# US did not sell A-10s and AC-130s? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 5, 2011, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-did-not-sell-a-10s-and-ac-130s/577228 "2011-04-05T02:47:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-did-not-sell-a-10s-and-ac-130s/577228/61 "2011-04-07T03:20:47Z")
> [@Prox](#): > > Depleted uranium is still radioactive - about 60% as much as natural occurring uranium. You right though that it’s mass is why it’s used as ammo. As an added bonus, uranium also catches fire pretty easily when exposed to air, if the round happens to hit the targets ammo supply, it’ll set it off. It depends on who supplies the DU. The stuff we used for shielding technetium generators back at GE had to be less than .35% U-235 while the US DoD requires .2 or .3%. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-did-not-sell-a-10s-and-ac-130s/577228/62 "2011-04-07T03:25:23Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > You can’t be that obtuse. :rolleyes: > > … > > Sheesh, educating you people seems almost like an exercise in futility. :smack: [Moderator Note] **Nadir** , let’s dial it back a little here. No warning issued, but a bit less snark is in order in GQ. Colibri General Questions Moderator PS. This goes for everyone in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Mekhazzio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b38774/32.png) [@Mekhazzio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mekhazzio)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-did-not-sell-a-10s-and-ac-130s/577228/63 "2011-04-07T04:56:50Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > I would also guess that an A-10 is a bit more robust than a helicopter. I’ve always had the impression a helicopter can be brought down just by looking at it wrong 🙂 It depends on the helicopter. The heavy attack helicopters that are analogous to the A-10, like the AH-64 or Mi-24, are about as robust, but it’s important to keep perspective on what ‘robust’ really means in the context. Compared to a main battle tank, which can take major hits over and over without significantly impairing its ability to fight, all aircraft are flimsy creations in that they rely on a long series of parts staying in good working order just to not fall out of the sky. The heavy ground attack aircraft are hardened only in the sense that a bunch of random soldiers with rifles generally won’t be able to shoot them down in any span of time, and glancing hits with lighter anti-aircraft weapons may not immediately take them out. This makes them significantly more durable than your average military aircraft, but generally, if they get hit by anything actually made to shoot at aircraft, it’s still going to seriously ruin their day. That problem is approached by attack helicopters spending a lot of effort and, in the more modern ones, technology, on not being shot at by anti-aircraft weapons in the first place. Hiding in terrain and attacking from out of line of sight are the main source of survivability. The A-10’s design strategy was different. The idea there was more to make the system so cheap and basic that they could be fielded in enough numbers to simply take the losses. It’s almost a Soviet style, really, and is one of many reasons why it was not embraced very warmly by the USAF. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-did-not-sell-a-10s-and-ac-130s/577228/64 "2011-04-07T06:39:36Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > I’m not sure why Israel hasn’t bought any. The IDF has its doctrines that are in many ways very different from those of the US military. For instance, Israel has also refused to buy Bradleys or Strykers - nor has it bought similar vehicles from any other nation or made any of its own, making it the sole major military not to adopt the IFV (infantry fighting vehicle) concept. > > Israelis have their own way of doing things, and I guess the A-10 isn’t part of it. Well, why would Israel need those boxes on wheels when you already have the badass Achzarits or Namers? (These are main battle tanks converted to APCs for those who don’t have a fascination with the IDF like I do) To paraphrase The Lonely Island, “Fuck wheels, I’m in a tank muthafucka!” But the A-10 is seriously badass and I wonder why the IDF doesn’t get itself some. I would think it would be an ideal platform for the area… Israel is not a huge country so you don’t need fighter-bombers that can do 1000mph in a straight climb. But you might want a jet that can take a serious pounding (apparently the A-10 can fly with a wing, tail and engine shot off) while delivering a serious pounding. Who knows? Maybe the IDF will someday develop their own version of the A-10, the IA-10EB (for Extra Badass). I’d pay money to see it. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-did-not-sell-a-10s-and-ac-130s/577228/65 "2011-04-07T07:41:43Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > But the A-10 is seriously badass and I wonder why the IDF doesn’t get itself some. I would think it would be an ideal platform for the area… Israel is not a huge country so you don’t need fighter-bombers that can do 1000mph in a straight climb. Alessan might be able to make a better guess on this than me, but it could be the amount of pilots in the israeli airforce. If they only have x amount of zoomies available at any one given time, better to have them in the 15’s and 16’s. Besides, only the gun is really all that much more different. Every other ordinance or missile is platform agnostic. The hog was meant to be survivable, not invincible and then they have to have another logistics pipeline for the spare parts and maintenance. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-did-not-sell-a-10s-and-ac-130s/577228/66 "2011-04-07T11:29:37Z")
I’ve got a Master Sergeant in my squadron who once had an A-10 come in to provide some CAS for his team. The way he tells the story, they’re hunkered down, waiting for their air support to come in, listening for that distinctive shriek of jet planes. _ **BRBRBRBRBRBBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBBRAPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!** _ They never knew the A-10 was there until it opened up with the Avenger cannon from almost directly above them. He described it as a “genuine bowel voiding experience”:eek: And they _knew_ it was coming. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-did-not-sell-a-10s-and-ac-130s/577228/67 "2011-04-07T13:14:12Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > It depends on who supplies the DU. The stuff we used for shielding technetium generators back at GE had to be less than .35% U-235 while the US DoD requires .2 or .3%. Pure U-238 is still radioactive. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-did-not-sell-a-10s-and-ac-130s/577228/68 "2011-04-07T14:26:14Z")
> [@kombatminipig](#): > > Depleted uranium is exactly that, depleted. It’s entirely inert. The only reason for its use is that it’s darn heavy. It is also very hard. The only reasonable substitute is tungsten, which is expensive. Depleted uranium is very cheap for the US, since we have huge stockpiles of it left over from refining uranium for reactors. I looked at the presentation for the Traveling Wave Reactor and part of the pitch for it was that it could burn depleted uranium and we had over a 100 year supply of fuel already refined and stockpiled. There are also high explosive incendiary rounds for the GAU-8 cannon. ---
**Author:** ![Kilmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a6a055/32.png) [@Kilmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kilmore)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-did-not-sell-a-10s-and-ac-130s/577228/69 "2011-04-07T16:32:48Z")
How hard would it be to drill a hole in the side of a Hercules and put a gatty and a fire control in there? I know the AC-130 is a bit more complicated than that, but I think the principle should still be good. Also, what about the Super Tucano? According to Wikipedia the USAF is supposed to be getting about a hundred of those from Brazil. Apparently we don’t always need to bring a chainsaw (A-10) to a knife fight. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-did-not-sell-a-10s-and-ac-130s/577228/70 "2011-04-07T17:28:50Z")
> [@Kilmore](#): > > How hard would it be to drill a hole in the side of a Hercules and put a gatty and a fire control in there? I know the AC-130 is a bit more complicated than that, but I think the principle should still be good. It isn’t the world’s hardest engineering problem, but it isn’t simple, either. The problem is accuracy. For example, if you stick something out of the side of an airplane, the air tends to be moving rather quickly, making a gun barrel flutter. Of course, this is nothing that can’t be solved, but it is somewhat more difficult than cutting a hole and bolting down a gun. > [@](#): > > Also, what about the Super Tucano? According to Wikipedia the USAF is supposed to be getting about a hundred of those from Brazil. Apparently we don’t always need to bring a chainsaw (A-10) to a knife fight. Those are intended to be used to train foreign air forces, not as a US combat aircraft. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-did-not-sell-a-10s-and-ac-130s/577228/71 "2011-04-07T22:35:21Z")
> [@Kilmore](#): > > How hard would it be to drill a hole in the side of a Hercules and put a gatty and a fire control in there? I know the AC-130 is a bit more complicated than that, but I think the principle should still be good. I want to say that that’s basically how the first gunships were set up. C-47 Dakotas equipped with a broadside of miniguns. The concept and the technology gradually developed until we got to the current generation, an AC-130J which as I recall actually carries fewer guns, but has also added wing-mounted bomb racks. ---
**Author:** ![Patch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a183cd/32.png) [@Patch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patch)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-did-not-sell-a-10s-and-ac-130s/577228/72 "2011-04-10T01:08:19Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > I’ve got a Master Sergeant in my squadron who once had an A-10 come in to provide some CAS for his team. > > The way he tells the story, they’re hunkered down, waiting for their air support to come in, listening for that distinctive shriek of jet planes. > > _ **BRBRBRBRBRBBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBBRAPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!** _ > > They never knew the A-10 was there until it opened up with the Avenger cannon from almost directly above them. He described it as a “genuine bowel voiding experience”:eek: And they _knew_ it was coming. 😃 I’ve seen video filmed with night vision in Iraq of an AC-130 doing a night firing demonstration. There’s the bowel-voiding sounds, as you so nicely put it, and you see these big green globs streaking to the ground as the 40mm stuff hits. It looks and sounds like something from _War of the Worlds_. [And here it is.](http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c6a_1172279607) ---
**Author:** ![Gukumatz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/74df32/32.png) [@Gukumatz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gukumatz)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-did-not-sell-a-10s-and-ac-130s/577228/73 "2011-04-10T04:01:58Z")
I tossed the question to a (retired) Norwegian Air Force captain and a swedish friend of his, who was a grenadier with the UNPROFOR forces during Bosnia, today. Their answer was both immediate and in perfect agreement. If Norway - or NATO - is ever in a situation where we _require_ A-10s or AC-130s, the US will be on our side. If they’re not, we won’t have air superiority _anyway_. Secondarily, on the extremely limited military scale that Norway operates on, there is very little _we_ could accomplish with them that ground forces with artillery support and conventional air support can’t do, cheaper. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-did-not-sell-a-10s-and-ac-130s/577228.md?page=3)