The A-10 may actually suck, can he prove it?
March 3, 2022 12:26 PM Subscribe
Recent events in Ukraine have brought the US military’s A-10 Thunderbolt II back to the spotlight. Purpose built to destroy Soviet tanks and seen by many as an excellent tank busting, close air support, and low tech platform. The A-10 has survived multiple efforts by the US Air Force to retire it. Enter LazerPig’s two part myth busting series: The A-10 Sucks and I Can Prove It Part 1 , Part 2.
The videos make a strong case that emotions and outdated thinking have forced America to waste billions to keep the A-10 going despite it subpar performance on actual battlefields.
It's not like developing the F-35 was cheap. You can spend billions to keep old airframes flying or you could spend billions to design and produce an entirely new platform.
posted by AndrewInDC at 1:00 PM on March 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by AndrewInDC at 1:00 PM on March 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
Don't know if it sucks, but I was surprised at just how small they are. I was flying out of the Yakima WA Air Terminal, (If not the winner for smallest "commercial" airport I've flown out of, damn close) when two Air National Guard A-10's did a series of simultaneous touch and go's
Reminded me very much of old WWII birds, which is fitting.
So it may suck, but I still look fondly at it.
posted by drewbage1847 at 1:10 PM on March 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
Reminded me very much of old WWII birds, which is fitting.
So it may suck, but I still look fondly at it.
posted by drewbage1847 at 1:10 PM on March 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
I'm surprised to discover that the Soviet equivalent to the A-10 is not only still being used, but still being built.
posted by meowzilla at 1:21 PM on March 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by meowzilla at 1:21 PM on March 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
One of the race tracks I go to occasionally (Inde Motorsports Park in Arizona) is on the training flight path for the A10's out of a base near there. The track has several military planes dotted around the property on display and the A10's often do a low circle around the track to say hi. Really cool. Very noisy, though.
posted by Brockles at 1:21 PM on March 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Brockles at 1:21 PM on March 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
Huh. The A10's first flight puts them almost exactly the same age as me. I hope they aren't as creaky and worn out as I am, or they'd be no good to anyone in a hurry.
posted by Brockles at 1:24 PM on March 3, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by Brockles at 1:24 PM on March 3, 2022 [5 favorites]
The A-10's were part of an integrated system.
F-4's would go in first with anti-radar missiles and cut down the anti-air.
Then the A-10's would go in and cut down the ground forces.
Then the F-16's would go in and cut down anyone coming after the F-4's and A-10's.
Which was cool, but as we all know, it's not 1984 anymore.
posted by mikelieman at 1:24 PM on March 3, 2022 [19 favorites]
F-4's would go in first with anti-radar missiles and cut down the anti-air.
Then the A-10's would go in and cut down the ground forces.
Then the F-16's would go in and cut down anyone coming after the F-4's and A-10's.
Which was cool, but as we all know, it's not 1984 anymore.
posted by mikelieman at 1:24 PM on March 3, 2022 [19 favorites]
I would have to agree that it's more of a strawman argument... A-10 is very effective in doing what it's designed to do... close air support (CAS) from a forward operating base (FOB) with Forward Air Controller calling in strikes on specific targets, where US at least have partial control of airspace if not total superiority.
The argument against it is basically A-10 was used in all the OTHER scenarios where it's not designed for, such as stealth strike, restrictive ROE that require it to identify friend or foe or in super danger close situations, it's too slow to do interdiction strikes, and it's not survivable in high threat environments.
A-10 is a blunt instrument designed to bring wrath to a swarm of Warsaw Pact units. Using it for precision strikes in a city with house-to-house fighting is like having a Dragonball Z fight in bed. A-10 is more survivable than gunships and other helos (and faster), while cheaper and more effective than any proposed replacement. WHY would you NOT keep it around?
posted by kschang at 1:42 PM on March 3, 2022 [15 favorites]
The argument against it is basically A-10 was used in all the OTHER scenarios where it's not designed for, such as stealth strike, restrictive ROE that require it to identify friend or foe or in super danger close situations, it's too slow to do interdiction strikes, and it's not survivable in high threat environments.
A-10 is a blunt instrument designed to bring wrath to a swarm of Warsaw Pact units. Using it for precision strikes in a city with house-to-house fighting is like having a Dragonball Z fight in bed. A-10 is more survivable than gunships and other helos (and faster), while cheaper and more effective than any proposed replacement. WHY would you NOT keep it around?
posted by kschang at 1:42 PM on March 3, 2022 [15 favorites]
"or you could spend billions to design and produce an entirely new platform."
I assume "billions" is a typo here, and you mean "trillions trying and failing".
posted by mhoye at 1:45 PM on March 3, 2022 [16 favorites]
I assume "billions" is a typo here, and you mean "trillions trying and failing".
posted by mhoye at 1:45 PM on March 3, 2022 [16 favorites]
The A10's first flight puts them almost exactly the same age as me
Yeah, these days after too much pizza I make similar noises as the A10's 3900 RPM cannon, which if my math is correct, is about 65 Hz.
posted by credulous at 2:13 PM on March 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
Yeah, these days after too much pizza I make similar noises as the A10's 3900 RPM cannon, which if my math is correct, is about 65 Hz.
posted by credulous at 2:13 PM on March 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
I have nothing to add about military A-10s. But there was a video game called A-10 Tank Killer which I played on my 486 in high school.
The colors would flash wildly, while on all my friends' computers the game played normally.
So I took my tome of a reference book, which listed all interrupts.
I ran the game via MS-DOS's debug, and went through all calls to interrupt 10h.
When I found one call related to pallets, I examined the data returned, and saw that one
register's value differed from the documented standard. I flipped the value and the colors worked, no flashing!
So I wrote a small terminate and stay resident program, which moved itself into the program segment prefix, chained in the particular
interrupt and stepped on the returned value. It was kind of like patching the bios for my ATI-Mach-64 card.
The game was playable, and I learned a lot. but I didn't learn much about how to fly an A-10.
posted by ecco at 2:29 PM on March 3, 2022 [90 favorites]
The colors would flash wildly, while on all my friends' computers the game played normally.
So I took my tome of a reference book, which listed all interrupts.
I ran the game via MS-DOS's debug, and went through all calls to interrupt 10h.
When I found one call related to pallets, I examined the data returned, and saw that one
register's value differed from the documented standard. I flipped the value and the colors worked, no flashing!
So I wrote a small terminate and stay resident program, which moved itself into the program segment prefix, chained in the particular
interrupt and stepped on the returned value. It was kind of like patching the bios for my ATI-Mach-64 card.
The game was playable, and I learned a lot. but I didn't learn much about how to fly an A-10.
posted by ecco at 2:29 PM on March 3, 2022 [90 favorites]
This oddly reminds me of a certain kind of motorcycle review I watch too much of.
posted by swift at 2:52 PM on March 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by swift at 2:52 PM on March 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
In part 2 he looks at the A-10’s performance in close air support and notes that it has some serious problems in this role based on metrics like the number of friendly fire incidents involving the plane. The gun is inaccurate and under ideal conditions is only able to land its rounds within 12 meters 80% of the time.
We have aircraft like the Apache helicopter and various drones that can fill the same role. When we look at it’s original job of smashing Russian tanks what we’ve seen in Ukraine and Azerbaijan has been that drones like the Turkish TB-2 are extremely effective and as unmanned vehicles, much better at keeping pilots alive and flying.
posted by interogative mood at 3:43 PM on March 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
We have aircraft like the Apache helicopter and various drones that can fill the same role. When we look at it’s original job of smashing Russian tanks what we’ve seen in Ukraine and Azerbaijan has been that drones like the Turkish TB-2 are extremely effective and as unmanned vehicles, much better at keeping pilots alive and flying.
posted by interogative mood at 3:43 PM on March 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
I have nothing to add about military A-10s. But there was a video game called A-10 Tank Killer which I played on my 486 in high school.
The later A-10 Attack! was also a heck of a lot of fun.
posted by AndrewInDC at 3:51 PM on March 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
The later A-10 Attack! was also a heck of a lot of fun.
posted by AndrewInDC at 3:51 PM on March 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
If we are talking Thunderbolt games let's not forget the classic Thunderbolt-Apache Leader.
It is a load nerd dream-gasm.
posted by NoThisIsPatrick at 3:58 PM on March 3, 2022
It is a load nerd dream-gasm.
posted by NoThisIsPatrick at 3:58 PM on March 3, 2022
The decibel level alone is ferocious.
Air Force A-10s just made a ‘highway to the danger zone’ in Michigan.
posted by clavdivs at 4:00 PM on March 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
Air Force A-10s just made a ‘highway to the danger zone’ in Michigan.
posted by clavdivs at 4:00 PM on March 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
The definitive modern Warthog sim is surely DCS. (I haven't screened this link for gamer toxicity.)
Thrustmaster even revised its premier HOTAS for it (previous modeled after the Viper).
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:10 PM on March 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
Thrustmaster even revised its premier HOTAS for it (previous modeled after the Viper).
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:10 PM on March 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
I'm through the first video and have yet to hear a reason the A-10 isn't as good as its reputation. And now I righteously hate the narrator for his unfunny asides, his bombast, his obvious vendetta, and the nagging suspicion that he turned to youtube when he ran out of friends willing to let him talk for more than two minutes.
posted by fatbird at 4:15 PM on March 3, 2022 [26 favorites]
posted by fatbird at 4:15 PM on March 3, 2022 [26 favorites]
drones like the Turkish TB-2 are extremely effective and as unmanned vehicles, much better at keeping pilots alive and flying.
Ukraine has been a revelation about how effective drones like this can be, and I'm wondering how long until we have anti-drone drones patrolling the skies to knock these down. What's funny about this scenario is that it's extremely slow moving. The lag in control between controller and drone is seconds, which is fine when you're small and very high up and basically invisible. But once you've got anti-drone drones in the air, you've got something like a dogfight between electric wheelchairs going on, which makes the whole encounter seem... accessible?
posted by fatbird at 4:22 PM on March 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
Ukraine has been a revelation about how effective drones like this can be, and I'm wondering how long until we have anti-drone drones patrolling the skies to knock these down. What's funny about this scenario is that it's extremely slow moving. The lag in control between controller and drone is seconds, which is fine when you're small and very high up and basically invisible. But once you've got anti-drone drones in the air, you've got something like a dogfight between electric wheelchairs going on, which makes the whole encounter seem... accessible?
posted by fatbird at 4:22 PM on March 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
a dogfight between electric wheelchairs going on, which makes the whole encounter seem... accessible?
More like an autonomous round of battlebots in three dimensions. The easiest way to knock out a relatively expensive UAV bomber is to just mid-air it with something way cheaper (or a swarm of them), not re-create piloted dogfights.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:28 PM on March 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
More like an autonomous round of battlebots in three dimensions. The easiest way to knock out a relatively expensive UAV bomber is to just mid-air it with something way cheaper (or a swarm of them), not re-create piloted dogfights.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:28 PM on March 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
>Ukraine has been a revelation about how effective drones like this can be,
Not Ukraine... Azeri's started to use state of the art drones from Turkey (TB-2) and Israel (Harrop) in the war against the Armenians in 2020.
That war had been ongoing since 1988, but the use of these drones ended the war with the Armenian surrender within 2 months.
YouTube Link - NSFW video feed from the TB-2 drone from the Azeri / Armenian war - it has the ability to land precision bombs exactly within the foxholes / trenches that the Azeri soldiers were hiding in. You can see them duck literally one second before they get blown up.
It really underscores that the future of the battlefield is purely drone based. No human being has any place in the modern battlefield any longer - it's no wonder the Armenians surrendered. It's not just the A-10 that is wildly obsolete, it's our entire concept of warfare. It doesn't how many trained boots on the ground you have, what you need is a Foxconn style mass production facility in China that pumps out hundreds of thousands of high tech drones.
posted by xdvesper at 4:39 PM on March 3, 2022 [13 favorites]
Not Ukraine... Azeri's started to use state of the art drones from Turkey (TB-2) and Israel (Harrop) in the war against the Armenians in 2020.
That war had been ongoing since 1988, but the use of these drones ended the war with the Armenian surrender within 2 months.
YouTube Link - NSFW video feed from the TB-2 drone from the Azeri / Armenian war - it has the ability to land precision bombs exactly within the foxholes / trenches that the Azeri soldiers were hiding in. You can see them duck literally one second before they get blown up.
It really underscores that the future of the battlefield is purely drone based. No human being has any place in the modern battlefield any longer - it's no wonder the Armenians surrendered. It's not just the A-10 that is wildly obsolete, it's our entire concept of warfare. It doesn't how many trained boots on the ground you have, what you need is a Foxconn style mass production facility in China that pumps out hundreds of thousands of high tech drones.
posted by xdvesper at 4:39 PM on March 3, 2022 [13 favorites]
Using it for precision strikes in a city with house-to-house fighting is like having a Dragonball Z fight in bed
**looks overtop reading glasses & newspaper, cautiously horny**
posted by stinkfoot at 5:30 PM on March 3, 2022 [5 favorites]
**looks overtop reading glasses & newspaper, cautiously horny**
posted by stinkfoot at 5:30 PM on March 3, 2022 [5 favorites]
Some factual errors in the video. First, the A-10 does not suck but that's kind of arguing the premise. Second, at 4:40 he said the Light Weight Fighter program "which would later evolve into the F-15." He's wrong, the LWF program produced the F-16. I'm not familiar with "Project Bluebird" but at 4:50 when he mentions it, the graphic he shows when is not a F-15 but an F-111. And then when he talks about "Project Redbird" (another one I've never heard of) he shows video of T-38s. When he gets to the "where do A-10s come from", after his juvenile bit, he's back on track. But he's wrong about the F-111, it got cancelled because it was never a good design.
Gaaaah! This guy is all over the place with this video and wastes a LOT of time talking about how other people lie. I can't finish it.
posted by ahnyerkeester at 5:41 PM on March 3, 2022 [10 favorites]
Gaaaah! This guy is all over the place with this video and wastes a LOT of time talking about how other people lie. I can't finish it.
posted by ahnyerkeester at 5:41 PM on March 3, 2022 [10 favorites]
His take on the T-34 is weak. Be better if he didn't yam it up. Seen some critical points on war boards but overall his take is fairly accurate.
posted by clavdivs at 6:09 PM on March 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 6:09 PM on March 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
Project red bird
"The use of infra-red technology to detect moving targets is today a staple for military aircraft, but it was in its infancy during the Korean War, when US Air Force B-26C Invaders tested the concept in combat...The AN/AAS-1 infra-red detector, developed by Bell Sound Systems under cover of a project codenamed ‘Redbird’, offered a potential solutionl."
posted by clavdivs at 6:19 PM on March 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
"The use of infra-red technology to detect moving targets is today a staple for military aircraft, but it was in its infancy during the Korean War, when US Air Force B-26C Invaders tested the concept in combat...The AN/AAS-1 infra-red detector, developed by Bell Sound Systems under cover of a project codenamed ‘Redbird’, offered a potential solutionl."
posted by clavdivs at 6:19 PM on March 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
I won't hear anyone speaking ill of my boi Powerglide :(
https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Powerglide_(G1)
posted by UltraMorgnus at 6:52 PM on March 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Powerglide_(G1)
posted by UltraMorgnus at 6:52 PM on March 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
In as much as the A-10 has jet engines, it sucks. See those round fan-looking bits at the back? Those are the sucky bits. Possibly those are not the only sucky bits (presumably this complex bit of kit has more than 2 pumps) but sucking is assuredly what happens in that zone.
The A-10 is shitty engineering, because it's military and military constraints militate inhumane and inefficient designs. It's a tool of oppression, and that sucks... but if I'm honest I don't object to oppressing tank drivers all that much. If you are in a situation where you are likely to get A10'd maybe ditch the tank?
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 7:09 PM on March 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
The A-10 is shitty engineering, because it's military and military constraints militate inhumane and inefficient designs. It's a tool of oppression, and that sucks... but if I'm honest I don't object to oppressing tank drivers all that much. If you are in a situation where you are likely to get A10'd maybe ditch the tank?
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 7:09 PM on March 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
In my limited anecdotal experience, the only airplane fans that are more rabid than fans of the A-10 are fans of the SR-71.
Carry on.
posted by Multicellular Exothermic at 7:40 PM on March 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
Carry on.
posted by Multicellular Exothermic at 7:40 PM on March 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
Take these broken wings and learn to fly
All your life
You were only waiting for this moment to arise
posted by clavdivs at 7:50 PM on March 3, 2022 [7 favorites]
All your life
You were only waiting for this moment to arise
posted by clavdivs at 7:50 PM on March 3, 2022 [7 favorites]
what you need is a Foxconn style mass production facility in China that pumps out hundreds of thousands of high tech drones.
I'm trying to envision what a full-on drone war would be like. Would targets be industrial targets or whatnot, and then other drones come in to fight those drones and it turns into an aerial dogfight with air-to-air missiles and such? Are you talking ground drones too? 4-legged gun-toting cameras running in packs through streets? What would the target of these attacks be, how would they countered, and how does having all this occur in an urban area (in theory) figure in to the carnage that would take place?
posted by hippybear at 7:52 PM on March 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
I'm trying to envision what a full-on drone war would be like. Would targets be industrial targets or whatnot, and then other drones come in to fight those drones and it turns into an aerial dogfight with air-to-air missiles and such? Are you talking ground drones too? 4-legged gun-toting cameras running in packs through streets? What would the target of these attacks be, how would they countered, and how does having all this occur in an urban area (in theory) figure in to the carnage that would take place?
posted by hippybear at 7:52 PM on March 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
In my limited anecdotal experience, the only airplane fans that are more rabid than fans of the A-10 are fans of the SR-71.
You mean the plane that set speed and height records that still stand, despite it's being designed and built in the 1960s? Including one plane that set records on its last flight to the museum? The plane that was so cool that it became the X-Men's plane? I mean, you're not exactly wrong, but.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:08 PM on March 3, 2022 [42 favorites]
You mean the plane that set speed and height records that still stand, despite it's being designed and built in the 1960s? Including one plane that set records on its last flight to the museum? The plane that was so cool that it became the X-Men's plane? I mean, you're not exactly wrong, but.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:08 PM on March 3, 2022 [42 favorites]
>I'm trying to envision what a full-on drone war would be like.
Realm of science fiction, so it's anyone's guess.
Similar to the automotive industry - the shift is moving very rapidly from 100% hardware - where teams are set up around various hardware domains - body structures, engines, chassis, interior trim - to realizing that building a car nowadays is actually 70% software.
This means the focus will be less on the hardware itself but more on the software.
If you're remotely piloting drones, then the entire endeavor hinges on how good your electronic warfare capabilities are - can you jam enemy signals while preventing yours from being jammed?
If you're allowing autonomous drones to operate independently in "blackout" conditions without any contact with the home base - how good is your AI design and programming?
Undoubtedly there will be hybrid solutions - see the F-35 Loyal Wingman concept where the F-35's impressive computer and communications suite will be used to act as the "brain" for a swarm of drones. You need the F-35 pilot right in the thick of things so he's a close-by direct link to the drones that can't be easily jammed (signal strength considerations, or even using direct line of sight laser link / microwave communications which can't be easily jammed).
Basically, the F-35 will operate in almost full stealth mode - no active radar, no exterior weapon pods, low speed (for low IR emissions) - in the center of a swarm of 50 combat drones protecting it.
The drones will be the ones turning on their radar (making them visible to the enemy), the drones will be firing their weapons (again visible to the enemy) and they will be the ones flooding the airwaves with EM jamming and other noise, a burning signal that can be seen hundreds of miles away. A "battle" between drone squadrons might well be a battle of attrition as both sides deplete each others drone count trying to detect and assassinate the "brains" - the stealthy F-35 controlling it all.
posted by xdvesper at 8:20 PM on March 3, 2022 [7 favorites]
Realm of science fiction, so it's anyone's guess.
Similar to the automotive industry - the shift is moving very rapidly from 100% hardware - where teams are set up around various hardware domains - body structures, engines, chassis, interior trim - to realizing that building a car nowadays is actually 70% software.
This means the focus will be less on the hardware itself but more on the software.
If you're remotely piloting drones, then the entire endeavor hinges on how good your electronic warfare capabilities are - can you jam enemy signals while preventing yours from being jammed?
If you're allowing autonomous drones to operate independently in "blackout" conditions without any contact with the home base - how good is your AI design and programming?
Undoubtedly there will be hybrid solutions - see the F-35 Loyal Wingman concept where the F-35's impressive computer and communications suite will be used to act as the "brain" for a swarm of drones. You need the F-35 pilot right in the thick of things so he's a close-by direct link to the drones that can't be easily jammed (signal strength considerations, or even using direct line of sight laser link / microwave communications which can't be easily jammed).
Basically, the F-35 will operate in almost full stealth mode - no active radar, no exterior weapon pods, low speed (for low IR emissions) - in the center of a swarm of 50 combat drones protecting it.
The drones will be the ones turning on their radar (making them visible to the enemy), the drones will be firing their weapons (again visible to the enemy) and they will be the ones flooding the airwaves with EM jamming and other noise, a burning signal that can be seen hundreds of miles away. A "battle" between drone squadrons might well be a battle of attrition as both sides deplete each others drone count trying to detect and assassinate the "brains" - the stealthy F-35 controlling it all.
posted by xdvesper at 8:20 PM on March 3, 2022 [7 favorites]
This thread is reminding me of 80s and 90s computer games which involved a lot of cold war military gear.
I am not necessarily excited about this.
posted by credulous at 8:30 PM on March 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
I am not necessarily excited about this.
posted by credulous at 8:30 PM on March 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
Are there any operational F-35s after all these years (decades?) in development? I've not heard about that if there are.
posted by hippybear at 9:06 PM on March 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by hippybear at 9:06 PM on March 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
In my limited anecdotal experience, the only airplane fans that are more rabid than fans of the A-10 are fans of the SR-71.
There were a lot of things we couldn’t do in an SR-71, but we were the fastest guys on the block and loved reminding our fellow aviators of this fact...
posted by alex_skazat at 10:27 PM on March 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
There were a lot of things we couldn’t do in an SR-71, but we were the fastest guys on the block and loved reminding our fellow aviators of this fact...
posted by alex_skazat at 10:27 PM on March 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
the reason a-10s are ludicrously outdated is because russian-designed SAMs are very, very good. at low altitude, buk and tunguskas can shred aircraft. at high altitude s300s are deadly to non-stealth aircraft. the united states air force knows this, and has known this, for a long long time.
strike aircraft going up against russian designed systems (i.e., wherever that gear has been exported to) either need to have non-stealth anti-radiation strikes destroy all SAMs first, or else they need both stealth and superior information and awareness over the enemy. that is what the f-35 is for.
Are there any operational F-35s after all these years (decades?) in development? I've not heard about that if there are.
yes, since 2018. and a lot more soon.
posted by wibari at 10:40 PM on March 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
strike aircraft going up against russian designed systems (i.e., wherever that gear has been exported to) either need to have non-stealth anti-radiation strikes destroy all SAMs first, or else they need both stealth and superior information and awareness over the enemy. that is what the f-35 is for.
Are there any operational F-35s after all these years (decades?) in development? I've not heard about that if there are.
yes, since 2018. and a lot more soon.
posted by wibari at 10:40 PM on March 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
In my limited anecdotal experience, the only airplane fans that are more rabid than fans of the A-10 are fans of the SR-71.
Probably not coincidentally, GI Joe derived designs for two highly sought after toys based on them. That's certainly how I became aware of the Warthog as a kid.
posted by Candleman at 10:42 PM on March 3, 2022 [6 favorites]
Probably not coincidentally, GI Joe derived designs for two highly sought after toys based on them. That's certainly how I became aware of the Warthog as a kid.
posted by Candleman at 10:42 PM on March 3, 2022 [6 favorites]
Depends what you mean by "operational"...
It's accumulated 430,000 flight hours, globally. Current cost of Lot 14 is $78 mil per unit. The Australian.
In contrast, non-stealth competitors like Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon and even F15-EX all come in at $85 mil to $100 mil per jet.
The only recent "real" use so far in active combat would be Israel using the F35 to strike targets in Syria. Again, that's not really a good "test" of its capabilities - while Russia has deployed very capable air defense assets in Syria (S-400 and S-300 systems) they are suspected to have a tacit agreement with Israel not to shoot down its jets, while Israel avoids striking Russian assets in the region. So, was the F35 able to fly in and out of Syria undetected? No one knows. Using the F35 to bomb Taliban hiding in caves in Afghanistan isn't really any test of its capability either.
The reality is that short of WW3, no one actually knows how effective a particular weapon system is. The US built 700 F14 Tomcats and operated them for over 30 years, and the US claimed a grand total of 2 air to air kills against enemy jets (IIRC). Even the A-10, case in point, have wildly differing accounts of its effectiveness.
Australia has been exploring the use of F35 in a sensor platform role rather than combat role. It can share its sensor data in real-time to other assets, in this case guided artillery. Australia uses the PGK (Precision Guidance Kit) that replaces the nose fuse on an artillery shell with a guidance kit which uses GPS and fins to steer itself to the target, able to hit within a 10 meter radius at 40km range. At just $11k per artillery shell fired, this is way cheaper than using a guided bomb ($22k for a JDAM kit) which then needs a ride on an F35 ($44k per flight hour). Basically, it's far more economical to use the F35 - or even other drones - as sensor platforms that supply precision targeting data to your other guided weapons at standoff range, as one F35 can supply targeting data to potentially dozens of artillery batteries.
posted by xdvesper at 11:07 PM on March 3, 2022 [7 favorites]
It's accumulated 430,000 flight hours, globally. Current cost of Lot 14 is $78 mil per unit. The Australian.
In contrast, non-stealth competitors like Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon and even F15-EX all come in at $85 mil to $100 mil per jet.
The only recent "real" use so far in active combat would be Israel using the F35 to strike targets in Syria. Again, that's not really a good "test" of its capabilities - while Russia has deployed very capable air defense assets in Syria (S-400 and S-300 systems) they are suspected to have a tacit agreement with Israel not to shoot down its jets, while Israel avoids striking Russian assets in the region. So, was the F35 able to fly in and out of Syria undetected? No one knows. Using the F35 to bomb Taliban hiding in caves in Afghanistan isn't really any test of its capability either.
The reality is that short of WW3, no one actually knows how effective a particular weapon system is. The US built 700 F14 Tomcats and operated them for over 30 years, and the US claimed a grand total of 2 air to air kills against enemy jets (IIRC). Even the A-10, case in point, have wildly differing accounts of its effectiveness.
Australia has been exploring the use of F35 in a sensor platform role rather than combat role. It can share its sensor data in real-time to other assets, in this case guided artillery. Australia uses the PGK (Precision Guidance Kit) that replaces the nose fuse on an artillery shell with a guidance kit which uses GPS and fins to steer itself to the target, able to hit within a 10 meter radius at 40km range. At just $11k per artillery shell fired, this is way cheaper than using a guided bomb ($22k for a JDAM kit) which then needs a ride on an F35 ($44k per flight hour). Basically, it's far more economical to use the F35 - or even other drones - as sensor platforms that supply precision targeting data to your other guided weapons at standoff range, as one F35 can supply targeting data to potentially dozens of artillery batteries.
posted by xdvesper at 11:07 PM on March 3, 2022 [7 favorites]
The US built 700 F14 Tomcats and operated them for over 30 years, and the US claimed a grand total of 2 air to air kills against enemy jets (IIRC).
The Iranians, on the other hand, claim up to 159 kills with their F-14's, and may still be flying today.
posted by kschang at 1:15 AM on March 4, 2022 [2 favorites]
The Iranians, on the other hand, claim up to 159 kills with their F-14's, and may still be flying today.
posted by kschang at 1:15 AM on March 4, 2022 [2 favorites]
FWIW, US claimed 5 air-to-air kills with the Tomcat. 2 in Gulf of Sidra I, 2 in Gulf of Sidra 2, and 1 in the Gulf War
The Iranian claim of 159 seems a little overinflated. One source claimed a number of 130 but no citings.
posted by kschang at 1:27 AM on March 4, 2022
The Iranian claim of 159 seems a little overinflated. One source claimed a number of 130 but no citings.
posted by kschang at 1:27 AM on March 4, 2022
There were a lot of things we couldn’t do in an SR-71, but we were the fastest guys on the block and loved reminding our fellow aviators of this fact...
LA Speed Check
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:36 AM on March 4, 2022 [4 favorites]
LA Speed Check
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:36 AM on March 4, 2022 [4 favorites]
The Iranian Tomcats were typically shooting at Iraqi aircraft from beyond the range those aircraft could effectively engage them, often undetected. The Tomcat's pure dogfighting ability was not ultimately what built up that large tally. Ward Carroll on Iranian Tomcats in the Iran-Iraq war.
That lesson would go on to be repeated -- while LazerPig's conclusions about the A-10 are debatable, I found the stuff about the myth vs. reality of Sprey and the Light Fighter Mafia informative.
And look how both the Eagle and Viper have evolved in the same direction, despite their original design goals and roles -- more and more about multirole capability through upgrades to range, sensors and more adaptable ordnance; less and less about pure air-to-air capability at the level of individual aircraft. (The Hornet too.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:03 AM on March 4, 2022
That lesson would go on to be repeated -- while LazerPig's conclusions about the A-10 are debatable, I found the stuff about the myth vs. reality of Sprey and the Light Fighter Mafia informative.
And look how both the Eagle and Viper have evolved in the same direction, despite their original design goals and roles -- more and more about multirole capability through upgrades to range, sensors and more adaptable ordnance; less and less about pure air-to-air capability at the level of individual aircraft. (The Hornet too.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:03 AM on March 4, 2022
The thing about the A-10 is that for all the talk about how it's been effective for decades, most of that is yadda yadda because it's been effective for decades against wildly inferior opponents. Being used for ground support in Iraq and Afghanistan is like playing against the junior varsity: Iraq's T-72s were falling apart, and other than those the only things the Iraqis had were fuel trucks, light armor and infantry, and you just don't need the A-10 for those. Afghanistan didn't even have vehicles, really.
The general feeling among defenseheads I read is that the A-10 is a waste of money now because it's a platform for two things: the autocannon, which is its primary weapon, and air-to-ground missiles. But the thing is: if the autocannon isn't good enough as a tank killer by itself, then the A-10 doesn't make sense, because drones and helicopters are cheaper options for carrying missiles. And the A-10's autocannon, while not ineffective, is definitely projected to be less effective against more modern tanks since armor technology has been getting steadily better - and at the same time, tanks now mount anti-air weaponry specifically to deal with threats like the A-10.
Bottom line is that the A-10 isn't bad at what it does. But is it cost-effective? That's a much more complex question and we don't have all the answers yet because we would only get them once WW3 starts.
posted by mightygodking at 6:32 AM on March 4, 2022
The general feeling among defenseheads I read is that the A-10 is a waste of money now because it's a platform for two things: the autocannon, which is its primary weapon, and air-to-ground missiles. But the thing is: if the autocannon isn't good enough as a tank killer by itself, then the A-10 doesn't make sense, because drones and helicopters are cheaper options for carrying missiles. And the A-10's autocannon, while not ineffective, is definitely projected to be less effective against more modern tanks since armor technology has been getting steadily better - and at the same time, tanks now mount anti-air weaponry specifically to deal with threats like the A-10.
Bottom line is that the A-10 isn't bad at what it does. But is it cost-effective? That's a much more complex question and we don't have all the answers yet because we would only get them once WW3 starts.
posted by mightygodking at 6:32 AM on March 4, 2022
The risk to pilots alone has to tilt the argument in favor of drones, imo.
Best case, a highly-trained and experience pilot who gets shot down has to be retrieved from behind enemy lines. Worst case, they're dead.
Why risk that when you can just put another drone under that same pilot and be back in the fight in minutes, if not instantly?
posted by atchafalaya at 6:48 AM on March 4, 2022
Best case, a highly-trained and experience pilot who gets shot down has to be retrieved from behind enemy lines. Worst case, they're dead.
Why risk that when you can just put another drone under that same pilot and be back in the fight in minutes, if not instantly?
posted by atchafalaya at 6:48 AM on March 4, 2022
When I went to the Canadian War Museum in the before times, one of the most interesting things I saw was Iroquois/Huron wooden battle armor. The exhibit discussed how pre-contact battles were fought with large organized formations of heavy infantry, and the light skirmishing tactics we associate with the first nations were a result of the introduction of firearms. Where in europe the presence of cavalry meant unsupported skirmishers would be swept off the field, in the great lakes region of the Americas, it became the dominant mode of fighting.
I bring this up because it's fairly relevant; the optimum solution to the problem that is "Those bastards have a body of men organized for violence that want to take our stuff, how do we defend ourselves?" or "Those bastards have stuff we want but have a body of men organized for violence, how do we take their stuff?"is a moving target and is very context dependent.
The argument in the video, stripped of all the internet weapons forum memes (seriously, LazerPig has very obviously come out of 4Chan and similar places), is that the A-10 was based on an incorrect understanding of and assumptions about the environment for its intended role, and that as a result it is not the best solution available to the problem. And that while it has proved useful in other situations, the choices made based on that error has lead to ongoing compromise. The main issues being an incriminate gun, high pilot workload, lack of good electronic sensor options. However, the A-10 has a hell of a PR campaign behind it, so it's stayed in service even when alternate solutions would be better.
This is, I think, a cogent argument, if not a well presented one, given it's colored by the background of internet slap fights with people who care very very deeply about military hardware.
As an aside: One possible outcome of mass drones is that we may see a return to concentrating forces rather than dispersing them. You can keep the formation under the bubble of dedicated anti-air vehicles. There are tanks that already mount active protection systems against incoming missiles such as Trophy or Arena. It's not hard to imagine that in the near future every tank might have a mini- Phalanx or Goalkeeper CIWS on it set to kill anything moving in the air that can't be identified as a friendly drone.
I bring that up because it's actually very hard to have a correct understanding of the environment and context, there's an equally valid assumption that drones will lead to further dispersion of forces. The big thing this video is reacting against is people who were wrong, (perhaps not unjustifiably if I am being charitable) have fought a 40 year rearguard action to justify themselves, and the consequences of that action for people on the ground. Which in this case includes being strafed by friendly forces.
To sum up, the A-10 is a land of contrasts, and I am procrastinating.
posted by Grimgrin at 7:09 AM on March 4, 2022 [9 favorites]
I bring this up because it's fairly relevant; the optimum solution to the problem that is "Those bastards have a body of men organized for violence that want to take our stuff, how do we defend ourselves?" or "Those bastards have stuff we want but have a body of men organized for violence, how do we take their stuff?"is a moving target and is very context dependent.
The argument in the video, stripped of all the internet weapons forum memes (seriously, LazerPig has very obviously come out of 4Chan and similar places), is that the A-10 was based on an incorrect understanding of and assumptions about the environment for its intended role, and that as a result it is not the best solution available to the problem. And that while it has proved useful in other situations, the choices made based on that error has lead to ongoing compromise. The main issues being an incriminate gun, high pilot workload, lack of good electronic sensor options. However, the A-10 has a hell of a PR campaign behind it, so it's stayed in service even when alternate solutions would be better.
This is, I think, a cogent argument, if not a well presented one, given it's colored by the background of internet slap fights with people who care very very deeply about military hardware.
As an aside: One possible outcome of mass drones is that we may see a return to concentrating forces rather than dispersing them. You can keep the formation under the bubble of dedicated anti-air vehicles. There are tanks that already mount active protection systems against incoming missiles such as Trophy or Arena. It's not hard to imagine that in the near future every tank might have a mini- Phalanx or Goalkeeper CIWS on it set to kill anything moving in the air that can't be identified as a friendly drone.
I bring that up because it's actually very hard to have a correct understanding of the environment and context, there's an equally valid assumption that drones will lead to further dispersion of forces. The big thing this video is reacting against is people who were wrong, (perhaps not unjustifiably if I am being charitable) have fought a 40 year rearguard action to justify themselves, and the consequences of that action for people on the ground. Which in this case includes being strafed by friendly forces.
To sum up, the A-10 is a land of contrasts, and I am procrastinating.
posted by Grimgrin at 7:09 AM on March 4, 2022 [9 favorites]
You can also video game pilot an A10 in Operation Flashpoint. , which is still a pretty fun game and a moderately accurate war simulator even though it is 20 years old.
The A10 isn't used much in the game story, but you can build custom missions and line up tons of tanks and trucks to destroy.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:40 AM on March 4, 2022
The A10 isn't used much in the game story, but you can build custom missions and line up tons of tanks and trucks to destroy.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:40 AM on March 4, 2022
A cost/benefit analysis is inevitable, but effectivity may be subjective. The A-10 is a close air support weapon. So, let the drones kill the tanks, and let the A-10s do what they do best.
An Infantryman (huddled in a ditch under a blanket of tracers from a pair of pesky machine guns on the other side of the goddam potato field) probably would rather see a rain of fire from an A-10 than have a frank discussion about its cost/benefit ratio.
Achieving air superiority requires other tools.
posted by mule98J at 9:34 AM on March 4, 2022
An Infantryman (huddled in a ditch under a blanket of tracers from a pair of pesky machine guns on the other side of the goddam potato field) probably would rather see a rain of fire from an A-10 than have a frank discussion about its cost/benefit ratio.
Achieving air superiority requires other tools.
posted by mule98J at 9:34 AM on March 4, 2022
and because no one has done it yet
This debate over the development of military hardware and the changing nature of combat just proves what we've always known:
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:59 AM on March 4, 2022 [8 favorites]
This debate over the development of military hardware and the changing nature of combat just proves what we've always known:
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:59 AM on March 4, 2022 [8 favorites]
The use of depleted uranium in the A-10's ammunition is unforgivable.
→
Ah, by your spelling I suspect you haven't met many TSR-2 or Avro Arrow fans.
posted by scruss at 10:06 AM on March 4, 2022 [4 favorites]
→
the only airplane fans that are more rabid than fans of the A-10 are fans of the SR-71.
Ah, by your spelling I suspect you haven't met many TSR-2 or Avro Arrow fans.
posted by scruss at 10:06 AM on March 4, 2022 [4 favorites]
The A-10 is a mixed bag. I don't think the author (LazerPig) gives it its due, and I found the videos a bit click-baity.
It's true that in the mission the A-10 was designed for in the early 1970s—hunting Soviet MBTs across Central Europe—it is basically obsolete. Not because that isn't a valid need, but because Soviet (and US/NATO) anti-air developments make it much more vulnerable than it once was.
At the time of its design, surface-to-air missiles like the SA-2 Guideline were designed to shoot down high-altitude aircraft and were used mostly for the defense of fixed installations. Tactical air defense was provided mostly by mobile gun systems, typically called SPAAGS, like the Shilka, which had 4x23mm cannons and was designed to accompany mechanized formations on the move. Short-range IR-seeking MANPADS of the time weren't that great, and the A-10 had the benefit of producing relatively cool exhaust due to the large percentage of bypass air going through the turbofan engines (although it's not stealthy).
But by the end of the Cold War, US combined arms doctrine had changed to favor helicopters in the anti-tank role, both as gun platforms and missile launchers. (A common critique of this is due to inter-service rivalries in the US military, where the Army is allowed to fly helicopters but not fixed-wing tactical aircraft, which "belong" to the Air Force. Some have alleged—probably rightly—that part of the Army's institutional preference for helicopters was due to wanting a CAS platform that it "owned" and wouldn't be hampered by changing USAF priorities, rather than any actual deficiency on the part of the A-10 at the time.) But at any rate, by the late 80s it seemed like the A-10 was out and attack helicopters like the AH-64 Apache were in.
But subsequent post-CW conflicts showed that the A-10 could be very effective against both moderately- and lightly-armored vehicles without any effective modern anti-air capability. (See the Highway of Death.) That's arguably like shooting fish in a barrel, but it gave the A-10 a reason to stick around for another few years. This was aided by the less-than-stellar reliability record of attack helicopters during the same period. It is practically axiomatic to this day that helicopters are more maintenance-intensive than fixed-wing aviation, and require more spare parts and logistical coordination.
In Afghanistan, the A-10 became rather popular with soldiers as a CAS platform, and there was something of a "grassroots" effort to lobby Congress to keep funding it, particularly when the USAF's chosen replacements (F-35, F-22) didn't seem to fit the low-and-slow CAS role nearly as well. (I have doubts that USAF leadership would be willing to risk a '35 or '22 airframe by having it do the kind of low-level missions that the A-10 has typically flown.) And that's where the Air Force wants to put the money.
There are a plethora of videos showing the A-10 in action in AFG, if you want to see why it appeals to ground-pounders so much. Here's one example (CW). You can hear why the sound of the A-10's main gun has been likened to "God unzipping His fly".
Personally, given that the A-10 actually exists in quantity and basically does what it's supposed to do (unlike several of the USAF's more recent aircraft), I think it would be a mistake to get rid of it now. The US needs a (relatively) inexpensive, reliable CAS platform for use in the inevitable dumbass brushfire wars we're going to get involved in, which are not going to suddenly stop just because we exited AFG and the Russians have gotten ambitious. I think it's a bit silly that it's operated by the USAF rather than the Army, but that's the US military for you.
If we really wanted a replacement for the A-10, we should look at something like the Embraer Super Tucano, which can mount a variety of gun-type weapons via belly pods, or the Beechcraft Texan II, currently used as a trainer.
One of my soapbox topics is that the US military is its own worst enemy in its preference for stunningly expensive "racehorse" weapons systems. Sure, sometimes you need a Thoroughbred, but sometimes what you really need is a draft horse. Or a mule.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:20 PM on March 4, 2022 [9 favorites]
It's true that in the mission the A-10 was designed for in the early 1970s—hunting Soviet MBTs across Central Europe—it is basically obsolete. Not because that isn't a valid need, but because Soviet (and US/NATO) anti-air developments make it much more vulnerable than it once was.
At the time of its design, surface-to-air missiles like the SA-2 Guideline were designed to shoot down high-altitude aircraft and were used mostly for the defense of fixed installations. Tactical air defense was provided mostly by mobile gun systems, typically called SPAAGS, like the Shilka, which had 4x23mm cannons and was designed to accompany mechanized formations on the move. Short-range IR-seeking MANPADS of the time weren't that great, and the A-10 had the benefit of producing relatively cool exhaust due to the large percentage of bypass air going through the turbofan engines (although it's not stealthy).
But by the end of the Cold War, US combined arms doctrine had changed to favor helicopters in the anti-tank role, both as gun platforms and missile launchers. (A common critique of this is due to inter-service rivalries in the US military, where the Army is allowed to fly helicopters but not fixed-wing tactical aircraft, which "belong" to the Air Force. Some have alleged—probably rightly—that part of the Army's institutional preference for helicopters was due to wanting a CAS platform that it "owned" and wouldn't be hampered by changing USAF priorities, rather than any actual deficiency on the part of the A-10 at the time.) But at any rate, by the late 80s it seemed like the A-10 was out and attack helicopters like the AH-64 Apache were in.
But subsequent post-CW conflicts showed that the A-10 could be very effective against both moderately- and lightly-armored vehicles without any effective modern anti-air capability. (See the Highway of Death.) That's arguably like shooting fish in a barrel, but it gave the A-10 a reason to stick around for another few years. This was aided by the less-than-stellar reliability record of attack helicopters during the same period. It is practically axiomatic to this day that helicopters are more maintenance-intensive than fixed-wing aviation, and require more spare parts and logistical coordination.
In Afghanistan, the A-10 became rather popular with soldiers as a CAS platform, and there was something of a "grassroots" effort to lobby Congress to keep funding it, particularly when the USAF's chosen replacements (F-35, F-22) didn't seem to fit the low-and-slow CAS role nearly as well. (I have doubts that USAF leadership would be willing to risk a '35 or '22 airframe by having it do the kind of low-level missions that the A-10 has typically flown.) And that's where the Air Force wants to put the money.
There are a plethora of videos showing the A-10 in action in AFG, if you want to see why it appeals to ground-pounders so much. Here's one example (CW). You can hear why the sound of the A-10's main gun has been likened to "God unzipping His fly".
Personally, given that the A-10 actually exists in quantity and basically does what it's supposed to do (unlike several of the USAF's more recent aircraft), I think it would be a mistake to get rid of it now. The US needs a (relatively) inexpensive, reliable CAS platform for use in the inevitable dumbass brushfire wars we're going to get involved in, which are not going to suddenly stop just because we exited AFG and the Russians have gotten ambitious. I think it's a bit silly that it's operated by the USAF rather than the Army, but that's the US military for you.
If we really wanted a replacement for the A-10, we should look at something like the Embraer Super Tucano, which can mount a variety of gun-type weapons via belly pods, or the Beechcraft Texan II, currently used as a trainer.
One of my soapbox topics is that the US military is its own worst enemy in its preference for stunningly expensive "racehorse" weapons systems. Sure, sometimes you need a Thoroughbred, but sometimes what you really need is a draft horse. Or a mule.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:20 PM on March 4, 2022 [9 favorites]
The Tucano would be a good pick, so would the Aermacchi M-345 (a modernized S.210) or the M-346 (began as a joint project with Yakolev).
Both can fly even a bit slower than the A-10. Their primary role is as trainers, so there's room for a backseater to operate sensors and weapons if that's desirable.
We could have also developed an attack variant of the new T-7 trainer.
But it seems we've committed to upgrading the Warthogs instead.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:46 PM on March 4, 2022
Both can fly even a bit slower than the A-10. Their primary role is as trainers, so there's room for a backseater to operate sensors and weapons if that's desirable.
We could have also developed an attack variant of the new T-7 trainer.
But it seems we've committed to upgrading the Warthogs instead.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:46 PM on March 4, 2022
> I won't hear anyone speaking ill of my boi Powerglide :(
> Probably not coincidentally, GI Joe derived designs for two highly sought after toys based on them. That's certainly how I became aware of the Warthog as a kid.Decades later, I'm still waiting on a Megatron with an A-10 Thunderbolt/Cobra Rattler alt mode. No, Hasbro, I don't want Megs as a HISS tank.
posted by Fiberoptic Zebroid and The Hypnagogic Jerks at 3:27 PM on March 4, 2022 [1 favorite]
The problem with Tucano and its relatives is they are really COIN aircraft. They are designed for environments where there's little if anything shooting back. And if you ask pilots to choose, they'd probably want the A-10 which is more survivable given the same threat environment.
And if we have to choose one light attack, we may as well pick the AT-6 Wolverine, which is newer and more integrated with NATO electronics than the Tucano. They are of a similar size and runs the same engine, IIRC.
posted by kschang at 5:22 PM on March 4, 2022
And if we have to choose one light attack, we may as well pick the AT-6 Wolverine, which is newer and more integrated with NATO electronics than the Tucano. They are of a similar size and runs the same engine, IIRC.
posted by kschang at 5:22 PM on March 4, 2022
Depleted uranium? Unforgivable? You know U_238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, right? That’s the next thing to stable and I think it’s only an alpha emitter . Or is it “unforgivable” because it’s nasty to get shot with or poisonous? Turns out there isn’t anything that’s really *humane* to get shot with…
posted by Gilgamesh's Chauffeur at 8:46 PM on March 4, 2022
posted by Gilgamesh's Chauffeur at 8:46 PM on March 4, 2022
alpha emitter
The spent rounds end up producing dust, that can easily get inside of organisms. I for one wouldn't appreciate any alpha emitting dust in my lungs/ digestive system.
posted by porpoise at 9:22 PM on March 4, 2022
The spent rounds end up producing dust, that can easily get inside of organisms. I for one wouldn't appreciate any alpha emitting dust in my lungs/ digestive system.
posted by porpoise at 9:22 PM on March 4, 2022
And if we have to choose one light attack, we may as well pick the AT-6 Wolverine, which is newer and more integrated with NATO electronics than the Tucano.
It looks like there's still some remnant of the cancelled LAAR program that's experimenting with AT-6Es and Super Tucanos in active service.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:12 AM on March 5, 2022
It looks like there's still some remnant of the cancelled LAAR program that's experimenting with AT-6Es and Super Tucanos in active service.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:12 AM on March 5, 2022
« Older What has been won; what has been lost? | I’m going to think about Anthony Weiner this one... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The A-10 is an extremely odd aircraft that was the product of Cold War hubris. If anyone in power in the Pentagon in the last 30 years genuinely thought it was a good solution to a modern armored assault (Russian tanks), then an argument could be made that it was a waste of millions (never billions, it's still in service because it's so much cheaper than any alternative) of dollars.
The reality is that despite it's numerous shortcomings it is still very viable and performs very well in situations where the US has Air Superiority. It is more durable and easier and cheaper to maintain than the helicopters and attack jets which have superior capabilities. That is extremely valuable.
posted by Anoplura at 12:58 PM on March 3, 2022 [41 favorites]