Military Review

Pentagon launches A-10 attack aircraft to Estonia

170
Today 2 American attack aircraft A-8 Thunderbolt are supposed to arrive in Estonia for 10-week training sessions, their air base at Tallinn’s air base near Tallinn will be their temporary shelter, reports RIA News Post Ministry of Defense of the Republic.




“The planes are part of the 303 Squadron of US fighters deployed at Whiteman Air Base in Missouri. It is planned that the attack aircraft will stay in Estonia until August 8. On working days, the aircraft will fly from Emari to the central test site of the Defense Forces, where they will be training on shooting from onboard cannons and dropping training bombs. Also A-10 will fly at low altitudes in the airspace of the country ",
says release.

Help agency: “A-10 Thunderbolt - attack aircraft, the main purpose of which is to combat the armored vehicles of the enemy, as well as the destruction of various ground targets. Although the A-10 series production was completed in the 1984 year, attack aircraft continue to be used today. A total of 715 aircraft were manufactured. ”
Photos used:
https://www.windowssearch-exp.com
170 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Hunt
    Hunt 25 July 2016 10: 52
    +7
    Well, everyone, brave Balts, with the help of 10 "warthogs" have become a formidable force!
    1. Bdeshh
      Bdeshh 25 July 2016 11: 01
      +14
      Quote: Hunter
      Well, everyone, brave Balts, with the help of 10 "warthogs" have become a formidable force!

      These warthogs will not help the Baltic states, they will be helped by an enema, otherwise everything in their intestines has stagnated, and this is why they have a persecution mania from Russia. laughing .
      1. Now we are free
        Now we are free 25 July 2016 11: 52
        +37
        Fuck ...... American generals, I’ll look like this hasn’t left the 80s yet ...
        Russian tank hordes (without air defense cover) roll over the borders of sacred Europe and American "Warthogs" like Falcons methodically shoot the prushchik and prushchik "crazy Russians" with their 30 mm GAU-8 into the cardboard roofs of their T-72 with tracer. All this "APOGEEEMTOMAKLENSI" is inertly observing Russian calculations: MANPADS "Verba" on twin launchers "Dzhigit", ZSU-23-4M4 "Shilka-M4", SAM "Strela-10M / 2", SAM "Sosna", ZRPK "Pantsir" -S1 "SAM" Tor-M1-2U ", SAM" Buk M2 / 3 ", SAM" S-300PMU2 / VM ", SAM" S-400 "...
        Seeing the movement of one of the operators (of the above air defense systems) to the "Start" button, the senior crew stops him, shaking his head condemningly -Ah-ah-ah, Comrade Ivanov! .. How embarrassing are you to interrupt the dreams of NATO generals?.. laughing laughing laughing
        1. Hon
          Hon 25 July 2016 13: 24
          -1
          I wonder where our generals look when they use the SU-25?
          1. KCA
            KCA 25 July 2016 15: 17
            +2
            They look at the enemy's air defense systems, and I see how the bearded commanders of the Patriot crews in Afghanistan and Syria laugh at our generals, or even not, the commanders of land destroyers with the Aegis system, the bearded men have the best air defense in the world
            1. Hon
              Hon 25 July 2016 15: 49
              0
              Quote: KCA
              They look at the enemy's air defense systems, and I see how the bearded commanders of the Patriot crews in Afghanistan and Syria laugh at our generals, or even not, the commanders of land destroyers with the Aegis system, the bearded men have the best air defense in the world

              August 8, 2008, the Georgians had air defense, and it worked
          2. Alex_Tug
            Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 00: 42
            0
            [quote] I wonder where our generals look when they use the SU-25? [/ quotсe]

            Here of course. Statistics choose what they do?
            The meaning of your comment about what?
        2. rpek32
          rpek32 25 July 2016 17: 16
          +2
          Quote: Now we are free
          with its 30 mm GAU-8 in the cardboard roofs of their T-72

          Gau has not been betting for a very long time. stop sitting in the 90s. and they thrown the bolts because slowly they had to be shoved off more than once, for this they were talking about it. A-10 is a good car, but squeezing nothing out of it really will be more
          1. alexmach
            alexmach 25 July 2016 21: 03
            +1
            And what else must be squeezed out of it? There are guided weapons, sighting and navigation systems are. What else does she need then?
            1. asiat_61
              asiat_61 25 July 2016 22: 28
              +1
              And it is necessary as Yu-87, Clear sky.
            2. 78bor1973
              78bor1973 26 July 2016 01: 23
              0
              This plane is already a flying rarity and no one is going to squeeze anything out of it, in the presence of a sensible military air defense this plane is just a fig leaf on the "mighty" body of the "great Baltic" countries!
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 26 July 2016 01: 28
                +1
                In all but speed, it is approximately the analogue of the Su-25, so it is not necessary absolutely neglectfully.
            3. rpek32
              rpek32 26 July 2016 12: 39
              0
              Quote: alexmach
              And what else must be squeezed out of it? There are guided weapons, sighting and navigation systems are. What else does she need then?

              but nothing. now other gliders rule the show. once again the essence: the car is good but in the us it is not needed. to cut for scrap - it's a pity, so they push the "allys". any better than an infamous death from a Chinese anti-tank missile system somewhere in Iraq / Iran and other east.
              1. alexmach
                alexmach 26 July 2016 13: 40
                0
                Yes, what other allies? as I understand it, they did not betray anyone a single car. They flew themselves and exploit. What is in Estonia, what is in Iraq.
        3. Lt. Air Force stock
          Lt. Air Force stock 25 July 2016 22: 09
          0
          Quote: Now we are free
          "Warthogs" like Sokols methodically shoot prushchik and prushchik "crazy Russians" with their 30 mm GAU-8 with tracer

          There is not only a cannon, look at the photo, an EW suspension container, sidewinder rockets, the GBU missiles already mentioned.
    2. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 25 July 2016 11: 04
      +38
      This is called "preparation and development of the future theater of military operations." They check whether the planes can be based on the selected airfields, they can fix what is needed. They check the conditions for the accommodation of personnel, they can finish building what is needed. They check the interaction with the RTS of flight support, interaction with ground services - refueling, BC equipment, the readiness and capacity of storage facilities, the real time of aircraft equipment. They determine the real time of response to the departure command and the real flight time to the lines. For all this, there are many planes and it is not necessary, ten is quite enough, by the hour X they will move two or three hundred, and everything is ready - "press and blow".
      1. Gray brother
        Gray brother 25 July 2016 11: 25
        +6
        Quote: chunga-changa
        , by the hour of X will move two hundred or three hundred pieces

        Those. all that is available? And will they fit there? smile
        1. Sid.74
          Sid.74 25 July 2016 11: 47
          +4
          8 American A-10 Thunderbolt Stormtroopers

          God, we don't care ... laughing
          It is planned that the attack aircraft will stay in Estonia until August 8.

          Scho, they will not even give ... what kind of allies are such ... some rarities and then they squeezed ...wassat

          In Estonia, the same aircraft can be downloaded directly Aero L-39C Albatros - 2 pieces ..
          Antonov An-2P / - 2, and as many as four helicopters ... Robinson R44 Clipper.

          Although, the Estonians decided not to fight and go to the virtual world ...
          1. Alex_Tug
            Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 00: 50
            0
            Well, they won’t even tell ... what kind of allies are these ... some rarities even clamped


            They have a titanium cabin. This is not a luminium transfer to the Baltic states. They themselves need titanium.
        2. Inok10
          Inok10 25 July 2016 11: 49
          +6
          Quote: Gray Brother
          This is called "preparation and development of the future theater of military operations."

          ... for now, it’s as usual among gopniks ... show muscles and make a scary face ... laughing
          Quote: chunga-changa
          They check whether the planes can be based on the selected airfields, can fix what is needed. They check the conditions for the placement of personnel, they can complete what is needed. They check the interaction with the flight support RTS, the interaction with ground services - refueling, BC equipment, the readiness and capacity of storage facilities, the real time of aircraft equipment.

          ... for God's sake ... all the airfields were built in the USSR and shot with a geodetic accuracy of 1 m, targets with known coordinates, as far as I remember, mattress mattresses can’t fly from the ground, although I won’t say for A-10 ... hi
          Quote: chunga-changa
          For all this, there are a lot of planes and it’s not necessary, ten is enough, by the hour of X two hundred or three hundred pieces will be moved

          ... well, we will sit and watch, and peel the seeds ... something tells me that the Iskander missile brigade will additionally be deployed in the Pskov region, in addition to the existing one ... hi
          Quote: chunga-changa
          and everything is ready - "press and blow".
          ... it is very controversial here who will "press and blow" faster ... Iskander at a distance of 250 km. to Emari in 1-1,5 minutes or A-10 to the border with us ... something tells me that the Iskander will be faster ... the map is attached ... hi
          Quote: Gray Brother
          Those. all that is available? And will they fit there?

          ... as scrap metal, then yes ... laughing
        3. chunga-changa
          chunga-changa 25 July 2016 11: 51
          +4
          Quote: Gray Brother
          And will they fit there?

          And what will hinder them. The USSR, at one time, also prepared this theater of operations, bases and airfields in the Baltic states and enough for Poland. I think that in case of conflict all A-10s that are available will be transferred to Europe, and for this they were created.
          1. Inok10
            Inok10 25 July 2016 12: 00
            +6
            Quote: chunga-changa
            I think that in case of conflict all A-10s that are available will be transferred to Europe, and for this they were created.

            ... Welcome ... hi
          2. Koshak
            Koshak 25 July 2016 12: 33
            0
            Quote: chunga-changa
            I think that in case of conflict all A-10s that are available will be transferred to Europe, and for this they were created.

            The main thing is to place it more compactly - the consumption of Iskander will be less.
          3. 78bor1973
            78bor1973 26 July 2016 01: 29
            0
            Do you even think about the fact that these planes are the most exploited in the last 25 years and they stopped releasing them in the 84th shaggy year and the fact that there are not even hundreds but dozens of planes!
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 26 July 2016 01: 37
              0
              The USAF operates 283 A-10C aircraft, as of FY 2015,
              Total built 716
              1. Alex_Tug
                Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 01: 40
                0
                Total built 716


                Look at the pictures of the Google base in Tucson. On cutting, there is no A-10.
        4. Prisoner
          Prisoner 25 July 2016 12: 44
          0
          If finely chopped, it will fit.
      2. DMB_95
        DMB_95 25 July 2016 16: 23
        0
        Any airfield in Estonia, along with aircraft, is destroyed by one or two Tochka-U missiles, not to mention more modern systems. And a dozen more ways.
      3. alexmach
        alexmach 25 July 2016 21: 05
        0
        Well, great. Watch them carefully. For every move. This is not to mention the fact that the location of all military facilities in Estonia built back in Soviet times is already known.
      4. 78bor1973
        78bor1973 26 July 2016 01: 26
        0
        There are no two hundred pieces, especially three hundred, therefore dozens fly, the rest are DONORS!
        1. Alex_Tug
          Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 01: 31
          0
          There are no two hundred pieces, especially three hundred


          There are 200 serviceable and ready for sure. At the joke? The expense item for warthogs was cut. So only a dozen other fly.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 26 July 2016 01: 43
            0
            They can still transfer almost a hundred (or more) AV-8Bs and a certain amount of F-35B which the airfield is not needed and therefore Iskander can’t get enough of them.
            In the case of a mess, the Swedes will probably also take part in their aerodrome-free aviation, and they will provide their airfields to the Americans.
            1. Alex_Tug
              Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 01: 48
              0
              some amount of F-35B


              Do not make laugh, they will not be substituted for air defense radars.
              Even Lancers from Turkey were quickly removed, a reconnaissance aircraft arrived in Syria.
              Not stupid people, not interested in this.
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 26 July 2016 02: 06
                0
                They actually stealth ...
                1. Alex_Tug
                  Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 02: 10
                  0
                  Simpsonian
                  They actually stealth ...


                  Exactly because of this reason. Feeling the radar, you can find a weakness in technology and improve radar.
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 26 July 2016 02: 20
                    0
                    They most likely like the F-22 have been probed by radars for a long time, and if some kind of armed conflict begins, then they have the right place there.
                    They are only afraid of falling into the hands of the enemy of captured models, but there are no secrets for this plane in Russia.
                    1. Alex_Tug
                      Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 02: 30
                      0
                      They most likely like F-22 were felt by radars for a long time


                      Hardly probed. The most convenient place in the Baltics. radar in KO, radar in Belarus and a couple in Russia are the most convenient place to study how they are reflected from it. He cannot swallow everything.
                      1. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 26 July 2016 02: 49
                        0
                        When the conflict begins, will they fight or not?
                      2. Alex_Tug
                        Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 02: 51
                        0
                        When the conflict begins, will they fight or not?


                        In the Baltic states? Nobody will protect the Baltic states except in words.
                      3. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 26 July 2016 02: 54
                        0
                        Where such confidence? Because Western newspapers write like that?
                      4. Alex_Tug
                        Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 03: 00
                        0
                        Where such confidence? Because Western newspapers write like that?


                        newspapers can write anything, but I have an officer rank (albeit a reserve). I judge by my knowledge. Especially motorized rifle. I was taught this strategy.
                      5. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 26 July 2016 03: 29
                        0
                        newspapers write anything and anything, motorized rifles do not deal with strategy, only tactics
                      6. Alex_Tug
                        Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 03: 36
                        0
                        newspapers write anything and anything, motorized rifles do not deal with strategy, only tactics


                        Motorized arrows are also different. Some of them graduated from university (civilian) to work with all sorts of nuclear gadgets.
                2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 26 July 2016 02: 13
      0
      If the B-1s were in Turkey, then it is clear that in the presence of Russian tactical aircraft or even air defense capturing their base, there was absolutely nothing for them to do next to it.
      By the way, the A-10 is also not needed, the engines are raised high and it can fly just from a strip of 100 meters in length, landing in an arrestor - at the same time the airframe resource will be consumed 4 faster, but for such an aircraft in wartime conditions this is not critical.
      1. Alex_Tug
        Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 02: 24
        0
        Well, the B-1 was removed for another reason, they could bomb. Radio intelligence would reveal something that they want to hide.
        It’s not very interesting where warthogs sit down, they already have no secrets.
        And it would be interesting to test the F-35 for reflection, one radar is shining, and 5 are passively caught around the perimeter. Most importantly, you only need a synchronized radar group.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 26 July 2016 02: 38
          0
          Are you going to spend Iskander on every A-10 that lands "somewhere"?

          F-35s are the same stealth technologies as in F-22, the photo of which is close to the Tu-95, normally shines and is probed from one metal.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 26 July 2016 02: 47
            -1
            Tu-95s, by the way, fly in pairs, and even one plane is large enough to be measured from different places.
            1. Alex_Tug
              Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 02: 55
              0
              Tu-95s, by the way, fly in pairs, and even one plane is large enough to be measured from different places.


              There are more radars on earth. They are visible on long waves, but such radars are not compact. Build them for a long time and consume a lot of energy. And it’s easier to destroy them (radars).
            2. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 26 July 2016 03: 38
              -1
              The dimensions of the Tu-95 allow you to enter a large radar into it, including with a synthetic aperture.
            3. Alex_Tug
              Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 03: 50
              0
              The dimensions of the Tu-95 allow you to enter a large radar into it, including with a synthetic aperture.


              Meaning? Is it just like a reconnaissance plane. In combat formation, fighters will cover them. They only train without cover. Contingent fighters open hatches to see that there are no missiles available.
            4. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 26 July 2016 04: 02
              -1
              Are they flying to the USA and Alaska to bomb chtoli? Nobody forces to open hatches ...
            5. Alex_Tug
              Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 04: 07
              0
              Are they flying to the USA and Alaska to bomb chtoli? Nobody forces to open hatches ..


              I don’t fly with them to clearly state. I think the bombers themselves show that there are no excesses. So just calmer and they and us.
            6. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 26 July 2016 04: 15
              -1
              I think some of them - yes, so that the bourgeois does not greyhound because if there are any excesses, then there will certainly be.
            7. Alex_Tug
              Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 04: 23
              0
              I think some of them - yes, so that the bourgeois does not greyhound because if there are any excesses, then there will certainly be.


              This Tu-160 is difficult to verify if they go to supersonic. But it’s unlikely that they are supersonic around Europe, for this it is necessary to go high. Not less than 13 km, otherwise you can get together with civilians. Too heavy traffic over Europe.
            8. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 26 July 2016 04: 28
              0
              And how will they "check" the Tu-95 with a crowbar chtoli?
            9. Alex_Tug
              Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 04: 36
              0
              And how will they "check" the Tu-95 with a crowbar chtoli?


              In peacetime, the bombers themselves will open the hatches. When no one can check with ammunition, this will already be clear from fighter cover.
            10. Papandopulo
              Papandopulo 27 July 2016 07: 33
              0
              Do you think that non-escorted Soviet bombers opened hatches under duress?
            11. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 30 July 2016 19: 56
              0
              Widiml thinks something like this request
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Alex_Tug
    Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 02: 48
    0
    Are you going to spend Iskander on every A-10 that lands "somewhere"?


    This is a task for the military. As a civilian, I do not give them advice.

    F-35s are the same stealth technologies as in F-22, the photo of which is close to the Tu-95, normally shines and is probed from one metal.


    I do not have such information. I am mathematically trying to find a solution to how this can be done.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 26 July 2016 02: 51
      0
      The plane does not constantly fly turned to the radar on one side.
    2. Alex_Tug
      Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 03: 05
      0
      The plane does not constantly fly turned to the radar on one side.


      Moreover, there will be a clear time chart. The flight path is known, spread out only on the reference points. The idea is clear or telling?
      I just don’t feel like pounding the keys for a long time.
  • Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 26 July 2016 03: 34
    0
    Quote: Alex_Tug
    Well, the B-1 was removed for another reason, they could bomb. Radio intelligence would reveal something that they want to hide.

    Rather, for the reason that from Syria to the Turkish airfield with them the earth-to-land missile divides too quickly and they do not have time to take off on alarm, which made this type of strategic weaponry not resistant to such simple weapons.
    1. Alex_Tug
      Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 03: 44
      0
      from Syria to the Turkish airdrome with them, the earth-to-earth missile will split too quickly and they will not have time to take off on alarm


      Not convincing. This is already a war. No one will untie.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 26 July 2016 03: 49
        0
        ... for which they are preparing and no one is substituting their strategic forces.
      2. Alex_Tug
        Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 03: 53
        0
        To which they prepare and no one exposes their strategic forces.


        As an option - I accept as an argument.
      3. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 26 July 2016 03: 57
        0
        In Manas and Kant, they would still be deployed - one line from the Russian parking lot from AKM through the fence, and there is no American fleet of strategic bombers.
      4. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 26 July 2016 03: 58
        -1
        And will such a "Poltava" be considered a declaration of war? lol
      5. Alex_Tug
        Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 04: 03
        0
        Will such a "Poltava" be considered a declaration of war?


        Most likely, Russia will pay the cost of these Lancers. We’ll definitely not climb on the rampage.
      6. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 26 July 2016 04: 05
        0
        Rather, the Russian Federation during the threatened period will simply send to ...
      7. Alex_Tug
        Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 04: 11
        0
        Rather, the Russian Federation during the threatened period will simply send to ...


        The train of thought did not understand. But they kind of promised to fly with transponders. It’s also true, nafig arrange hassle for civilian dispatchers. Not combat sorties.
  • Alex_Tug
    Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 04: 01
    0
    it’s one turn from the Russian AKM parking lot over the fence, and there is no American fleet of strategic bombers.


    This is already too loud. Flying Lancers they have 70 pieces. Losing 6 pieces is not so critical.
  • Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 26 July 2016 04: 12
    -1
    But unpleasant ...
  • Alex_Rarog
    Alex_Rarog 25 July 2016 11: 08
    0
    Until August they will sleep peacefully at night))))
    1. gray smeet
      gray smeet 25 July 2016 11: 31
      +6
      Quote: Alex_Rarog
      Until August they will sleep peacefully at night))))

      It will not be possible to sleep - saboteurs are also abandoned:
  • Tusv
    Tusv 25 July 2016 12: 18
    0
    Quote: Hunter
    Well, everyone, brave Balts, with the help of 10 "warthogs" have become a formidable force!

    And what do you want? On mine for 250 databases, it’s excellent at the border, no decent Pepelians were found, therefore I love drying 27
    Threat. KGB of the Soviet Union and the FSB of the Russian Federation. 250 db excellent = badge excellent border guard. Fenced off. I'm waiting
  • arane
    arane 25 July 2016 13: 24
    0
    Quote: Hunter
    Well, everyone, brave Balts, with the help of 10 "warthogs" have become a formidable force!


    On working days, planes will fly from Emari to the central training ground

    This is on weekdays they will be a formidable force, and then, probably, with 8 lo 17 yes
  • Alex_Tug
    Alex_Tug 26 July 2016 00: 39
    0
    10 "warthogs"


    Where did the number 10 come from? From the information six months ago?
  • vodolaz
    vodolaz 26 July 2016 09: 52
    0
    Who are they going to fight with warthogs? Even if we hypothetically allow the possibility of a military conflict and the attack of these bolts on our armored vehicles, then they will all be knocked down at the approach.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • RUSIVAN
    RUSIVAN 25 July 2016 10: 53
    +6
    Pentagon launches A-10 attack aircraft to Estonia
    Why injure the psyche of Estonians, which is already on the verge of exhaustion from the invasion of Russian drunk bears with balalaikas ...
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 25 July 2016 10: 56
    +4
    Damn it, Emari, 40 km from Tallinn. Vasalem Station - My Childhood Places! And there now the "Warthogs" are based am
    1. DimYang
      DimYang 25 July 2016 11: 02
      +2
      At our base. Moreover, the issue of time and stress on OURS remains relevant. I already wrote somehow that one of our main problems is a question of fictional nationalities. This is very true for Estonia.
  • Verdun
    Verdun 25 July 2016 11: 00
    0
    Someone here just wrote that "Warthog" has already been written off ... But no! Looks like these "pigs" will look for truffles in the Baltics for their owners. Another thing is interesting. The main weapon of the A-10 in the fight against tanks is the Maverick missiles, the production of which was discontinued already in 1999. What will they shoot with? Splashing saliva?
    1. Bdeshh
      Bdeshh 25 July 2016 11: 04
      -2
      Quote: Verdun
      Someone here just wrote that "Warthog" has already been written off ... But no! Looks like these "pigs" will look for truffles in the Baltics. Another thing is interesting. The main weapon of the A-10 in the fight against tanks is the Maverick missiles, the production of which was discontinued already in 1999. What will they shoot with? Splashing saliva?

      The main weapon of the "Warthog" against the enemy's armored vehicles is a six-barreled cannon that demolishes everything in its path.
      1. gas113
        gas113 25 July 2016 11: 10
        +2
        Maybe seven-barreled ???
        1. Bdeshh
          Bdeshh 25 July 2016 11: 30
          0
          Quote: gas113
          Maybe seven-barreled ???

          Well, let it be seven-barrel, everything is impossible to remember hi .
          1. Prisoner
            Prisoner 25 July 2016 12: 47
            0
            Or maybe it’s not blowing everything? laughing After all, you will not consider everything.
        2. guzik007
          guzik007 25 July 2016 12: 39
          0
          Maybe seven-barreled ???
          ------------------------------
          In general ... a tandoor with bolts ...
      2. Verdun
        Verdun 25 July 2016 11: 26
        +5
        Quote: Bdeshh
        The main weapon of the "Warthog" against the enemy's armored vehicles is a six-barreled cannon that demolishes everything in its path.

        Do you think that the A-10 will be able to fly at such a distance to open fire from the GAU-8 / A? Theoretically, the armor-piercing projectile of this gun, according to some reports, pierces 50 mm homogeneous armor at a distance of 1000 m. Moreover, this is when hit by the normal, which is practically impossible from the air. There, you just need to get there. So, BMP or BTR, this gun, of course, befitting, but the tank - not a fact.
        1. Bdeshh
          Bdeshh 25 July 2016 11: 32
          +5
          Quote: Verdun
          Quote: Bdeshh
          The main weapon of the "Warthog" against the enemy's armored vehicles is a six-barreled cannon that demolishes everything in its path.

          Do you think that the A-10 will be able to fly at such a distance to open fire from the GAU-8 / A? Theoretically, the armor-piercing projectile of this gun, according to some reports, pierces 50 mm homogeneous armor at a distance of 1000 m. Moreover, this is when hit by the normal, which is practically impossible from the air. There, you just need to get there. so, BMP or BTR, this gun, of course, befitting, but the tank - not a fact.

          The projectile will demolish all the monitoring devices on the tank, it may get into the engine. The tank will fail for a long time.
          1. Corsair
            Corsair 25 July 2016 13: 29
            +1
            Quote: Bdeshh
            The projectile will demolish all the monitoring devices on the tank, it may get into the engine. The tank will fail for a long time.

            Well, if the tanks go without cover at all, it’s possible, but even a hundred Igla MANPADS - without taking into account other systems - are cheaper than one Thunderbolt and can hit an aircraft at a distance of more than 2 km.
        2. Professor
          Professor 25 July 2016 11: 35
          +4
          Quote: Verdun
          There, you just need to get there. so, BMP or BTR, this gun, of course, befitting, but the tank - not a fact.

          And do not punch. The queue of such a tank and the tank loses its combat effectiveness.


          Pilot
          1. shuhartred
            shuhartred 25 July 2016 11: 51
            +2
            Quote: Professor
            And do not punch. The line of such a tank and he loses his fighting efficiency.

            Maybe it seemed to me, but in my opinion on the video, not tanks but self-propelled guns. As they say in Odessa, these are two big differences. hi Good afternoon prof!
            1. Professor
              Professor 25 July 2016 12: 57
              +2
              Quote: shuhartred
              Maybe it seemed to me, but in my opinion on the video, not tanks but self-propelled guns. As they say in Odessa, these are two big differences. Good afternoon prof!

              No difference. Let them put the cardboard at the shooting range. Here you have the tank:


              Quote: Verdun
              Secondly, even this video shows that it is not easy for the A-10 to hit the target from a cannon even in sterile conditions.

              No need to be a sniper. Rate of fire and dispersal do their job. Do you want a gun? There are rockets too.

              Quote: Verdun
              Thirdly, weaker reservations, compared to the Su-25, do not allow the A-10 to be under fire for a long time.

              Yes Yes. Air defense will be left on the road, and not knocked out as in Iraq and Libya. wink
              1. Verdun
                Verdun 25 July 2016 13: 04
                0
                Quote: Professor
                Do you want a gun? There are rockets

                So I started with the fact that the Maverick missile, which is the most effective weapon of the A-10, is not available today and there seems to be no adequate replacement.
                1. Professor
                  Professor 25 July 2016 13: 17
                  0
                  Quote: Verdun
                  So I started with the fact that the Maverick missile, which is the most effective weapon of the A-10, is not available today and there seems to be no adequate replacement.

                  Why not? There is. Not a tenant tank on the battlefield.


                  1. Verdun
                    Verdun 25 July 2016 13: 45
                    +3
                    Quote: Professor
                    Why not? there is

                    Excuse me, but comparing an AGM-114 Hellfire with a flight range of 8 km and a warhead weight of 8 kg with an AGM-65 Hellver with a flight range of 30 km and warhead weight from 57 to 135 kg, depending on the modification, is ridiculous.
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 25 July 2016 13: 48
                      +2
                      Quote: Verdun
                      Excuse me, but comparing an AGM-114 Hellfire with a flight range of 8 km and a warhead weight of 8 kg with an AGM-65 Hellver with a flight range of 30 km and warhead weight from 57 to 135 kg, depending on the modification, is ridiculous.

                      You can laugh. Tankers are somehow not happy from 8 kg flying to their roof from a distance of 8 km.
                      1. Verdun
                        Verdun 25 July 2016 14: 11
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        You can laugh.

                        The use of airborne missiles such as the AGM-114 Hellfire is possible only with the complete absence of ground countermeasures. Just a couple of MANPADS near the tanks, and no one is flying anywhere.
                      2. Professor
                        Professor 25 July 2016 14: 22
                        +1
                        Quote: Verdun
                        The use of airborne missiles such as the AGM-114 Hellfire is possible only with the complete absence of ground countermeasures. Just a couple of MANPADS near the tanks, and no one is flying anywhere.

                        Not so fast. Gaddafi of these MANPADS had several tens of thousands. AND? And the probability of knocking down MANPADS Warthog is very low.



                      3. Verdun
                        Verdun 25 July 2016 15: 08
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        Gaddafi of these MANPADS had several tens of thousands. AND?

                        Why not millions at once? smile At the same time, the plane depicted in the photo and video, judging by the nature of the damage, was fired from conventional small arms.
                      4. Professor
                        Professor 25 July 2016 15: 20
                        0
                        Quote: Verdun
                        Why not millions at once?

                        How many was so much and wrote.

                        Quote: Verdun
                        At the same time, the plane depicted in the photo and video, judging by the nature of the damage, was fired from conventional small arms.

                        Here is the SAM.
                        http://warthognews.blogspot.co.il/2012/06/10-jet-engine-nacelle-damaged-by.html
            2. i80186
              i80186 25 July 2016 14: 15
              +2
              Quote: Professor
              Why not? There is. Not a tenant tank on the battlefield.

              Well, yes, but the A-10 is not a tenant in the sky. Or do you suppose SUDDEN execution of columns on the march? laughing
              1. Professor
                Professor 25 July 2016 14: 24
                +1
                Quote: i80186
                Well, yes, but the A-10 is not a tenant in the sky. Or do you suppose SUDDEN execution of columns on the march?

                And we have a duel tank vs. A-10? There are more than enough tank hunters on the modern battlefield.
                1. i80186
                  i80186 25 July 2016 15: 05
                  0
                  Quote: Professor
                  And do not punch. The queue of such a tank and the tank loses its combat effectiveness.

                  Well, from your words, yes. After all, did you start from this? smile
                2. Corsair
                  Corsair 25 July 2016 15: 34
                  -2
                  Quote: Professor
                  And we have a duel tank vs. A-10? There are more than enough tank hunters on the modern battlefield.

                  laughing In this case - if the tank gets on the A10, he is also not a tenant. I suppose that even with standard ATGMs it’s not a problem to shoot down.
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 25 July 2016 23: 08
            0
            And here is the replacement itself - the JAGM missile, in the airplane version, the launch range of 28 kilometers, the armor penetration of 1200 mm, the combined seeker - shot and forgot.
        3. shuhartred
          shuhartred 15 August 2016 10: 08
          0
          Quote: Professor
          No difference. Let them put the cardboard at the shooting range. Here you have the tank:

          So what? A lot of smoke and dust and no "defect", only from missiles. According to the video, judging from the cannon, they did not hit anything at all, even into the air laughing (he shot into the air and did not hit (s))
    2. Verdun
      Verdun 25 July 2016 11: 53
      +3
      Quote: Professor
      And do not punch. The line of such a tank and he loses his fighting efficiency.

      Firstly, I don’t understand where the tanks are on the video. I saw a couple of self-propelled guns standing open in the field. Of course, if you put a tank in the middle of the desert, and even nail it so that you don’t go anywhere ... In the Baltic states and neighboring regions, it is hard to desert.
      Secondly, even this video shows that it is not easy for the A-10 to hit the target from a cannon even in sterile conditions.
      Thirdly, weaker reservations, compared to the Su-25, do not allow the A-10 to be under fire for a long time.
    3. Two handed
      Two handed 26 July 2016 05: 31
      +1
      Something was not impressive. Apparently it is necessary to fly slowly at a low altitude and almost point-blank, shoot with very poor accuracy. At the same time, the maximum that I saw was some kind of tearing offs on the armor. No, the era of cannon weapons on attack aircraft has passed, and a very long time ago.
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 25 July 2016 20: 48
    0
    In the United States, new anti-tank missiles are being tested - they are testing multipurpose missiles and in the future they will be included in the armament of the A 10 and other carriers - replacing the Hellfires.
  • AlexTires
    AlexTires 25 July 2016 11: 26
    +7
    The plane, by the way, is full of ... oh. It is only suitable for savages to drive through the Arabian deserts, for they are stupid, clumsy, slow-moving and very ancient. In Yugoslavia, it did not work out: it was too good a target for fighters and air defense due to low speed and maneuverability.
    1. i80186
      i80186 25 July 2016 14: 02
      +1
      Quote: AlexTires
      In Yugoslavia, it did not work out: it was too good a target for fighters and air defense due to low speed and maneuverability.

      Yes, there even the vaunted Tomahawks at first "skidded", what kind of aircraft, especially this? Another thing is to shoot abandoned Iraqi tanks, yes. smile
  • code54
    code54 25 July 2016 18: 42
    +1
    Demolishing? Do you even know that if you load the entire ammunition for the gun, the plane can take nothing more and can’t? The whole plane was built around the gun.
  • Sergey39
    Sergey39 25 July 2016 15: 43
    0
    The funny thing is that they themselves have nothing to replace the planes with, except for the f-22, which so far has not proved the right to exist.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 25 July 2016 20: 52
      0
      Yes, it would be better if they didn’t prove anywhere.
    2. Retvizan
      Retvizan 25 July 2016 23: 27
      0
      An attack aircraft and a fighter for gaining superiority in the sky? .. like two different planes and different tasks ... F 22 for tanks and manpower was not originally intended. And A 10 will not chase dryers at all ..
  • iliitchitch
    iliitchitch 25 July 2016 11: 03
    +2
    Wilcomm, Brothers 84 Not otherwise, on the disposal of profit? Oh, do not get closer to the State Border.
    1. navigator
      navigator 25 July 2016 11: 08
      +3
      Quote: iliitch
      Wilcomm, Brothers 84 Not otherwise, on the disposal of profit?


      Imitation of protection of Chukhontsev. Metal scrap.
      1. iliitchitch
        iliitchitch 25 July 2016 13: 22
        0
        Quote: navigator
        Imitation of protection of Chukhontsev. Metal scrap.


        Scrap metal this Baltic Baltic love wassat People for metal will not just die - they will bend over and groan, but only do we need them?
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Koresh
    Koresh 25 July 2016 11: 04
    +4
    Front-line attack aircraft, for defense? wassat
    1. 2s1122
      2s1122 25 July 2016 12: 15
      0
      What are you, the word attack aircraft already says that this product is for the offensive.
  • Arkan
    Arkan 25 July 2016 11: 06
    0
    The A-10 aircraft is outdated and can be used effectively where there are no air defense systems.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 25 July 2016 20: 53
      +1
      And what is A 10 out of date?
  • Parsec
    Parsec 25 July 2016 11: 17
    +10
    - Thousand general, and which air defense system is the best?
    - The best air defense system - Topol-M.
    - Mneee ... Thousand general, this is not an anti-aircraft complex ...
    - Systems approach. He covered the air base, rafted planes with concrete, the air defense problem on the site is solved.
    1. Professor
      Professor 25 July 2016 11: 41
      +9
      "The best air defense system is our tanks on their runway" - so it was in the original.
      1. Parsec
        Parsec 25 July 2016 18: 28
        -4
        Quote: Professor
        "The best air defense system is our tanks on their runway" - so it was in the original.


        Ah well done!

        Good, good commentator, clever.

        Walk!
        1. Professor
          Professor 25 July 2016 20: 13
          0
          Konada FAS was not. Relax.
  • GeorgeSev85
    GeorgeSev85 25 July 2016 11: 17
    +1
    Quote: Arkan
    The A-10 aircraft is outdated and can be used effectively where there are no air defense systems.

    So I generally heard that they wanted to write off .... In general, show-offs are all regular from our "Western partners"
    1. Siberia 9444
      Siberia 9444 25 July 2016 13: 31
      0
      They wanted but then a Russian threat appeared and they were in service. What would they do without us lol
    2. Corsair
      Corsair 25 July 2016 13: 36
      +1
      Quote: GeorgeSev85
      So I generally heard that they wanted to write off ....

      "Monya, why write off when you can still sell?" wink
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Wolka
    Wolka 25 July 2016 11: 20
    -1
    with all this, all this fuss of the Yankees doesn’t even fall into the dust of our AVIADARTS
  • masiya
    masiya 25 July 2016 11: 21
    0
    This is how they built, how many people's money they killed, and now the Americans are using it for free, it’s insulting and dishonest, you had to blow it all up before leaving, so that the grass would not grow for a hundred years ...
  • AlexTires
    AlexTires 25 July 2016 11: 22
    +3
    In Estonia, only American tanks. Will attack aircraft destroy them? belay
  • iliya87
    iliya87 25 July 2016 11: 25
    -1
    Old man already. For the Papuans, the most))
  • Professor
    Professor 25 July 2016 11: 31
    +5
    I remember when the last Warthog left Europe. And now the "birds of passage" have returned. Life is becoming more and more interesting and interesting.
    1. Siberia 9444
      Siberia 9444 25 July 2016 13: 46
      +2
      I see you are waiting for the war to begin between Russia and NATO. And for you it becomes more interesting. No wonder life will become when the igil comes to Palestine.
      1. Professor
        Professor 25 July 2016 14: 06
        +2
        Quote: Siberia 9444
        I see. You are waiting for Nato to start killing us!

        Take the pills. They will reassure you.

        Quote: Siberia 9444
        And for you it becomes interesting.

        Really interesting. That's when the Americans withdrew ALL of their attack aircraft and all their Abrams from Europe was bored. And not just me. Someone behind the Kremlin wall began to shout at the threat of NATO and now boring days have been replaced by interesting ones. We stock up on popcorn and observe the development of events.

        Quote: Siberia 9444
        No wonder life will become when the igil comes to Palestine.

        Have you already been allowed to call ISIS not Daesh? Hmm ... ISIS is an ideology and it has long been prevalent among the Arabs of Judea and Samaria. It’s not worth mentioning the Gaza Strip.
        1. Siberia 9444
          Siberia 9444 25 July 2016 14: 34
          0
          Thank you for bothering my junk system, but this is superfluous hi and I understand you are not a doctor to prescribe me a medicine. About igil - no one forbade me tongue Yes, I do not see a strong difference . We stock up on popcorn and watch the development of events. this was understandable from your comment above why repeated
          1. Professor
            Professor 25 July 2016 14: 42
            +3
            I am glad that we almost understood each other. Only one amendment. I have never wished anyone a war and am only ready to enjoy watching the parties waving their fists. hi
            1. Siberia 9444
              Siberia 9444 25 July 2016 15: 17
              0
              Maybe I misunderstood you hi
  • Vitas
    Vitas 25 July 2016 11: 41
    +1
    APU decided to keep up and show their power! No.
    http://vesti-ukr.com/strana/158685-po-vsej-ukraine-startovali-uchenija-vsu
  • Pete mitchell
    Pete mitchell 25 July 2016 11: 43
    +18
    By the way, you guys are ironic in vain over the A-10. The machine is not new, it’s gone through a sea of ​​modernization, it’s not scrapped because there is no replacement, like the Su-25. Their home is the Davis Montanth airbase in Arizona. Slow-moving, but frantic angular turning speed at low altitudes. Headache for army defense, but is being treated. It’s just that this fact will have to be paid attention, they seem to be unfamiliar with either the Armor, or even the Tunguska. I am not very sure of its suitability to the Baltic conditions: there is no relief as such, but the weather is rubbish. The A-10s do not look very logical at the impasse of geography; If they think that two links of cars will cause horror, then the kids have long been taking hollywood for reality. Fair wind them in ... Twitter.
  • semuil
    semuil 25 July 2016 11: 46
    -2
    A good attack aircraft for the fight against the Papuans. It is interesting, at what second of the flight will it be shot down flying up towards Russia?
    1. Lyapis
      Lyapis 25 July 2016 13: 31
      +2
      This attack aircraft is good for fighting everything down to tanks. And how long it will be shot down is really interesting, but it is unlikely that this time will be calculated in seconds. Although even more interesting is what he has time to do during his flight ... No.
  • Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 25 July 2016 11: 50
    +2
    A couple of ravens are him in the air inlet-radio controlled.
  • niki233
    niki233 25 July 2016 11: 55
    +3
    op-pa flying targets drove s soldier
  • Tanya
    Tanya 25 July 2016 11: 56
    +7
    You can be ironic over 10 attack aircraft, but in preparation for the war with the USSR, the Germans occupied occupied airfields in occupied Polish territory and established flight schools there with dozens of training aircraft. And all would be fine, only a couple of weeks before 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX. completely different cars and in different numbers appeared at these airfields. And flying schools moved west. What happened then, we all know.
  • Sergey-72
    Sergey-72 25 July 2016 12: 01
    +6
    If they think that two links of cars will cause horror ....

    It’s not a matter of horror, just a sailor, while with small forces "sly" she conducts the logistics of the future theater of hostilities and it is not worth treating this with a hat.
  • neo1200
    neo1200 25 July 2016 12: 01
    -3
    The Americans, whom they want to scare with their stormtroopers, if only the Estonians, who think that the "Russian aggression" is about to begin. 8 attack aircraft are Russian air defense for one tooth. Although you don't need to relax either. These stormtroopers are a vanguard detachment in order to scout the situation.
  • sergey2017
    sergey2017 25 July 2016 12: 16
    +1
    Serial production of the A-10 was completed in 1984 after the construction of 715 aircraft. The price of $ 9,8 million in 1998 prices. After the A-10 entered service with the US Air Force, it was for a long time regarded as an “ugly duckling”, which was due not only to its limited use, but also to its appearance, for which A- 10 received the nickname "Warthog" (Warthog) - a warthog. The plane was criticized, and the Air Force even thought about how to get rid of it, proposing to use the F-16 as an attack aircraft (more precisely, its modification of the A-16). In 1990, the US Congress decided to begin the transfer of Thunderbolts to the Army, but in November of that year, it was decided to leave two A-10 air wings in the Air Force. The unexpectedly successful use of the A-10 during the Gulf War put an end to the debate about the fate of the aircraft and proved its necessity.
    In 1994, the A-10 attack aircraft were armed with four tactical fighter air wings of the United States Air Force (20th, 23rd, 57th, 355th), as well as reserve units (442nd and 917th tactical fighter wings 930th fighter air group). In the National Guard Air Force, they were in five air groups (103rd, Connecticut; 104th, Massachusetts; 110th, Michigan; 111th, Pennsylvania; 175th, Maryland). Abroad, they were based in the UK and South Korea. The number of Thunderbolts in service is gradually decreasing. In 2007, 356 aircraft of this type were operated, including 203 in the regular units of the Air Force, 51 in the reserve units, 102 in the Air Force of the National Guard. However, the U.S. Air Force plans to keep the A-10 in service until at least 2028.
  • james
    james 25 July 2016 12: 16
    +4
    The Balts all consider how much Russia "owes" them for the occupation of 1939, and isn't it time for Russia to raise the issue of recovering from the Baltic the money that Peter 1 paid for them, adjusted for inflation. Maybe shut up then?
  • avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 25 July 2016 12: 19
    0
    If I didn’t blunt, then the attack aircraft is still an offensive weapon, unlike the notorious missile defense system (no matter how it was painted), so there were no questions about who and how. Wake up in the morning, or is it no longer necessary? (Europe is the same). Lol !!!
  • avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 25 July 2016 12: 28
    0
    Quote: masiya
    it was necessary to blow up everything before leaving, so that there would not grow grass for a hundred years ...

    Something exploded. The same advisers of the USA left under the eye, it was so painful and insulting ..., no words !!! But, this is history, and it is unlikely that they will write a book about it (vultures). But, it was not out of your head! I can’t even tell a couple of words of truth to my grandson, but the Balts can lie - they can !!!!
  • Prisoner
    Prisoner 25 July 2016 12: 50
    +1
    In general, Americans, as always, Americans. Threw off the old footmen, now they will bask in the streams of gratitude for the "protection" of these footmen.
  • Flatter
    Flatter 25 July 2016 13: 39
    +2
    Demonstration of the flag and acquaintance with the probable theater of operations. A military observer in Baranets, in the daytime program "Time Will Show", somehow noticed that the NATO group in Europe surpasses the Russian Federation in aviation 20 times, in tanks and artillery 10 or 15 times .From the same Baltic States, without entering the air defense zone, to St. Petersburg 5-6 minutes. Flight.
    1. Parsec
      Parsec 25 July 2016 15: 03
      -1
      Quote: Flatter
      From the same Baltic, without entering the air defense zone, to Peter 5-6 minutes. Flight.


      What kind of wonderful device is supposed to be used to achieve such a time?

      And tell me the route "to Peter" without entering the air defense zone.
      1. Flatter
        Flatter 25 July 2016 19: 53
        0
        From the territory of Estonia, without crossing the air border. And the Boeing made rockets with speeds of 1200 km / h back in the 90s, air-to-surface.
    2. Corsair
      Corsair 25 July 2016 16: 03
      0
      Quote: Flatter
      I noticed that in aviation the NATO grouping in Europe surpasses the Russian Federation 20 times, in tanks and artillery 10 or 15 times.

      laughing And all this stands at our borders? Europe, as it were, is also not quite small, and if its corn-eaters arrive, they can quickly drive, which in itself is nonsense, taking into account their speed, then others still have to fly and fly.
  • Paul zewike
    Paul zewike 25 July 2016 14: 30
    -3
    In the war against a strong army with army air defense and other surprises - just rubbish.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 25 July 2016 21: 00
      0
      So you know, these planes will not operate alone, a cover in the form of fighters with air-to-air missiles will be guaranteed.
      1. Paul zewike
        Paul zewike 26 July 2016 20: 16
        0
        And those on their own with a screw. No one will use attack aircraft in a modern war with a strong enemy. Know that.
  • Parsec
    Parsec 25 July 2016 15: 04
    +1
    A-10 is a serious car, no need for one tooth.
  • viktor.
    viktor. 25 July 2016 15: 30
    0
    Quote: chunga-changa
    This is called "preparation and development of the future theater of military operations." They check whether the planes can be based on the selected airfields, they can fix what is needed. They check the conditions for the accommodation of personnel, they can finish building what is needed. They check the interaction with the RTS of flight support, interaction with ground services - refueling, BC equipment, the readiness and capacity of storage facilities, the real time of aircraft equipment. They determine the real time of response to the departure command and the real flight time to the lines. For all this, there are many planes and it is not necessary, ten is quite enough, by the hour X they will move two or three hundred, and everything is ready - "press and blow".

    I think thirty minutes after an hour X the airfield with all the infrastructure will disappear, and the ammunition will not hang on anything. Balts do not cherish their ass at all laughing
  • viktor.
    viktor. 25 July 2016 15: 48
    0
    Quote: Tanya
    You can be ironic over 10 attack aircraft, but in preparation for the war with the USSR, the Germans occupied occupied airfields in occupied Polish territory and established flight schools there with dozens of training aircraft. And all would be fine, only a couple of weeks before 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX. completely different cars and in different numbers appeared at these airfields. And flying schools moved west. What happened then, we all know.

    what we know, the question is how we will react this time, and the answer will need to be instantly and very hard after spitting on all the prohibitions of prohibited weapons, etc., etc. otherwise we see that in the Middle East, these ghouls seem to not understand otherwise, well, the shavak of the Pentagon GDP warned apparently does not reach, maybe they believed in themselves?
    1. Tanya
      Tanya 25 July 2016 16: 08
      0
      what we know, the question is how we will react this time, and the answer will need to be instantly and very hard after spitting on all the prohibitions of prohibited weapons, etc., etc. otherwise we see that in the Middle East, these ghouls seem to not understand otherwise, well, the shavak of the Pentagon GDP warned apparently does not reach, maybe they believed in themselves?

      We will not have to respond. For this, there is the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the General Staff and the High Command.
  • afrikanez
    afrikanez 25 July 2016 16: 51
    0
    It seems that this is the last refuge of these aircraft. As the saying goes, it’s time to rest, the time has come.
  • Paul zewike
    Paul zewike 25 July 2016 16: 55
    0
    There are a lot of droppers on American wunderwaffles in this thread :)
  • berezin1987
    berezin1987 25 July 2016 19: 40
    0
    We decided to dispose of together with the Baltic states. The latter must be nominated for the Darwin Prize.
  • Olegater
    Olegater 25 July 2016 20: 26
    +4
    chunga-changa at 11:04
    This is called "preparation and development of the future theater of military operations." They check whether the planes can be based on the selected airfields, they can fix what is needed. They check the conditions for the accommodation of personnel, they can finish building what is needed. They check the interaction with the RTS of flight support, interaction with ground services - refueling, BC equipment, the readiness and capacity of storage facilities, the real time of aircraft equipment. They determine the real time of response to the departure command and the real flight time to the lines. For all this, there are many planes and it is not necessary, ten is quite enough, by the hour X they will move two or three hundred pieces, and everything is ready - "press and blow".
    HERE GOLDEN WORDS, BRAVO my great respect to you hi
  • Gost171
    Gost171 25 July 2016 21: 13
    +1
    I agree Pete Mitchell, in the late 70s and early 80s this car, the A-10 attack aircraft, was a very serious thing. We must assume that it was modified several times, equipped with modern weapons, etc. Well, and another, the attack aircraft flying on a combat approach \ with a dive \, at an altitude of 15-20 meters and, scorching from everything that has, it is not forgotten. \ Pushkin firing range, firing in the "mirror" mode. 80-81 year \
  • Retvizan
    Retvizan 25 July 2016 23: 35
    +1
    Do not underestimate anything. Yes, the Americans can and mow .. But they have everything in a complex. They can sometimes start poorly and correct along the way. A bit of Germans resemble Britons at the same time (methodically and for a long time) \
    And if it’s comprehensive, then suppose that A 10 are designed for free hunting, I don’t think. They generally have a different technique .. And do not wait for A 10 sorties to layered air defense missions. Yes, and the transfer itself is a game of muscles ..
    Exercises battalions reinforce the transfer-rhetoric, and again shuffling .. merry "cold war" We assure Congress of aggressiveness and ask for money. And the Russian Federation spends money from the "NATO threat" .. The trouble is that there this music is eternal.
    The main weapon of the Western world is not at all A 10 ... and not even the US Navy ... no ... but an idea ... You can only counter it with your own idea ... weapons will not help here.
  • Mentat
    Mentat 26 July 2016 13: 59
    0
    Quote: Verdun
    Quote: Professor
    Why not? there is

    Excuse me, but comparing an AGM-114 Hellfire with a flight range of 8 km and a warhead weight of 8 kg with an AGM-65 Hellver with a flight range of 30 km and warhead weight from 57 to 135 kg, depending on the modification, is ridiculous.

    You do not forget to whom you write, this is a "professor." He writes articles, a leading engineer on composing technical fables and riveting gray mares.
    Quote: Vadim237
    And here is the replacement itself - the JAGM missile, in the airplane version, the launch range of 28 kilometers, the armor penetration of 1200 mm, the combined seeker - shot and forgot.

    This is just an advertisement, the rocket is in competitive development and flies for 28 km only in booklets. Why are you shoving pictures here under the guise of facts, it is not known. By the way, I notice that this is not the first time you have such a thing in the texts: you are engaged in distorting the facts, or you yourself do not give yourself the trouble to understand.

    When the JAGM will be adopted, with what characteristics - no one knows. Currently being tested and the results are modest.

    "The Joint Air To Ground Missile (JAGM) was fired May 25 at a truck traveling at 20 mph from a Gray Eagle drone at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. The truck was hit and destroyed. Col. James Romero, with the Army's Missiles and Space Program Executive Office, said the missile flew a bit farther than 8 kilometers at a “nominal altitude” ”(http://breakingdefense.com/2016/06/jagm-whacks-truck-in-first-first-drone-test/
    )

    “The rocket flew a little over 8 kilometers.”

    We are not talking about any 28 kilometers at the moment.
    1. Professor
      Professor 26 July 2016 14: 06
      -1
      What people. hi
      Have you already weighed the world's smallest grenade launcher weighing 2 times more than the ancient LAU? And then I waited for you on that branch. wassat
  • Mentat
    Mentat 26 July 2016 14: 25
    0
    Quote: Retvizan
    And 10 are designed for free hunting, I do not think so. They generally have a different technique .. And do not wait for A 10 sorties to layered air defense missions.

    Those. And do not wait 10? What are the A 10 designed for and what is their super-technique? "Professor" writes that it’s how it will fly, how it will shoot a tank from a miracle cannon and a khan ... of working capacity of Nat. A10, however, is much faster than net, and much further, about 700 commercial orders than the effective shooting distance of its miracle gun.

    They won’t even drive barmaleys through the deserts with this fig, not to let loose into a modern battlefield.
  • Mentat
    Mentat 26 July 2016 14: 35
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    What people. hi
    Have you already weighed the world's smallest grenade launcher weighing 2 times more than the ancient LAU? And then I waited for you on that branch. wassat

    "Professor," where are you going again? In that thread you confused the grenade launcher with missile systems, you do not need to discuss it, but at least read Wikipedia, if you really have such mistakes.
    You have already been told in that thread that the Bur system is the smallest rechargeable grenade launcher in the world.

    You have problems even with awareness of elementary concepts. The concept of "weight" is not identical to the concept of "size". This is not even a school, children before kindergarten learn to understand this.
    1. Professor
      Professor 26 July 2016 14: 52
      -1
      Quote: Mentat
      You have already been told in that thread that the Bur system is the smallest rechargeable grenade launcher in the world.

      At first it was simply the smallest in the world (without specification), then it was limited to the smallest jet equipped ..., then it became the smallest rechargeable, now the smallest Russian grenade launcher in the world. lol

      Quote: Mentat
      You have problems even with awareness of elementary concepts. The concept of "weight" is not identical to the concept of "size". This is not even a school, children before kindergarten learn to understand this.

      Do you want to discuss its dimensions? wink
  • Mentat
    Mentat 27 July 2016 14: 50
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: Mentat
    You have already been told in that thread that the Bur system is the smallest rechargeable grenade launcher in the world.

    At first it was simply the smallest in the world (without specification), then it was limited to the smallest jet equipped ..., then became the smallest rechargeable, now The smallest Russian grenade launcher in the world. lol
    The fact that you are also a liar, was already, again for your own? There are no “now”, there are no such systems (in size) in the world. You 10 again write the phrase "the smallest rechargeable grenade launcher in the world"? It was in that thread and it is true. You tried to google something there, but you couldn’t do anything but insert emoticons and confuse weight with dimensions. You regularly merge, why you are hustling again, it’s not clear.

    Quote: Mentat
    You have problems even with awareness of elementary concepts. The concept of "weight" is not identical to the concept of "size". This is not even a school, children before kindergarten learn to understand this.

    Do you want to discuss its dimensions? wink

    You have already stopped confusing kilograms with meters and want to discuss this sooner? Dismiss
    1. Professor
      Professor 27 July 2016 16: 59
      -1
      Quote: Mentat
      The fact that you are also a liar, was already, again for your own? There are no “now”, there are no such systems (in size) in the world. You 10 again write the phrase "the smallest rechargeable grenade launcher in the world"? It was in that thread and it is true. You tried to google something there, but you couldn’t do anything but insert emoticons and confuse weight with dimensions. You regularly merge, why you are hustling again, it’s not clear.

      Return to the branch and re-read the article again.

      Quote: Mentat
      You have already stopped confusing kilograms with meters and want to discuss this sooner? Dismiss

      Merged?