New a-10 or an f-16

[havocsquad 0]

Ignorant, the only ignorant attitude or view I see is the view that people see is the A-10 is extremely hard to be shot down.  Against a 3rd rated enemy that has to use manpads and poorly guided Flak, the A-10 will definately succeed.  However, in a shooting war with the enemy using Phased array SAM's and massive groups of front line fighters, the A-10 is 2 or 3 times as likely to be shot down than multirole fighters.

When you log in about 20 to 40 aircraft combat missions, then you can call me ignorant, stupid or whatever.  Until then, please try to understand my view on this before assuming.

The future threat now is Radar guided SAM's and with the SA-11, SA-10, and new Phased Arrary radars being created, the A-10 can't hide forever from the enemy much longer by going really low to the ground.

Here are the first and final reasons for the USAF retiring the A-10.

1.  The A-10's have little to no multirole capability.

2.  Limited range and effective combat speed

3.  The A-10 is very vulnerable against Medium range radar guided Air to Air missiles.

4. Extremely Vulnerable against Phased Array SAM's at low altitude.

5.  Outperformed by all enemy frontline air-superiority aircraft when it is forced into an Air to Air encouter.

6.  Does not utilize new weapon systems (JDAM, JSOW, Anti-ship weapons)

7.  Can't provide SEAD effectively

Man, its just a aircraft man.  Don't take this so personal or get all bent out about it.

[hellfish6 7]

Ignorant, the only ignorant attitude or view I see is the view that people see is the A-10 is extremely hard to be shot down.  Against a 3rd rated enemy that has to use manpads and poorly guided Flak, the A-10 will definately succeed.  However, in a shooting war with the enemy using Phased array SAM's and massive groups of front line fighters, the A-10 is 2 or 3 times as likely to be shot down than multirole fighters.

When you log in about 20 to 40 aircraft combat missions, then you can call me ignorant, stupid or whatever.  Until then, please try to understand my view on this before assuming.

The future threat now is Radar guided SAM's and with the SA-11, SA-10, and new Phased Arrary radars being created, the A-10 can't hide forever from the enemy much longer by going really low to the ground.

Here are the first and final reasons for the USAF retiring the A-10.

1.  The A-10's have little to no multirole capability.

2.  Limited range and effective combat speed

3.  The A-10 is very vulnerable against Medium range radar guided Air to Air missiles.

4. Extremely Vulnerable against Phased Array SAM's at low altitude.

5.  Outperformed by all enemy frontline air-superiority aircraft when it is forced into an Air to Air encouter.

6.  Does not utilize new weapon systems (JDAM, JSOW, Anti-ship weapons)

7.  Can't provide SEAD effectively

Man, its just a aircraft man.  Don't take this so personal or get all bent out about it.

OK, I apologize for saying you made an igorant comment - that was rash of me. I still don't agree with you that the A-10 is outdated. It does exactly what it was designed to do and it does it very well. F-16s and F/A-18s are all very well capable of conducting CAS, but not to the same degree as the A-10.

No, the A-10 isn't a match for anything more than an SU-25 in A2A , but it was never designed for that. A CAS-loaded F-16 isn't a match for a MiG-29 either, unless it jettisons it's A2G stores. The A-10 performs superbly at low altitude, where it can use terrain to mask it's maneuvers. sure, in flat open desert it'll probably be vulnerable to phased array radars, SA-10s/-12s, etc. But how many countries actually have those? I know Cyprus has some, but come on... Nobody the US can reasonably forsee itself going to war with can mount any serious threat to an A-10. Even China doesn't have that kind of air defense capability (at least on a realistic level) and they're the most potentially dangerous threat the US faces.

The only point you make about the A-10 that is realistically valid is the fact that it can't carry the JDAM/JSOW, etc. But in doing what the A-10 does - close air support to conventional ground forces and interdiction, such weapons are not ideal. JDAm/JSOW etc. are best used against specific targets (like enemy fortified positions, structures, etc.), not battlefield targets. AGM-65s, CBUs and iron bombs, not to mention that 30mm cannon, are best used for what the A-10 does. No other aircraft in the western world is capable of providing that kind of support to ground forces. That is why the A-10 is still used and that is also why the A-10 should be kept.

Yes, if the US had a primary threat of a super modernized Russian or Chinese force, with integrated battlefield defenses consisting of 2S6s, SA-10/12s, SA-15/17s and SA-18 backed up with MiG-29 and Su-33s, then I'd say the A-10 has outlived it's useful life. But when the only countries we can realistically expect to combat are North Korea, Iran and maybe Syria, (all of whom still use the SA-2 or -3 as their primary AD missile, ZSU-23-4s and SA-9s for battlefield air defense and MiG-21 variants in their air force) there is still a role for the A-10.

[Wonder 0]

SAMs and phased-array radars Don't help much, when the target is flying out of sight masked by terrain.

Anyways... back on topic. I just found out in this document, that the GAU-8s rate of fire was lowered to from 4200rd/min to 2100-3500rd/min. Which rate of fire should the addon use?

[Grizzlie 0]

If i remember GAU-8 from the beging had 2 rates of fire 4200/2100 (2 or 1 gun engine on).

And about using slow, well protected CAS planes. If this idea is wrong, why Russians r still modyfiyng Su-25, making new verisons? I doubt they r idiots.

Well i like BOTH planes, but ONLY with rockets. Bombing skills of AI r hmm (censored) ;)

[Imshi-Yallah 0]

You haven't played OFP if you haven't got an Iron bomb fetish, the RAD_F/A-18s, all Footmunch planes, GR4s and FDF mod Hawks all bomb marvellously under AI control.

[Sgt. Drake Savage 0]

In case some of you dont remember, the Air Force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 since before Desert Storm.  But when the first gulf war came along the warthog performed marvelously and those who were speaking out against the plane shut up for awhile.

The higher ups in the Air Force love the fancy, high-tech planes and the A-10 just doesnt fit in with that philosophy.  It is pure brute force, which is a little too Russian for them.  That is the only reason they are trying to get rid of the plane, not because of poor performance or weaknesses to SAM's.  Frankly the A-10, if employed correctly, shouldnt have to deal with anything bigger than a shoulder launched sam.  It is the job of F-117's and other planes to fly into the SAM-laden areas.

Oh one more point that noone has mentioned: the A-10s low and slow flying makes it EXCELLENT as an observation plane (I think their were even planes designate OA-10's).  An A-10 pilot can loiter over a battlefield and acctualy see with his own eyes friendly and enemy troop movements.  Higher performance jets need a man on the ground to give them this info.  I think, im not sure though, that it is also used in the SAR role locating downed pilots too.

Im not saying the F-16 is a bad plane, but dont dog the A-10 for all the wrong reasons.

[Imshi-Yallah 0]

OA-10As are indeed used for CSAR and FAC, there is no other fixed wing aircraft in the USAF inventory that is really suitable for these roles.

It's loved by its pilots by the rapid reaction forces it supports and hated by procurement and development officers because its too cheap and durable therefore it puts a significant dent in the workings of the whole military industrial complex.

Its like the way your family's first TV lasted 25 years but now you have to buy a new one every five, because durable consumer goods are bad for businesses centred on mass production and consumption, the same wasteful logic (lets not forget that money value is essentially a figment of our collective imaginations) is applied to the defence industry.

I love it, how people can make the equation work; "I'd rather these people die than for me to have to live in only moderate luxury", is just beyond me.

BTW the previous attempts to replace the A-10 with dedicated ground attack F-16s (no Avenger so only expensive missiles could be used, higher maintenance and fuel costs) have failed miserably, although they did succeed in preventing export success for the A-10 as prospective buyers were forcefully redirected toward trhe three times as expensive Falcon or Harrier.

[Sxep 0]

I see this is a high expirience conversation of Hellfish and havocsquad...

...So you knew that a fighter like the F16 has a 20mm cannon ? and the A10 has a 30mm?

ok so...when you try to shoot down a A10 with an F16 with the Boardcannon..you don´t have much luck because the A10´s Cockpit can withstand 20mm!! (and most of the Airframe)

Its only really threat (a10) are the AA missiles and radar guided SAM´s.

But again the SAM`S are fired mostly in a 45° angle...now when you fly very low with a A10 (through canyons) the SAM can NEVER EVER seak you down or make a RADAR lock on you...

[Dark Knight 0]

plus u can use flares to confuse the sams so all in all the A-10 still can succeed its goal remember they were using A-10s at iraq so that shows they are still capable of doing what they do otherwise they wouldnt of used them

[havocsquad 0]

Didn't get a chance to reply back about this as soon as I wanted to.  No big deal bout this debate, just some enjoyable and objective debate.  Yes, the A-10 is not a piece of junk and still is needed to some extent but not as badly as some people think in certain areas.

Imshi-Yallah, are you forgetting cluster bombs, JSOW's and JDAM's?  With JDAM's, all you need is the GPS position of the target by either remote sources or through detecting it via radar and drop da bomb on em.  At $60,000 to 80,000 a pop versus 250,000 per Maverick or something like that, JDAM's just make more sense.  JSOW's are like magic man, if have an enemy armored group or company moving or not very deeply entrenched, 3 to 6 of JSOW's will make it look like a cemetary.  A-10's can't use them, and frankly the A-10 isn't much use in an Air War is it?  It might be able to get one or two bandits by hit and run attacks against aircraft but a good Archer IR Guided Missile hit will make short work of any A-10.

Yes, Manpads and crummy flak isn't much of a threat for the A-10.  It's great for use when as a rearguard support aircraft after air superiority has been obtained and almost all serious SAM threats have been eliminated.

The conflicts I'm talking about being a high probably is a conflict in Asia the equivilent to World War 3 in chaotic pace.  Where the enemy has hordes of frontline medium range attacking interceptors (MiG-29's, Su-27's, Su-33's, MiG-31's, etc.) with enemy armor moving faster than the Nazi's Blitzkrieg through Beligum and quickly crushed France. Even with stealth air superiority aircraft, the strike force in that environment needs to be multirole combat aircraft to best survive and succeed in that high threat environment.

Naval surface threats will be increasing in capabilities and lethality, so the ability to attack ships from long range has increased dramatically.  The A-10 can't do that because it can only carry Mavericks and most future enemy surface ships can attack aircraft much futher than Maverick range.

The A-10 in the USAF will always have some purpose, but in a serious war of the US against a well armed and determined foe will require more mult-role aircraft like the F/A-35, F/A-22's, the F/A-18's, F-16's and the F-15E's.

The F/A-18, the F-16, and the F-15E have prove themselves to be the frontline aircraft forces in the support and protection of the US.  Hell, the first ground mission for the first Gulf War was done by an F-16 providing CAS with some cluster bombs to allow a hidden recon outpost in Iraqi territory to evacuate.  No bull about it this story, it's true.

I agree for someone or others to make an A-10 AND F-16, just thought I'd convience some people why the F-16 was better.

Oh, and Hellfish I checked three sources on that flying height rule for the USAF and many other airforces. It's confirmed that despite the urge for pilots to fly flow, the USAF and most other major airforces frown on most fighter aircraft flying below medium or high alititude except in certain circumstances and situations.

No worries and hope the improved A-10 addon and a GOOD F-16 addon get done soon.

Later all,

Havoc.

[hellfish6 7]

I still don't see where you're saying that the A-10 has outlived it's useful life.

No, the A-10 probably can't sink ships. But it was never meant to - who in their right mind would send a low and slow plane to attack a ship, let alone a battlegroup, with iron bombs and mavericks? That's what stand-off weapons like the Harpoon and Tomahawk are for. There's plenty of planes to carry those. Even so - the People's Liberation Army Navy (China's Navy) has only a tiny handful of destroyers and frigates with any effective air defense capability. I'd bet a single A-10 could take out nearly any Chinese ship if it had to today. A Russian ship, on the other hand, would slaughter an A-10 (despite what Tom Clancy would have you believe in HFRO).

The bottom line is that no aircraft can compete with the A-10 for close air support. And your story about the F-16 in the first Gulf War may very well be true, but that doesn't mean anything. All planes are listed on a tasking board - when a call for support is given, the air tasking officer looks at the board, sees who is already airborne and closest with the right ordnance and selects them for the mission. It was a simple matter of the F-16 being closer to the target that determined your scenario. It had nothing to do with the "inferiority" of the A-10.

And your hypothetical war in Asia is unrealistic. Only Malaysia has MiG-29s, China has a couple of dozen Su-27s (though they are producing more), Indonesia flies old F-16As, and Vietnam has 6-8 Su-27s, which, IIRC, are not exactly in prime condition. Hell, even North Korea can't afford to fly their MiG-29s anymore and are still using MiG-21s and MiG-17s as front line fighters.

In ten years, when our potential allies have all these wonder toys, then I'd reevaluate my statement that the A-10 is outdated. But right now it's still the best for the CAS mission.

[DeaD_LoC 0]

A-10s Destoyed more tanks than any other plane in the history flight

[Eviscerator 0]

No, the A-10 probably can't sink ships. But it was never meant to - who in their right mind would send a low and slow plane to attack a ship, let alone a battlegroup, with iron bombs and mavericks? That's what stand-off weapons like the Harpoon and Tomahawk are for.

The Argies sent A-4's against the Royal Navy armed with iron bombs, and i believe they sank a ship with them (cant remember the name, but it's the one with all the Irish Guards on), although not particularly slow, i think its still a sub-sonic aircraft, or somewhere near.

[havocsquad 0]

That was over 20 years ago man, Air Defense for surface ships is a LOT more effective than what the Brits had back then.  Try doing that against most modern ships using iron bombs and short ranged AGM weapons, you'll lose almost a squadron's amount in just one minute.

The only major navy I know that doens't have reasonbably effective range SAM on it is the French Navy, some South American ships, and some of the Chinese's Frigates and Destroyers.

As a saying goes "To look into the past for answers is to inscript the assurance of failure into the chapters of history."  That is VERY true with most naval and aircraft issues, especially involving SAM's.

[Eviscerator 0]

It was purely an example of a relatively well equipped air force using iron bombs to attack ships.

[Stag 0]

http://www.danford.net/warthog.htm

http://www.danford.net/chick.htm

[waffendennis 0]

A-10s Destoyed more tanks  than any other plane in the history flight

Well just make the A10 because: We simply need it and F16 is here and in so many versions and A10 in none

PS:Avatar Is Way to big mate

Quote[/b] ]4. Signatures and Avatars

Keep avatars and signatures within forum regulations

To keep signatures reasonably small following rules apply:

- total height of your signature must not exceed 150 pixels, this allows for 100 pixels of images and then 50 pixels for text/URL's if so required (Below is a handy "signature ruler" to help you figure out how this rule works).

- total width of your signature must not ecxeed 600 pixels

- height of any image, flash animation or any other signature single element must not exceed 100 pixels

- total size of all files used in your signature must be no more than 100 KB.

- signature and avatar must be quiet, no sounds may be played back in them by any means

- maximum size for avatars is 64x64 pixels and the file must be no larger than 100kb (102400 bytes)

[Koolkid101 0]

Well I wouldn't want an f-16 if Vits F-16 weren't so damn unsteerable.... If someone could edit or teach me to whatever needs to be edited I'd be really happy.... Hint Hint

[Landwarrior87 0]

Well I wouldn't want an f-16 if Vits F-16 weren't so damn unsteerable.... If someone could edit or teach me to  whatever needs to be edited I'd be really happy.... Hint Hint

agreed.. the model and textures r fine.