Admit it - you’ve always wanted shot glasses made from genuine Warthog 30mm shell casings:
http://www.sportys.com/wrightbros/a-10-warthog-30mm-shell-shot-glasses.html?___SID=U
http://www.sportys.com/wrightbros/a-10-warthog-30mm-shell-shot-glasses-set-of-6.html?___SID=U
Aw, they cut them down too much. I was hoping it would be the whole length of the casing. (I may have issues…)Cool find, though!
A-10s land near the Russian border: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/a10-warthog-highway-landing-russia-border-estonia/index.html
This may be against the spirit of SD vs the world, but Quora has a decent discussion, with decent cites, Could-todays-most-heavily-armored-main-battle-tanks-withstand-a-strafing-run-from-an-A-10-Warthog https://www.quora.com/Could-todays-most-heavily-armored-main-battle-tanks-withstand-a-strafing-run-from-an-A-10-Warthog/all_comments/Kenneth-Reese
Eh, disabling 5 of them isn’t horrible, but no, the gun isn’t magic, enabling it to slice through inches and inches of modern armor. Its no katana 
Your trucks, field artillery, rocket tubes, apcs? Dead dead dead.
Here’s a DVD about the warplane, for those who might be interested: http://www.historicaviation.com/Fairchild-Republic-A-10-Thunderbolt-II/productinfo/700103/
What if an A-10 took on a P-51 in a dogfight?: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=821857
More A-10 gear…
Cap: http://www.sportys.com/wrightbros/a-10-warthog-cap.html
Steel sign (lower left): http://www.sportys.com/wrightbros/legendary-aircraft-signs.html
The Air Force will be testing three planes (two of them prop-driven) this summer to potentially replace the A-10: 3 Attack Planes the Air Force Will Test to Replace the A-10 Warthog | The Fiscal Times
Is that basically the LAAR/LAS program still stumbling on? There’s an Air Force press release here. I don’t see any mention of a counter-insurgency role, or details of what “light attack” roles these aircraft are being considered for.
And these would in no way be a real replacement for the A-10 except at the very low end of the mission spectrum – nowhere near the survivability or payload IMO. The one who has been adopted by some air forces (the Super Tucano) is mostly a light COIN platform.
“COIN?” All I know is the Counter-Insurgency acronym.
Yep - counterinsurgency = COIN. In UASF speak it’s the lightly armed reconnaissance and light attack and forward air control roles all done in a permissive environment.
IOW, flying around looking for bands of suspicious looking dudes or suspicious looking constructions. Followed shortly thereafter by blowing them up using any ordnance delivery means to hand: on board, artillery, death ray from space, whatever you’ve got on call.
AUIU it’s a mission mostly done with drones now in the permissive environments. And not much done at all in non-permissive environments.
I’d expect that for (comparatively) low-cost COIN attack aircraft, drones and armed trainer aircraft would be sufficient.
What elements contribute most to a high cost per flight hour?
Generally speaking, the more complex the aircraft, the higher the cost-per-hour will be. Complexity, in this case, is referring to the number of systems installed on the aircraft; i.e. sensors, radios, data links, targeting systems, countermeasures equipment, etc. Also, a single-turboprop aircraft will *generally *have a lower cost per hour than a twin-turbofan (even small turbofans), due to lower fuel burn rate and less maintenance required.
Huh–the foreign-made Super Tucano aircraft in the US arsenal. Never would’ve thought it in a million years.
No way they win the “A-10 Contract.”
Warbot Ethics, just posted on The Strategy Bridge, with a link to this extraordinary public DOD document/“Directive” on “Autonomy in Weapons Systems.”
The article is a good find and well worth reading.
You’ll note the DoD document dates from 2012.
After you cut through the bureaucratic stuff it says autonomous weapons will only be switched on by people. And will be carefully designed to not malfunction. And won’t be designed to target people; just facilities and machines. Including facilities and machines containing people. And all bets are off in cyberspace, regardless of the number of people an autonomous weapon may harm indirectly.
Yes, there’s actually a lot of ethical thinking going on with all this stuff down in the bowels of DoD. IMO that directive amounts to approximately zero of it.
The USAF now says the A-10 will remain in service for the foreseeable future: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/politics/a-10-warthog-retirement-air-force-budget/index.html
And the U-2. I saw that earlier today and thought of this thread, but I knew that this being the Dope, that someone would beat me to the punch.
It’s awesome news though, especially in light of the fact that there’s really not an available replacement for the Warthog’s role (which as the article notes, is increasingly important in our current skirmishes with ISIS).
I’ll never forget being in Germany in the US Army and being on a range near where those things were staging practice. That massive chain gun would go off and my friend at the time said “It sounds like a giant burping or farting”. It kinda does sound like that!