|
Liquid Communism posted:I'm not saying that -you- are, but that's the rationale they keep using to try and sell it to Congress. Hagel keeps harping on about retiring the A-10 fleet now to fund the F-35A, and tries to sell it based on covering the gap with drones and F-16's until the F-35A gets operational somewhere in the 2020's at best. Well they're only saying that because "we can save $4 billion by cutting a weapons system we don't need" gains absolutely no traction in congress. Just because congressman say dumb things all the time for a living doesn't dispute the idea that the A-10 is outdated and unnecessary. We don't really need the best single-role CAS aircraft that ever flew when we have lots of other things that do the job adequately. But then again I oppose functionally unchecked military spending just to have the absolute best capacity to boner confessor fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jul 4, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
Warbadger posted:It isn't fast, it isn't stealthy, and it isn't particularly durable (which isn't exactly unusual when it comes to aircraft). True, true, weeeeeeeeeell...not exactly. All aircraft are squishy compared to say, a tank, but not all aircraft are equally squishy. Titanium cockpit aside, like all aircraft if shot by AA weapons or missiles the A-10 will take damage. The difference is the A-10 is designed to keep flying with half a wing, half a tail, one engine and no power. So, I think it's definitely 'more durable'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
And then you scrap it anyways because it's become uneconomical to repair. Which is why since the gulf war A10's drop precision bombs from high altitude like every other aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:True, true, weeeeeeeeeell...not exactly. All aircraft are squishy compared to say, a tank, but not all aircraft are equally squishy. Titanium cockpit aside, like all aircraft if shot by AA weapons or missiles the A-10 will take damage. The difference is the A-10 is designed to keep flying with half a wing, half a tail, one engine and no power. So, I think it's definitely 'more durable'. If you're really interested in pilot survival, staying out of shooting range, using a drone, or making the airspace safer are all far better options than using a plane which is marginally less likely to blow up when shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
I've got to ask, has America considered to just give peace a chance?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:If you're really interested in pilot survival, staying out of shooting range, using a drone, or making the airspace safer are all far better options than using a plane which is marginally less likely to blow up when shot. Hard to do 'close air support' if you stay out of shooting range, though you're right it would definitely be safer. It would be pointless, but way safer. Drones will replace the A-10 (or replace its replacement) one day, and they would be very safe for the pilot - buuuuuuuuut we're not there yet so that's not very helpful. And, as pointed out earlier, the skies are already completely dominated when the A-10's flying about, so that box is ticked too. Guess the A-10 really does tick all the boxes at the moment for its job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:Hard to do 'close air support' if you stay out of shooting range, though you're right it would definitely be safer. It would be pointless, but way safer. Not at all. Like I said earlier, 80% of all CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were flown by planes other than the A-10 using precision munitions. This isn't the 1940's, you don't have to actually strafe whatever it is you're trying to destroy from the air. We've had smart bombs for decades now. The A-10 excels in a specialized role that we don't really need that much and that other aircraft can handle adequately enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Not at all. Like I said earlier, 80% of all CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were flown by planes other than the A-10 using precision munitions. This isn't the 1940's, you don't have to actually strafe whatever it is you're trying to destroy from the air. We've had smart bombs for decades now. If the A-10 was an expensive plane I would agree with that idea, but it's not - it's dirt cheap. In a military that squanders billions (like on this thread!) scrapping something that cheap, that's that good at its job, seems foolish to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:I've got to ask, has America considered to just give peace a chance? Lockheed-Martin is trying to bring peace in through the back door by giving us the most expensive plane ever that can't fight. Eventually, if we replace enough military equipment with vaporware, we'll be totally unable to prosecute wars and the rest of the world can live safe from the threat of America loving up their poo poo for no particular reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Not at all. Like I said earlier, 80% of all CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were flown by planes other than the A-10 using precision munitions. This isn't the 1940's, you don't have to actually strafe whatever it is you're trying to destroy from the air. We've had smart bombs for decades now. Pretty much this. The A-10 is a good aircraft but anybody that says it's the greatest CAS aircraft is really overselling it. Sure, it's able to take small arms fire when flying low and slow, maybe even anti-air fire. But if it's vulnerable to SAMs. It's had a good run but it needs to be retired. El Scotch posted:If the A-10 was an expensive plane I would agree with that idea, but it's not - it's dirt cheap. In a military that squanders billions (like on this thread!) scrapping something that cheap, that's that good at its job, seems foolish to me. Yeah, but you forget that it's in need of constant modernization.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:If the A-10 was an expensive plane I would agree with that idea, but it's not - it's dirt cheap. In a military that squanders billions (like on this thread!) scrapping something that cheap, that's that good at its job, seems foolish to me. Just because one thing is cheaper than the other does not make it a good option. If I said I wouldn't kick you in the balls for $100, otherwise I won't kick you in the balls for $5, would you still give me money? We just don't need it. It's handy to have around but just because it's relatively cheap for a thing we don't need doesn't constitute a reason to keep it alive. The A-10 is roughly as cheap as the F-16, which can do more than one role. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I'm not saying that -you- are, but that's the rationale they keep using to try and sell it to Congress. Hagel keeps harping on about retiring the A-10 fleet now to fund the F-35A, and tries to sell it based on covering the gap with drones and F-16's until the F-35A gets operational somewhere in the 2020's at best. I've always run up against this one question that never seems to get an answer: "Instead of spending hundreds of billions on the F-35, why don't we just make a couple Cost of A-10 in 2014 dollars: $19 Million. Cost of F-16 A/B in 2014 dollars: $21 million. Cost of F-16 C/D in 2014 dollars: $27 million. Let's call it an average of 25 million for the F-16: 400 Billion/25 million = 16,000. 400 Billion/19 million = 21,000. For the $400 billion we've spent on the F-35, we could have made about 16,000 F-16 planes, or 21,000 A-10s. Or hey, make it half and half: 8,000 F-16s and 10,000 A-10s. I'm pretty sure that could turn anything on the planet into a smoking cinder with that many aircraft. There's also reliability: for the F-16 specifically, we know exactly what to expect since it's been in service for so long, and it's used by 25 other countries, so there will always be a demand for parts that we can either use ourselves or sell to other countries. E: Popular Thug Drink posted:We just don't need it. It's handy to have around but just because it's relatively cheap for a thing we don't need doesn't constitute a reason to keep it alive. The A-10 is roughly as cheap as the F-16, which can do more than one role. fade5 fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Nah, that doesnt work for me. If you have a design that is proven to be pretty much golden but getting outdated by the march of technology, you keep the stuff that makes it so effective instead of chucking it out of the window and combining those specs with those from an aircraft doing a completely different job. Like the 737 has been in service now since 1968. So much has changed - flight systems, engines, cockpit instrumentation, wingtip devices, but a 737 built then and a 737 built now is recognisably almost identical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
When was the last A-10 put into active production? Have any been built since 1984? From my perspective it seems like you can't continue to fly the same airframes forever, even with extensive upgrades and repairs. Of course, an easy solution is to just keep making new A-10s. I've read that the infrastructure for assembling many legacy planes (machinists, machines, materials, general knowledge/skill) is suffering badly. An entire generation of machinists familiar with building previous gen aircraft have retired or moved on. That doesn't make a good argument for building something like the F35, but it is something to consider.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:I've got to ask, has America considered to just give peace a chance? Peace isn't very profitable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:When was the last A-10 put into active production? Have any been built since 1984? From my perspective it seems like you can't continue to fly the same airframes forever, even with extensive upgrades and repairs. Of course, an easy solution is to just keep making new A-10s. I've read that the infrastructure for assembling many legacy planes (machinists, machines, materials, general knowledge/skill) is suffering badly. An entire generation of machinists familiar with building previous gen aircraft have retired or moved on. That doesn't make a good argument for building something like the F35, but it is something to consider. 1984 was the last year they were produced, although many of the remaining stock have been recently upgraded to early 90's era tech with the A-10C upgrades to work with newer munitions. They also replaced the wings on about 100 of the active fleet as well as doing a lot of other necessary maintenance upgrades, which should extend their flying lifetime into the 2030's at a cost of about $2.25 billion. Pocket change compared to what has been poo poo into the gaping hole that is the F-35 program.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
The A-10 is great if you need to deliver a ton of ordnance on people who can't really shoot back. Unfortunately for the A-10 finding people that can't shoot back is becoming harder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Molentik posted:The Netherlands have two of the drat things as well for testing, but we can't affort the engines for them. This is the funniest thing I've read about the F-35 yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:The A-10 is great if you need to deliver a ton of ordnance on people who can't really shoot back. Unfortunately for the A-10 finding people that can't shoot back is becoming harder. This. A-10 can do poo poo all against anti-aircraft missile defenses. Yeah, the cockpit sits in a lead tub, the airframe can take a poo poo ton of damage, and the entire thing can continue flying if one of the engines is knocked out, but that's really all only useful if you're going up against an enemy that just has small arms and maybe even a couple of old Soviet issue anti-aircraft autocannons. Otherwise they're slow moving, low flying target for anybody with a MANPAD.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Why are you sperglords going on an A-10 derail? The A-10 can do something the F-35 can't do at the moment: fly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Why are you sperglords going on an A-10 derail? Pretty much this, at this point the Iraqi Cessnas are probably a more formidable plane than the F-35 so what the A-10 can and can't do is pretty irrelevant. What exactly on the F-35 works at the moment? It's been a while since I followed the plane but last I heard the hi tech helmet caused vision lag and the plane couldn't fly in lightning. Are things working better on it? Other than the engine catching on fire I mean.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:If the A-10 was an expensive plane I would agree with that idea, but it's not - it's dirt cheap. In a military that squanders billions (like on this thread!) scrapping something that cheap, that's that good at its job, seems foolish to me. There are planes that do most of what the A-10 does even more cheaply, like the Super Tucano.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
All aircraft are vulnerable to SAM, MANPAD, Guns etc, it's what those weapons are designed to do, so arguing the A10 is vulnerable to SAMs is like arguing that Lions shouldn't eat Zebras. CAS isn't just dropping Laser/GPS guided bombs, it's a skill set that those pilots have flying the plane, maintaining situational awareness not only of himself, but where friendlies and the enemies are and be on hand to make the call to bring immediate controlled lethal fire. So drone jockeys or high flyers isn't going to that invested or aware of what's happening on the ground. He is too busy erasing blips. Yeah, all aircraft would like to operate in permissive airspace, but it's loving war, you get shot at, if you don't want that don't start a war or join the armed forces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
The best part of all this imo is that the Chinese have long since stolen the tech involved with the F-35 and have built their own version, without VTOL and with two engines. Someone in China is like 'thanks FUCKERS' and building the plane with technology we paid Lockheed billions and billions to 'develop'
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:the best part of all this imo is that the Chinese have long since stolen the tech involved with the F-35 and have built their own version, without VTOL and with two engines The US has one of those too. It's called the f-22.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Instead of fighter planes why aren't we building battleships, tougher cavalry armor and a better longbow
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:All aircraft are vulnerable to SAM, MANPAD, Guns etc, it's what those weapons are designed to do, so arguing the A10 is vulnerable to SAMs is like arguing that Lions shouldn't eat Zebras. CAS isn't just dropping Laser/GPS guided bombs, it's a skill set that those pilots have flying the plane, maintaining situational awareness not only of himself, but where friendlies and the enemies are and be on hand to make the call to bring immediate controlled lethal fire. So drone jockeys or high flyers isn't going to that invested or aware of what's happening on the ground. He is too busy erasing blips Yeah let's think about all those times fighter planes made the difference in a war since the loving Zero
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:This would be an excellent entry in a "misleading infographics" competition. The total cost estimate is stretched over fifty years, while most of the numbers given in the image are over shorter timescales. haha gently caress you
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Yeah let's think about all those times fighter planes made the difference in a war since the loving Zero If you are talking about the A-10... it is been in what the Persian Gulf War, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. That said, if you are a fan of seeing American power limited, taking out the A-10 and trying to replace it with the F-35 is going to clip America's wings a bit. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:CAS isn't just dropping Laser/GPS guided bombs, it's a skill set that those pilots have flying the plane, maintaining situational awareness not only of himself, but where friendlies and the enemies are and be on hand to make the call to bring immediate controlled lethal fire. So drone jockeys or high flyers isn't going to that invested or aware of what's happening on the ground. He is too busy erasing blips.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Like I said earlier, 80% of all CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were flown by planes other than the A-10 using precision munitions. Do you have a source for this? My time in Iraq/Afghanistan was dominated by A-10s providing support. I saw an AC-130 literally once per tour, don't think I could identify any other plane but they weren't firing if they were up there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:The F-22 has managed to catch up to the Gripen in (hull loss) accidents since entering service, with loss of life to boot. Not really sure what's going on there, the fleet sizes are comparable and I imagine the Gripen has ratched up far more flight hours, on presumably older tech (more prone to accidents). And that's one of those dreaded single-engine designs. Granted, I don't recall either plane crashing due to engine malfunctions, so there's that. Gripen has had about 5-10 accidents in 15 years of service. Including prototype stage before it went into service. Two of those were because the testpilot stalled the jet since he was trained to fly with analogue control. Comapre this to its predecessor Viggen which had like 20+ Postorder Trollet89 fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
Postorder Trollet89 posted:Gripen has had about 5-10 accidents in 15 years of service. Including prototype stage. Two of those were because the testpilot stalled the jet since he was trained to fly with analogue control. Yes, generally newer designs are *a lot* safer than older generations. I mean, look at the first two generatins of jets. Most have between 1/4 and half of their planes lost to various accidents. I believe the whole 1-engine fear is mostly from that generation too, because those jet engines were shaky as hell. The more modern F-16 has around 12-14% hull losses over its service life for comparison. "Attrition peaked in the early 1990s, with over 30 airframes lost in 1991, 1992, and 1993 - the peak year being 1991 wih 36 airframes lost." So yeah, I don't think it will be that much of a real issue with either the F-22 or F-35 (well maybe for the limited numbers of F-22 actually available). Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 11:50 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
That wont mean poo poo if you need 100 hours of groundside maintenance for every hour of flight. Not only will your pilots be poo poo because they don't get any experience but you can't provide sufficient air coverage against a foe like Russia or China. They may have mostly 4th or 3rd gen fighters but they can keep them flying around the clock.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 11:52
|
|
|
Oh yeah, and on top of that there will be a lot fewer F-35s around, to cover for all those F-16, F-18 and a bunch of F-15s to boot. There's what, 2400 or something F-35s planned for the fleet? Compared to: 4500 F-16 (granted, half of those are not in US hands per say, but neither will every F-35 be) 1600ish? F-15, granted only a couple of hundred in service now 500 F/A-18 Super Hornet 400ish ordinary Hornets (plus a bunch in various allies hands) I hope those F-35 can put up 3x the flight hours! At least early accident rates are helped by simply grounding the entire fleet for a couple of months every time you discover something serious 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
If the Soviet Union had still been around the F-35 would not have made it as far as it has today. Competition does miracles to defense technology. Doesn't work in Healthcare though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
Personally, I'm in favor of shitcanning the F-35, revisiting the FB-22 and just making a Super Duper Hornet for the Navy. Or make the loving swing wing version of the F-22 that was being considered back in 1993 and would have been carrier capable.
ugh its Troika fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
Swing wing stealth sounds like a maintenance nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:1984 was the last year they were produced, although many of the remaining stock have been recently upgraded to early 90's era tech with the A-10C upgrades to work with newer munitions. They also replaced the wings on about 100 of the active fleet as well as doing a lot of other necessary maintenance upgrades, which should extend their flying lifetime into the 2030's at a cost of about $2.25 billion. Pocket change compared to what has been poo poo into the gaping hole that is the F-35 program. From what I recall the tooling was destroyed in the early 90s so production couldn't be restarted either. Though to be fair the only planes/spacecraft where the tooling and knowledge is actually being stored is the B2, Apollo, and the F-22.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
So, even if they fix all of the crippling defects, will the F-35 still just be an expensive bomb/missile truck?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 15:23
|
|
