Jump to content

A10 Gun runs


Recommended Posts

After looking at some gun runs, from the A10, How the hell is the US Army going to replace that, mother of hell??? With the F-35? Why doesent the leadership in the army, just see the A10 as a great asset? I´m sure the soldiers on the ground, want them alive? Or am I totally out of it???

Just look at this: A10 WARTHOG GUNRUN DESTROYS TALIBAN IN TREELINE - video Dailymotion

 

Edited by Armorgunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is getting to be survivability at low altitudes since every Tom, Dick, and Achmed has a manpack these days.

The A-10 is a fantastic weapons system, but gun runs are seriously risky now. I suspect drones will become the weapon of choice for up close and personal CAS when standoff weapons don't fit the mission profile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

The problem is getting to be survivability at low altitudes since every Tom, Dick, and Achmed has a manpack these days.

The A-10 is a fantastic weapons system, but gun runs are seriously risky now. I suspect drones will become the weapon of choice for up close and personal CAS when standoff weapons don't fit the mission profile.

I Understand that!! But that would be the same threat to the F-35 right? If it is in vissible range, it can be defeated? I`m an old relic from the cold war! So I just ask you? Or any other one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big political battle been raging for years between air force which claims it can do everything using smart weapons from high altitude and the army (and Marines) who want dedicated air support that is under their control.  Ie;  A battle for budget dollars and power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're never going to see F-35's doing gun runs.

It's all about stand off whenever possible and they're not putting expensive front line fighters in range of a golden BB.

I think they should keep the A-10 for low intensity conflicts, but like I said, still manpads in the poorest armies, so you really have to walk a fine line on risk vs target value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AttorneyAtWar said:

and engage targets extremely accurately at range

The problem will become apparent when, in a high intensity peer vs peer conflict, all the hi tech stuff runs out or is disabled via cyberwar etc.  

Re all the recent ransomware attacks.  One wonders how many times banks are compromised and even the military.  But, we'll never get told about that as it would destroy confidence in our own infrastructure.  (One notable exception however, was in the UK a couple years ago, when all of TSB's (a large bank) ATM machines ceased operating and folks couldn't get access to their money for a day or two.)  That gives us just a small taste of what will probably happen in a real war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

in a high intensity peer vs peer conflict, all the hi tech stuff runs out or is disabled via cyberwar etc.  

Since high intensity includes nuclear weapons, it doesn't really matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bufo said:

Since high intensity includes nuclear weapons, it doesn't really matter.

Biological, Chemical and Cyberwar are far more likely.  Why?  Because nuclear destroys private property and these who run the world will soon find themselves in a Mad Max world where their money and status will be worth nothing.  Bio/Chem/Cyber can be more targeted so that only the lower 99% of lives get affected, but the property is undamaged and there are still plenty of servants available.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets remember the horror experienced in the Pentagon when an F-17 stealth fighter was shot down over Serbia in 1999, by an old 1960's era SA-3 AA missile system! I recall reading somewhere (while working on the Cold War title) that the U.S. expected to lose 75%+ of its A-10s in the first 3 weeks of combat in a European war. That was probably optimistic.

In 1979 Republicans in Congress directed that the Pentagon study use of the old WWII Mustang (renamed 'Encorcer') for use as a ground attack aircraft as an alternative to A-10. This was a case of nostalgia for a legendary aircraft trumping common sense, much like the fight over A-10 today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just put a couple of very big loudspeakers (lower range only) in the Co HQ vehicle, which can 'emulate' the sound of a A-10 gun run when a JDAM from a F-35 is gliding on it's way to the target. Problem solved 😜

Recently I heard parts of an interview with a departing Dutch general on the radio. He also stated that the troops don't want an F-35, but something loud and close to them which they and enemy can hear (although they could in theory also do a flyover with an F-35 on afterburner I guess).

I guess the issue is more similar to electric cars and my perception of them; however fast an electric vehicle is, it's still not a Porsche Carrera GT with a howling atmospheric V10. That's a car. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

it's still not a Porsche Carrera GT with a howling atmospheric V10.

I have an old (2007) 350Z that a previous owner put on such a howler, and that makes it a head-turner.  So, maybe use cheap and expendable prop planes with an A10 noisemaker.  The problem with modern tech is that it's too easy to jam and so expensive to develop, buy and then maintain we'll end up at the point where each combatant can only afford one item lol.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

I have an old (2007) 350Z that a previous owner put on such a howler, and that makes it a head-turner.  So, maybe use cheap and expendable prop planes with an A10 noisemaker.  The problem with modern tech is that it's too easy to jam and so expensive to develop, buy and then maintain we'll end up at the point where each combatant can only afford one item lol.  

Just insert the sound in their earpiece :)

PS Nice car! 
PS2 the Carrera GT comes with a race-spec factory howling v10. That's, imo, a different beast. I don't own one unfortunately. 

Some sound of the original without  straight pipes, which ruin the sound 😉 

Edit: better vid

 

Edited by Lethaface
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the same reason AC-130s aren't flying everywhere.. it's an impressive gun platform and often the subject of power fantasies but of what use is it if it's tumbling back down to earth in a big fireball?

 

Edited by Kraft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Kraft said:

what use is it if it's tumbling back down to earth in a big fireball?

well... if it crashes on top of something usefully...  

you're right of course.  in a few years most air will be unmanned drones by the thousands or tens of thousands.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2021 at 11:33 PM, Kraft said:

It's the same reason AC-130s aren't flying everywhere.. it's an impressive gun platform and often the subject of power fantasies but of what use is it if it's tumbling back down to earth in a big fireball?

 

It's the kind of weapons system that's developed during times of extreme superiority and only really makes sense as long as you're fighting enemies that can't really fight back. Like a martial arts technique specifically for when the opponent is on the ground halfway unconscious.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2021 at 5:31 AM, Bulletpoint said:

It's the kind of weapons system that's developed during times of extreme superiority and only really makes sense as long as you're fighting enemies that can't really fight back. Like a martial arts technique specifically for when the opponent is on the ground halfway unconscious.

Now THAT gave me a laugh!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 He also stated that the troops don't want an F-35, but something loud and close to them 

You reminded me of a documentary I saw long ago about the battle for the Falklands. The British special forces (? I believe) complained about their silenced weapons. They said against a poorly trained  enemy the noise of gunfire is a big contributor to suppressing morale. Silenced weapons only do half the job. In a similar vein, a .50 cal mg is much worse in the anti-personnel role than a 7.62 mg. But a .50 cal sounds like a .50 cal which has a morale effect on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Its on the other side of the world and in CM Cold War timeframe, 1982. Brief footage of Argentine jets going up against the British Navy. This looks like some VERY dangerous flying.

 

Great footage...and poor Argentine pilot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...