Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2004 12:19 pm**

About bloody time those zoomies got it through their thick heads that an effective platform doesn't have to be supersonic, overloaded with digital hardware, and cost more than 20 million a pop.

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2004 1:35 am**

I am glad that the Airforce decided not to phase the Warthog out. Sounds like with these upgrades the A10 will be even more bad ass.

P.S. has anyone done a good write up for this, and other modern military vehicles?

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2004 6:43 pm**

Various MDC versions of the A-10 have appeared (including one in the Rifter) but I haven't seen a good SDC representation. I would do one, but the standard Palladium system doesn't accurately reflect modern combat vehicles IMHO, and I have done so many house rules to compensate, I doubt the result would make sense to y'all.

But basically take the stat block from any aircraft fanatic's page, add in SDC by location, AR and some plausable damages and rates of fire for the various weapon loads. Easy.

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2004 11:41 pm**

It's about time. The A10 is the only good plane that the Air Farce has.

Posted: **Tue May 11, 2004 1:55 am**

Trooper Jim wrote:P.S. has anyone done a good write up for this, and other modern military vehicles?

Bill Coffin did a A-10 in Rifter #8 along with the AC-130H, V-22 Osprey and Hummer for System Failure.

Posted: **Tue May 11, 2004 2:30 am**

The A-10 is what we used to call "a good workhorse", being a multi-purpose aircraft (fighter, tank-killer), and I for one am glad it's stood the test of time long enough to get this kind of an upgrade. You don't mess with what works, and the A-10 Warthog earns it's keep.

Posted: **Mon May 17, 2004 5:23 pm**

The A-10 is an excellent plane, but it's a specialist, so I dare say it's out of the running for the "best" plane the air force has.

I'd argue the F-16, which is in the number 2 spot in almost every role the Air Force has a requirement for is a good candidate. Another good choice is the C-130, since it's number 1 or number 2 in pretty much every job the F-16 can't do.

Posted: **Tue May 18, 2004 10:00 am**

Don't forget folks...back during Desert Storm (in '91) there was rumblings that the idiots in the pentagon were going to phase-out the A-10 since they weren't "modern" enough. (They had to wire-up a missile to gain even limited Nightvision capabilities.) ie: it didn't have enough "toys" (read: electronics) for the pilot to play with, and the price was such that they couldn't pad their budgets just to buy a couple - for the price of a single F-18, they could buy 5-6 A-10's. Why is it that the belief is that the more expensive something is, the more effective it is? :-?

That was the whole point of the A-10 wasn't it? Easy to maintain, hard to kill and simple to fly...

In fact - PUBLIC outcry (in the US) was what kept the Warthog flying, not the fact that it was the BEST weapon in the US arsenal for what it was designed to be - armour killer par excelence.

Posted: **Mon May 24, 2004 9:39 am**

I don't usually post here, but was just cruzing through, and saw this thread.

It's of my mind that while the F-16, or any other of the F- range of jet fighter may be a performance craft, nice, sleel, and with numerious techno on board, the A-10 just looks mean. There's the whole fear factor with the shark tooth beast of the skies. It's an intimidating looking fighter craft.

Posted: **Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:31 pm**

Update, from Strategy Page;

November 23, 2004: The U.S. Air Force is beginning it’s A-10 upgrade, that will convert most of the current A-10A aircraft to A-10Cs (the A-10B was a two seat version produced in small quantities). Most of the changes will not be visible, and many will be in the cockpit. The pilots will now have color LCDs, new instruments and a new joystick with enough buttons on it to allow the pilot to control just about everything without having to fiddle with any other controls. This is called HOTAS (Hands-On Throttle And Stick). The A-10C will be able to use JDAM (GPS guided) smart bombs, as well as many current, and future, missiles. This makes the A-10 even more versatile. The air force has been trying to dump the A-10 for some two decades now. But the army combat troops like it, as do the air force pilots who fly it and, most importantly, so does the media. The A-10C will be the most versatile combat warplane the air force operates. The A-10 is the only warplane that can get down low (the better to figure what is really going on), and deliver effective firepower (via the 30mm automatic cannon). The A-10C will also be able to drop smart bombs from higher altitudes, making it able to deal with just about any combat support mission that comes up. In addition, the A-10 is designed to operate from crude airbase facilities and, in general, take a lot of punishment and keep going.

Posted: **Wed Nov 24, 2004 4:39 am**

Query:

What is it about shovelling massive amounts of small greenish rectangles of paper into the nearest incinerator in the name of "newer, sexier, more advanced" that causes most (if not all) of the blood in the average US military mind to rapidly recede south of the border for purposes of structural reinforcement?

Example:

During Desert Storm it was reported that the reason the Pentagon Brass wanted to turf the 'hog was it wasn't "sexy" (ie: new and obscenely expensive) enough, and that a multi-million dollar refit PER aircraft would allow the F-16?! (A freaking Air Superiority intercepter) to "take over the duties of" a close-air support jet that cost maybe 1 mil and designed to take up to 70% systems and over 80% fuselage/control surface damage and still return to base safely? That plus those RR workhorses could digest a horse and still allow the damn thing to fly!...well, not quite a horse...

Posted: **Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:52 pm**

F-16 are lawn darts. The A10C is about the only plane left to face the people that the USA fights. At least until France sells out and sells all their air tech to China...

Posted: **Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:27 am**

Originally posted by MorganKeyes.
Basicly an F-16 with the A-10's GAU-8 cannon in a belly pod.

You sure about that? A cannon the size of a VW Bug in a belly-pod? That's going to be one big pod.

Posted: **Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:14 pm**

Could somebody link me to a site where I'd find the stats for the F 16 and A 10 respectively (things like length, maximum flight weight with full charge of ammo and extra fuel, wing surface....) because, right or wrong, I have the idea that the F16 is MUCH too small (especially in carrying surface to weight ratio) to be able to carry a huge mother of a gun like that 30 mm Vulcan.

Posted: **Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:21 pm**

www.fas.org

Posted: **Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:35 pm**

Thanks

Posted: **Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:06 pm**

The F-16 wouldn't ever carry the GAU-8. That gun generates enough recoil force to shake the A-10, it's probably rip off the F-16.

The F-16's role in close air support would be very different than the A-10s.

The A-10, while responsive to calls from the infantry, spots its own targets and lays waste to them with a choice of ordinance.

The F-16 will have its weapons precision guided by the infantrymen. It probably won't even see the target but will instead fly comfortably aove the groudn fire and drop when told to do so.

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:06 am**

Actually, on checking the respective stats of the planes... the F16 does no longer seem so small that it could not support the GAU 8 ... at least if, like the A 10, it was built around it, rather than just carrying it in a pod.

Of course, that thing (especially the ammo) would just play havoc with the carrying capacity and range of the plane, and, given the tiny wingspan, I just hop the thrust IS enough that the recoil won't cause the plane to fall.

Posted: **Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:38 pm**

Svartalf wrote:Actually, on checking the respective stats of the planes... the F16 does no longer seem so small that it could not support the GAU 8 ... at least if, like the A 10, it was built around it, rather than just carrying it in a pod.

If that were te case, then it wouldn't be an F-16.

There was a strike F-16 (F model based on XL design)

Posted: **Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:51 pm**

I honestly believe that pound for pound, this is probably the greatest aircraft ever developed. The sheer awesomeness this plane would become if lavished upon financially is scary.

No plane is as durable as my beloved A-10. I heard something in Desert Storm that a pilot had lost a wing from a SAM and still made it home to base. Anyone else hear of that one? I'm tempted to research that...

Posted: **Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:32 am**

MorganKeyes wrote:I realize that Jeffar, but tell that to the Air Force types at the time that were pushing the concept

from the site:

F/A-16A & F/A-16C

The USAF was rather reluctant to let the idea of a dedicated CAS F-16 go, and planned to replace its A-10's with F-16s fitted with a version of the Warthog's Avenger cannon. In November 1988, the 174th TFW of the New York ANG began transitioning from the A-10A Thunderbolt II to the F-16A/B Block 10, becoming the first unit to operate the F-16 in a close air support role.

During Desert Storm, their 24 F-16A/B aircraft were equipped to carry the General Electric GPU-5/A Pave Claw pod on the centerline station. The pod houses a 30mm GAU-13/A four-barrel derivative of the seven-barrel GAU-8/A cannon used by the A-10A, and 353 rounds of ammunition. The aircraft received the new designation F/A-16, and were the only F-16s ever to be equipped with this weapon, intended for use against a variety of battlefield targets, including armor.

If the tests were successful, there were plans for a fleet of F/A-16C's with the same armament. To demonstrate the concept, the AF installed Pave Penny avionics, 30mm gun pods and European One paint jobs on 7 F-16C's (#83128, -129, -130, -131, -132, -144, -2??). F-16B no. 2 (#75752) was given similar treatment except for a Falcon Eye system. These aircraft flew from Nellis with the 'WA' tailcode.

The F-16s from the 174th were deployed to the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm, but the project proved to be a miserable failure. Precision aiming was impossible for several reasons:

The pylon mount isn't as steady as the A-10's rigid mounting;
The F-16 flies much faster than an A-10, giving the pilots too little time approaching the target;
Firing the gun shook the aircraft harshly and made it impossible to control;
Essential CCIP (continuously computed impact point) software was unavailable.
Pilots ended up using the gun as an area effect weapon, spraying multiple targets with ammunition, producing an effect rather like a cluster bomb. It took only a couple of days of this before they gave up, unbolted the gun pods, and went back to dropping real cluster bombs - which did the job more effectively.

The F/A-16C plan was quietly forgotten. The USAF still has plans to replace the A-10 with F-16s, but they no longer involve 30mm gun pods (or, apparently, a designation with an "A" in it).

Posted: **Tue Dec 07, 2004 3:04 pm**

As for the F-16 close support version...what ever made the pentagon brass that a fighter with a stall speed so high as to make the ability to loiter non-existant was a good idea? Let alone the fact that as I recall, the F-16 is a single engine jet, and more "fragile"...a single system goes down and like someone else already said...you have a $20 million lawn dart. :lol:

For what the F-16 was designed to do, it is a very good single-seat fighter!

Posted: **Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:19 pm**

MorganKeyes wrote:
Borast wrote:As for the F-16 close support version...what ever made the pentagon brass that a fighter with a stall speed so high as to make the ability to loiter non-existant was a good idea? Let alone the fact that as I recall, the F-16 is a single engine jet, and more "fragile"...a single system goes down and like someone else already said...you have a $20 million lawn dart.

For what the F-16 was designed to do, it is a very good single-seat fighter!

Maybe because the Air Force was trying to find a way out of doing CAS since those in command at the time had a serious bias against anything that wasn't "High, Fast, and/or Stealthy". This was something driven more by egos then any practical thought. But as we have seen, it never came to pass and the A-10 continues on and even is getting long-overdue upgrades.

Yeah...what is it about rising through the ranks that tends to fossilise the brain? :lol:

Posted: **Sat Jun 04, 2005 3:35 am**

GoldSoldier wrote:Being a grunt from the First Gulf War( I mean REAL Gulf War) I understand completely!

REAL Gulf War? That sounds a little conceited.

Posted: **Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:03 am**

GoldSoldier wrote:Naw, just my OPINION....

It's your opinion that Desert Shield/Desert Storm was a real war, and that Operation Iraqi Freedom isn't a real war?

By the way, what took you so long for the reply????

Every so often I browse through the Recon boards if the other forums are slow.

Posted: **Sat Jun 04, 2005 9:00 am**

C.R.A.F.T. wrote:We just happened to fight like soldiers then, not bureaucrats.

And the men & women in uniform today don't fight like soldiers? This sounds just like the same petty and snide remarks that WWII and Korean War veterans made to Vietnam veterans.

Posted: **Sat Jun 04, 2005 10:07 am**

Don't get to agitated here guys, I wouldn't want to have to take downa a thread here.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:20 am**

C.R.A.F.T. wrote: meant that we went in with a goal in mind and hit the enemy with everything we had.

And we didn't in Iraq? Desert Shield/Desert Storm was to protect Saudi from further aggression, and then to liberate Kuwait. In the Iraq war, we had to take over an entire country, liberate it, and then occupy it.

Today, everything the military does is second guessed, training is at a minimum because of costs, and no one is stepping forward when something does go wrong.

I joined the Army during Desert Storm and IMO the training people receive now is much better; in terms of techniques, tactics, and procedures. And as always, one generation to the next will always be of the opinion that we instill less and less discipline in our troops, kinda hard to when bureaucracy gets in the way.

Every confilct we have ever been in has seen it's operations second guessed...even Desert Shield/Desert Storm. If it wasn't for bureaucracy, we would have taken Baghdad during the gulf war and removed Saddam from power then.

We do have the best military on the face of the planet, it's the politicians that make the job harder than it has to be.

I honestly think they're (the politicians) doing a much better job at this time around than their predecessors did during the Vietnam era. If it wasn't for the media and the difficulties presented by instantaneous digital communications (by the insurgency), our efforts wouldn't be hindered so.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:25 am**

GoldSoldier wrote:And on top of all that, the VA hospital here in Ann Arbor,Michigan LAID off people!! Hows that for a great way to take care of the troops that are coming home/leaving the service?!?

Budget cuts? It happens, disheartening nonetheless. Dealing with the VA when I retire is not something I look forward to.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:52 pm**

GoldSoldier wrote:If their was MANDATORY spending instead of discrecionary spending on the VA, we would not have that problem.

I think the logic behind that is that they (the gov't) doesn't plan on having the massive number of Veterans as it did in prior wars. If they maintain a mandatory budget it could lead to fraud and waste if they don't have the need for it.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:15 am**

GoldSoldier wrote:
gordyzx9r wrote:
GoldSoldier wrote:If their was MANDATORY spending instead of discrecionary spending on the VA, we would not have that problem.

I think the logic behind that is that they (the gov't) doesn't plan on having the massive number of Veterans as it did in prior wars. If they maintain a mandatory budget it could lead to fraud and waste if they don't have the need for it.

OK, just to let you know thier have been over 20-25 million veterans since about 1962 i think. Either way, based on the history of our nation going to war every 25 years (about), I dont see that happening.

Like I said, IMO I think it was their intent. There isn't a whole lot of money in the pot and everybody wants some.

Posted: **Sat Sep 03, 2005 3:14 pm**

gordyzx9r wrote:Every confilct we have ever been in has seen it's operations second guessed...even Desert Shield/Desert Storm. If it wasn't for bureaucracy, we would have taken Baghdad during the gulf war and removed Saddam from power then.

We do have the best military on the face of the planet, it's the politicians that make the job harder than it has to be.

I honestly think they're (the politicians) doing a much better job at this time around than their predecessors did during the Vietnam era. If it wasn't for the media and the difficulties presented by instantaneous digital communications (by the insurgency), our efforts wouldn't be hindered so.

I can agree with that statement.

Unfortunately, the entire purpose of Desert Storm had nothing to do with taking over Iraq... Might have had something to do with the "devil you know" theory.

Not to be insulting or anything, but the US army is NOT the best military on the planet. Best supplied, yes, definately, but many countries' armed forces are better trained, some are more disciplined, and a few are even (alot) better in battle.

As to whether the current US administration is doing better than the Vietnam era...that is debateable. However, I fully agree that instantaneous access by the general public to military manoeuvers in a combat zone IS ASSININELY STUPID! While in the US the public's "right to know" is almost ... holy, it is also unreasonable for it.

If I'm remembering the line properly, I once read something by an American writer, one of his characters stated that there are two groups to whom the life of a soldier can not be trusted...politicians and the public! This would translate in today's world to no information being released for a couple of days to a week or more after an action occurs.

That having been said, I am all for civilian oversight of a military. However, during a war situation, that does NOT mean every citizen in the country!

Anyway...this thread is supposed to be about the Warthog...shall we return to that?

Posted: **Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:42 am**

Borast wrote:Unfortunately, the entire purpose of Desert Storm had nothing to do with taking over Iraq... Might have had something to do with the "devil you know" theory.

Your right it wasn't, but the military got withing 25-50 miles of Baghdad and was about to turn Saddam over on a silver platter, but were pulled back because the intent was only to liberate Kuwait (as some of our middle eastern allies stipulated that would be the only reason they would help).

Not to be insulting or anything, but the US army is NOT the best military on the planet. Best supplied, yes, definately, but many countries' armed forces are better trained, some are more disciplined, and a few are even (alot) better in battle.

I disagree, I've seen other soldiers up close and personal from alot of other countries on the battle field. I'd say there are some that are toe to toe with us (UK, Aussie, Israel...), but there are none better.

But, this isn't the place for this...Sound Off is the forum this should be addressed in...though it's been done so many times most people would ignore it.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:22 am**

I'd bet on the warthog in a gun fight or with sidewinders.

Posted: **Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:19 pm**

Hell a mean look from the 'hog Driver should be enough to shake apart the Electric Jet.

Posted: **Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:43 pm**

Jefffar wrote:Hell a mean look from the 'hog Driver should be enough to shake apart the Electric Jet.

Only if the F-16 is flying on the deck...

Posted: **Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:11 pm**

Borast wrote:
Jefffar wrote:Hell a mean look from the 'hog Driver should be enough to shake apart the Electric Jet.

Only if the F-16 is flying on the deck...

Where else is a F-16 going to encounter an A-10? From what I've heard, they've never bothered to test what maximum altitude the A-10 can reach because it doesn't matter to the mission.

Posted: **Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:57 pm**

On the tarmac?

Posted: **Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:26 pm**

Wise guy

Posted: **Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:02 pm**

Forums of the Megaverse®

The Thunderbolt to get some new spark