A10 capabilities

[CrunchyFrog 0]

A10: Tank Hunter ( thats the nickname of the plane )

I thought its nickname was Thunderbird

[ozanzac 0]

A10: Tank Hunter ( thats the nickname of the plane )

I thought its nickname was Thunderbird

*Ahem*

Try Thunderbolt II and Warthog.

[Badgerboy 0]

A10: Tank Hunter ( thats the nickname of the plane )

I thought its nickname was Thunderbird

*Ahem*

Try Thunderbolt II and Warthog.

Yep,

Thunderbolt is the offical name for it, and WartHog is what everyone else calls it!

[4 IN 1 0]

You obviously have not seen the effects of modern IR SAM's. (Kinetic and fragmentation). Secondly, blowing an actual engine off the aircraft will kill it, despite the popular theory that it won't. This is why they are mounted in such a way that IR trackers can't home in on them. However, modern all aspect lauchers have no problems tracking them these days.

I suggest you check the combat losses of A-10's in recent conflicts, and look at at how many were recovered to the airfield after being hit by a SAM, as opposed to hits from AAA.

There is no disputing that it is durable when confronted with AAA, but against a modern AA system it doesn't stand a chance.

No one told u to use A10 to stand against AA system like naked,

still far away to understand that why A10 is still in service

[Badgerboy 0]

You obviously have not seen the effects of modern IR SAM's. (Kinetic and fragmentation). Secondly, blowing an actual engine off the aircraft will kill it, despite the popular theory that it won't. This is why they are mounted in such a way that IR trackers can't home in on them. However, modern all aspect lauchers have no problems tracking them these days.

I suggest you check the combat losses of A-10's in recent conflicts, and look at at how many were recovered to the airfield after being hit by a SAM, as opposed to hits from AAA.

There is no disputing that it is durable when confronted with AAA, but against a modern AA system it doesn't stand a chance.

No one told u to use A10 to stand against AA system like naked Dicky,

u still far away to understand that why A10 is still in service

Now the problem here is that those lovely little tanks the A-10's love to shoot at, tend to be protected by at least some form of AA defense, usually layered, with MANPADS being the lower form of this layer.

The A-10 was going to be phased out in the 90's, but the Gulf came along and they found they still had a use for it. Without air superiority, SEAD escorts, and a run down, badly trained AA system the A-10 is a flying target. In Kosovo they rarely flew regular strike missions, as the risk to the pilots were too great.

If the A-10 was used in say, a US/Chinese conflict, it would be hacked down in short order. Why use a A-10 to kill a tank, when you can do it several miles away with a standoff weapon. (And contary to popular belief, the A-10's gun cannot knock out a modern MBT with a frontal shot. You have to ingress toward the MBT's rear. Ask a A-10 driver about this.)

I assume English is your second language, as I can't quite understand what 'u still far away to understand that why A10 is still in service' means. If your proposing that I don't know why the A-10 is still is service, than read all of the above.

[Necromancer- 0]

it should be possible though... just re-enforce the nose landing gear and the structure around the arrestor hook

I think a little more tinkering is required.

How are you going to get it airborne again?

Why would the carriers carry A-10s?

They take up the space of 3, maybe 4 F/A-18's...

The carriers need planes that can be "packed and stacked" (folding wings).

I think all in all even if you did manage to connect a A10 to the catapult all you'd see is the biggest splash ever  

lol imagine the catapult rips off the cockpit and tosses it into the sea.

Anyways... all you have to do to make a plane "Aircraft Carrier compliant" is to reinforce the plane's structure.

If its possible to launch a C-130 Hercules from an aircraft carrier, why not the A-10 Thunderbolt?

[Grizzlie 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why use a A-10 to kill a tank, when you can do it several miles away with a standoff weapon.

It is easy - costs. And with same reasons Russians evaluates Su-25.

I aggree that on modern battlefield it is hard to fly, but not only for A-10 - for each and every plane is.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

30mm burst.

[ozanzac 0]

Anyways... all you have to do to make a plane "Aircraft Carrier compliant" is to reinforce the plane's structure.

If its possible to launch a C-130 Hercules from an aircraft carrier, why not the A-10 Thunderbolt?

Ummm, I've never, ever, ever, EVER heard of a herc launching from a carrier!!! . The main Carrier based prop cargo plane is the C-2 greyhound. I can only think thats what you mean.

The undercarriage (Landing gear) is what requires the biggest beefing up for carrier based aircraft, not necessarily the structure.

OF course it is possible to launch an A-10 using a catapult, just look at the S-3 Viking. Big, heavy and ugly, with the same engines as the A-10

[Warin 0]

Anyways... all you have to do to make a plane "Aircraft Carrier compliant" is to reinforce the plane's structure.

If its possible to launch a C-130 Hercules from an aircraft carrier, why not the A-10 Thunderbolt?  

Ummm, I've never, ever, ever, EVER heard of a herc launching from a carrier!!! . The main Carrier based prop cargo plane is the C-2 greyhound. I can only think thats what you mean.

The undercarriage (Landing gear) is what requires the biggest beefing up for carrier based aircraft, not necessarily the structure.

OF course it is possible to launch an A-10 using a catapult, just look at the S-3 Viking. Big, heavy and ugly, with the same engines as the A-10

You were saying?

[ozanzac 0]

Anyways... all you have to do to make a plane "Aircraft Carrier compliant" is to reinforce the plane's structure.

If its possible to launch a C-130 Hercules from an aircraft carrier, why not the A-10 Thunderbolt?  

Ummm, I've never, ever, ever, EVER heard of a herc launching from a carrier!!! . The main Carrier based prop cargo plane is the C-2 greyhound. I can only think thats what you mean.

The undercarriage (Landing gear) is what requires the biggest beefing up for carrier based aircraft, not necessarily the structure.

OF course it is possible to launch an A-10 using a catapult, just look at the S-3 Viking. Big, heavy and ugly, with the same engines as the A-10

You were saying?

DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How the hell did he manage that!!!!!!!!

How big must the pilots balls be?!!!!!!!!!

Look how close the wing is to the bridge!!!

Thats absolutely crazy!

What drugs was the navy on at the time?!?

Damn. That is amazing. Absolutly mother truckin amazing!!!!

[acidcrash 0]

Quote[/b] ]Anyways... all you have to do to make a plane "Aircraft Carrier compliant" is to reinforce the plane's structure.

you make it sound like its an easy job! it would be anything but easy, and would more than likely be more effort than its worth... the added weight would change how it handles, lessen its payload etc...

the C130 can/did do it because it has rough strip capabilitys... ie doesnt strictly need a runway (ie it can land in a field providing its big enough, which the RAF ones do in their training every now and then)

[waffendennis 0]

Let me say: If C-130 can land there Then I could land there with F15  

@Supha: I'm not an young person ok.

[Necromancer- 0]

Thing is that you have to clear the entire flight deck just for the C-130 Hercules to land.

[Badgerboy 0]

Let me say: If C-130 can land there Then I could land there with F15  

@Supha: I'm not an young person ok.

The C130 has the advantage of a far lower approach speed than a F15, plus its structurally far more resilient than an F-15.

Landing an F15 on a carrier would probably end up with an overshoot, or gear failure.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

At one point Fairchild tried to market a maritime attack version of the A10 to the Navy, so that might have been what you were hearing about. At any rate, if you do have questions about the A10, I reccomend heading to UbiSoft's Lock On: Modern Air Combat. One of the moderators there, handle Dice-Man, is ground crew on A10s, and as such can answer pretty much any question about the A10 that doesn't involve classified data.

[hellfish6 7]

Quote[/b] ]For his effort, the Navy awarded Flatley the Distinguished Flying Cross.

That crazy SOB deserved it!

[Stag 0]

Clearing up some of the bs:

Re:posted from the Harpoon Users League List

The Hog That Saves the Grunts

By ROBERT CORAM

ATLANTA

The Air Force is planning to give the A-10 Warthog an ignominious homecoming from the Persian Gulf.

In early April, Maj. Gen. David Deptula of the Air Combat Command ordered a subordinate to draft a memo justifying the decommissioning of the A-10 fleet. The remaining eight active duty A-10 squadrons (in 1991, the number was 18) could be mothballed as early as 2004.

This is a serious mistake. The A-10 was one of the most effective, lethal and feared weapons of the Iraqi war. Its absence will put troops on the battlefield in grave danger. The decision to take this aircraft out of service is the result of entrenched political and cultural shortsightedness.

About the same time that the general's order was issued, a crucial battle of the Iraqi war was unfolding. The United States Army had arrived at a Tigris River bridge on the edge of Baghdad to find Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers positioned at the other end. A deadly crossfire ensued. A call for help went out, and despite heavy clouds and fog, down the river came two A-10's at an altitude of less than 1,000 feet, spitting out a mix of armor-piercing and explosive bullets at the rate of 3,900 rounds per minute. The Iraqi resistance was obliterated. This was a classic case of "close air support."

The A-10 was also the most storied aircraft of the first gulf war. It flew so many sorties the Air Force lost count. The glamorous F-117 Stealth fighter got the headlines, but Iraqi prisoners interrogated after the war said the aircraft they feared most were the A-10 and the ancient B-52 bomber.

To understand why the corporate Air Force so deeply loathes the A-10, one must go back to 1947, when the Air Force broke away from the Army and became an independent branch. "Strategic bombing," which calls for deep bombing raids against enemy factories and transportation systems, was the foundation of the new service branch. But that concept is fundamentally flawed for the simple reason that air power alone has never won a war.

Nevertheless, strategic bombing, now known as "interdiction bombing," remains the philosophical backbone of the Air Force. Anything involving air support of ground troops is a bitter reminder that the Air Force used to be part of the Army and subordinate to Army commanders. For the white-scarf crowd, nothing is more humiliating than being told that what it does best is support ground troops.

Until the A-10 was built in the 1970's, the Air Force used old, underpowered aircraft to provide close air support. It never had a plane specifically designed to fly low to the ground to support field troops. In fact, the A-10 never would have been built had not the Air Force believed the Army was trying to steal its close air support role - and thus millions of dollars from its budget - by building the Cheyenne helicopter. The Air Force had to build something cheaper than the Cheyenne. And because the Air Force detested the idea of a designated close air support aircraft, generals steered clear of the project, and designers, free from meddling senior officers, created the ultimate ground-support airplane.

It is cheap, slow, low-tech, does not have an afterburner, and is so ugly that the grandiose name "Thunderbolt" was forgotten in favor of "Warthog" or, simply, "the Hog." What the airplane does have is a deadly 30-millimeter cannon, two engines mounted high and widely separated to offer greater protection, a titanium "bathtub" to protect the pilot, a bullet- and fragmentation-resistant canopy, three back-up flight controls, a heavy duty frame and foam-filled fuel tanks - a set of features that makes it one of the safest yet most dangerous weapons on the battlefield.

However, these attributes have long been ignored, even denied, because of the philosophical aversion to the close air support mission. Couple that with the Air Force's love affair with the high technology F/A-22 ($252 million per plane) and the F-35 fighter jets (early cost estimates are around $40 million each), and something's got to give.

Despite budget problems, the Air Force has decided to save money by getting rid of the cheap plane and keeping the expensive ones. Sacrifices must be made, and what a gleeful one this will be for the Air Force.

The Air Force is promoting the F-35 on the idea that it can provide close air support, a statement that most pilots find hilarious. But the F-35's price tag means the Air Force will not jeopardize the aircraft by sending it low where an enemy with an AK-47 can bring it down. (Yes, the aircraft will be that vulnerable.)

In the meantime, the Air Force is doing its utmost to get the public to think of the sleek F-16 fighter jet as today's close support aircraft. But in the 1991 gulf war and in Kosovo, the Air Force wouldn't allow the F-16 to fly below 10,000 feet because of its vulnerability to attack from anti-aircraft guns and missiles.

Grunts are comforted by the presence of a Hog, because when they need close air support, they need it quickly. And the A-10 can loiter over a battlefield and pounce at a moment's notice. It is the only aircraft with pilots trained to use their eyes to separate bad guys from good guys, and it can use its guns as close in as 110 yards. It is the only aircraft that can take serious hits from ground fire, and still take its pilot home.

But the main difference between those who fly pointy-nose aircraft and Hog drivers is the pilot's state of mind. The blue suits in the Air Force are high-altitude advocates of air power, and they aren't thinking about muddy boots. A-10 drivers train with the Army. They know how the Army works and what it needs. (In combat, an A-10 pilot is assigned to Army units.)

If the Air Force succeeds in killing the A-10, it will leave a serious gap in America's war-fighting abilities. By itself, air power can't bring about victory. The fate of nations and the course of history is decided by ground troops. The A-10 is the single Air Force aircraft designed to support those troops. For that reason alone, the Air Force should keep the A-10 and build new close support aircraft similar to the Hog, demonstrating its long-term commitment to supporting our men and women in the mud.

Robert Coram is author of "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War."

Maybe it's time the Air Force got told that it's OK for the Army to have it's own organic FIXED WING CAS...and I bet a bunch of these Hog drivers would go where their birds go, too.

[Supah 0]

Let me say: If C-130 can land there Then I could land there with F15  

@Supha: I'm not an young person ok.

I'd pay money to see you land a F-15 on the same distance as a C-130 ... an F-15 comes in REAL fast compared to a C-130. Its also pretty darn heavy. Dunno how it compares to an F14 as to weight and size. Seen a few tomcats and they didnt strike me as cute lill airplanes I remember them dwarving our F-16's when they flew formation approaches. It might be possible but you would have to substantially reinforce the F-15 making it even heavier.

[waffendennis 0]

Ok let's do it like this: You support me an F15 I'l land it some where on the carrier !!!but!!!Dont forget: I just use old bob to escape from death.

[drewb99 0]

I REALLY hate the Airforce saying the JSF can fill a CAS role. The JSF is as much a CAS plane as an autogyro is a fighter

[4 IN 1 0]

This is a simple example of "as the Airforce hate them, Army/Marine love them"..................

I think the Army will try to keep A10 as a CAS force for them by any chance, but airforce may have blackmail them not to do so

J/K  

anyway, i think it is better bring those lovely A10 under the control of Army instead of Airforce..............

[brgnorway 0]

This is a simple example of "as the Airforce hate them, Army/Marine love them"..................

I think the Army will try to keep A10 as a CAS force for them by any chance, but airforce may have blackmail them not to do so

J/K  

anyway, i think it is better bring those lovely A10 under the control of Army instead of Airforce..............

...anyway, I don't like the A10! It's ugly as hell - and I'm a walking (flying) disaster when piloting the hog in ofp!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I think the A10 is beautiful. But to me, form should equal function, and therefore functionality equals beauty. But that's just me.

[ozanzac 0]

...anyway, I don't like the A10! It's ugly as hell - and I'm a walking (flying) disaster when piloting the hog in ofp!

Ugly it may be, but there no f***en chance in hell theres another plane that can beat it for survivability, serviceability, and practicallity.

I you can't pilot the A-10 in OFP, I'd hate to see you being shot at by SAMs and AAA in my other favourite game, Falcon 4. Theres a challenge for ya, right after you realise that flying in OFP is a piece of piss compared to learning to survive and destroy targets in falcon 4.