...unless JSOC wants them.
A sad day for the soldier/seaman/airman on the ground.... (A-10/CAS Discussion)
- Thread starter Kraut783
- Start date
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
A-10 was designed around us already having won the air-superiority fight based on what I know. It was meant to be able to take a pounding as it loitered but never a true missile. Any CAS platform would be used once we had either air-superiority established or in a 70/30 air dominance time I would think. A true CAS platform isn't really meant to go air to air against a fast mover.
A-10's routinely held their own against F-16's and F-15's at Red Flag.
A-10's have taken missile hits and brought the pilot home.
A-10 was designed to fight the Warsaw Pact (using Army helo's as Teammates) in the Fulda Gap; go study the Cold War Battle Plans to see what our options were "back in the day" and what the envisioned SAM/ADA threat was.
The A-10 was designed to deal with what a Warsaw Pact division carried in the 70's. "Zeus," SA-7's, and SA-9's primarily. The "bathtub" is designed to withstand hits from a 23mm which is the same caliber as a ZSU-23-4. Back in the day it was the most fearsome ADA asset at the division level. It can certainly handle some modern ADA systems, but others? I love the A-10, but there's no way. Even the SA-6 which predates the -10, would slaughter the Hog without a successful SEAD campaign. It lit up the IAF in '73.
But SEAD is a given, even for stealth platform.
Remember the first target hit by the AH-64/MH-53 team in DS?
Same thing in OIF, we degraded the ADA/SAM structure creating holes.
SpongeBob*24
Verified Military
The A-10 is a tool in the tool belt...you don't break out the hammer when you need a level....
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,158
For an airplane they keep threatening to get rid of...
The A-10 Warthog Just Got A Little More Badass
The A-10 Warthog Just Got A Little More Badass
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
S-60, 57mm.
Red Flag 1
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,580
I think they should return to using the ammo propellant that was first used in the A-10. The gas from the previous round was still near enough to the gun's muzzle that the next round would ignite the still present gas. So when the pilot squeezed off the cannon fire, it looked like the beast was belching fire out the front of the aircraft. What a sight that must have been.
APKWS is the shit. It took a long time for it to get off the ground and start being used, but it is proving to be highly effective.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,158
What was most surprising to me, (I guess it shouldn't be) were the number of people in the "comments" section of the story discussing your very point. In much more detail that they probably should, and all beginning with: "I worked on these from 2002 until..."
OPSEC much?
I firmly believe in OPSEC, but when we're feeding bullshit to the American people, a disinformation campaign, and our opponents know better? Unreal. I'm not dropping classified info either. 5-10 minutes on the Web and you'll find enough .mil sources to support what I'm saying.
Our obsession with *SEC is stupid and counterproductive. I think one reason people don't trust the military is because we lie about things which are easily disproven.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,158
@Freefalling - Agreed..."but"...
I typically review the comments section of military based stories and am often shocked at some of the detail found in some of the posts. Granted, in most cases I would have no clue as to the accuracy of their claims, but I think that after Snowden, NSA, WikiLeaks, and the countless SEAL "I was there" books, there has been a desensitization to the importance of information security. The common person wants to get in on the action and show that they know stuff too...and Facebook and comment sections seem to be the venue of choice.
I typically review the comments section of military based stories and am often shocked at some of the detail found in some of the posts. Granted, in most cases I would have no clue as to the accuracy of their claims, but I think that after Snowden, NSA, WikiLeaks, and the countless SEAL "I was there" books, there has been a desensitization to the importance of information security. The common person wants to get in on the action and show that they know stuff too...and Facebook and comment sections seem to be the venue of choice.
I totally agree, but at the risk of stating the obvious we can only control our actions. There are too many sites to scrub even if the Mil had the authority.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
Yup. Since when did an A-10 only have two hard points, or a 1,000# payload???
Those are WWII era specs.
ETA-
I think I speak for a lot of end users when I say this- I'm not impressed by the military's fixation on smaller and smaller ordnance. From the SDB, to the 130W, and now this.
I guess they have a place in our world police missions, but our world police missions are proving ineffective- just like small bombs are against thick walls.
Last edited:
To say nothing of the thousands of locals and sympathizers who worked on Bagram and Kandahar who could see the ordnance loadouts on practically every mission. I never saw one maxed out, but can still recall their typical payload. As you know, there are some survivors who WISH they only carried two 500lb. bombs.
Collateral damage will stop a war faster than code-pink.
We need to harden the fuck up and stop wringing our hands when some "innocent" person gets taken out with the snake's head.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
Yep. I can shoot something bigger than a 2.75" rocket off of my shoulder. If I need an A-10, I want something serious coming off its wing!
