StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is it a good plane for the air force to have or is it an outdated piece of weaponry?

Pesonally, I think it is the best plane currently for the job it does. Sure, its slow, ungainly, and INCREDIBLY ugly. But hey, dont judge a book by its cover. They have proven that they can take a lickin' and keep on ticken'. They have triple redundancy hydraulics systems with backup manual controls if the hydraulics fail, engines designed to shutdown and restart in flight if they are hit by shrapnel, a titanium armored bathtub for the pilot to sit in, can carry the equivalent weapons load of 3 WWII B-17D bombers (16,000lbs), and are all around just plain cool. That GAU-8 30mm Avenger 7 Barreled cannon can sling out 3900 rounds of depleted uranium ammo per minute at 1067 ft/s. Hey, they might not be the highest tech plane flying, but they are the best for ground attack and tank busting.


A-10 Firing the GAU-8, which the plane is built around.[/img]

it's an awesome plane and should stick around for a while definately

It's exceedingly excellent at what it does but the Air Force doesn't want it because they hate supporting Army Grunts.

Take it from the son on an Army Grunt.....

They say the same thing about the Y-Wing fighter. I remember a documentary on the Gulf War were they talked to a pilot of a warthog. Showed the plane were its side was blasted off. Give me an A-10 and I'll go into battle.

I have seen test films of firing 20mm anti aircraft rounds into the titanium armor tub and the rounds litterally bouncing off, leaving only scorch marks and scratches in the paint. I have also heard stories of pilots in Iraq during the Gulf War coming back after having their plane shot up REALLY bad and only loosing a tire on landing.

This site has some good info on the A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt II (the Warthog)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10.htm

The A-10 fleet should stay at its current numbers and deployment.

Arguably the best tank killer ever built, the A-10 is still a perfectly serviceable aircraft.

If anyone builds a better one, I'd like to see it.

Voting seems pretty one-sided so far.

And it's on the side I like.

I'm all for it. And am I the only one here that thinks the A-10 looks cool and not ugly?

yep, looks like that to me also! And your right, its one sided in the way i want it to go!

Just a thought....how do the GAU-8's exaust gasses interact with the engines?

Master of Ossus wrote:Arguably the best tank killer ever built, the A-10 is still a perfectly serviceable aircraft.

If anyone builds a better one, I'd like to see it.

Best Tank Killer ever built is essentially a tie between the M1A2 SEP and Leopard IIA6. Now if you mean best tank killing fixed wing aircraft, I'd still have many doubts.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:Arguably the best tank killer ever built, the A-10 is still a perfectly serviceable aircraft.

If anyone builds a better one, I'd like to see it.

Best Tank Killer ever built is essentially a tie between the M1A2 SEP and Leopard IIA6. Now if you mean best tank killing fixed wing aircraft, I'd still have many doubts.

As opposed to what? The Su-24 Frogfoot? Now, dont get me wrong, its a good tank killer, but its not nearly as surviveable or even as maneuverable as the A-10.

A little off-topic, but does the Leopard IIA6 use the same armor U.S. Abrams tanks use? I know the U.S. upgraded the armor since the M-1, so did the Germans get this upgraded armor as well or did we do separate R&D and use our own types of armor?

Wasnt the A-10 part of the Army first, and called the Thunderbolt?

NF_Utvol wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:Arguably the best tank killer ever built, the A-10 is still a perfectly serviceable aircraft.

If anyone builds a better one, I'd like to see it.

Best Tank Killer ever built is essentially a tie between the M1A2 SEP and Leopard IIA6. Now if you mean best tank killing fixed wing aircraft, I'd still have many doubts.

As opposed to what? The Su-24 Frogfoot? Now, dont get me wrong, its a good tank killer, but its not nearly as surviveable or even as maneuverable as the A-10.

Actually Afghanistan proved its survivability is comparable to the A-10, and the super sonic capacity let it escape MANPADS shots that would have doomed A-10's. It high speed also made optical triple A less effective.

The Su-25 though was designed to hit soft and semi hard targets with bombs and rockets in combination with attack helicopters, which would handle armor for the most part. Rather then the A-10's theater anti armor role against hard targets with Mavericks and the gun. Both where CAS but not the same kind.

However I was thinking more along the lines of the Il-2 and Ju-87. Neither was individually as effective as the A-10, however each cost much much less proportional to the defense budgets of the times and could deployed in vast numbers.

SolidSnake wrote:Wasnt the A-10 part of the Army first, and called the Thunderbolt?

Nope, always been part of the USAF. It is designed to be for forward air support and tank busting though, so alot of their operations are in coordination with the Army and/or AF ground forces

What? The A-10 is considered ugly?

I think it looks great.

Keep it. It r0x0r2.

Sea Skimmer -
Are you of a military background? You seem to have a pretty good knowledge and understanding of military tech and tactics. Just wondering, as my father is ex-airforce/current RESRET ANG, and I'm a big military/history buff myself, and I love discussing military related matters.

NF_Utvol wrote:

SolidSnake wrote:Wasnt the A-10 part of the Army first, and called the Thunderbolt?

Nope, always been part of the USAF. It is designed to be for forward air support and tank busting though, so alot of their operations are in coordination with the Army and/or AF ground forces

Snake, what your likely getting confused with is the AH-56 Cheyenne. This compound helicopter, often called the flying greenhouse for its massive cockpit windows was in direct competition with the A-10 for funding for the theater anti armor role.

However the inter service rivalry over whether or not its was a fixed wing aircraft and thus the USAF's domain or still a helo and thus US Army, along with its questionable attack profile, a dive at 300 knots with TOW, killed it. Plus the A-10 was just a generally better, though the AH-56 died before the A-10 had even been selected over the A-9.

The AH-56 was eventually superseded by the AH-64, which was design for standoff attack and was quite conventional.

And Spanky, there is no such thing as the AC-10. Only the A-10, OA-10 and KC-10

For the record the A-10's offical name is the Thunderbolt II, the first Thunderbolt was the P-47.

Sorry, it was a typo. I'll fix it.

...

Fixed. I must have confused the name with a gun or something. :rolleyes:

I still think it looks great. Not ugly at all to me.

NF_Utvol wrote:Sea Skimmer -
Are you of a military background? You seem to have a pretty good knowledge and understanding of military tech and tactics. Just wondering, as my father is ex-airforce/current RESRET ANG, and I'm a big military/history buff myself, and I love discussing military related matters.

I am a 17-year-old, raised by a Quaker mother and a ex 101 Airborne ex Green Beret, Veitnam Vet father who saw combat in both services.

Strange combination en?

Edit: Everyone, even 56K'ers should allow the below image to load and play in full Since I've moved the topic onto attack helocopters

Oh my God!! That's fucking great!!

That's going on my hard drive.

That's some good shit, man.

The A-10 is a cool plane but from what ive heard its gonna be replaced by the F-35 Joint Strik Fighter in the years to come. I think the US military is trying to start phasing out using brute force "in your face" weapons like the A-10 and utilize as much guided precision based weaponry as possible for the future. Its kinda sad but it makes sense.