What is really killing the A-10 Off

[Daryl Hunt]

High Air Frame Time (you can't replace the Air Frame without building a brand new Aircraft

The Assembly line was not only dismantled but scrapped. Even if you could put together the same folks (these folks would be in their late 50s and 60s) without the jigs and such you can't build a single A-10 without some serious bucks.

Yes, they are scheduled to be rewinged but rewinging doesn't replace or upgrade the Air Frame.

The A-10 has been rode hard and put away wet unlike any other bird in the inventory today. And there are cheaper ways to do the same job that are being considered right now. The Brrrrt that keeps coming up, the 30 mm on the A-10 is doing the job that either a 20mm vulcan or a 50 cal chain gun can do as well.

You can't change facts replacing them with good thoughts alone.

The A-10 was built around that tank-killing gun. A 20mm or .50 cal won't do the job. Without the A-10 or a suitable replacement they'll have to use more expensive missiles.

The 30mm is very expensive if all it's used for is to conduct CAS or Sandy missions. As I stated, a cheaper to operate and support dedicated CAS and Sandy should be in service. The A-10 lost it's armor busting mission when Armor just got too good at bagging slow and low. It found a home in a couple of mission profiles that were completely ignored, CAS and Sandy. Then the Ground Pounder got real mean, real fast and the A-10 was left using those expensive missiles. In the past, the 20mm and 50cal did a superb job. But the birds that used them were taken out of the inventory. The last bird that was used like that was the A-1E, taken out of service in 1975. You talk about a tough bird. I was sent out on a returning (diverted) A-1E that had a tree limb in his engine cowling, a distorted prop, on one side he was completely missing his wing from the Aileron out and was missing about half his tail section. No Jet in the World could have kept in the air, much less, landed safely with that kind of damage. That was from a Sandy mission where his job was to keep the enemy off the rescue chopper. Combined with the Army's AH-1s, when they went into action, we almost always got to the pilot before the enemy. And this was done behind enemy lines. All without a single 30mm to be had.

The A-1 first flew in 1945. They took all the good qualities of the ground attack light attack planes and the P-47 and put it all into the A-1. But it was taken out of service n 1975 after 30 years of service. What replaced in in 1975? The A-37 with it's 20mms, rockets and bombs. When they took the A-37 out of service, it left a huge void and the A-10 became the OA-10. But it always lacked sufficient range to really do the job. The A-10 always was to reliant on the Tanker. When things are hot and heavy, there are only so many tankers to go around.

I always liked the A-37 and against the VC it was a great performer. However, it can't take a hit. The A-10 can. And, more to the point, it can take more damage than the SPAD you wax eloquent upon. I like the Spad as well, but its four 20mm cannon don't hold a candle to the A-10's GAU-8A.

Actually, the A-1 was also a titanium bathtub as was the A-7. And engine hit on an A-10 means it's time to take it home. An engine hit on an A-1 was just the opening dance to a very long dance. The range of the A-10 is still about a 150 mile combat radius. The combat radius of an A-1 is about 500 miles. The loiter time for an A-10 is about 90 minutes. The loiter time for an A-1 was over 4 hours. The sandy is always the first one on station and has to keep the enemy at bey until the choppers can extract the air crew. I would rather have something that can hang in there and keep the enemy away from the downed air crew than something that has to leave and meet a tanker.

Even with all that, the A-10s Air Frame is just about to start busting. It's been rode hard and put away wet many times. It HAS to be replaced quickly. All the mods in the world don't mean a damned thing with the air frame buckles. And many of them already have. The Bone Yards are full of them. Last count, they were down to less than 180 of them in both active and reserve status. That number might work for a heavy bomber but for an attack bird, they need to be in the thousands. Without the Dies and Assembly line aperatus, the A-10 cannot be made ever again. It's cheaper to build a new bird that is updated to todays standards and has a new air frame.

 

[westwall]

High Air Frame Time (you can't replace the Air Frame without building a brand new Aircraft

The Assembly line was not only dismantled but scrapped. Even if you could put together the same folks (these folks would be in their late 50s and 60s) without the jigs and such you can't build a single A-10 without some serious bucks.

Yes, they are scheduled to be rewinged but rewinging doesn't replace or upgrade the Air Frame.

The A-10 has been rode hard and put away wet unlike any other bird in the inventory today. And there are cheaper ways to do the same job that are being considered right now. The Brrrrt that keeps coming up, the 30 mm on the A-10 is doing the job that either a 20mm vulcan or a 50 cal chain gun can do as well.

You can't change facts replacing them with good thoughts alone.

The A-10 was built around that tank-killing gun. A 20mm or .50 cal won't do the job. Without the A-10 or a suitable replacement they'll have to use more expensive missiles.

The 30mm is very expensive if all it's used for is to conduct CAS or Sandy missions. As I stated, a cheaper to operate and support dedicated CAS and Sandy should be in service. The A-10 lost it's armor busting mission when Armor just got too good at bagging slow and low. It found a home in a couple of mission profiles that were completely ignored, CAS and Sandy. Then the Ground Pounder got real mean, real fast and the A-10 was left using those expensive missiles. In the past, the 20mm and 50cal did a superb job. But the birds that used them were taken out of the inventory. The last bird that was used like that was the A-1E, taken out of service in 1975. You talk about a tough bird. I was sent out on a returning (diverted) A-1E that had a tree limb in his engine cowling, a distorted prop, on one side he was completely missing his wing from the Aileron out and was missing about half his tail section. No Jet in the World could have kept in the air, much less, landed safely with that kind of damage. That was from a Sandy mission where his job was to keep the enemy off the rescue chopper. Combined with the Army's AH-1s, when they went into action, we almost always got to the pilot before the enemy. And this was done behind enemy lines. All without a single 30mm to be had.

The A-1 first flew in 1945. They took all the good qualities of the ground attack light attack planes and the P-47 and put it all into the A-1. But it was taken out of service n 1975 after 30 years of service. What replaced in in 1975? The A-37 with it's 20mms, rockets and bombs. When they took the A-37 out of service, it left a huge void and the A-10 became the OA-10. But it always lacked sufficient range to really do the job. The A-10 always was to reliant on the Tanker. When things are hot and heavy, there are only so many tankers to go around.

I always liked the A-37 and against the VC it was a great performer. However, it can't take a hit. The A-10 can. And, more to the point, it can take more damage than the SPAD you wax eloquent upon. I like the Spad as well, but its four 20mm cannon don't hold a candle to the A-10's GAU-8A.

Actually, the A-1 was also a titanium bathtub as was the A-7. And engine hit on an A-10 means it's time to take it home. An engine hit on an A-1 was just the opening dance to a very long dance. The range of the A-10 is still about a 150 mile combat radius. The combat radius of an A-1 is about 500 miles. The loiter time for an A-10 is about 90 minutes. The loiter time for an A-1 was over 4 hours. The sandy is always the first one on station and has to keep the enemy at bey until the choppers can extract the air crew. I would rather have something that can hang in there and keep the enemy away from the downed air crew than something that has to leave and meet a tanker.

Even with all that, the A-10s Air Frame is just about to start busting. It's been rode hard and put away wet many times. It HAS to be replaced quickly. All the mods in the world don't mean a damned thing with the air frame buckles. And many of them already have. The Bone Yards are full of them. Last count, they were down to less than 180 of them in both active and reserve status. That number might work for a heavy bomber but for an attack bird, they need to be in the thousands. Without the Dies and Assembly line aperatus, the A-10 cannot be made ever again. It's cheaper to build a new bird that is updated to todays standards and has a new air frame.

Yes. I have friends who flew Sandy missions in the SPAD and they loved it. Over Vietnam they were getting 9 hour loiter times with external tanks. But, the few of them that transitioned to the A-10 felt that it was the best thing in the world for a Sandy mission had they been around at the time. The A-10 is quieter than the SPAD so is able to stooge around without being tracked so easily until it finally roles in for the attack. Not having to deal with the flicker vertigo of that huge fan in front of you is a benefit that the A-10 enjoys as well. Amazingly enough the engines on the '10 are much easier to maintain as well. And the supply support is significantly less.

The 3350 engine is a supply nightmare, we used one on the Rare Bear and it is a good thing an oil man owned it because the 3350 engine is notorious for going through oil at a prodigious rate and the power recovery turbines burned up on a regular basis.

 

[Divine Wind]

...The 3350 engine is a supply nightmare, we used one on the Rare Bear and it is a good thing an oil man owned it because the 3350 engine is notorious for going through oil at a prodigious rate and the power recovery turbines burned up on a regular basis.

The T-28B, with an R1820, was like that too. If it wasn't leaking oil, it was out of oil.

 

[longknife]

High Air Frame Time (you can't replace the Air Frame without building a brand new Aircraft

The Assembly line was not only dismantled but scrapped. Even if you could put together the same folks (these folks would be in their late 50s and 60s) without the jigs and such you can't build a single A-10 without some serious bucks.

Yes, they are scheduled to be rewinged but rewinging doesn't replace or upgrade the Air Frame.

The A-10 has been rode hard and put away wet unlike any other bird in the inventory today. And there are cheaper ways to do the same job that are being considered right now. The Brrrrt that keeps coming up, the 30 mm on the A-10 is doing the job that either a 20mm vulcan or a 50 cal chain gun can do as well.

You can't change facts replacing them with good thoughts alone.

Miliary.com says the Air Force plans on keeping it around until 2028.

 

[westwall]

...The 3350 engine is a supply nightmare, we used one on the Rare Bear and it is a good thing an oil man owned it because the 3350 engine is notorious for going through oil at a prodigious rate and the power recovery turbines burned up on a regular basis.

The T-28B, with an R1820, was like that too. If it wasn't leaking oil, it was out of oil.

Yep. Oil usage is a feature of radials. But, the only engine sound that is better is that from a Merlin!

 

[Manonthestreet]

High Air Frame Time (you can't replace the Air Frame without building a brand new Aircraft

The Assembly line was not only dismantled but scrapped. Even if you could put together the same folks (these folks would be in their late 50s and 60s) without the jigs and such you can't build a single A-10 without some serious bucks.

Yes, they are scheduled to be rewinged but rewinging doesn't replace or upgrade the Air Frame.

The A-10 has been rode hard and put away wet unlike any other bird in the inventory today. And there are cheaper ways to do the same job that are being considered right now. The Brrrrt that keeps coming up, the 30 mm on the A-10 is doing the job that either a 20mm vulcan or a 50 cal chain gun can do as well.

You can't change facts replacing them with good thoughts alone.

The A-10 was built around that tank-killing gun. A 20mm or .50 cal won't do the job. Without the A-10 or a suitable replacement they'll have to use more expensive missiles.

The 30mm is very expensive if all it's used for is to conduct CAS or Sandy missions. As I stated, a cheaper to operate and support dedicated CAS and Sandy should be in service. The A-10 lost it's armor busting mission when Armor just got too good at bagging slow and low. It found a home in a couple of mission profiles that were completely ignored, CAS and Sandy. Then the Ground Pounder got real mean, real fast and the A-10 was left using those expensive missiles. In the past, the 20mm and 50cal did a superb job. But the birds that used them were taken out of the inventory. The last bird that was used like that was the A-1E, taken out of service in 1975. You talk about a tough bird. I was sent out on a returning (diverted) A-1E that had a tree limb in his engine cowling, a distorted prop, on one side he was completely missing his wing from the Aileron out and was missing about half his tail section. No Jet in the World could have kept in the air, much less, landed safely with that kind of damage. That was from a Sandy mission where his job was to keep the enemy off the rescue chopper. Combined with the Army's AH-1s, when they went into action, we almost always got to the pilot before the enemy. And this was done behind enemy lines. All without a single 30mm to be had.

The A-1 first flew in 1945. They took all the good qualities of the ground attack light attack planes and the P-47 and put it all into the A-1. But it was taken out of service n 1975 after 30 years of service. What replaced in in 1975? The A-37 with it's 20mms, rockets and bombs. When they took the A-37 out of service, it left a huge void and the A-10 became the OA-10. But it always lacked sufficient range to really do the job. The A-10 always was to reliant on the Tanker. When things are hot and heavy, there are only so many tankers to go around.

F-15 landed without an entire wing.....

 

[Manonthestreet]

I like the modular concept of the Scorpion.....

 

[westwall]

High Air Frame Time (you can't replace the Air Frame without building a brand new Aircraft

The Assembly line was not only dismantled but scrapped. Even if you could put together the same folks (these folks would be in their late 50s and 60s) without the jigs and such you can't build a single A-10 without some serious bucks.

Yes, they are scheduled to be rewinged but rewinging doesn't replace or upgrade the Air Frame.

The A-10 has been rode hard and put away wet unlike any other bird in the inventory today. And there are cheaper ways to do the same job that are being considered right now. The Brrrrt that keeps coming up, the 30 mm on the A-10 is doing the job that either a 20mm vulcan or a 50 cal chain gun can do as well.

You can't change facts replacing them with good thoughts alone.

The A-10 was built around that tank-killing gun. A 20mm or .50 cal won't do the job. Without the A-10 or a suitable replacement they'll have to use more expensive missiles.

The 30mm is very expensive if all it's used for is to conduct CAS or Sandy missions. As I stated, a cheaper to operate and support dedicated CAS and Sandy should be in service. The A-10 lost it's armor busting mission when Armor just got too good at bagging slow and low. It found a home in a couple of mission profiles that were completely ignored, CAS and Sandy. Then the Ground Pounder got real mean, real fast and the A-10 was left using those expensive missiles. In the past, the 20mm and 50cal did a superb job. But the birds that used them were taken out of the inventory. The last bird that was used like that was the A-1E, taken out of service in 1975. You talk about a tough bird. I was sent out on a returning (diverted) A-1E that had a tree limb in his engine cowling, a distorted prop, on one side he was completely missing his wing from the Aileron out and was missing about half his tail section. No Jet in the World could have kept in the air, much less, landed safely with that kind of damage. That was from a Sandy mission where his job was to keep the enemy off the rescue chopper. Combined with the Army's AH-1s, when they went into action, we almost always got to the pilot before the enemy. And this was done behind enemy lines. All without a single 30mm to be had.

The A-1 first flew in 1945. They took all the good qualities of the ground attack light attack planes and the P-47 and put it all into the A-1. But it was taken out of service n 1975 after 30 years of service. What replaced in in 1975? The A-37 with it's 20mms, rockets and bombs. When they took the A-37 out of service, it left a huge void and the A-10 became the OA-10. But it always lacked sufficient range to really do the job. The A-10 always was to reliant on the Tanker. When things are hot and heavy, there are only so many tankers to go around.

F-15 landed without an entire wing.....

Yep. An Israeli F-15 had a mid-air but made it home.

Here's the video.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I remember standing on Vulture's Row one day during a cruise in the early 90's. Saw an F-14 Tomcat go by low and slow, and it looked strange for some reason, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it.

Well, the pilot came back around and landed. When the plane stopped, we saw what the problem was. Seems that the latch holding the nosecone over the radar had come undone and the whole nosecone had gone up and hit the canopy, blinding the pilot. The RIO had to use the ACLS to get the plane down. Everyone made it down safely (the pilot had some glass in his face, but that was about it), and to tell you the truth, it was probably one of the strangest things I'd seen during my career.

If you have a decent airframe and a decent aircrew, you can usually make it home alive.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

High Air Frame Time (you can't replace the Air Frame without building a brand new Aircraft

The Assembly line was not only dismantled but scrapped. Even if you could put together the same folks (these folks would be in their late 50s and 60s) without the jigs and such you can't build a single A-10 without some serious bucks.

Yes, they are scheduled to be rewinged but rewinging doesn't replace or upgrade the Air Frame.

The A-10 has been rode hard and put away wet unlike any other bird in the inventory today. And there are cheaper ways to do the same job that are being considered right now. The Brrrrt that keeps coming up, the 30 mm on the A-10 is doing the job that either a 20mm vulcan or a 50 cal chain gun can do as well.

You can't change facts replacing them with good thoughts alone.

Miliary.com says the Air Force plans on keeping it around until 2028.

The attrition rate will finally be finished by 2028 where all the air frames will no longer be able to fly. A replacement will be needed very quickly as the numbers of the A-10 continues to go down.

 

[Ringel05]

I like the modular concept of the Scorpion.....

The Scorpion is impressive except for one major flaw, unlike the A-10 the Scorpion is very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment same as the Tucano. Great CAS planes in a low risk combat environment.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I like the modular concept of the Scorpion.....

The Scorpion is impressive except for one major flaw, unlike the A-10 the Scorpion is very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment same as the Tucano. Great CAS planes in a low risk combat environment.

With the coming of the net bag of tricks the grunts have, the A-10 flying below 15k is no longer able to handle low altitude attacks and expect to get out of it. The A-10 is dying a slow, spiraling death due to age. By 2025, there won't be enough air worthy ones to justify keeping it in the inventory. If a serious replacement were to be built, it would have to have all the neat toys and end up costing at least 85 mil. Low altitude attacks just aren't worth the cost. The difference between a serious replacement of the A-10 and the AT-6A or A-29 buys a hell of a lot of cheaper AS type weapons that can be carried by the fighters, bombers and ACs makes it not worth the cost of the replacement for the A-10.

Now, take a cheap attack bird, it just might be justified. My pick would be the AT-6A since it already has all the neat toys from the A-10 incorporated into it. And you will need to add some of the F-15E toys as well since the A-10 can't terrain follow like the F-15E can. You can keep the cost down to about 20 mil and do those missions that the others can't do (actually, the F-15E can do it as well but costs 110 mil a copy).

The A-10 can't survive in a high threat anymore than an AT-6A can. If we got into it with a country that is well equipped then neither could survive a down in the dirt flight. But at night, overcast sky, and just nasty weather where the threat is low, then either can do the mission.

I have a saying. ICUUCMe. I see you, you can see me. There is a reason that Spec Ops almost soley uses the AC-130 for cover. It flies and operates at a higher altitude so only SAMS can reach it and they are very capable of taking out the sam before the sam can get off a shot and do it cheaply and accurately. They need cover from their little friends (fighters). But they can hit within feet of their targets 100% of the time with cheap weapons like the 25, 30, 105mm guns. When DSII was started, in order to land those choppers in the valley, it was the AC-130 that fired the first shots enabling Spec Ops to start taking out the entrenched defenders in the hills. But we didn't hear about that since it was "Classified". When it's time to take out the Tanker Trucks, the A-10 gets the dangerous job but the real killing is done by the AC-130. The A-10 gives the enemy something to shoot at but bags a truck each pass. The problem is, after only a couple of passes, the A-10 has to get a drink. The AC just orbits one time to get his mission done and can move on to his next assignment. The AC just moves from target to target until all threats or targets are destroyed. But if push comes to shove, the AC can stick around for hours and make things blow up. The AT--6A or the A-29 could do the same mission as the A-10 on the tanker truck because your real mission is to be seen and then flit away and do it on the cheap side. But the wholesale damage is being done by one lone AC. The enemy has no idea that the AC is in the area and you want to keep it that way. They have no idea that the real death isn't coming from the A-10 or AT-6A or any other attack bird. All they know is that they are dying quickly. Strange, but, if cost is no object, a Buff could replace the AC in the same mission and get the same results using JDAMs.

The Marines proved this with the OV-10Ds recently. If you were to build new OV-10s and put in the new toys, then it's much better than either the AT-6A or the A-29. But it will cost about 8 mil more per copy. The AT-6A and the A-29 would have costs about 12 mil per copy (adding the new toys and it's going to be 20 mil, while the OV-10D+ would cost about 28 mil. While the OV-10 would be more versatile, is it worth the extra 8 mil? The Military doesn't think so.

Now, would you place the serious A-10 replacement in harms way (in the weeds) at 85 mil a copy? Not hardly. The loss of even one pays for at least 3 AT-6As and A-29s doing the same job. Remember, there are fewer than 180 flyable A-10s left. And as their air frames crack, there will be less and less every year. You can replace the wings, the Avionics, the Gun, and everything else but it all has to attach to the air frame one way or another. Unless they restart from scratch the A-10s manufacturing line (the originals were built for 12 mil but would cost about 85 mil today to build) we need to take a good look at alternatives.

 

[Manonthestreet]

We a

I like the modular concept of the Scorpion.....

The Scorpion is impressive except for one major flaw, unlike the A-10 the Scorpion is very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment same as the Tucano. Great CAS planes in a low risk combat environment.[/QUOTE. ....

Not being built for high risk.....neither are the others......being built for what you are currently fighting

 

[Ringel05]

I like the modular concept of the Scorpion.....

The Scorpion is impressive except for one major flaw, unlike the A-10 the Scorpion is very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment same as the Tucano. Great CAS planes in a low risk combat environment.

With the coming of the net bag of tricks the grunts have, the A-10 flying below 15k is no longer able to handle low altitude attacks and expect to get out of it. The A-10 is dying a slow, spiraling death due to age. By 2025, there won't be enough air worthy ones to justify keeping it in the inventory. If a serious replacement were to be built, it would have to have all the neat toys and end up costing at least 85 mil. Low altitude attacks just aren't worth the cost. The difference between a serious replacement of the A-10 and the AT-6A or A-29 buys a hell of a lot of cheaper AS type weapons that can be carried by the fighters, bombers and ACs makes it not worth the cost of the replacement for the A-10.

Now, take a cheap attack bird, it just might be justified. My pick would be the AT-6A since it already has all the neat toys from the A-10 incorporated into it. And you will need to add some of the F-15E toys as well since the A-10 can't terrain follow like the F-15E can. You can keep the cost down to about 20 mil and do those missions that the others can't do (actually, the F-15E can do it as well but costs 110 mil a copy).

The A-10 can't survive in a high threat anymore than an AT-6A can. If we got into it with a country that is well equipped then neither could survive a down in the dirt flight. But at night, overcast sky, and just nasty weather where the threat is low, then either can do the mission.

I have a saying. ICUUCMe. I see you, you can see me. There is a reason that Spec Ops almost soley uses the AC-130 for cover. It flies and operates at a higher altitude so only SAMS can reach it and they are very capable of taking out the sam before the sam can get off a shot and do it cheaply and accurately. They need cover from their little friends (fighters). But they can hit within feet of their targets 100% of the time with cheap weapons like the 25, 30, 105mm guns. When DSII was started, in order to land those choppers in the valley, it was the AC-130 that fired the first shots enabling Spec Ops to start taking out the entrenched defenders in the hills. But we didn't hear about that since it was "Classified". When it's time to take out the Tanker Trucks, the A-10 gets the dangerous job but the real killing is done by the AC-130. The A-10 gives the enemy something to shoot at but bags a truck each pass. The problem is, after only a couple of passes, the A-10 has to get a drink. The AC just orbits one time to get his mission done and can move on to his next assignment. The AC just moves from target to target until all threats or targets are destroyed. But if push comes to shove, the AC can stick around for hours and make things blow up. The AT--6A or the A-29 could do the same mission as the A-10 on the tanker truck because your real mission is to be seen and then flit away and do it on the cheap side. But the wholesale damage is being done by one lone AC. The enemy has no idea that the AC is in the area and you want to keep it that way. They have no idea that the real death isn't coming from the A-10 or AT-6A or any other attack bird. All they know is that they are dying quickly. Strange, but, if cost is no object, a Buff could replace the AC in the same mission and get the same results using JDAMs.

The Marines proved this with the OV-10Ds recently. If you were to build new OV-10s and put in the new toys, then it's much better than either the AT-6A or the A-29. But it will cost about 8 mil more per copy. The AT-6A and the A-29 would have costs about 12 mil per copy (adding the new toys and it's going to be 20 mil, while the OV-10D+ would cost about 28 mil. While the OV-10 would be more versatile, is it worth the extra 8 mil? The Military doesn't think so.

Now, would you place the serious A-10 replacement in harms way (in the weeds) at 85 mil a copy? Not hardly. The loss of even one pays for at least 3 AT-6As and A-29s doing the same job. Remember, there are fewer than 180 flyable A-10s left. And as their air frames crack, there will be less and less every year. You can replace the wings, the Avionics, the Gun, and everything else but it all has to attach to the air frame one way or another. Unless they restart from scratch the A-10s manufacturing line (the originals were built for 12 mil but would cost about 85 mil today to build) we need to take a good look at alternatives.

I just woke up and have not had my first cup of coffee yet...... And you actually think I'm going to read all of that. Give it to my adjutant, he'll brief me later.

 

[Ringel05]

We a

I like the modular concept of the Scorpion.....

The Scorpion is impressive except for one major flaw, unlike the A-10 the Scorpion is very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment same as the Tucano. Great CAS planes in a low risk combat environment.[/QUOTE. ....

Not being built for high risk.....neither are the others......being built for what you are currently fighting

Racists and political hacks?

Yeah but what happens if that scenario changes over night........? We lose a lot of pilots. Ever hear of "preparing for all contingencies" or "having the right tool for the job"? It only partially matters what we're current;y fighting the tool has to be prepared to deal with any situation in it area of operation.

 

[Manonthestreet]

We a

I like the modular concept of the Scorpion.....

The Scorpion is impressive except for one major flaw, unlike the A-10 the Scorpion is very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment same as the Tucano. Great CAS planes in a low risk combat environment.[/QUOTE. ....

Not being built for high risk.....neither are the others......being built for what you are currently fighting

Racists and political hacks?

Yeah but what happens if that scenario changes over night........? We lose a lot of pilots. Ever hear of "preparing for all contingencies" or "having the right tool for the job"? It only partially matters what we're current;y fighting the tool has to be prepared to deal with any situation in it area of operation.

Preparing for all contingencies includes low end conflict......evem in high end when the situation gets fluid you arent going to encounter impenetrable AA fire. Now I might not build em in the same quantity though the scorpion with its modularity can fill more than one role.

 

[Ringel05]

We a

I like the modular concept of the Scorpion.....

The Scorpion is impressive except for one major flaw, unlike the A-10 the Scorpion is very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment same as the Tucano. Great CAS planes in a low risk combat environment.[/QUOTE. ....

Not being built for high risk.....neither are the others......being built for what you are currently fighting

Racists and political hacks?

Yeah but what happens if that scenario changes over night........? We lose a lot of pilots. Ever hear of "preparing for all contingencies" or "having the right tool for the job"? It only partially matters what we're current;y fighting the tool has to be prepared to deal with any situation in it area of operation.

Preparing for all contingencies includes low end conflict......evem in high end when the situation gets fluid you arent going to encounter impenetrable AA fire. Now I might build em i the same quantity though the scorpion with its modularity can fill more than one role.

You don't work for Textron or any of it's affiliates/partners do ya? Just asking........

 

[Manonthestreet]

We a

I like the modular concept of the Scorpion.....

The Scorpion is impressive except for one major flaw, unlike the A-10 the Scorpion is very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment same as the Tucano. Great CAS planes in a low risk combat environment.[/QUOTE. ....

Not being built for high risk.....neither are the others......being built for what you are currently fighting

Racists and political hacks?

Yeah but what happens if that scenario changes over night........? We lose a lot of pilots. Ever hear of "preparing for all contingencies" or "having the right tool for the job"? It only partially matters what we're current;y fighting the tool has to be prepared to deal with any situation in it area of operation.

Preparing for all contingencies includes low end conflict......evem in high end when the situation gets fluid you arent going to encounter impenetrable AA fire. Now I might build em i the same quantity though the scorpion with its modularity can fill more than one role.

You don't work for Textron or any of it's affiliates/partners do ya? Just asking........

Lame........

 

[Ringel05]

We a

The Scorpion is impressive except for one major flaw, unlike the A-10 the Scorpion is very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment same as the Tucano. Great CAS planes in a low risk combat environment.[/QUOTE. ....

Not being built for high risk.....neither are the others......being built for what you are currently fighting

Racists and political hacks?

Yeah but what happens if that scenario changes over night........? We lose a lot of pilots. Ever hear of "preparing for all contingencies" or "having the right tool for the job"? It only partially matters what we're current;y fighting the tool has to be prepared to deal with any situation in it area of operation.

Preparing for all contingencies includes low end conflict......evem in high end when the situation gets fluid you arent going to encounter impenetrable AA fire. Now I might build em i the same quantity though the scorpion with its modularity can fill more than one role.

You don't work for Textron or any of it's affiliates/partners do ya? Just asking........

Lame........

Oh shit, grow a funny bone will ya........

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I like the modular concept of the Scorpion.....

The Scorpion is impressive except for one major flaw, unlike the A-10 the Scorpion is very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment same as the Tucano. Great CAS planes in a low risk combat environment.

With the coming of the net bag of tricks the grunts have, the A-10 flying below 15k is no longer able to handle low altitude attacks and expect to get out of it. The A-10 is dying a slow, spiraling death due to age. By 2025, there won't be enough air worthy ones to justify keeping it in the inventory. If a serious replacement were to be built, it would have to have all the neat toys and end up costing at least 85 mil. Low altitude attacks just aren't worth the cost. The difference between a serious replacement of the A-10 and the AT-6A or A-29 buys a hell of a lot of cheaper AS type weapons that can be carried by the fighters, bombers and ACs makes it not worth the cost of the replacement for the A-10.

Now, take a cheap attack bird, it just might be justified. My pick would be the AT-6A since it already has all the neat toys from the A-10 incorporated into it. And you will need to add some of the F-15E toys as well since the A-10 can't terrain follow like the F-15E can. You can keep the cost down to about 20 mil and do those missions that the others can't do (actually, the F-15E can do it as well but costs 110 mil a copy).

The A-10 can't survive in a high threat anymore than an AT-6A can. If we got into it with a country that is well equipped then neither could survive a down in the dirt flight. But at night, overcast sky, and just nasty weather where the threat is low, then either can do the mission.

I have a saying. ICUUCMe. I see you, you can see me. There is a reason that Spec Ops almost soley uses the AC-130 for cover. It flies and operates at a higher altitude so only SAMS can reach it and they are very capable of taking out the sam before the sam can get off a shot and do it cheaply and accurately. They need cover from their little friends (fighters). But they can hit within feet of their targets 100% of the time with cheap weapons like the 25, 30, 105mm guns. When DSII was started, in order to land those choppers in the valley, it was the AC-130 that fired the first shots enabling Spec Ops to start taking out the entrenched defenders in the hills. But we didn't hear about that since it was "Classified". When it's time to take out the Tanker Trucks, the A-10 gets the dangerous job but the real killing is done by the AC-130. The A-10 gives the enemy something to shoot at but bags a truck each pass. The problem is, after only a couple of passes, the A-10 has to get a drink. The AC just orbits one time to get his mission done and can move on to his next assignment. The AC just moves from target to target until all threats or targets are destroyed. But if push comes to shove, the AC can stick around for hours and make things blow up. The AT--6A or the A-29 could do the same mission as the A-10 on the tanker truck because your real mission is to be seen and then flit away and do it on the cheap side. But the wholesale damage is being done by one lone AC. The enemy has no idea that the AC is in the area and you want to keep it that way. They have no idea that the real death isn't coming from the A-10 or AT-6A or any other attack bird. All they know is that they are dying quickly. Strange, but, if cost is no object, a Buff could replace the AC in the same mission and get the same results using JDAMs.

The Marines proved this with the OV-10Ds recently. If you were to build new OV-10s and put in the new toys, then it's much better than either the AT-6A or the A-29. But it will cost about 8 mil more per copy. The AT-6A and the A-29 would have costs about 12 mil per copy (adding the new toys and it's going to be 20 mil, while the OV-10D+ would cost about 28 mil. While the OV-10 would be more versatile, is it worth the extra 8 mil? The Military doesn't think so.

Now, would you place the serious A-10 replacement in harms way (in the weeds) at 85 mil a copy? Not hardly. The loss of even one pays for at least 3 AT-6As and A-29s doing the same job. Remember, there are fewer than 180 flyable A-10s left. And as their air frames crack, there will be less and less every year. You can replace the wings, the Avionics, the Gun, and everything else but it all has to attach to the air frame one way or another. Unless they restart from scratch the A-10s manufacturing line (the originals were built for 12 mil but would cost about 85 mil today to build) we need to take a good look at alternatives.

I just woke up and have not had my first cup of coffee yet...... And you actually think I'm going to read all of that. Give it to my adjutant, he'll brief me later.

Sorry about that. Next time I will type slower and use smaller words.