| Author | Message | ||
     Gregtonn |
As veteran and former designer of several Space Station modules I often wonder if high tech is better than the basic get it done tech. If I were a grunt in Iraq or Afghanistan I think I would rather have the 1 Wart Hog backing me up than a bunch of ??? directing 10 drones half a world away waiting for orders from some uninvolved DA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeIy7tp4FV4 Since after the end of WWII the Pentagon seems to be stuck in the lowest bidder and "Fighter/Bomber" mentality. As a result the guys doing the real fighting suffer. I hope someone understands and can come up with a better replacement for the A10. Until then keep it flying. G | ||
| Aesquire |
The end goal is to replace all the human warriors with robots. I must assume no one has seen Battlestar Galactica. Or any movie or tv show where building the unstoppable killing machine wasn't a great idea. Right Commodore Decker? | ||
| Fast1075 |
Fear has a lot to do with the effectiveness of any weapon system. If you have an enemy that wakes up every morning thinking "I hope today I meet my maker", you have an essential problem. Drone strike: Can't see it, don't know it's coming, and if it does, pretty much instantaneous, painless progression to paradise. A-10: In your face. You get to see your world shredded as it comes for you. Hell on earth. Kill you, kill your brothers, kill your dog, burn your house down. Agonizing death in a flesh rending orgy of shrapnel. | ||
| Two_seasons |
A-10 is my favorite too. Mass destruction, in your face warfare, as it should be. Pilots praise them. They are very capable war machines that can take multiple strikes and still fly. When we get back to the basics and allow our ground commanders to do the ROE, it makes for a better top-down org. | ||
| Aesquire |
The Air Force loves Fighters. Sleek, fast, sexy. Cargo pilots don't get to run the Air Force. Close air support isn't sexy. There's no movie named "Top Bomb". A-10's aren't sexy. They are great at the job, but in budget battles between billion dollar fighterts and drones..... And it's a job best done without using a fighter that costs more than you can buy the country you're fighting in for. Short form, you might want to spin off SAC ( whatever you call it..... they brought it back when the Air Force couldn't keep track of it's nukes...... and was no longer capable of effectively using them ) & turn the rest of the AF back to the Army. | ||
| Greg_e |
Since the design is all done, not sure why they don't just build a retooled A10? seems this should be a very cost effective method. No reason it can't have all the super sophisticated forward looking gobbledygook that the other new things have. They were designed for ancient electronics, should be plenty of room for the newer smaller stuff in today's fighter. And if you are a border patrol kind of person, put them on the border and really strike fear into illegal crossers. | ||
| Aesquire |
Trouble is the company that made it is gone. Yes, a better equipped version would have all weather capability, and this stuff was actually tested in a A-10, and works. But the Brass wanted fast fighters, not slow attack planes. And, to be fair, if you don't have the fighters, you can't expect the attack planes to get near the target. We are spoiled badly by the fact that since Vietnam we've had air superiority to an incredible degree. Saddam's air forces either ran away of were shot down quickly. In one case, by an A-10. But if the sky is roamed by SU-35's and they determine where you can't go, the A-10 is kinda useless. And modern Soviet... I mean Russian anti-air-missile defense systems are a far cry from the SA-2's used in Vietnam, or Iraq. And Russian missiles are cheaper than fighters. Certainly cheaper than losing your grip on your POS third world dictatorship, or your Anti-West Theocracy. We need superior fighters, but we quit making F-22s. And I'm less than enthusiastic about the F-35. I hope I'm wrong and it's a major success. But we still need the A-10. The Air Force doesn't want them, and "the Key West Agreement" forbids the Army from dropping bombs. We should give the A-10's to the ARMY and let them have an organic close support force. That would require a Commander In Chief with a clue and guts. Don't see one on the horizon. | ||
| Panhead_dan |
History has shown that if the brass wants it, the brass will get it eventually. They want that f35 thing and they are going to get it. They want to eliminate the a10 and that is the real problem. The answer is; give the A-10 to the Marines. Much like the B-52, it's just too good to mothball. Besides, it has Devil Dog written all over it, so to speak. | ||
| Hootowl |
"In one case, by an A-10" Pretty sure one or our helos scored a kill on one of their fixed wing AC too. | ||
| Court |
>>>give the A-10 to the Marines. We'd love it . . . . I always kind of equated the A-10 to a street fight with a ball bat. | ||
| Greg_e |
Doesn't matter if the company is still around, all documents are available and it is a proven design that has been upgraded through time. For the enemies we are currently facing, it is one of the right tools for the job. | ||
| Torquehd |
I've been on a "good handful" of DA missions in Afghanistan, and I prefer that A-10 hands down. It's a gun with wings. And a real-time, real-space pilot. Of course, for the last several years, the ROE have been preventing ANYONE in afghanistan from actually doing their jobs. | ||
| Henshao |
It's a great aircraft for what it does. There may be nothing better. But, the A-10 only works when there's nothing around to kill it. SAMs and fighters have to be dealt with first. My gripe is that we had the F-22, IT WORKED, we could have cranked out as many as we wanted, because IT WORKED, and then we axed it for the hugely cost overrun f-35 that doesn't work. If you had nothing but F-22's to make a path and then A-10's to control it, you'd be in a pretty good position. |
