A10, almost scrapped, new updated versions coming

[WillBrink]

I've had...A-10s, F-14s, F-18s, B-1s, B-52s, AV-8Bs...for CAS. A-10s better than most for sure.

Here's what I want: slow, loitering, metric crap-ton of armament.

But have you had a B-1B Gunship?! The mind boggles...

[JDH1]

The old A-1 Skyraider filled that role nicely in Vietnam. But it's goose was cooked when the SA-7 MANPADS made it's appearance.

So, one of the suggested replacements for the A-10 is the Super Tucano. That ought to work out well.

[ABNAK]

So, one of the suggested replacements for the A-10 is the Super Tucano. That ought to work out well.

I am far from an aviation expert, but the Super Tocano doesn't seem to have the "beef" around it like the A-10 or Skyraider. I also wonder what the payload capacity is compared to either of the previous ones I mentioned?

[pag23]

I am far from an aviation expert, but the Super Tocano doesn't seem to have the "beef" around it like the A-10 or Skyraider. I also wonder what the payload capacity is compared to either of the previous ones I mentioned?

From what I read the Super Tacano is more cost effective and has a better loiter time since it is not a jet engine, but armament is limited, so although it can hang around, once it runs out of stuff to drop its bye bye....

This might work in a low intense and limited conflict, but with ZSU and Manpads around it might not last.

[SteyrAUG]

I was always stunned by the idea of A-10s being somehow obsolete. It fills so many roles effectively.

Also every time a group of combat vets gets rescued by an A-10 their advocacy grows. I know they requested AC-130s in Somalia, but I think several A-10s might have cleared the roads and gotten everyone home after the initial contacts. They could have easily knocked out militia strong points and taken pressure off of pinned down groups.

Much as I love UH-60s, A-10s could have saved the day and those agile "brrrrp" gun platforms are a lot harder to take down with RPGs. I also think every time a Chinook tries to do a hover rescue of some SEAL group in places like Afghan mountains, a handful of A-10s flying close support would be worth the expenditure of tax payer dollars.

We do too much "glam rock" shit, especially when it comes to Navy dudes, and a couple A-10s playing "angry hornets" might have gotten most of Marcus Luttrell's guys off that damn mountain. I don't know what it costs to fly A-10s but it can't be much worse than waiting for AH-64s that are in high demand while A-10s are sitting somewhere dormant.

[SteyrAUG]

But have you had a B-1B Gunship?! The mind boggles...

Imagine if we have that available to get to benghazi.

[Slater]

The A-29 Tucano is supposed to fill a role called "Armed Overwatch". It's not in the A-10's ZIP code as far as range, armament, or ability to absorb damage. But it's probably a lot cheaper to operate.

[WillBrink]

Imagine if we have that available to get to benghazi.

Indeed. On the surface seems like a dumb idea, but once you consider how fast it can get there, how long it can loiter, etc, having a few of those in the inventory might make sense.

[jsbhike]

For supporting troops in an environment with no hostile aircraft or radar SAMs, the A-10 is fine. For major conflicts with foreign powers, it was suboptimal from the beginning.

The problem I have with the aircraft is that it's no good for the only role I think our military should be performing: The defense of the homeland against foreign threats.

I find myself viewing the transformation of our military into a force primarily dedicated to using force against large numbers of disobedient civilians with increasing alarm.

That far more absent than not observation has always made me shake my head.

[Slater]

In it's envisioned role of attacking the hordes of Soviet tanks pouring through the Fulda Gap in a WWIII scenario, it's hard to theorize how the aircraft would have done. Certainly would've knocked out a lot of tanks, but probably would have taken horrendous losses in return.