# A 10 club



## MacArther (Jan 12, 2006)

I'm sorry, but I don't really care much for the JSF, in any form. The F22 is OK, but the A10 warthog owns all in the close-support, suppression, attak, and anti-tank. Heck, it could even go for regular bombing if brass wanted it to. Plus, ya gotta love the sleek lines on the plane  , but seriously, I would hate to even *see* an A10 coming after me, let alone know it was going to obliterate me.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 12, 2006)

The A10's are getting old and eventually a lot of money will be needed to upgrade and maintain them.

Plus theyre still slow flying and AA missles and guns have gotten far deadlier than for the era they were designed to fly and fight in.


----------



## marconi (Jan 12, 2006)

What is your opinion about Su-25? Is it better than A-10 or not?


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2006)

No doubt the SU25 is a tough nut but the A10 wins hands down in every department.


----------



## marconi (Jan 12, 2006)

Why?


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2006)

The easy ones first. Pilot visibility and the gun, the SU25 cannot match them. The A10 also has the better electronics, night sights and missiles.

Less obvious. The A10's engines exhaust their hot air over the wing using the wing to help mask the IR signature.

Both are well armoured but the A10 has better redunancy eg the engines are far apart. If one is hit the other may well survive, redundant systems abound in the A10.

I am sure that there are other benefits to the A10 which other people will add to this initial list.

Small point my wife has always called the A10 the Bullfrog. Please don't ask me why there is no logic or reason to it, but its become the family name for the A10.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 12, 2006)

Glider said:


> Small point my wife has always called the A10 the Bullfrog. Please don't ask me why there is no logic or reason to it, but its become the family name for the A10.


Must've come from it's days in green. 

Personally I've never found it to be an ugly aircraft at all, unlike the general consensus.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 12, 2006)

I don't think it is that bad but I prefer the JSF/F-35. As for the A-10 vs SU-25, I agree that the A-10 is better for the reasons stated.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2006)

Dont forget the fact that an A-10 can lost part of its wing and still fly home. It happened in the 1st Gulf War. The thing is a marvelous aircraft and hard to bring down. A-10 over Su-25 anyday.


----------



## MacArther (Jan 13, 2006)

And ya gotta love the 30mm cannon the whole plane is designed *around*. In contrast, most planes are designed around the engines, or the intial frames.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2006)

I think thats actually a myth it was designed around it...

Also with the A-10's undercarriage retracted, it will still be able to land on the wheels as they are lef tpoking out, in case undercarriage failure...

A-10 is a brilliant piece of design...


----------



## MacArther (Jan 13, 2006)

It actually is not a myth, I've seen the documentaries about it. That, and one of my old friend's dad served on the design team.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2006)

The A-10 is the hands down ground slogger. When I was in training one time, we had one pop over a rise and dive on us while wiggling his wings (bang, we are all dead!). We never heard him coming. Missiles fired at aircraft are typically armed at a certain altitude. This becomes a problem when the A-10 is coming at you at treetop level. Groundfire is a minimal threat as the armor in that thing is excellent. 

There is nothing in the works that even comes close to the A-10. You need a slow, heavily armed and armored aircraft for the job, not some fast, thin skinned fighter doing it as a secondary duty. They learned that during Gulf War I.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 13, 2006)

A perfect job for UAV's. I could imagine a conflict in the future where hundreds of semi autonomous drones could be launched by troops in the field, each with a high powered anti-armour explosive, all diving on their targets.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 13, 2006)

> A perfect job for UAV's. I could imagine a conflict in the future where hundreds of semi autonomous drones could be launched by troops in the field, each with a high powered anti-armour explosive, all diving on their targets.


Perfect opportunity for Jamming.... 


> The A10's are getting old and eventually a lot of money will be needed to upgrade and maintain them.


Agreed 100% sys... But until the gov't decides that they need to be replaced and put out a new contract, thats exactly whats going to happen... S*it, they still use Phantoms for Wild Weasel missions...

The A-10 is my favorite Modern Day aircraft, and probably my favorite plane period... Ugly??? I think not... It saved my ass in combat a couple of times...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 13, 2006)

The F4 wild weasels were retired shortly after Gulf War 1.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 13, 2006)

I stand corrected, thanks... Just saw a segment on Discovery Wings the other day... I guess it was dated material...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2006)

The A-10 is the ultimate Tank Killing machine and I do not see it being replaced very soon.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 15, 2006)

they put in an appearance in Jarhead, good film and it's a good sequence with them, even if they are shooting at americans


----------



## MichaelHenley (Jan 15, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> A perfect job for UAV's. I could imagine a conflict in the future where hundreds of semi autonomous drones could be launched by troops in the field, each with a high powered anti-armour explosive, all diving on their targets.



Thats what the British Defence White Paper basically thought in April 1957...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 16, 2006)

I saw Jarhead yesterday, it is a good movie. But if those A-10s had really done that, all of those people would have been dead. Have you actually seen the destructive force of that cannon? Compare it to the splatters in the ground on Jarhead...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2006)

I got to see an A-10 tare up some people in some trucks in Iraq. Was really impressive. Wish I had my camara.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 16, 2006)

"tear", not tare. Unless youre talking about the tare weight of the truck before and after being destroyed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2006)

LOL ooops type!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 16, 2006)

> Have you actually seen the destructive force of that cannon?


Yes I have, and I can tell u that there is no way to recreate the destructive power of the GAU-8A short of actually finding the remnants of some destroyed vehicles.... We were able to identify hands, feet and shoes, and a couple of perforated helmets, thats it...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2006)

Good pic there. I too have seen it Les and it is rather amazing!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 20, 2006)

Heh. I wish I had one of those cannons mounted to my car sometimes.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 20, 2006)

Hell, u better have a pretty big freakin car NS....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 20, 2006)

I'd have outriggers, a trailer for the ammo, the works.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 20, 2006)

I think they should adapt it and make it the standard infantry sidearm.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

LOL and then CC all of a sudden just evaporated!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 22, 2006)

> I think they should adapt it and make it the standard infantry sidearm.


Sorta like this guy CC???


----------



## MacArther (Jan 22, 2006)

I want one of those to go gopher hunting!


----------



## Glider (Jan 22, 2006)

And who is going to carry the ammo!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 22, 2006)

Nah les I was thinking larger, more like this... (ignore the M-60, I couldnt be bothered to edit it out  )


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

LOL That is so funny, I could not even think of what to say about it. All I could do was laugh.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jan 22, 2006)

That gun in the A-10 sure can tear the hell out of almost anything!! A-10 kicks ass!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 22, 2006)

MacArther said:


> I want one of those to go gopher hunting!


 How about Beaver trappin?


----------



## Aggie08 (Jan 23, 2006)

I saw Jarhead and was pretty sure that the cannon effect was downplayed quite a bit. The one scene was pretty dang cool when they destroyed the air control tower with retarded bombs.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 24, 2006)

Aggie08 said:


> I saw Jarhead and was pretty sure that the cannon effect was downplayed quite a bit. The one scene was pretty dang cool when they destroyed the air control tower with retarded bombs.



that wasnt a retarded bomb it was one of those Vapour Bombs or whater theyre called.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 24, 2006)

Yea SpecForces, it was a Whatevertheyrecalled Bomb, or in laymans terms, a FAE or Fuel Air Explosive...


----------



## Aggie08 (Jan 24, 2006)

> that wasnt a retarded bomb it was one of those Vapour Bombs or whater theyre called.



I don't know why, but i've never heard of them. Any info?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 24, 2006)

Here is some good info on the Fuel Air Explosive bombs:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 24, 2006)

Interesting site Eric, I didn't know anything about them either.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 24, 2006)

That FAS site has some great info on weapon systems, planes, tanks and all kinds of good stuff. I have used it for reference many times.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jan 24, 2006)

Thanks for sharing Evanglider! I'll check it out.


----------



## LTARaptr (Jan 26, 2006)

Yes the A-10 was designed around the cannon which goes from nose to just in front of the wing including the ammo drum. As for being replase anytime soon, that would be a tremendous mistake.


----------



## LTARaptr (Jan 26, 2006)

Uh, that's replaced you dumb ass.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 26, 2006)

There is a little button on the right side of your post that allows you to edit your post.


----------



## Aggie08 (Jan 28, 2006)

Boy, those fuel air bombs are wicked. I had never even heard of them. I sort of want to see the movie again just for that one scene now.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

LTARaptr said:


> Yes the A-10 was designed around the cannon which goes from nose to just in front of the wing including the ammo drum. As for being replase anytime soon, that would be a tremendous mistake.



I really doubt that they will replace it anytime soon. After actually seeing the power that they have in Iraq, I am sure they will not replace them soon.


----------



## LTARaptr (Jan 31, 2006)

Oh....... I know they won't. It's not in my gov's nature to retire any military machine until they have completely out lived their usefulness case in point the Buff-52. The "Hog" will be around for quite a while, but that's just my opinion I could be wrong.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 31, 2006)

The newest A10's are now over 20 years old. Its not a question of "if", but when they will need major maintence and overhauls. That will be quite expensive.

Technology is marching on and its inevitable that close air support in a defended airspace will be performed by drones and UAV's.

The B52 has been around for so long because its airframe is so big its adaptable for any mission. Plus it fly's at 30,000 feet which provides it with a bit of immunity to most SAM's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The newest A10's are now over 20 years old. Its not a question of "if", but when they will need major maintence and overhauls. That will be quite expensive.
> 
> Technology is marching on and its inevitable that close air support in a defended airspace will be performed by drones and UAV's.
> 
> The B52 has been around for so long because its airframe is so big its adaptable for any mission. Plus it fly's at 30,000 feet which provides it with a bit of immunity to most SAM's.



At *50,000 *feet you're not immuned to SAMS!

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/ruairdef001.htm


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 31, 2006)

B52's wont fly in contested airspace. At 30,000 feet the smaller shoulder fired SAMS and most AAA wont reach that high.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> B52's wont fly in contested airspace. At 30,000 feet the smaller shoulder fired SAMS and most AAA wont reach that high.



No - look at linebacker II. 10 B-52s were brought down by SAMs, another 16 were damaged, if you think you're safe at 30,000 or even 50,000 feet you're dreaming.....

The B-52 tactical role is now a low level standoff and interdiction. The only reason they've been recently used at high altitude was because there was no AA to bring them down.

See this...

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/n19991119_992119.htm


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 31, 2006)

Im talking about now, not 1972.

If the enemy had the SAMS capable of reaching the higher latitudes, other AF aircraft would take out the launchers before the B52's got around.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Im talking about now, not 1972.
> 
> If the enemy had the SAMS capable of reaching the higher latitudes, other AF aircraft would take out the launchers before the B52's got around.



As in 1972 AND TODAY you cannot send a B-52 into hostile airspace unless you have air superiority, and in essence the B-52s real role today is LOW LEVEL!!!

And just to say you're going to take out SAM launchers is easier said than done. We did it against Iraq, do you think we would of had the same cakewalk against the Soviet Union?!? I don't think so!!!!

Against a formidable enemy the B-52 cannot operate at high altitude, it's best used as a standoff weapon at low level, that's why the USAF changed its rold and modified it just to do that. The high altitude missions it has been undertaking are accomplished becuase the enemy has no SAMs.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2006)

And it can carry quite a few Tomahawks for standoff firing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Yeap your right FBJ. That is why we were flying at about 25ft through Iraq even a year after the Iraqi Army fell.

Here is info on the usual MANPADS that were encounter in Iraq:

*SA-7 GRAIL 9K32M Strela-2
HN-5 (Hongying 5) China
Anza MKI - Pakistan
Ayn as Saqr - Egypt *

*Specifications* 
Date of Introduction 1972 
Proliferation Worldwide 
Crew 1 
Launcher Name 9P54M 
Length (m) 1.47 
Diameter (mm) 70 
Weight (kg) 4.71 
Reaction Time 5-10 seconds (acquisition to fire) 
Time Between Launches (sec) INA 
Reload Time (sec) 6-10 
Missile Name 9M32M 
*Max. Range 5,500 meters *
*Min. Range 500 meters *
*Max. Altitude 4,500 meters *
*Min. Altitude 18 meters* 
Length (m) 1.40 
Diameter (mm) 70 
Weight (kg) 9.97 
Missile Speed (m/s) 580 
Propulsion Solid fuel booster and solid fuel sustainer rocket motor. 
Guidance Passive IR homing device (operating in the medium IR range) 
Seeker Field of View 1.9° 
Tracking Rate 6°/sec 
Warhead Type HE 
Warhead Weight (kg) 1.15 
Fuze Type Contact (flush or grazing) 
Self-Destruct (sec) 15 
FIRE CONTROL Launcher has sighting device and a target acquisitionindicator. 
The gunner visually identifies and acquires the target. 
Gunner Field of View INA 
Acquisition Range (m) INA 
VARIANTS SA-N-5 Naval version
HN-5A Chinese version
Strela 2M/A Yugoslavian upgrade
Sakr Eye Egyptian upgrade
Mounted in several types of vehicles in four, six, and eight-tube launcher varieties.
Can be mounted on several helicopters (Mi-24, S-342 Gazelle)

*SA-14 GREMLIN 9K34 Strela-3 *

*Specifications *
Designation 9K34 Strela-3 
Date of Introduction 1978 
Proliferation Worldwide 
Crew 1 
Launcher Name 9P59 
Dimensions 
Length (m) 1.40 
Diameter (mm) 75 
Weight (kg) 2.95 
Reaction Time (sec) 14 
Time Between Launches (sec) 35-40 
Reload Time (sec) 25 
Missile Name 9M36 or 9M36-1 
*Max. Range (m) 6,000 
Min. Range (m) 600 
Max. Altitude (m) 6,000 
Min. Altitude (m) 50 *Length (m) 1.4 m 
Diameter (mm) 75 mm 
Fin Span (mm) INA 
Weight (kg) 10.3 
Missile Speed (m/s) 600 
Propulsion 2-stage solid-propellant rocket 
Guidance passive IR homing 
Seeker Field of View INA 
Tracking Rate INA 
Warhead Type Frag-HE 
Warhead Weight (kg) 1.0 
Fuze Type Contact/grazing 
Self-Destruct (sec) 14-17 
FIRE CONTROL Sights w/Magnification
Launch tube has simple sights 
Gunner Field of View ( o ) INA 
Acquisition Range (m) INA 
IFF Yes 
VARIANTS Igla 9M39 (SA-N-8) Naval version 

*SA-16 GIMLET Igla-1 9K310*

*Specifications* 
Maximum Speed 2+ Mach 
Effective Altitude 3,500 m 
Effective Range 500 -- 5,000 m 
Altitude 10-3500 m 
Warhead HE 2kg 
Guidance passive 2-color IR and 
UV homing 
Fuze Contact and graze 
Kill Radius Unknown 

*SA-18 GROUSE Igla 9K38
SA-N-10 GROUSE Igla-M *

*Specifications* 
Contractor 
Entered Service 
Total length 
Diameter 
Wingspan 
Weight 
Warhead Weight 
Propulsion 
Maximum Speed 
*Maximum effective range 5200 meters 
altitude, (m) 10-3500 *
Guidance mode passive IR homing 
emplace/displace time 13 sec 
Single-shot hit probability 

So as you can see the yes the MANPADS do not have the range or alltitude to reach a high flying aircraft however these SAMs can reach aircraft at these alltitudes: SA-1: 60,000ft to 80,000ft, SA-2: 100m to 100km alltitude, SA-4: 100m to 27,000m, SA-6: 80m to 11,000m. These are just the older missles, what about the new stuff. As you can see even a B-52 flying at 50,000ft is in direct threat of being shot down by SAMs. As FBJ said most B-52 missions now call for low alltitude flying. 

The reason for this, believe it or not, is visability and below the radar.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2006)

Great info Adler!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Thankyou


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2006)

yes back then they weren't even sure they needed the lightening, the plan was for a fully AA missile defence of tyhe UK............


----------



## plan_D (Feb 4, 2006)

What's a Lightening? You mean the Lightning? The Lightning came extremely close to being cut in the early years because of government cut-backs, that centered around AA missiles being able to stop any attacking force.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2006)

Interesting that I did not know. Obviously that does not work because well every conflict except for Korea and Vietnam we have bombed the shit out of them and SAMs did not stop us.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 5, 2006)

The MoD realised in the 1960s that SAMs cannot stop all aircraft coming in. And they also realised that air superiority is a much safer option then letting the enemy have free roam and hoping SAMs would stop them. 

Possibly the Vietnam war influenced them...


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2006)

I think the Oct '73 Arab-Israeli war showed that SAM defense must be multi-layered with AAA.

You need EFFECTIVE SAM's and AAA effective for all altitudes so your target has no options in which way to dodge the missles.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 5, 2006)

And you need interceptors, first and foremost.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 5, 2006)

plan_D said:


> And you need interceptors, first and foremost.


Agreed, air superiority is the best form of defence. If nobody can come into your airspace then you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2006)

But a highly effective SAM/AAA defense can make it very costly for the attacker.

The most effective militaries are those that know their limitations, and spend their budgets and resources for what gives the best bang for the buck.

Having a few great interceptors might look good on paper, but having hundreds of SAM's and thousands of AAA is even better.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 5, 2006)

Where did I say that I wouldn't have SAM/AAA defence. Of course behind the interceptor screen you have SAM's and AAA to catch those that the interceptors don't. Always have an alternative/back-up plan and I agree with that statement that those that know there limitations are the most effective militaries.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2006)

I was reffering to having an effective interceptor fleet. Having a few here and there isnt going to accomplish much. If you could afford having a couple of squadrons of aircraft and the training that goes with it, then its a welcome addition. 

But for most militaries, its quite expensive.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 5, 2006)

The MoD never stated that interceptors made AA pointless, it in fact tried to state that AA could replace interceptors. Which is completely false, and they discovered it. 

For an effective AA defence, you need AAA, SAM and interceptors. The interceptors are the first and most important line of defence.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2006)

If you can afford them.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 5, 2006)

Anyone can afford interceptors, cheap aircraft are coming from all over. Ex-Russian equipment is always good and cheap. Don't be stupid, the MoD already thought that interceptors were pointless in the 1950s and 1960s because AA and SAM could knock out the enemy aircraft - WRONG! They can't. Interceptors are the most important part of the AA defence. 

You need all three. Any country can afford old MiG-21s ... and if you're a poor nation, you're normally surrounded by poor nations. So, there yah go ... on equal footing.


----------



## MacArther (Feb 8, 2006)

On a more topic related note, anyone seen the footage of the Iraqi escape road (with vehicles) from Gulf War 1 that the A10s shredded, along with all of the occupants?  Had the Russians started an armored push into Germany, the A10 would have been destroying many of their vehicles before they could do *any* damage to Allied territory or equipment (/personel).


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 8, 2006)

And quite a few A10's would have been shot down by the far superior and maintained Russian AAA systems.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 8, 2006)

> And quite a few A10's would have been shot down by the far superior and maintained Russian AAA systems.


That is 100% correct, as long as they werent carrying any anti-radiation missles...


----------



## marconi (Feb 8, 2006)

MacArther said:


> Had the Russians started an armored push into Germany, the A10 would have been destroying many of their vehicles before they could do *any* damage to Allied territory or equipment (/personel).



My friend form distant land called America, I doubt that if Soviet Union ever decided to invade Europe those forces would have been advancing in the same way as Iraqi troops were running from Kuwait.I assume Russian would have brought some AA missiles, artillery and fighters with them to counter such threat.  



> And quite a few A10's would have been shot down by the far superior and maintained Russian AAA systems.


I don't understand why do you think so.


----------



## marconi (Feb 8, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> > That is 100% correct, as long as they werent carrying any anti-radiation missles...
> 
> 
> Maybe you wathed to say anti-nuclear missles, Les? I doubt they would die because of radiation in the middle of nuclear explosion.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 8, 2006)

Dude, anti-radiation missles as in a AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-radiation Missile (HARM), which is an air-to-surface tactical missile designed to seek out and destroy enemy radar-equipped air defense systems....

What the hell were u talking about???


----------



## marconi (Feb 8, 2006)

Ah, sorry Les, it was a misunderstanding.We call such missiles anti-radar and in Russian language 'radiation' almost always means 'radioactivity'.So, I thought that you said that unless Russians had something to stop Nuclear weapons there wouldn't be many targets for A-10s  Sorry for my English.


----------



## MacArther (Feb 8, 2006)

sorry for the assumptions Marconi  . The topic of the A10 and a few others gets me a LITTLE too worked up. By the way, your english is fine, infact, its better than a few of my friends at school (stupid rich people thinking they live in the Ghetto and can "roll" with the best of em)


----------



## plan_D (Feb 9, 2006)

My father had to clean a lot of the mess that the A-10s left behind on the Basra road ... not a pretty sight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

The Highway of Death is the one you are referring to MacArthur.


----------



## MacArther (Feb 11, 2006)

Gratci. I have ADHD so I often forget important things


----------

