Regardless, the A-10 is an anachronism now. Its chief advantage was its ruggedness and ability to properly explore the battlefield when attacking unlike faster, more fragile aircraft... and now they have drones that fill that role of "slow enough to look around before opening fire and we don't care quite so much if it gets shot".

True

>Its chief advantage was its ruggedness and ability to properly explore the battlefield when attacking

Well, not really. While those are both big advantages it enjoys, its chief advantage and the mission is was designed for was that it carries enough ordinance to stop a Soviet tank column rolling into Germany in its tracks.

The A-10 is absolutely overkill for any modern CAS mission, and the airframes are simply 40 years old. Extending their life is only a temporary solution; they'll have to be replaced sooner or later. When they are replaced, there really isn't much of an argument for building a direct replacement instead of farming its various roles out to other platforms {hang and wait: predator, strike: f-35, CAS: Apache}

If we don't need them there would probably be some interested parties in Eastern Europe right about now...

Destroying: - more than 1,000 tanks - 1,200 artillery pieces - 2,000 other military vehicles Confirmed kills include: - 967 tanks - 926 artillery pieces - 1,306 trucks - 501 armored personnel carriers - 28 command posts - Successfully hunted and destroyed SCUD missiles - Suppressed enemy air defenses - Attacked early warning radars

Those numbers to 5 losses in Desert Storm alone...

I put "declassified" in there because I saw a video a few years ago that claimed to show an A10 ripping through a tank. No idea what those rounds were.

Like greedo alluded to, MBT armor is usually concentrated in the front (and angled) to defeat rounds from other tanks fired from roughly on the level, they tend to skimp everywhere else, and especially on the top.

Stuff like loiter times to find the tank, risk to pilots. I bet pilots are the most expensive component in the aircraft. Wikipedia says a helfire is $68,000 usd. Say you fit 8 on an aricraft, how many depleted uranium rounds must you have to take out 8 targets (and account for misses). That takes logistics to move, occupies room.

Proof right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wQ0BXExYkg

The commentary is priceless on this one.

More proof right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrhoYnpgm-g

Get goosebumps every time I watch those. Too bad they're being retired.

The cannons on the A-10 sounds like an angry bull.

It sounds like two-three main sounds. There's a snappy one, then a grunty one, then a crackly one.

Is the snappy the bombs exploding reaching, the grunty the gun sounds reaching the mic and the crackly one some kind of secondary explosion?

One of my favorite military planes for sure. Sad that it's getting decommissioned but it has served us well.

It's a shame that it's being mothballed. The Air Force has always hated the plane. It's a shame we can't just turn it over to the Army.

Lucky for US Army, South Korean govt supposedly declined the offer.

The A-10 can get to the scene faster, that's about it.

After an AC-130 was shot down in Iraq, they only fly at night.

The software and sensors have always been the major limiting factors but the US definitely sees the value of the AC-130, so there's has been a good amount of money put into it, and it's paid off.

The crash in Iraq was in 1991, 23 years ago. Since then the crew size has decreased, software has gotten exponentially better, hardware has gotten dramatically better, and they've learned from incidents to protect the crew.

Large SAM targets should always be taken out first with cruise-missiles or bombs from a high altitude. Handheld SAM launchers like the one that shot the AC-130 in Iraq down are possible to prevent with sufficient chaff (which the AC-130 has a good amount of) combined with fast enough software and senors to detect the missile. There are even more counter-measures in the new versions of the aircraft and there was a ton of money spend to preventing the loss

I really don't see why a system can't be developed these days that can effectively destroy any SAM missiles by having a dedicated cannon which can auto-target and engage any SAM, considering the processing abilities and advanced sensors available today.

The AC-130 could be the future of combat if we can perfect SAM countermeasures, which we are spending lots of money on.

Oh yeah, I forgot about flak and cannon fire from the ground. Maybe that's why it hasn't been used more. Maybe they'll be able to create advanced light-weight armor and make them autonomous eventually. Lasers and rail-guns would probably render the AC-130 ineffective though.

It's basically a flying battleship.

Here's a cool video of JATOs being used 30+ years ago:

http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/military-aircraft/top...

Surely that would vary depending on which side the soldier was fighting on?

This is going in the quotes file. I logged in just to upvote you for that.

For proof, look at the story of Kim Campbell:

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/kimcampbell.html

The article has loads of good pictures of the plane, the gun, and the damage she took over Iraq. It's amazing to see.

I've only heard it in videos, and all I could think of is that it sounds like God Himself farting. You can't hear individual reports, just one long BRRAAAAP.