Discussion in 'The War Room' started by GhostZ06, Aug 20, 2015.
Really? Didnt Kobane taught us that high altitude bombers are enough to satisfy CAS requirements even in urban enviroments?
I would have though that drones would be ideal for more and more and more CAS. Small, long loitering times and even if they are taken out no pilot was lost.
Hell, you could have them be operated by guys from the units being supported!
Eh, the plus of the A-10 is the fact the infantry is in direct contract with the pilot an put guns on on target. Drones are more geared towards Deep strike
What's wrong with the A-10? Just that it's old?
yeah, it's over due for a successor
Awww snap! Looks like us Canadians are about to bring our Air Force up to 70s standards with some lightly used A-10s
Sorry to say I doubt it'll happen.
Parts wear out, or are outdated. Maintenance costs go up. Reliability goes down.
Is there something that prevents us from building more of them? The people we are fighting are not in an arms race with us. It's not like ISIS is more capable of destroying an A10 than an F35.
I think we can wipe out ISIS if we wanted. Then there'll be a vacuum which might be filled extremists once again. It happened before when the US left Iraq. The solution has to be organically grown from the region.
We don't need to design weapons for ISIS, we need to design strategies.
The A10 was designed to hunt Russian tanks. Russia is still our biggest threat.
Pretty sure it's not tanks that would be a problem in a war with russia.
On a more real thought, wouldn't it be a better idea to build weapons for the wars we actually fight? War with Russia has been defense contractors scare tactic for the last 70 years.
Pretty sure you need tanks for an invasion to hold territory in Europe.
If we didn't have weapons to deter Russia, they would invade much more than Georgia and Crimea. It's not a scare tactic. You're naive to think otherwise. It's not like they didn't invade the whole Eastern block countries.
You could technically build a more updated version of the air frame that's more to current standards, with better engines and internals. And the F-35 is a multi-role stealth jet. Why the hell do you need stealth for CAS? Also, the A-10 can take some serious punishment where an expensive Stealth fighter can not. Also F-35 doesn't have the same payload as the A-10 which is also important, same with loiter time. And the F-35s gun is weak sauce and holds like 10 rounds. Hell it was smart building the plane around the gun, we could easily do that again.
It sounds like you're making a case for sticking with the A-10. So why not update the tried and tested platform, and go with a compromise?
So this isn't about college basketball?
. Take the A-10C, Do some minor if not medium air frame changes, give it brand new engines, cockpit, new electronics and software. But we can only do so much to an airframe that old, so maybe the A-10 does need a successor
Sounds like a cost vs benefit scenario. I thought the A-10 was to be phased out prior to desert storm but has since proved it's worth over and over again in the sand box. Guess I don't see why something tested and true needs replacing, but I'm hardly an expert on military hardware.
Why do we need better internals, engines, airframe upgrades, etc?The thing works really good, and the people we actually fight are not advancing their weapons technology at all.
It doesnt sound like we need to be building a new plane, just tweak the design of the old one so that we can make more out of modern parts.
Separate names with a comma.