A-10 Warthog crashes near Strait of Hormuz
(www.militarytimes.com)
from return2ozma@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 03 Apr 21:52
https://lemmy.world/post/45129430
from return2ozma@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 03 Apr 21:52
https://lemmy.world/post/45129430
#world
threaded - newest
Extremely rare. This thing is like a tank in the sky.
I also thought that Warthogs were antiquated as CAS? Fucking dipshit Kegsbreath (Epstein War aside)
They’re old, but still the most effective in that role. At least when they don’t have the threat of being shot down.
They are great for fighting wars against goat herders who live in caves, which apparently is the only military we can fight.
This. We got so use to fighting farmers with guns and rpgs that we have no experience fighting an actual army.
I really don’t look forward to when we actually throw hands with a really powerful military. I feel we will see a lot of American troops dead.
It’s the A10 we are talking about. You better make sure those farmers don’t have bricks or anything else they can throw.
But on the other hand, yeah, the plane excels on its role of staying low over an enemy army and shoot everything at random.
Not really, A10s have the highest loss rate of any post-Vietnam US aircraft.
Are you factoring in as a percent of combat sorties and proportionality? Because when taking this into account, I’m not sure that’s right.
And has numerous incidents of being blown to bits and still returning to base. The pilot themselves is literally inside a “titanium bathtub”.
Keep in mind finally that the nature of this aircraft is not to engage from a stand-off distance but rather be up close. Ultimately I’m really curious what brought this bird down.
… The V-22 Osprey on the other hand… Look at it wrong and she falls out of the sky.
F-16s flew a little over 13,000 sorties during Desert Storm with fewer losses and (importantly) a higher mission success rate. Also Chuck Horner was on record as saying that he kept A-10s away from anywhere the Iraqi Republican Guard was operating as they had access to actually functional air defenses that would have shredded the A-10s.
Basically A-10 pilots bragging about Desert Storm is like someone being sent to go wrestle some toddlers and coming back with a bloodied nose and broken bones and bragging about how tough and resilient they were not to have bled out.
Not to mention it is no longer 1991 and the A-10 is even less useful on a modern battlefield.
I mostly agree, which is why I knew the air frame was largely being antiquated given modern warfare; that being said it does not change that the warthog itself is designed and proven to take a pummeling relative to these other planes who fly significantly higher and stand off further away, or that Warthog losses are rare. They’ve taken plenty of hits from MANPADS, have .50 and 20mm rounds blow off parts of the tail and punch through the hull, and kept flying, so I’m curious what air-defense system took this one down.
There’s another point to this that is probably more important to highlight: Leadership matters. A rook is a strong chess piece, but if you launch it out of the gate in your opening moves and don’t protect it you’re in for a bad time. Any war sim or RTS should convey this idea. It is rare for these to come down relative to the sorties because good commanders know when the strengths and weaknesses of their pieces.
Might have something to do with at least 10 highly experienced Generals being fired by Kegsbreath recently… Leaving aside all the others he’s done. Seems intentional.
Hunting warthogs has always been popular…
Warthogs are extremely cool. I’d end this comment with “fight me!”, but honestly I’m not that invested.
No they’re not. (It’s on)
They’re cool, but from what I have read, they are shit for the most part.
One of my favourite DOS games back in the day was A-10 Tank Killer. It was a surprisingly good flight sim for its day and relatively accessible for a kid playing on a keyboard and mouse. I played that game so much, I’ve got a soft spot for the old A-10.
You should check out nuclear option. Its sorta strangereal esque where they have near future style craft in a modern theater. Smack in between Ace Combat and DCS in realism. Theres an A10 replacement that has turboprops
Nice, never heard of it, sounds like I’d like it.
I thought the A-10 was decommissioned…?
I think they’ve been trying to phase out the damned things but who knows whats going on with the back end shit. Wouldn’t even be surprised if kegsbreth specifically kept them in commission because the look kool.
The Army wants to keep them. F-35s can’t do the A-10’s job properly, and the A-10 has a reputation. However, they are old with no replacement even in the works because the Air Force only wants bombers or fighters.
Maybe I am cynical, and I am by no way a military expert of any kind, but I would figure that an A-10 is more expendable than a F-35.
I am in the 'A-10s are cool' camp, but I do not think that they are particularly useful anymore on a modern battlefield.
The GAU-8 they built the A-10 around is a heckuva gun. It can also weather AA fire. An F-35 can only fire missiles (which, due to it’s internal weapons bays, are limited), and isn’t going to eat a flak around and still get home safely. It wasn’t designed for the same enviroment.
Which job is that? Killing hiluxes and insurgents with no air defense capabilities? Because against everybody else the A-10 throws stand-off munitions from medium altitude, when it’s not banned from entering hostile airspace.
It’s no coincidence nobody wants to operate it. Not any foreign air force, not USAF that is stuck with it and not the US army that was offered it(they are fine with USAF paying for it).
F-16s can do anything useful the A-10 can and much more.
Well it all depends on what you’re doing. The A-10s can carry more ordinance, longer loiter times, more heavily armored than something like the f35.once you establish air superiority you need trucks to dump munitions as fast and cheaply as possible.
That’s not the F-35’s role, that’s the F-16’s role for the USAF (and most western air forces) and carries as much ordinance, has better range since it’s not hampered by armor.
It also actually has performed low-level attacks against AAA, something the A-10 was banned from doing in Desert Storm, despite having armor for that specific task.
Which is the issue, the A-10’s core concept is flawed. Armor does not provide suitability to aircraft, not even against AAA, never mind SAMs. Compromising performance (speed, range), forgoing capabilities (A2A radar) makes the plane practically useless.
You seem to forget that the A-10 is only about 50 years old. The armor, redundant controls, and flight capabilities (such as being designed to fly while missing half a wing, half the entire tail, and an engine) are there to keep the pilot safe. They have landed after being hit more than once, and entirely due to it’s design.
The A-10 isn’t an air superiority fighter; it’s an attack craft and does that job well enough than any grunt on the ground is disappointed when a request for air support is answered by anything BUT an A-10.
It needs an update, sure, but it is far from useless.
Yeah, it was also designed to kill tanks with the gun which it doesn’t do. As for flying with missing half a wing, it hasn’t happened with an A-10. An F-15, an unarmored plane, has landed missing a whole wing in real life. Many planes, all unarmored, have taken hits and survived.
Grunts have no clue. Literally, they listed the A-10 having a copilot as a reason why they prefer it.As in they misidentify aircraft as the A-10.
The A-10 also only did that during low-intensity, counterinsurgency operations. Against infantry with technical. The M-61 is perfectly capable of destroying technicals. Go lookup a video of it in action and tell me it’s not capable and you need the GAU-8.
Yes it can do the job, it doesn’t do it better than multirole fighters that you are going to have anyways. It actually does it worse. It was restricted to 20nmi from the border in Desert Storm during day time. It was assigned to destroy enemy vehicles with standoff munitions from medium altitude, to keep it safe from AAA. Meanwhile F-16 did low level attacks with unguided bombs on SAM units that had organic AAA defenses.
In any case the US has a huge military budget so wasting money on the A-10 is not an issue.
He was ONE day from retirement!
What could have possibly caused this. What a mystery
the front fell off.
Well, some of them are built so that the front doesn’t fall off at all.
It’s not like you can hear them coming or anything. Pretty stealthy aren’t they? 🤦
A10 mentioned !!!
A10 goes BRRRRRRRRR.