Strike Aircraft Comparisons

**jackprince** · 27 Mar 09,, 22:09

Originally Posted by Kommunist

You are talking about this one........??

Holly Sh#t!!!!

What were those?! Anti-tank missiles??

**entropy** · 27 Mar 09,, 22:31

Guided bombs.

**~~bugs~~** · 27 Mar 09,, 23:23

cbu-87
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-87.htm

**Pioneer** · 28 Mar 09,, 00:24

Originally Posted by gabriel

That's the problem every conscript army face , the politicians are squemish to send the infantry in ...

Wow
If this is so, then it would be the first time that the Soviet/Russian’s had a conscience about doing so!

)

Regards
Pioneer

**Pioneer** · 28 Mar 09,, 00:48

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

Seems to me that the A-10 is more of an 'attack' (Check the name for a start) aircraft, specialised for close air support, with the ability to carry out a bunch of other missions when needed. The Tornado seems more like a true strike aircraft designed for hitting strategic targets and penetrating defended airspace etc.
The two are meant to be used very differently and can't really be compared to eachother anymore than a Tomcat can be compared to a Blackjack.
And I'm told the JSF is going to replace the A-10, how the hell is that supposed to work?

Don’t get me started on that one Spoonmam!

The USAF ‘Brass’ have been attempting to replace the ‘tailored designed and built’ Warthog, even before it was fielded.

It has a lot to do with the Air Force top ‘Brass’ obsession with almost every aircraft in its inventor needing to be supersonic, overly expensive, and every system on it which is irrelevant to the primary role required by the U.S Army –
• Loitering time in both time on station and in sustainable weapons load!
• A slow enough speed so as to allow the pilot to visually ID friend and foe, and engage the enemy with pin point precision, even when in close contact with the enemy!
This slow speed also allows for the Warthog utilize ground terrain to both mask and protect it
• The ability to sustain substantial battle damage.
• Simplicity, which allows for the quickest turn-around time.
• A powerful cannon system, which allows minimal time exposure of the aircraft while engaging targets (as opposed to earlier missile systems which required the aircraft to be exposed to enemy fire, whilst it guides its missiles onto target. The powerful GAU-8 power and versatility also allows for the engagement and destruction of multiple types of targets from troops, trucks, bunkers to main battle tanks.

I have witnessed the Thunderbolt II in action, when we had put out a call for close air support!
Impressive, impressive and very arousing from a grunts perspective!
The sound of its cannon is very comforting.

They can keep their F-35 (JSF)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Given the choice I would acquire at least 20 x A-10’s for the RAAF tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But unfortunately neither Air Marshals nor politicians listen to grunts

Regards
Pioneer

**Pioneer** · 28 Mar 09,, 02:17

Originally Posted by Garry

Now when Su-34 is in service (first 4 aircraft are in Army) I would vote for it. Read an article recently and loved the machine.

Su-34 has maximum range of 4,000km with internal fuel - something close to strategic Tu-22M.... it has standard 30mm cannon with 180 shells. This Bomber Flanker can carry up to 8-tons of precision stricking load a, it can defend itself from interceptors with its PESA Leninets radar, which has electronic and mechanic streering, and 2 R-73 and R-77 missiles. I can fly supersonic at altitude of just 100m automatically using terrain scanning radar. Its cockpit is large enough for pilits to be there more than 10 hours. I guess this is a unique asset so far......

ps. the cockpit is large as in a strategic bomber allowing pilots to stand and to lay down.

Hay I forgot the Su-34 – good point!!
I may have said it before (?), but I think the Su-34 is the success story of what the USAF (and to a lesser degree the US Navy!) attempted to achieve in its TFX program, which became the venerable F-111!
Its just 40-years since the TFX was conceived!

Regards
Pioneer

**Jimmy** · 28 Mar 09,, 03:06

Originally Posted by Pioneer

Don’t get me started on that one Spoonmam!

The USAF ‘Brass’ have been attempting to replace the ‘tailored designed and built’ Warthog, even before it was fielded.

It has a lot to do with the Air Force top ‘Brass’ obsession with almost every aircraft in its inventor needing to be supersonic, overly expensive, and every system on it which is irrelevant to the primary role required by the U.S Army –
• Loitering time in both time on station and in sustainable weapons load!
• A slow enough speed so as to allow the pilot to visually ID friend and foe, and engage the enemy with pin point precision, even when in close contact with the enemy!
This slow speed also allows for the Warthog utilize ground terrain to both mask and protect it
• The ability to sustain substantial battle damage.
• Simplicity, which allows for the quickest turn-around time.
• A powerful cannon system, which allows minimal time exposure of the aircraft while engaging targets (as opposed to earlier missile systems which required the aircraft to be exposed to enemy fire, whilst it guides its missiles onto target. The powerful GAU-8 power and versatility also allows for the engagement and destruction of multiple types of targets from troops, trucks, bunkers to main battle tanks.

I have witnessed the Thunderbolt II in action, when we had put out a call for close air support!
Impressive, impressive and very arousing from a grunts perspective!
The sound of its cannon is very comforting.

They can keep their F-35 (JSF)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Given the choice I would acquire at least 20 x A-10’s for the RAAF tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But unfortunately neither Air Marshals nor politicians listen to grunts

Regards
Pioneer

Fear not, the Hog isn't going anywhere for at least 15 years, maybe more. I believe the fleet is completely upgraded to the C-model now, which allows JDAMs and makes the pilot's job a LOT easier (anything that frees his mind up to concentrate on targeting is a good thing, I'd say).

**Stitch** · 28 Mar 09,, 04:24

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Fear not, the Hog isn't going anywhere for at least 15 years, maybe more. I believe the fleet is completely upgraded to the C-model now, which allows JDAMs and makes the pilot's job a LOT easier (anything that frees his mind up to concentrate on targeting is a good thing, I'd say).

Yes, you are correct; all surviving A-10 airframes are to be upgraded to either OA-10A or A-10C standard (the majority). The sad part is several hundred have already been "deactivated"; if you don't believe me, just go to Google Earth and check out Davis-Monthan AMARG. The good news is the surviving airframes should serve "with the USAF until 2028 and possibly later". Also, "the A-10 could stay in service longer due to its low cost and its unique capabilities — such as its cannon, ruggedness, and flight endurance capabilities."

**Jimmy** · 28 Mar 09,, 04:40

The only difference between an A-10 and an OA-10 is the pilot (FAC-A) and ordnance. I've heard (from an occasionally reliable source) the A-10C upgrade is complete...I haven't bothered looking into it to see if its true. I do know that A-10Cs were at the recent Red Flag, so they're out and about at least.

**ASG** · 28 Mar 09,, 04:47

Originally Posted by Stitch

Also, "the A-10 could stay in service longer due to its low cost and its unique capabilities — such as its cannon, ruggedness, and flight endurance capabilities."

Yes, because development on a viable replacement has not even been started.

TBH, I do not see any of the current aircraft in the USAF inventory(or Russian for that matter) which matches upto the Hog's capability to go in low and dirty on CAS missions, take AAA/MANPAD fire and still RTB. Nothing, simply nothing else does CAS better than the Hog.

Oh, and BTW, the A-10 is not a strike aircraft. Its primary role is CAS and (sometimes)FAC duty. Its like calling the Oranges Apples.

**Pioneer** · 28 Mar 09,, 08:14

Good to hear this – Thanks!

After all one would hope that the USAF have learned to appreciate the A-10 unique capability and flexibility!
Added to this is the fact that after its combat proven capability in ‘Gulf War 1 & 2’ and Afghanistan, the US Army will not be forced to continue to do battle its primary ‘enemy within’ – the USAF - in both providing and sustaining such a specialized CAS/Anti-tank aircraft in its inventory to support Army operations.

Regards
Pioneer

**entropy** · 30 Mar 09,, 14:57

Originally Posted by gabriel

Close support is SU-25 job, su-24 was design as a interdiction aircraft.(bridges, railwaystations, aviation bunkers..etc)

There weren't any in Chechnya. There were holes filled with terrorists, and well-camouflaged armour.

They had to use the poor radar and black/white camera to locate those. That was a problem in Afghanistan already, but they still had some decent pilot training back then: the Suitcase drivers were the elite.

**TopHatter** · 06 Nov 09,, 14:35

Originally Posted by Flanker-H

You fool most European countries don't know how to upgrade aircrafts learn from Indians who changed 4 generation aircraft Su-30K to 4.5 generation aircraft Su-30MKI which is best in the subcontinent:P

You're replying to a post that's four years old.