Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Those planes are invaluable, in every recent conflict they proved their worth and everytime they try to scrap them.

Which is why the Air FOrce wants to get rid of them...(or the bureaucracy any way). We have to feed the beast with the JSF fiasco and something else incredibly expensive.

Army should just bust out with a cheap drone version of it or the old Bearcat prop. Drones are the future baby.

Remake the A-1 Skyraider! loads everything including toilets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
It can loiter forever and it's got a big-ass cannon. There's nothing better out there at close air support.

Wasn't one of the arguments for drones that they can loiter forever, and don't even have to worry about pilot fatigue while they do it?

And does having a cannon vs. bombs/missiles really make that much of a difference? Enough of a difference to justify the expense of operating the additional aircraft in the middle of a budget crisis?

Precision strikes are overrated. Sure, a drone can launch a hellfire down someones brown eye but it cannot strafe an enemy position. One warhead one kill. A-10 strafing run many many joyous kill markings to be added!

And a drone loitering having spent its armament is probably less effective than a vehicle which can loiter with some additional goodies to toss to anyone foolish enough to break cover. ((intel excluded).

no reason a drone can't trafe a position. Put them on a cheap prop platform and its boom boom boom, plus who cares if it gets shot down?

The A1 Skyraider was a successful ground attack aircraft because of its ability to move slowly and allow the pilot to acquire targets. The jets of the time were all fast movers. The A10 was the 1970s version of the same idea.

DakkaDakka discussed the possibility of remaking the Skyraider some months ago, and the expert opinion was that it is practically as hard to remake an old plane, for which all the jigs and so on have been scrapped, as to make a new design.

Beside, if you want a prop driven ground attack aircraft, there are modern alternatives like the Pucara. Arguably less capable.

Drones are a possibility, but there are queries over the ability of the operator to see targets clearly, as well as defend the drone. There must be a worry about the payload and the security of the radio link. Larger drones with a bigger payload are of course more expensive and larger targets.

So there are lots of arguments in all directions. Personally, I agree with Seaward that the proposal is basically a budget ploy.

One of the most common tricks a department can use during a period of budget cuts, is to highlight some of their more valuable assets as the things to be cut. Then the higher ups tell them not to cut those assets (as they're valuable) and the department in question can just shrug and say, 'Well, we tried...'

 Ketara wrote:
One of the most common tricks a department can use during a period of budget cuts, is to highlight some of their more valuable assets as the things to be cut. Then the higher ups tell them not to cut those assets (as they're valuable) and the department in question can just shrug and say, 'Well, we tried...'

Tell them to sell all the golf courses.
Yes thats a typical bureaucratic maneuver. Thats why localities always say "we're going to have close firestations and lirbaries! Won't someone think of the children!"

yes the Skyraider looks choice.
Now you don't need the Skyraider per se, just a simple prop plane with a radio/satellite link and a bomb rack.
Obviously the Marines should redevelop the Vought Corsair in similar fashion, because its epic cool.

The USMC is keeping theirs.Airforce is nothing but hi tech fly boys. Sorry NAvy Pilot Fan. but here is also a nice tribute video. and besides Egypt needs some new used planes.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=142_1286462290

 col. krazy kenny wrote:
The USMC is keeping theirs.Airforce is nothing but hi tech fly boys. Sorry NAvy Pilot Fan. but here is also a nice tribute video. and besides Egypt needs some new used planes.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=142_1286462290

The Marines don't have any A-10s.

JSF garbage...rabblerabblerabble...

I hear the Air Force is having a sale...

 Peregrine wrote:
Wasn't one of the arguments for drones that they can loiter forever, and don't even have to worry about pilot fatigue while they do it?

And does having a cannon vs. bombs/missiles really make that much of a difference? Enough of a difference to justify the expense of operating the additional aircraft in the middle of a budget crisis?

Yes, it makes quite a bit of difference. And the 'budget crisis' is entirely fictional, so we don't need to go removing some of the most useful aircraft in the inventory. This is designed to get Congress to ditch the sequester. It won't work, but it's a good try.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, serious question: considering only the wars that we can expect to fight between now and when the A-10s are scrapped because of fatigue problems, what exactly does the A-10 do that a drone or other plane can't? Or is this a case of needing X ground attack planes and only having X if we keep all of the A-10s?

Drones have limited loiter time, limited armament, less durability (its scary how much damage an A-10 can take and still be operational while the pilot sits in a titanium tub), and less capability to act as a command and control asset.

Also, no one paints scary shark faces on drones, so there is that aspect of it.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So, serious question: considering only the wars that we can expect to fight between now and when the A-10s are scrapped because of fatigue problems, what exactly does the A-10 do that a drone or other plane can't? Or is this a case of needing X ground attack planes and only having X if we keep all of the A-10s?

Drones have limited loiter time, limited armament, less durability (its scary how much damage an A-10 can take and still be operational while the pilot sits in a titanium tub), and less capability to act as a command and control asset.

But if you shoot down a drone, now one really cares. Make them super cheap and its even better.

 Frazzled wrote:
But if you shoot down a drone, now one really cares. Make them super cheap and its even better.

Just look at Colorado

 Frazzled wrote:
But if you shoot down a drone, now one really cares. Make them super cheap and its even better.

We don't really have any drones that'd make good CAS platforms at the moment, though.

Again, thats why we drone up Vought Corsairs.

We can call them "Pappy Boyingtons"

Eh. Drones working CAS makes me nervous.

I doubt the A-10'll go entirely. It might get transferred exclusively to ANG units or something like that, or maybe the Army really will outright buy it this time. It's only still around because they (and Congress) love it. It's the best CAS plane in our inventory, but on the other hand, we have plenty of multi-mission birds that can do the same job almost as well, and in rare cases, better.

Don't worry, they'll be out next...

Gentlemen allow me to present a possible successor, while it is lighter and smaller it is literally a perfect COIN aircraft, our pilots for the most part all know how to fly it, we already train mechanics to work on it, and they're a very reliable airframe.



The Beechcraft AT-6, because feth you we can do this old school.

I always run outside my house when I see the A-10s from Maryland Air National Guard 175th Wing fly over..

So, So cool.. my wife always makes fun me gushing over the engine noise..

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Gentlemen allow me to present a possible successor, while it is lighter and smaller it is literally a perfect COIN aircraft, our pilots for the most part all know how to fly it, we already train mechanics to work on it, and they're a very reliable airframe.



The Beechcraft AT-6, because feth you we can do this old school.

And it has a shark face! That's the important part.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Gentlemen allow me to present a possible successor, while it is lighter and smaller it is literally a perfect COIN aircraft, our pilots for the most part all know how to fly it, we already train mechanics to work on it, and they're a very reliable airframe.



The Beechcraft AT-6, because feth you we can do this old school.

I see the mandatory shark face, but nothing remotely similar to a GAU-8 on the airframe

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Spoiler:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Gentlemen allow me to present a possible successor, while it is lighter and smaller it is literally a perfect COIN aircraft, our pilots for the most part all know how to fly it, we already train mechanics to work on it, and they're a very reliable airframe.



The Beechcraft AT-6, because feth you we can do this old school.

I see the mandatory shark face, but nothing remotely similar to a GAU-8 on the airframe

Gimme some duct tape, and I'll correct that issue real quick.

And the first Ork Fighta Bomba is born...

Now....where's da red paint?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Gentlemen allow me to present a possible successor, while it is lighter and smaller it is literally a perfect COIN aircraft, our pilots for the most part all know how to fly it, we already train mechanics to work on it, and they're a very reliable airframe.



The Beechcraft AT-6, because feth you we can do this old school.

The AT-6 got kicked out of the Light Air Support program a few years ago. The Air Force went with the A-29 (Super Tucano) from Embraer. Think we're buying only like 10 of them, though.

If the A-10 does indeed go away, something like this isn't a terrible option, despite the nightmare the Air Force will have with retaining pilots.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The A-10 fills a gap we really don't have covered otherwise in our aviation forces as a dedicated ground attack platform with a high loiter time. Sure there's blocks of F-18 and F-15 that can fill in and be successful, but when it comes to CAS few birds in our inventory can even come close to providing support like the Hog.

I think the only thing that comes even REMOTELY close to the coverage is the AC-130... but getting airtime with that girl is about as likely as me going on a date with Miss USA


Personally, I think that they need to reopen the contract to build new Warthogs to help the aging fleet, instead of scrapping them. IIRC, didnt they "offcially" scrap it right before Desert Storm, realize it was the only thing capable of doing the ground support mission like it did, bring it back and then say "well that works damn well, why did we ever get rid of it in the first place?"

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So, serious question: considering only the wars that we can expect to fight between now and when the A-10s are scrapped because of fatigue problems, what exactly does the A-10 do that a drone or other plane can't? Or is this a case of needing X ground attack planes and only having X if we keep all of the A-10s?

Drones have limited loiter time, limited armament, less durability (its scary how much damage an A-10 can take and still be operational while the pilot sits in a titanium tub), and less capability to act as a command and control asset.

I saw this picture just moments before I read your post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_campbell_damage_a10.jpg



So that thing flew home after all of that...

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Those planes are invaluable, in every recent conflict they proved their worth and everytime they try to scrap them.

Which is why the Air FOrce wants to get rid of them...(or the bureaucracy any way). We have to feed the beast with the JSF fiasco and something else incredibly expensive.

Army should just bust out with a cheap drone version of it or the old Bearcat prop. Drones are the future baby.

Remake the A-1 Skyraider! loads everything including toilets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
It can loiter forever and it's got a big-ass cannon. There's nothing better out there at close air support.

Wasn't one of the arguments for drones that they can loiter forever, and don't even have to worry about pilot fatigue while they do it?

And does having a cannon vs. bombs/missiles really make that much of a difference? Enough of a difference to justify the expense of operating the additional aircraft in the middle of a budget crisis?

Precision strikes are overrated. Sure, a drone can launch a hellfire down someones brown eye but it cannot strafe an enemy position. One warhead one kill. A-10 strafing run many many joyous kill markings to be added!

And a drone loitering having spent its armament is probably less effective than a vehicle which can loiter with some additional goodies to toss to anyone foolish enough to break cover. ((intel excluded).

no reason a drone can't trafe a position. Put them on a cheap prop platform and its boom boom boom, plus who cares if it gets shot down?

I'm pretty sure the gun on the A10 is so powerful that if it was attached to anything else it would cause the plane to fly backwards whenever it was fired.

30mm's nice, but 20mm does the job as well. The A-10's good, even great, but it's also been a tad mythologized. I think we ought to keep it, but I also don't think it'd be the end of the world if we didn't. Strike Eagles and Rhinos can do the CAS job (because you want two guys in the jet on strikes, anyway), and the new Harvest HAWK stuff the Marines are messing around with looks pretty promising for more unconventional solutions.

 Seaward wrote:
30mm's nice, but 20mm does the job as well. The A-10's good, even great, but it's also been a tad mythologized. I think we ought to keep it, but I also don't think it'd be the end of the world if we didn't. Strike Eagles and Rhinos can do the CAS job (because you want two guys in the jet on strikes, anyway), and the new Harvest HAWK stuff the Marines are messing around with looks pretty promising for more unconventional solutions.

Problem is that F-15E's are limited in numbers already, and we won't be getting anymore. Plus A-10's are single seat aircraft as well.