Comments on: JSF “Program Killer” Doubles Sales

By: drago

drago — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:54:32 +0000

It’s very straightforward. Both the A-10 and F-35 can drop bombs, but only the A-10 can strafe accurately and take hits.
Of course the A-10 is a far superior CAS platform. Many frontline Americans and Iraqis attest to that fact.
Why this always seems to come up for debate I’ll never know.

By: TB

TB — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:07:17 +0000

If I could design the A-10’s replacement (and I’m no engineer mind you), I’d probably add .50 cals, make it a little smaller but just as armored, and let it land on unimproved strips or roads. With the kind of job the plane performs, it shouldn’t spend much time in a rear airbase or have to wait for the Air Tasking Order in order to be out there. It should be as close to the ground forces as possible and get most of its missions from them. A ground support plane should be responsive to the needs of the ground commander above all else. The Marines have something close to this relationship with their air component. Instead of looking at an order and asking “what air might I get today?” they know by task organization what they can call on when they need it because the wing is subordinated to the ground mission.
I like to think of the A-10 as a hunter or a charging bull. It spends all of its time on the front line killing and pushing the enemy aside. Fear factor is important too when the enemy sees the plane barreling in and they just know their screwed. Iraqi POWs said they were most afraid of the A-10s above all other planes.

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:06:44 +0000

To the poster “TB”:
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
You wrote: “If the flimsy planes you listed had to do the mission without the A-10, here’s what would have happened: –fewer targets engaged due to fuel limits, fewer weapons…“
Excuse me?!
A-10 :
Armament: 7.260 kg
Combat radius: 252 nmi (290 mi, 467 km), 30 min combat on anti-armour missions
F-15 :
Armament: 7.300 kg
Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction missions
Even today I sometimes wonder why the U.S. Airforce didn’t choose the F-15 as its only or as its main airplane for fighter, fighter-bomber, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, anti-satellite (with ASM-135 A.SAT. missiles) and other missions back in the 1970’s, maybe even navalizing it! (More or less as the British did with their Phantoms, next with their Tornados and now with their Eurofighters)
More or less as the U.S. Americans are going to do now with their F-22s anyway (“one single plane type for each country / continent”).
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
You wrote: “Plus WWII tanks had much weaker armor than modern tanks.“
Not really: Of all the main belligerent nations of the Second World War the U.S. American tanks were generally the lightest and most vulnerable (oh come on, admit it: The 1980 M-1 Abrams tank was the first real tank which the U.S.A. ever had!), but, apart from this, the biggest difference between the World War Two tanks and modern-day M.B.T.s lies mainly in their engines, ergo in their speeds.
“Modern” tanks at the end of World War Two:
Panther: 44,8 tonnes
Hunting Panther: 45,5 tonnes
Tiger: 56,9 tonnes
Hunting Tiger: 71,7 tonnes
King Tiger: 69,8 tons
Elefant: 65 tonnes
T-34: 26,5 tonnes
KV-1: 45 tonnes
Iosif Stalin JS-2: 46 tonnes
SU-152: 45,5 tonnes
ISU-152: 46 tonnes
Sherman: 30,3 tonnes
Lee / Grant: 23,9 tonnes
Matilda: 25 tons
M.B.T.s today:
Challenger II: 62,5 tonnes
Abrams: 61,4 metric tons
Leopard II: 62,3 tonnes
Leclerc: 54,5 tonnes
Merkava: 65 tonnes
T-80: 42,6 tonnes
T-84 (Ukraine) : 46 tonnes
T-90: 46,5 tonnes
Type 90 (Japan) : 50,2 tonnes
As you see, the weight = the armour didn’t change THAT much between the 1940’s and now, at least not in quantitative terms (tons).
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
“And I’m pretty sure most of those WWII air attacks hit the lightly armored top of the tank.“
And the rear. The lower hull sides were generally also very thin and needed to be protected by all sorts of spaced armour (steel plates, grids, chain meshes etc., to detonate all arriving ordnance prematurely). Although after the arrival of shaped charges the Allied planes could fire their rockets arbitrarily from any side and from any angle against any tank.
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
You wrote: “Basically you boxed yourself in when you tried to compare the A-10’s gun with a 7.62 machine gun.“
I never did that. 7,62 mm was just a suggestion — amidst other calibres — to remind everybody that ANYTHING less than a 3 cm anti-tank calibre makes more sense as an all-around calibre against unspecified targets (= from enemy soldiers to trucks to airplanes to logistical storages, etc.).
I think that maybe a new calibre around 1,5 cm would be optimal (more space for fillers than a 12,7 mm calibre round, yet smaller than the exclusively anti-mat

By: TB

TB — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:37:59 +0000

“Sincerely, what makes you so proud of that? Do you consider that a success, a sign of their superiority, knowing that any F-16, any F-15 and in the future also any F-35…“
Actually yes, I consider those stats a victory for the A-10. Half the fleet took damage (repairable damage) and still dished out all that hurt. If the flimsy planes you listed had to do the mission without the A-10, here’s what would have happened:
–fewer targets engaged due to fuel limits, fewer weapons, fear of enemy defenses
–in order to destroy as many targets, they’d have to fly an impossible number of sorties
–if one of those planes gets nicked by AA, they’re toast
Like I said earlier, 140 A-10s did what 2,000 other planes could not. Do the math and figure how much fuel, time, and wear and tear that would equal on the rest of the fleet. I’d call buying the A-10 a sound investment both militarily and economically.
Many of the electronic-based air defenses were taken out by earlier bombing raids. There was still plenty of flak to put against the A-10, but it was mobile SAMs and lower-tech guns. Your response will be to state the high-flying F-16s abilities. My counter will be the F-16 would have been nervous to fly in there, possibly deny the CAS request, or miss the target.
Is the A-10 invincible? Of course not. But imagine the confidence of a pilot (and grunts on the ground) knowing that out of the dozens of sorties your one plane flew in the war, not only would you do the lion’s share of the damage, but if you got hit not only would you make it back to base, your plane would fly another day in the same campaign.
Earlier you mentioned the A-10 having obsolete sensors. The current A-10 has most of the same targeting pods and toys that the fighters have. In Desert Storm, the A-10 was the only plane that could engage targets THROUGH the burning oil fields. It could do that because it could safely fly below the smoke.
I’m glad you brought up Kosovo. Yes, that was embarrassing. Our air fleet was told it couldn’t fly below something like 15,000 feet due to fear of friendly casualties and as a result all kinds of targets were missed. The A-10 was there but I don’t believe it was allowed to attack the Serbs in its own special way. It is risky to put aircraft in range of enemy weapons. But if the mission requires it, would you rather send in a tank with wings or something made out of aluminum?
Fighter planes use 20mm guns to dogfight, not 7.62mm. There’s a huge difference in ballistics and I think they usually shoot closer than 1km away.
WWII planes used 12.7mm ammo. Like I said with the fighters, heavy bullet makes a difference. Plus WWII tanks had much weaker armor than modern tanks. And I’m pretty sure most of those WWII air attacks hit the lightly armored top of the tank.
You mentioned the Herc shooting moving targets on the ground. The C-130 Spectre uses 20mm, 40mm, and 105mm shells.
Basically you boxed yourself in when you tried to compare the A-10’s gun with a 7.62 machine gun. I don’t know if you’ve seen all these different calibers in person but a 7.62mm is the tip of a pencil, a 12.7mm is a dry-erase marker, and a 30mm A-10 round is a bowling pin. Imagine all 3 traveling at 2000 feet/sec and you can see the difference.
I will agree with you on the overkill of the gun when it comes to the A-10’s overall ground mission. As a ground pounder it’d be nice if the A-10 had a pod of .50 cals to use as well.
Another problem with the F-35 and its peers is high-flying precision bombing can almost be done by UAVs. In a few years Congress may ask why we’re spending $100 million per copy on a fleet of F-35s when a $5 million robot can do the same job. I’ve tried to explain that there’s much more to ground support than simply dropping a bomb on a grid coordinate. If you want to do it well and at low cost, the super sonic F-35 is not the plane for the job.

By: Valcan

Valcan — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:35:46 +0000

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123029281
“Known as the Precision Engagement program, the massive modification encompasses multiple enhancements that will provide the aircraft with all-weather capability to detect and strike targets from greater altitudes and distances using precision-guided weapons. The improvements represent a significant leap in operational capability for the Warthog. “
That was in 2006.
Its called upgrades. And there upgrading even more now.

By: steve

steve — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:34:51 +0000

Freefallingbomb crapped into a keyboard
You wrote: “One, you know nothing about me so don’t presume ANYTHING about me.“
Wrong: I know ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about you, so don’t try to tell me any bull-shit about yourself! You’re a perfectly transparent case to me, since your birth! (I even know what you want before you do!)
Remember: I got your number!
Okay, I was willing to try to debate and try to keep away from personal attacks, I don’t like to feed the trolls. But, you sir are no troll, you’re an ass. You obviously just want to start crap as opposed to any real debate or discourse. You lads have fun, I’ve wasted enough time on this.

By: Valcan

Valcan — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:09:50 +0000

Man i would love to here you explain to a cop
“well officer he did pull his gun out after shooting ‘im gonna!! f’in!! kill you!” about 15 times but i decided i needed to wait till he fires at me before i got ready or shot him after all i dont want to be a bully“
“Oh my wife is dead? from the first bullet? oh well that happens“
“My gun no no no i left that at home dont even have bullets i mean im not using it at preasent so whats the point”

By: Valcan

Valcan — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:01:23 +0000

“R

By: TB

TB — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:04:42 +0000

FFB,
The thousands of kills I was talking about CAME FROM Desert Storm, not OIF. 140 A-10s in 1991 flew over 8,600 sorties and destroyed 1,000 tanks, 1,200 artillery pieces, 2,000 other vehicles, 28 command posts, and 2 helicopters which were destroyed by the gun and not with missiles. It had a 95% readiness rate and many planes flew 3 missions a day. 70 planes received battle damage, but only six were shot down. Two of those made it back to base and crashed on the runway. Those 140 planes destroyed more ground targets than the rest of the coalition air fleet combined.
And for our accuracy argument, yes I know about sniper rifles. Sniper rifles can take out targets at up to 2,500 meters. Good for them. They can’t take out targets at 1,000 meters when both the shooter and the target are moving. The A-10 does. Your claim about sniper rifles and “worn out 7.62mm guns” is assuming the weapons are on stable platforms firing from the ground at ground targets.
Have you ever fired a 7.62mm machine gun from a moving aircraft at a target 1,000 meters away? If the target is sitting still, many of your rounds will still miss. If the target is moving, you don’t have a chance. A 7.62mm door gunner has no control over where the aircraft goes. A machine gun weapon pod is only as accurate as the aircraft is slow and steady. (you’re dealing with the ballistics of a round flying through the air with wind speed, aircraft speed, bullet speed, and gravity working against each other). The A-10’s 30mm needs to only fire about a dozen rounds per burst to hit that target. The machine gun will likely have to fire hundreds to get the same effect. And if the target is armored, you’ll just annoy it.

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:10:02 +0000

To the poster “TB”:
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
You wrote: “I don’t know where you get your ‘rifle range’ and vulnerability statements from“
“The gun is precise; it can place 80 % of its shots within a 40-foot (12.4 m) circle from 4,000 feet (1,220 m) while in flight. The GAU-8 is optimized for a slant range of 4,000 feet (1,220 m) with the A-10 in a 30 degree dive.“
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt#Development
Sub-chapter: “Weapon systems”, further downwards.
As a comparison: There are ARMOUR-PIERCING sniper RIFLES out there with 8.202 feet (2.500 metres) of effective range, did you already know that?!
Even 2 cm A-A guns use to have effective ranges of 2 — 5 kilometres, depending mostly on barrel length (2 cm Gatlings for example have smaller ranges) !
And put yourself once 4,000 feet (1,220 m) in front of any hill, spot any 40-foot (12.4 m) wide object on its slope, for example a house of that size, and then ask yourself what kind of gun / cannon only places 80 % of its rounds into it!
Even worn-out 7,62 mm rifles won’t miss it once!
.….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…
You wrote: “the A-10 has racked up thousands of ground kills“
You know in which bad shape these targets were: After the 1991 war against the Coalition, 12 years of subsequent embargo, imposition of no-fly-zones and constant chipping away at the Iraqi Airforce’s and Air Defense’s strength by Anglo airstrikes (= basically a 12-years-long war preparation), they were practically only waiting for a coup de gr