Quote:
It's because the job of the entire military is to kick the enemy's ass from somewhere within his envelope.


I think my previous example of Agincourt and the existence of cruise missiles, snipers, ICBMs, BVR missiles, submarines, and the concept of indirect fire (from your artillery example) kind of disproves that. War isn't a boxing match, it's a game of whack-him-on-the-back-of-the-head-when-he's-not-looking. In fact, the very point of having combat aircraft is to kill people from where where they can't reach...

Quote:
And it's apparently not something you can pick up from books or watching testimony on C-SPAN.


It might or might not be, but you don't know who I am wink

#4249997 - 04/15/16 05:57 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: NH2112]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Offline
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted By: NH2112

The thing is, other aircraft CAN'T. There simply is no other aircraft in the US military inventory that can perform the CAS mission as well as the A10. Dropping bombs on enemy positions 1/4 mile away or more isn't CAS. Strafing an enemy close enough that you could throw a hand grenade at them is.


Who gets to define CAS? Because your definition doesn't seem to be the same as the USAF, USN, USMC or any other air power in the world. It seems you're more concerned with definitions than results. And are you referring to low yield weapons or are you insisting aircraft fly low to the ground?

Problem with the A-10 is that it is only good for low intensity conflicts against small pockets of insurgents. A task which it wasn't even designed for. But UAVs (higher loiter time, good visuals), AC-130s (high loiter, low yield weapons specifically designed for COIN), various helicopters and other aircraft (cannons, rockets, missiles, bombs) can fill in the role rather well.

For its original role, a tank killer, it is outdated. Poor defense against ADA, slow speed, lack of radar certainly don't help it.

#4249998 - 04/15/16 06:01 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
PanzerMeyer Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer  Offline
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,384
Miami, FL USA
Originally Posted By: Flogger23m

For its original role, a tank killer, it is outdated.
Assuming we never have a war against China, Russia or North Korea all of whom have large tank forces.


“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
#4250011 - 04/15/16 06:49 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: axman]  
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
scrim Offline
Member
scrim  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
If that would happen, an A-10 would be the least successful airframe for tank killing. Only one weapon sets it apart from Vipers, Strike Eagles, Harriers, Hornets, Lightning IIs (worst name since "Fighting Falcon"!) and Raptors, and that's the GAU-8. Relying on that for tank killing was a bad idea from the start, and even against the lower tier MBTs of the '70s the pilots were instructed to close to within 0.7nm before firing. If you fired at the max range of 2nm today, at best you'd scratch some optics and maybe snap an antenna, and you'd still have to close so much you'd almost certainly get hit so bad you'd get killed before you could even think of ejecting. There's a reason A-10 pilots weren't expected to survive more than 4 weeks of gunning tanks 40 years ago...

Last edited by scrim; 04/15/16 06:51 PM.
#4250018 - 04/15/16 07:42 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,790
Smokin_Hole Offline
Member
Smokin_Hole  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,790
Originally Posted By: Flogger23m
Who gets to define CAS?


The Army.

#4250020 - 04/15/16 07:52 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: scrim]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
NH2112 Offline
Veteran
NH2112  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
Jackman, ME
Originally Posted By: scrim
This is why I rather suspect you don't really grasp statistics. Really, more planes were shot down in the over a decade long American involvement in Vietnam than in the 100 hour Gulf War?


It's losses per sortie that matter, not losses per calendar unit. Furthermore, the OV10 was never used in an air defense system like Iraq operated. You may understand statistics (though the post I quoted strongly hints that you don't) but you don't understand the military or its purpose. Losses are going to be taken, and a certain amount is acceptable. The 0.05% loss rate per sortie the A10 suffered during Desert Storm was acceptable.

Last edited by NH2112; 04/15/16 08:20 PM.

Phil

“The biggest problem people have is they don’t think they’re supposed to have problems.” - Hayes Barnard
#4250025 - 04/15/16 08:18 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: radicaldude1234]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
NH2112 Offline
Veteran
NH2112  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
Jackman, ME
Originally Posted By: radicaldude1234


Why can't other aircraft perform CAS as well as the A-10? The CEP of a JDAM is about 5 meters and Hellfire missiles go where the laser is pointed so why can't they also blow people up?


And what's the blast radius of a JDAM? How close to friendlies can a Hellfire hit without injuring or killing them? See, big bombs make big booms and hurt people far away.

Quote:
Also, what makes other aircraft incapable of strafing? Vipers and Strike Eagles do it all the time. It's impressive to look at, but strafing is hardly the be all and end all of Close Air Support wink


Because the guns aren't accurate enough, for one, and because they don't carry enough 20mm to make a difference. Strafing is all you can do when hostiles are danger close, unless you decide killing the friendlies as well is acceptable.

Quote:
Helicopters can also hover to hid behind obstacles, operate from fields a runway, and aren't asked to operate in heavily contested airspace...all of which aren't true for the A-10.


That's why we have aircraft like the F15 & F22 for establishing air superiority, the F35 and F15E for deep strikes on reserves, fuel/ammo dumps, etc, and weapons like MLRS & ATACMS to take out air defenses ahead of incoming aircraft - to keep those A10s & AH64s alive. It's never a matter of one single aircraft flying around by itself on a high-intensity battlefield with a modern SAM network, and that's the only time an A10 or any other aircraft is really in any danger.

Quote:
I think my previous example of Agincourt and the existence of cruise missiles, snipers, ICBMs, BVR missiles, submarines, and the concept of indirect fire (from your artillery example) kind of disproves that. War isn't a boxing match, it's a game of whack-him-on-the-back-of-the-head-when-he's-not-looking. In fact, the very point of having combat aircraft is to kill people from where where they can't reach...


Which is why nobody uses infantry any more, you can just destroy the enemy and hold ground with your artillery or ICBMs. And why fighters don't need guns when they have BVR missiles. "whack-him-on-the-back-of-the-head-when-he's-not-looking?" Tell that to the grunts & Marines using fire & maneuver to fix the enemy in place so they can close & destroy. Eventually you have to stand for-to-toe and slug it out, whether it's squad on squad or the battle of Kursk, because if you don't all your maneuvering around was just the world's biggest and most expensive ballroom dance.


Phil

“The biggest problem people have is they don’t think they’re supposed to have problems.” - Hayes Barnard
#4250026 - 04/15/16 08:18 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: scrim]  
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,740
FlashBurn Offline
Senior Member
FlashBurn  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,740
Washington State, USA
I would say 4 weeks of shooting up tanks in 1980 dooms day war was better than what they where expecting for attack helicopters. I think they where expecting them all shot down in 48 hours. But while they lasted all those AH1-S's and what not would have killed quite a lot of stuff. So in the cruel Math of war if each helo kills a minimum of say, 6 tanks before getting shot down and say you have 300 at the front lines at that time. You get 1800 tanks. How many tank regiments of the first wave of Soviet style armored attack is that? In 1980 numbers that represents nearly a little less than a quarter of every single type of tank the US had in inventory. Although not nearly enough for 50,000 tanks of everything from old t34-85 to T80's the USSR had. But that would be a lot of dead first line tanks like T-64 and T-80.

In the numbers game, trading 2 men for 18 men is good math. Trading 1 man for a wiped out tank company, is also good math. But we have not had to fight an attrition war since ww2 really. That sort of cruel math is considered unexceptionable just about now. But is exactly what is needed in a 1st world war of Armies. A frenzy of slaughter with our modern weapons until one side or the other runs out of stuff. Which will not take vary long. And getting a new F-35 off the assembly line will take what? A year? Ya you already won or lost the war by then. Maybe having something simple that can be mass produced in a hurry is not a bad idea. Thinking something like an IL-2. They generally only lasted 18 missions, but well, they did good work while they lasted. And if such a plane can stay on your side of the front line just to support that front line, well maybe that would be enough to keep it in the air long enough to blunt attacks. And your poor average infantry man in such a war is likely going to last a matter hours. But we do not think along these lines. It is always taking the idea that we will always have air superiority and always attacking in depth. If it can not do that, it is not worth having. But that was not what the 1970's A-10 was for. It was for the front lines blunting massed armored attacks. And since most armored vehicles are not tanks, but thin apc's and a bit tougher IFV's a big fat gun ain't a bad thing to have once you shot all your shiny missiles at tanks. the more you get, the less the infantry have to try and kill with things like AT-4's. A case where in one mission, 1 man can literally save 100's of your guys at the right time and place. And in that math, 1 lost A-10 and pilot was worth the cost.

We have always needed something like an A10, or Skyraider. We never want them. But always seem to need such. Having it around is not a bad thing. But do not expect it to range 700 miles behind enemy lines against a 1st rate power. It will die. But then again, so will everything else at various rates.

#4250029 - 04/15/16 08:21 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: axman]  
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,779
EAF331 MadDog Offline
XBL: LanceHawkins
EAF331 MadDog  Offline
XBL: LanceHawkins
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,779
Oslo, Norway
Frankly, any anti-tank missions in a hypothetical war with a major power will be done by UAVs armed with missiles.

Cheap to build, cheap to operate, no pilots to risk.

#4250031 - 04/15/16 08:26 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: EAF331 MadDog]  
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,740
FlashBurn Offline
Senior Member
FlashBurn  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,740
Washington State, USA
Originally Posted By: EAF331 MadDog
Frankly, any anti-tank missions in a hypothetical war with a major power will be done by UAVs armed with missiles.

Cheap to build, cheap to operate, no pilots to risk.




So long as it is fully autonomous and can not be jammed. 1st time they screw up and wipe out cav unit will sure be interesting. Scouts! Getting shot at from both sides...

Last edited by FlashBurn; 04/15/16 08:28 PM.
#4250035 - 04/15/16 08:35 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: axman]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
NH2112 Offline
Veteran
NH2112  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,215
Jackman, ME
And if you have those Warthogs going after artillery instead of tanks, you've just made a big dent in the WP's chemical capability. Even if they had no plans to use chemicals, wiping out a large number of the guns supporting the offensive will hurt them badly. Plus you have ELINT aircraft, ground forces SIGINT, etc, all locating command groups. Vector in a flight of A10s - arguably the most expendable aircraft we have - on a division CP and what do you think is going to happen in regimental CPs when higher goes off the air? Utter confusion, units stopping in place or falling back to await orders, attacks stalling and the initiative lost. The F4s, F15s, & F16s would have had their hands FULL dealing with Frontal Aviation, there would have been no way ground forces could get any turned loose to kill tanks when that would mean WP attack, strike, & CAS aircraft getting through the holes.


Phil

“The biggest problem people have is they don’t think they’re supposed to have problems.” - Hayes Barnard
#4250037 - 04/15/16 08:40 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: NH2112]  
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,740
FlashBurn Offline
Senior Member
FlashBurn  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,740
Washington State, USA
Originally Posted By: NH2112
And if you have those Warthogs going after artillery instead of tanks, you've just made a big dent in the WP's chemical capability. Even if they had no plans to use chemicals, wiping out a large number of the guns supporting the offensive will hurt them badly. Plus you have ELINT aircraft, ground forces SIGINT, etc, all locating command groups. Vector in a flight of A10s - arguably the most expendable aircraft we have - on a division CP and what do you think is going to happen in regimental CPs when higher goes off the air? Utter confusion, units stopping in place or falling back to await orders, attacks stalling and the initiative lost. The F4s, F15s, & F16s would have had their hands FULL dealing with Frontal Aviation, there would have been no way ground forces could get any turned loose to kill tanks when that would mean WP attack, strike, & CAS aircraft getting through the holes.


Exactly, by its vary nature you can not use a A10 to try and control air space. So many times in ww2 where the Army Air Corp or supporting aviation where off doing other missions and not supporting the guys on the ground. The same would happen as an Air force general goes #1 priority is control air space and everything gets pulled that way that can do that. You then get whatever is left. Oh wait, no. Because all the bombers are going deep to bomb higher value targets than support some 19 year old kid with a rifle.

#4250044 - 04/15/16 09:10 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: NH2112]  
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
scrim Offline
Member
scrim  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
Originally Posted By: NH2112
The thing is, other aircraft CAN'T. There simply is no other aircraft in the US military inventory that can perform the CAS mission as well as the A10. Dropping bombs on enemy positions 1/4 mile away or more isn't CAS. Strafing an enemy close enough that you could throw a hand grenade at them is.


Originally Posted By: MD
Sigh. It's sad to see the fanboys who are so out of control in what they think they know about the A-10, and it somehow being this invincible entity of some kind, to which US troops will be dying by the millions if A-10s aren't around (since, of course, they can be everywhere at all times and when every CAS situation pops up :roll: ). I show up in various places to correct some of the outright stupidity I come across from these folks who haven't clue one about any of the missions, and still I get morons wanting to argue with me on everything from true CAPES to weapons to tactics/employment, etc. To where I get the usual idiotic argument of "ask the ground troops what they want" (ground troops are CAS specialists?), or the "NO other aircraft does CAS" (that is, besides the many that do), "give them to the Marines, they'll take them" (no they won't), or the better one of "I work on A-10s as a crew chief, so I know how they're used" (no son, am glad you maintain them, but you haven't clue one about tactics or employment, anymore than I have clue one about servicing the LOX on the jet), to the absolute best of "if you haven't done the job of CAS and haven't flown the Hog, you should shut the eff up" (as if you have done either fanboy? and yes, been there, done that, in the Hog. Next?) Sheer idiocy, some of these people. In reality, these people do far more damage to any kind of movement to save the A-10, than they do help; because the pure emotional arguments of these particular people (as opposed to balanced arguments based on reality) combined with the fact that they have zero experience in the role/mission/airframes or are even remotely affected by same. And the idiocy they post is seen by anyone and everyone, including those who are in positions to save or kill the airframe. No wonder when they write/call congresspeople/senators, they either get a canned political response, or no response at all.

Just the other day, there was a poster who was comparing the A-10/F-35, talking about how the Hog carries 2000 rounds of gun ammo as compared to the 200 the F-35 will carry. 2000 rounds? What, were GPU-5 pods bolted to a few of the parent stations and their ammo counted in the load being carried? As well as the same loadout arguments that have been going on in previous pages in this thread. Finally just told them, if you're going to support the A-10 or bash the F-35, at least do a little damn homework and come up with facts on both aircraft, pro or con, lest you sound like an ignorant fool.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=301246#p301246


As much as I do enjoy debating, I've gotta say this is the end of the line for me in regards to you. It's simply downright boring to present numbers, statistics, facts and discoveries this side of the 21st century, etc. only to have it very deliberately ignored, twisted or misunderstood as it suits you. It's one thing to be stubborn, but really...
It's quite clear that you simply don't want to hear of anything that doesn't say that only the A-10 can adequately perform CAS (apparently Apaches can be downed with a rock, despite their long history of operating far closer and more effectively with ground troops for over a decade in Afghanistan and Iraq now), that no technological developments have occurred that enables it to be carried out in any other way than with a GAU-8 against enemies at bayonet fighting range from friendlies, that everyone who wants the A-10 to stay as it is are heroes and everyone against is a duped fool, etc.

Last edited by scrim; 04/15/16 09:10 PM.
#4250048 - 04/15/16 09:20 PM Re: Reprieve for the A-10? [Re: NH2112]  
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 116
radicaldude1234 Offline
Member
radicaldude1234  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 116
SoCal
Originally Posted By: NH2112

And what's the blast radius of a JDAM? How close to friendlies can a Hellfire hit without injuring or killing them? See, big bombs make big booms and hurt people far away.


Danger close is defined as 600 yards, how close do you plan on being for your close air support? That and strafing is hardly the surgical tool that you are imagining. Those bullets are affected by wind, the pilot's aim, and do ricochet. Not to mention the radiological danger of using depleted uranium if their using it, or the high chance that some of those 30mm shells don't explode and become UXOs...


Quote:
Because the guns aren't accurate enough, for one, and because they don't carry enough 20mm to make a difference. Strafing is all you can do when hostiles are danger close, unless you decide killing the friendlies as well is acceptable.


Are you claiming that the M61 cannon, which the F-16, F-15, F-22 depend on for air to air combat, is not accurate for strafing? Please support this claim as I am curious

Also, a Hellfire missile has around 20lbs of high explosive, the same as around 20 rounds of 30mm cannon shells. As strafing runs rarely ever just use 20 rounds, it looks like that more explosive power is in fact used.

Quote:
That's why we have aircraft like the F15 & F22 for establishing air superiority, the F35 and F15E for deep strikes on reserves, fuel/ammo dumps, etc, and weapons like MLRS & ATACMS to take out air defenses ahead of incoming aircraft - to keep those A10s & AH64s alive. It's never a matter of one single aircraft flying around by itself on a high-intensity battlefield with a modern SAM network, and that's the only time an A10 or any other aircraft is really in any danger.


And yet in the Gulf War, with all that Wild Weasel support and F-15s flying CAP, A-10s were still shown to vulnerable to SAM and AAA fire...

Quote:
Which is why nobody uses infantry any more, you can just destroy the enemy and hold ground with your artillery or ICBMs. And why fighters don't need guns when they have BVR missiles. "whack-him-on-the-back-of-the-head-when-he's-not-looking?" Tell that to the grunts & Marines using fire & maneuver to fix the enemy in place so they can close & destroy. Eventually you have to stand for-to-toe and slug it out, whether it's squad on squad or the battle of Kursk, because if you don't all your maneuvering around was just the world's biggest and most expensive ballroom dance.


False dichotomy, I presented those examples to disprove your claim that operating within an enemy's weapons envelope "the job of the entire military". Implying that I claimed that infantry and guns on airplanes were obsolete was an assumption on your part.

Look, I don't doubt that the A-10 is a formidable weapon system that is more adequate for its current role. I also don't doubt that at least some of the people making arguments against it know what they're talking about and have a point. That and my attempt to poke holes in your arguments is to show how emotionally heated this argument has gotten. If you are going to define "your" airplane, at least use points that your opponents can respect.

Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0