Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 117 posts

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#21

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

maxerickson wrote: post #6
the_ancient wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm, that is exactly what they are going They are bring forth the mission to decommission the A10, congress is saying no....

In my comment, a mission would be something like "close air support", not the level of maintenance to do on a specific set of aircraft.

But the Air Force is already tasked with that. Their 'customers,' i.e. the Army and Marines, say that they're trying to retire the best means of providing that support (and the Air Force is notorious for neglecting CAS if they can get away with it). So the only answer (as things stand) is to force them to keep the CAS aircraft of choice on flying status and not try to replace it with a woefully inadequate replacement. Or hand over CAS to the Army. Which is probably better long term.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#23

Post by maxerickson »

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #19
maxerickson wrote: post #2

This is something congress really shouldn't be doing. For example, how much of the scope ambition and scope creep for the F 35 came from congressional meddling? Someone recognized for their expertise in infantry strategy and tactics should be placed in charge of close air support procurement, given a preliminary budget to try to meet and then be given free reign to figure out what they can get from that budget.

What would be reasonable is the Air Force pulling its head out its ass and just giving the CAS role back to the Army, since they hate it so much. Seriously, just give the Army the CAS roles, and the Air Force can go zoom around in their shiny supersonic invisible aircraft, and the soldiers and marines on the ground can get the close air support they so need from an organization not doing everything it can to stop giv…

Yeah, I think separation of forces should also be done around capabilities rather than modes of transport. CAS should be part of some sort of infantry command.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#24

Post by vinceguidry »

dforrestwilson1 wrote: post #14
maxerickson wrote: post #2

This is something congress really shouldn't be doing. For example, how much of the scope ambition and scope creep for the F 35 came from congressional meddling? Someone recognized for their expertise in infantry strategy and tactics should be placed in charge of close air support procurement, given a preliminary budget to try to meet and then be given free reign to figure out what they can get from that budget.

This is a real moral dilemma for me. I served in the military, and the A-10 is simply the best manned aircraft we have for CAS. However, I also hate the defense lobby. One one hand there's probably a job interest in keeping the A-10 running. Mac Thornberry has taken campaign donations from lots of defense contractors, including some related to the A-10: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=2016&c...…

> They ought to think ahead and refit the A-10 fleet as ground-piloted drones.

Curious as to whether this is even possible. Even if it was, I doubt the pilot requirement is the only thing keeping the Air Force from wanting to keep it around.

Edit: Quora FTW

https://www.quora.com/U-S-Air-Force-Could-you-turn-the-A-10-...

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#25

Post by vinceguidry »

Retric wrote: post #15
the_ancient wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it is arbitrary definition you are making I fail to see how that is different than simply coming to congress with "We protect America now give us a trillion dollars of stolen money you pried from the citizens and do not dare ask us how we will spend it" I think every damn screw the military buys should be heavily scrutinized by someone outside the military, maybe congress is not the right venue but the idea that t…

Tools != goals. The A-10 is not useful to the modern US military. If congress wants to fund something better great, but as it stands the A-10 is simply wasting Money. It's like congress is funding muskets from the revolutionary war.

As long as we're making comparisons to infantry weaponry, the M16 rifle is nine years older than the A-10 Warthog.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#26

Post by yaur »

the_ancient wrote: post #8
maxerickson wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my comment, a mission would be something like "close air support", not the level of maintenance to do on a specific set of aircraft.

So it is arbitrary definition you are making I fail to see how that is different than simply coming to congress with "We protect America now give us a trillion dollars of stolen money you pried from the citizens and do not dare ask us how we will spend it" I think every damn screw the military buys should be heavily scrutinized by someone outside the military, maybe congress is not the right venue but the idea that t…

It's not arbitrary. Requirements need to be in the problem domain, not the solution domain.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#27

Post by jblow »

nosequel wrote: post #18
the_ancient wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Airforce does not want the A-10 The Army and Marines are begging to keep it I trust the Army and Marines more than the fucking Airforce

Why is that exactly? I love the A-10, and so does the Army and Marines, it is by far the best CAS weapon we have. The airforce knows more about aircraft and keeping those aircraft in the air than both the army and marines. Unfortunately the A-10 is old, and no one is manufacturing replacement parts for it. So as of right now the air force is happy with AC-130 gunship and the F-15E, F35. I hate the idea of the A-10 go…

You act as if it's somehow not easier to commission the remanufacture of parts for a well-understood plane than it is to manufacture a whole new, untested plane.

Come on, seriously.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#28

Post by maxerickson »

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #21
maxerickson wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my comment, a mission would be something like "close air support", not the level of maintenance to do on a specific set of aircraft.

But the Air Force is already tasked with that. Their 'customers,' i.e. the Army and Marines, say that they're trying to retire the best means of providing that support (and the Air Force is notorious for neglecting CAS if they can get away with it). So the only answer (as things stand) is to force them to keep the CAS aircraft of choice on flying status and not try to replace it with a woefully inadequate replacement…

I'm coming at it from a perspective that separation of forces and procurement are broken. Given the way things are, I'm not hugely concerned that this bill is being written, but I'm still complaining about the way things are.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#29

Post by dforrestwilson1 »

vinceguidry wrote: post #24
dforrestwilson1 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a real moral dilemma for me. I served in the military, and the A-10 is simply the best manned aircraft we have for CAS. However, I also hate the defense lobby. One one hand there's probably a job interest in keeping the A-10 running. Mac Thornberry has taken campaign donations from lots of defense contractors, including some related to the A-10: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=2016&c...…

> They ought to think ahead and refit the A-10 fleet as ground-piloted drones. Curious as to whether this is even possible. Even if it was, I doubt the pilot requirement is the only thing keeping the Air Force from wanting to keep it around. Edit: Quora FTW https://www.quora.com/U-S-Air-Force-Could-you-turn-the-A-10-...

I don't know why you were downvoted but I think it's a fair question. I think the biggest limitations would be keeping a solid comms link (you don't want to lose connection in mid-dive for instance), and air speed (you want more reaction time due to the potential for lag or lost connections).

You would want to build in auto-pilot redundancies to have the drones fly home if they lose communications links.

For speed, the A-10 would be one of the better candidates, due to its slower loitering speed of about 300 Mph which is still significantly faster than an MQ-9 Reaper (200 Mph or so), but in-line with the MQ-9's top speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper

Another interesting option would be to strip out the gun mount from the A-10 and slap it on the underside of a quadcopter drone as a turret.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#30

Post by vinceguidry »

dforrestwilson1 wrote: post #29
vinceguidry wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They ought to think ahead and refit the A-10 fleet as ground-piloted drones. Curious as to whether this is even possible. Even if it was, I doubt the pilot requirement is the only thing keeping the Air Force from wanting to keep it around. Edit: Quora FTW https://www.quora.com/U-S-Air-Force-Could-you-turn-the-A-10-...

I don't know why you were downvoted but I think it's a fair question. I think the biggest limitations would be keeping a solid comms link (you don't want to lose connection in mid-dive for instance), and air speed (you want more reaction time due to the potential for lag or lost connections). You would want to build in auto-pilot redundancies to have the drones fly home if they lose communications links. For speed, t…

> Another interesting option would be to strip out the gun mount from the A-10 and slap it on the underside of a quadcopter drone as a turret.

Are you talking about this monster?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger

No way could you put that thing on a helicopter. It barely fits on a plane (the entire plane was designed around that gun) as it is.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/21/

Even if you managed to make it stable enough to sustain fire on a target, where would you put the ammo drum? A-10s have special stands you have to put under them when you take the drum out, otherwise the whole thing tips over.

Post reply on HN