Retiring the A-10

[candycorn]

Big mistake. Keep them...add more.

 

[MarathonMike]

The F-35 is a monument to government inefficiency and corruption. It is DECADES late, countless billions over budget and fraught with issues.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That's bullshit. No way the F35 can do everything the A10 can do. And the A10 is cheap to make. This is just another excuse for wanting to spend a lot of money.

Someone needs to tell the military they get no F35s. They have enough. They can get some new warthogs or NOTHING.

Something else to consider, the F-35 will never be used for CAS. They are too valuable to the Air Force and will be husbanded for CAP missions. The Army needs its own fixed wing CAS aircraft to work with its helos. The only reason the A-10 was ever produced was that the Army was insisting it needed its own CAS in Vietnam because the helos were so limited.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You bar flies sure do like to play with the lives of others, don't you. No A-10 in the right mind will try and take on any MBT with his gun when he has too many other weapons that can it better hung under his wing. And that Mouse might be one mean SOB.

No sane person is combat wants a fair fight. Yes, the A-10 will use stand-off ordnance as long as it has it, but when its gone, the A-10 still has an armor killing weapon and the F-35 doesn't. A simple heavy rain will ground an F-35 because it can damage the stealth coating, the F-10 ignores such minor inconveniences

 

[Mushroom]

The F-35 is a monument to government inefficiency and corruption. It is DECADES late, countless billions over budget and fraught with issues.

You have to realize, it was not really made for the Air Force in the first place.

The real reason for the entire program was never the F-35A, other than for export sales. The real reasons were to give stealth technologies to the Navy and Marine Corps in the F-35B and F-35C. They were the branches of service that had the oldest fighters (the main fighter for the Marines outside of on carriers was from the Vietnam era), and none had any stealth capabilities. Those were the two branches that had been screaming for modern stealth fighters that could be used on carriers or with VSTOL capability. The Air Force was brought in primarily to allow the numbers made to help reduce the unit cost, and to provide a multi-role stealth fighter to our allies.

First of all, it is always a fail to consider the F-35 as just a single airplane, there are three very different models. And how in the hell can it be "decades late"? The program only started in 1994, with the demonstrators requested in 1997. The decision made to go with the X-35 instead of the X-32 in 2001, and first entering service in 2015. 21 years to go from the initial outline of what is needed to a finished aircraft delivered into the hands of pilots is an amazingly short amount of time. And as you said "decades", I guess that should have all been done in one year.

And name for me anything in the last 50 years that has not come in over budget.

 

[Mushroom]

Something else to consider, the F-35 will never be used for CAS.

Oh, I am sure it will be, but likely not the F-35A. Too expensive and not suited to the task, when the Air Force has much more suitable CAS aircraft available to them.

But the F-35C and most specifically the F-35B? I bet those will be used for CAS, as that is a primary role for the Marines that will be flying those variants. And a lesser task for the Navy pilots that will be flying the F-35C.

 

[Mushroom]

A simple heavy rain will ground an F-35 because it can damage the stealth coating

Not at all. What makes you think that they will not fly in the rain?

Stealth is not everything, and not even required.

 

[whitehall]

They are old and outdated and expensive to build and vulnerable to modern weapons.

 

[Vrenn]

View attachment 931390

First of all, usaf already had a better CAS. The shortcomings of the A-10 is it's too slow, it has a tiny range and it's so underpowered that the pilots have to worry about stalling it out if it's jinks to avoid ground fire. And Congress did another "Cheat" during the flyoff against the A-7E. The A-7 also had an external 30mm canon. And, unlike the A-10, the A-7 had air to air kills against fighters. To kill an A-10 with a fighter, you just have to extend away from it, come in fast and nail it. Okay, it may take a few hits from the 20mm but the 30 will do the job. Plus, like the A-10, the A-7 carried 2 Aim7s.

Now, about the cost of the A-10. In todays dollars, it would have to take 89,560,875.91 dollars. Considering the F-35A is about 2 million cheaper and can do so much more then the F-35A ends up being the best buy.

You keep dragging in the CAS mission. Well, the Navy and Marines have their T-29A for that mission and the AF has it's AT-6B. And they do CAS a lot better and cost about 15% of a remanufactured A-10.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Oh, I am sure it will be, but likely not the F-35A. Too expensive and not suited to the task, when the Air Force has much more suitable CAS aircraft available to them.

But the F-35C and most specifically the F-35B? I bet those will be used for CAS, as that is a primary role for the Marines that will be flying those variants. And a lesser task for the Navy pilots that will be flying the F-35C.

Not by the Air Force.

 

[candycorn]

First of all, usaf already had a better CAS. The shortcomings of the A-10 is it's too slow, it has a tiny range and it's so underpowered that the pilots have to worry about stalling it out if it's jinks to avoid ground fire. And Congress did another "Cheat" during the flyoff against the A-7E. The A-7 also had an external 30mm canon. And, unlike the A-10, the A-7 had air to air kills against fighters. To kill an A-10 with a fighter, you just have to extend away from it, come in fast and nail it. Okay, it may take a few hits from the 20mm but the 30 will do the job. Plus, like the A-10, the A-7 carried 2 Aim7s.

Now, about the cost of the A-10. In todays dollars, it would have to take 89,560,875.91 dollars. Considering the F-35A is about 2 million cheaper and can do so much more then the F-35A ends up being the best buy.

You keep dragging in the CAS mission. Well, the Navy and Marines have their T-29A for that mission and the AF has it's AT-6B. And they do CAS a lot better and cost about 15% of a remanufactured A-10.

nah

 

[candycorn]

Didn't care much for her politics but would love to have her autograph:

She deserved a better party than the GOP.

Love how she wears the A-10 charm on her necklace--the plane she flew in combat.

Martha McSally - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[candycorn]

Either plane could ruin your whole day if you're the enemy...agreed?

 

[Vrenn]

nah

What's the matter, you just got caught in another lie?

 

[candycorn]

What's the matter, you just got caught in another lie?

LOL

 

[Vrenn]

Either plane could ruin your whole day if you're the enemy...agreed?

Actually, I go back to servicing the Orginal that the A-10 replaced but the A-10 was a very poor replacement. Except for the cost of operation, that is. The A-1 was a recip prop job.

 

[candycorn]

Actually, I go back to servicing the Orginal that the A-10 replaced but the A-10 was a very poor replacement. Except for the cost of operation, that is. The A-1 was a recip prop job.

 

[westwall]

Actually, I go back to servicing the Orginal that the A-10 replaced but the A-10 was a very poor replacement. Except for the cost of operation, that is. The A-1 was a recip prop job.

And other than loiter time, is inferior in every way to the A-10.

 

[Vrenn]

A-10 Titanium Bathtub
A-1 Titanium Bathtub
A-7 Titanium Bathtub
3 way tie

A-10 11 hardpoints
A-1 14 hardpoints
A-7 8 hardpoints
A-1 hands down

A-10 288 miles combat range
A-1 over 1300 miles combat range
A-7 over 1200 miles combat range
A-1 barely over the A-7 while the A-10 can barely get outside of the runway in comparison


A-10 Top Speed 439 mph
A-7 Top Speed 690 mph.
A-1 Top Speed 322 mph
A-7 wins hands down

Overall, if you don't take into consideration that the R3350 was a pig for manhours to keep it in the air, as an overall strike package (including CAS) it edges out the A-7. The A-10 has zero categories that it can win. BTW, Spent time supporting the A-1. It landed with damage that would turn both the A-7 and A-10 into slag heaps. Call the A-1 a P-47 with an attitude.

One more thing. Both the A-1 and A-7 were carrier attack birds. Tough as nails Thier takehooks were functional while the A-10 doesn't even have one.

 

[Mushroom]

They are old and outdated and expensive to build and vulnerable to modern weapons.

They are not designed or intended to work in contested airspaces, no CAS aircraft is.