View Full Version : A-10 video that the Air Force tried to suppress
In depth look at actual combat missions in Afganistan. High rate production values and getting to see what a pilot sees when he fires true GAU-8 30mm gun. 22min video
http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/us-air-force-really-try-suppress-amazing-10-video
Rucker61
10-13-2015, 13:37
Bitchin'
After watching the first 5 min I'm reminded of why I fell in love with that airframe. It's a beast! There's that old adage that says how the GAU-8 gave birth to the A-10: "Hey, we have this awesome gun, but we have nothing to use it for. Let's throw some wings on it and turn it into a plane!"
When I was in Afghanistan we heard on the radio that an A-10 was on station for close air support, shortly thereafter he was needed and when he flew about 1/4 mile north of our base and then opened fire with that gun we knew some Taliban just had a bad day. Hearing videos of them firing is one thing, but to hear that thing fire at over 4,000 rounds per min in real life is something to behold. Why the USAF wants to get rid of it, with it's battle tested and proven track record, is further testament to the excessive waste running rampant within our government. Upgrading the avionics on an existing aircraft is way cheaper than a whole new airframe customized for CAS missions. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Same goes with the F-15- which touts an impressive zero-losses record to air-to-air combat. For me, the jury is still out on the F-35.
Martinjmpr
10-13-2015, 14:10
Upgrading the avionics on an existing aircraft is way cheaper than a whole new airframe
Aaaaand THAT'S the problem right there. It's cheaper.
Cheaper means less $$$$ to stick to peoples hands.
Cheaper means the USAF doesn't get to funnel lucrative contracts to their buddies in the private sector (who were serving over them before they retired.)
Cheaper means less US tax dollars to spread in some congressman's district.
If I was the King of 'Merica not only would we save money by keeping the A-10, but we'd also save money by just getting rid of the USAF entirely. Give ICBMs to the Navy (or make them a separate service like the Soviets did) and put everything else back in the Army and call it the USAAF again.
Absolutely fukin awesome. Thanks man. Love the A10 and its role. If I could fly anything on the planet it would be the A10.
Great plane. But they are getting really old and relialibility rates are dog-shit anymore. Not just avionics, but everything is old and tired.
Sounds like time for hogging up, part deux.
Sounds like time for hogging up, part deux.
Hell yea. New builds , upgrades , not too different though.
Martinjmpr
10-14-2015, 08:50
Great plane. But they are getting really old and relialibility rates are dog-shit anymore. Not just avionics, but everything is old and tired.
The B-52 and C-130 are twice as old and still flying. [Dunno]
To say nothing of the Army's CH-47.
Which makes me think that if the USAF wanted to modernize the A-10 they could.
I've crewed Chinooks for over 6 years. A lot of our MH-47G have over 8000 hours on them, some can be traced back to C models and earlier from Vietnam. They get upgrades and mods from engines to avionics. Only thing original is the actual airframe.
The B-52 and C-130 are twice as old and still flying. [Dunno]
To say nothing of the Army's CH-47.
Which makes me think that if the USAF wanted to modernize the A-10 they could.
Yes, and no.
Not many B-52s or C-130s yank and bank at tree top level pulling boatloads of Gs, both positive and negative Gs.
The oldest C-130 out there right now that is still flying for Uncle Sam was made in the late 70s. And they are getting old also. All C-130s older than that are in the boneyard. We have a few of our planes that were made in the mid 90s that are in need of new wings.
New Hurks and Shithooks are rolling off the assembly line. Not so with the Buff and A-10.
I bet the AF would like to modernize the A-10, but with the military budget getting slashed more and more every year, it aint gonna happen.
As long as they never ditch the AC-130. Used to love having that beast in the stack
Isn't the AC-130 the MC-130 now
Isn't the AC-130 the MC-130 now
AC is the Gunship, still being made. U/W model and J model Ghostrider are still being made.
MC is the Combat Talon. Secret Squirrel stuff. Still being made.
AC is the Gunship, still being made. U/W model and J model Ghostrider are still being made.
MC is the Combat Talon. Secret Squirrel stuff. Still being made.
Did a lot of aerial refueling behind MC-130's. Some of the pilots are scary as shit trying to hook up to the drogue.
Martinjmpr
10-14-2015, 14:35
I bet the AF would like to modernize the A-10, but with the military budget getting slashed more and more every year, it aint gonna happen.
But there's money in the budget for that spectacularly expensive F-35, the most expensive weapons system ever fielded in history?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-looking-at-most-expensive-weapons-system-ever/
I wonder how many A-10's could be completely refurbished for the cost of ONE F-35?
Aloha_Shooter
10-14-2015, 14:44
I love the A-10 but ...
Why do so many people who know restoring an old car will cost you 10x what you paid for it think you can refurbish an old plane for 1/10 the cost of a new one?
I think the Air Force confirmed a lot of skeptics' worst fears when they tried to sell an A-16 to replace the A-10. I'm afraid Robert Gates screwed us all when he zeroed in on the JSF as a multi-role panacea, much like another Robert (Strange McNamara) wanted the F-111 to be the fully adaptable everything aircraft. Having said that, sustaining the A-10 and B-52 forever is not a cheap or easy task.
Service life of the B-52 is expected to go to 2040 and beyond. I don't know about banking and yanking, but the B-52 pilot that I bought my first car from wasn't too happy about flying them 100 feet above the Gulf of Mexico.
Martinjmpr
10-15-2015, 10:14
Having said that, sustaining the A-10 and B-52 forever is not a cheap or easy task.
So if it's too costly to refurbish the A-10 then why not come up with another plane that has the A-10's capabilities?
The USAF can't have it both ways. They can't on the one hand say that they "need" the $400 billion F-35 for some future war that we may or may not ever fight, and then turn around and say they "can't afford" a replacement for an aircraft that has proven to be absolutely invaluable in the real wars we are actually fighting (and are likely to be fighting well into the future.)
If the air force can't or won't procure the tools needed to fulfill their missions, one of which is providing CAS to ground units, then either (a) someone needs to get fired or (b) this mission needs to be given back to the ground forces and along with the mission, that chunk of the USAF's budget and personnel allotment.
The Air Force works for the people of the United States, it doesn't work for itself.
So if it's too costly to refurbish the A-10 then why not come up with another plane that has the A-10's capabilities?
The USAF can't have it both ways. They can't on the one hand say that they "need" the $400 billion F-35 for some future war that we may or may not ever fight, and then turn around and say they "can't afford" a replacement for an aircraft that has proven to be absolutely invaluable in the real wars we are actually fighting (and are likely to be fighting well into the future.)
If the air force can't or won't procure the tools needed to fulfill their missions, one of which is providing CAS to ground units, then either (a) someone needs to get fired or (b) this mission needs to be given back to the ground forces and along with the mission, that chunk of the USAF's budget and personnel allotment.
The Air Force works for the people of the United States, it doesn't work for itself.
Excellent points.
speedysst
10-15-2015, 17:13
Werent they just upgraded in 2012 by Lockheed Martin?
Great plane. But they are getting really old and relialibility rates are dog-shit anymore. Not just avionics, but everything is old and tired.
Kraven251
10-16-2015, 08:51
Do we even deploy AH-64s anymore? apples and oranges but as a ground support vehicle I would think they would be versatile and useful
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.