The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by dforrestwilson1 » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:02 PM UTC

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #47

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...…

> the A-10 is simply the best manned aircraft we have for CAS You won't hear it here or on jalopnik et all, but there's substantive disagreement on this. The A-10 no longer has a primary mission: the gun is not effective enough against modern tanks. For CAS in low intensity conflict it's both overkill and overly expensive per operating hour vs alternatives. The CEP on the big gun is >10m while the CEP on small guided…

You're not including the cost of training/replacing two people (pilot and assistant), when they inevitably take ground fire.

https://www.google.com/search?q=A-10+damage&safe=off&espv=2&...

That titanium bathtub is why it's valuable. Again, I think drones are a better long-term solution.

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

#52

Post by dforrestwilson1 » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:04 PM UTC

jokoon wrote: post #42

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...…

Can't apaches do CAS properly because they're not fast enough, so they make good targets?

Problem is they are too close to the ground and very audible. It's a delicate balance between accuracy and survivability.

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

#53

Post by dforrestwilson1 » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:06 PM UTC

55acdda48ab5 wrote: post #44

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...…

> the A-10 fleet as ground-piloted drones. This is just a super expensive and failure prone way to do what 100 year old artillery technology does. Site the enemy, call in artillery fire. Drone techno fetishism is a big problem right now. Most of this stuff does not work nearly as well as people are pretending it does.

Artillery (while often sufficient) is not as accurate as someone hovering/diving from directly overhead. This is why artillery often employs aerial spotters.

http://www.c4isrnet.com/story/military-tech/uas/2016/04/08/a...

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

#54

Post by GunboatDiplomat » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:06 PM UTC

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #47

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...…

> the A-10 is simply the best manned aircraft we have for CAS You won't hear it here or on jalopnik et all, but there's substantive disagreement on this. The A-10 no longer has a primary mission: the gun is not effective enough against modern tanks. For CAS in low intensity conflict it's both overkill and overly expensive per operating hour vs alternatives. The CEP on the big gun is >10m while the CEP on small guided…

I'm receptive to the argument that the A-10s mission could be accomplished by something like a Super Tucano. But the problem with this is that we both know the Air Force doesn't want to do actual CAS. They don't mind flying by at 800 MPH and 30,000 feet and dropping a smart bomb, but they don't want to get in the weeds. Unless the Air Force already has these aircraft in place before they retire the A-10, it's simply not believable that they'll buy them at all, unless forced. Instead, the money will be spent on some fast moving jet. So, given the two most likely scenarios, which are A-10 or not low, slow CAS aircraft, we have to argue for the A-10.

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

#55

Post by dforrestwilson1 » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:08 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #30

dforrestwilson1 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sta…

If we can make this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130

I'm pretty sure it's doable.

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

#56

Post by vinceguidry » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:30 PM UTC

dforrestwilson1 wrote: post #55

vinceguidry wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sta…

If we can make this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130 I'm pretty sure it's doable.

Apparently you have a different idea of what a quadcopter is than I do.

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

#57

Post by greedo » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:33 PM UTC

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #47

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...…

> the A-10 is simply the best manned aircraft we have for CAS You won't hear it here or on jalopnik et all, but there's substantive disagreement on this. The A-10 no longer has a primary mission: the gun is not effective enough against modern tanks. For CAS in low intensity conflict it's both overkill and overly expensive per operating hour vs alternatives. The CEP on the big gun is >10m while the CEP on small guided…

A lot of straw horses being set free here.

The primary weapon against tanks carried by the A-10 is the Maverick missile. The GAU-8 can do wonders against a tank especially perforating the upper engine deck etc, but it's really designed for destroying soft targets in combination with unguided rocket pods or CBUs. Comparing it's accuracy with PGMs (that it can carry as well) is disingenuous.

Oh, and you seem to be forgetting that the A-10 has had Litening pods for quite a while, giving excellent targeting and ID capabilities.

The A-10 is one of the cheapest a/c the USAF flies, excluding drones which still can't compare with the Hog for effectiveness. There's a lot to be said for the Mark One eyeball in the cockpit. The cost for flying the A-10 would be even lower if the service wasn't continually gutting its support infrastructure.

The Texan/Tucano light prop a/c is always trotted out as the cheap alternative, but the disadvantages are huge. No self-deploy capability, no survivability against MANPADS, single engined so lower ability to overcome mechanical issues, and kleenex for armor against groundfire.

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

#58

Post by Retric » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:45 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #25

Retric wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you mean the name sure we used the name M16 for a while. If you me the design then no.

The M16A2 is the oldest version still in limited use by US armed forces, it's significantly younger than the A-10 which first flew in 1972. This is a 44 year old front line combat aircraft.

PS: They really are different guns. The original version used a 20-round magazine, that's been replaced by a 30-round version. The long range accuracy was improved etc.

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

#59

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:47 PM UTC

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #50

55acdda48ab5 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the CAS mission the A-10 performs is effectively impossible against any modern enemy with modern missile systems and manpads. The A-10 is for shooting up poor brown people we're messing with for no particular reason, not for fighting a real war. The solution here is to get rid of the A-10 and simply not do "nation building" and counter-insurgency in poor countries. We don't need the A-10 because i…

OK, you tell the soldiers and marines who are currently on the ground and fighting that we're getting rid of what is, for them, the most effective solution. Until we're actually not fighting these wars, it's best to keep the most effective weapons to fight them around.

You could also tell them 'hey we're bringing you back home to the States' and I think that would help the medicine go down.

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

#60

Post by gohrt » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 4:51 PM UTC

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #59

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, you tell the soldiers and marines who are currently on the ground and fighting that we're getting rid of what is, for them, the most effective solution. Until we're actually not fighting these wars, it's best to keep the most effective weapons to fight them around.

You could also tell them 'hey we're bringing you back home to the States' and I think that would help the medicine go down.

but then adding "and laying you off from your job" might make it a bitter pill.