What is really killing the A-10 Off

[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.

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

You should use smaller words, I doubt you understood even half of what someone else typed for you.

 

[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.

You should use smaller words, I doubt you understood even half of what someone else typed for you.

You already claimed you didn't read it. Read it and comment on it. Otherwise, you are just standing on a low hill and yelling.

 

[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.

There are a few variables to that date. If enough air frames are left to keep it above 100 then it might make it. But I predict 2025. When the numbers drop to less than 100 expect all A-10s to be either shifted to the Guards or the Boneyard. And if the Light Attack birds pan out quickly (they are now off the shelf) then that is also a factor. IMO 2028 is a bit liberal for the active duty A-10s.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

You should use smaller words, I doubt you understood even half of what someone else typed for you.

You already claimed you didn't read it. Read it and comment on it. Otherwise, you are just standing on a low hill and yelling.

That was the day you replied knumb knut, then I forgot you even existed because I moved on to more important issues and I'm still involved with more important issues (like what am I making for dinner tonight). Besides if you can't handle a joke you need to go to your doc and get that ramrod removed from your ass.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

You should use smaller words, I doubt you understood even half of what someone else typed for you.

You already claimed you didn't read it. Read it and comment on it. Otherwise, you are just standing on a low hill and yelling.

That was the day you replied knumb knut, then I forgot you even existed because I moved on to more important issues and I'm still involved with more important issues (like what am I making for dinner tonight). Besides if you can't handle a joke you need to go to your doc and get that ramrod removed from your ass.

You have a wonderful life, there cupcake and I will move on.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

You should use smaller words, I doubt you understood even half of what someone else typed for you.

You already claimed you didn't read it. Read it and comment on it. Otherwise, you are just standing on a low hill and yelling.

That was the day you replied knumb knut, then I forgot you even existed because I moved on to more important issues and I'm still involved with more important issues (like what am I making for dinner tonight). Besides if you can't handle a joke you need to go to your doc and get that ramrod removed from your ass.

You have a wonderful life, there cupcake and I will move on.

You do that sweetums.

 

[Borillar]

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.

Yet the AF continues to use the B-52, and they have been in service for 60 years and expected to continue service until 2040. Seems the airframes can last quite a while if properly maintained. They should keep the A-10 around.

 

[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.

Yet the AF continues to use the B-52, and they have been in service for 60 years and expected to continue service until 2040. Seems the airframes can last quite a while if properly maintained. They should keep the A-10 around.

Apples and oranges. The Buff doesn't have even a fraction of air time per airframe that the A-10 does. Plus, the Buff is normally flown in a straight line with hardly any deviation. The A-10 survives by jinking, diving, twisting and turning. Believe it or not, there are less than 10 years difference in the age between the A-10 and the B-52H.

Now, let's look at another thing. One of the most requested CAS birds right now is the Buff. He flies out of Deago Garcia loaded with over 50K of various weapons, gets over Afghanistan, orbits and waits. He waits for 8 hours. But he won't wait for long. Some ground spec forces troops get a bit tight and the call for CAS comes out. The Buff either will pick it up from the Command and Control or directly from the ground troop. Within 10 minutes, the Buff can deliver a single programmed JDAM to anywhere in Afghanistan. He will probably be above 30K when he drops the weapon. Meanwhile, he won't be more than 50 feet from the coordinates given. Usually, if the ground troop is a smart cookie, the weapon will be within 10 feet.

There is another way of looking at it. The Buff carries at least 5 times the load of the A-10. That means the A-10 is going to have to make 5 flights to the Buffs one. Considering the Buff has a better sortie rate than the A-10 then the money goes to the Buff. The best the A-10 can generate is 3 to 4 flights a day. Meanwhile, the Buff only has to generate one to out perform the A-10 in a CAS operation.

Now, let's look at range. The Buff really doesn't have any limitations over Afghanistan. He's within 10 minutes to anywhere in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the A-10 has only a 150 mile radius range. And then, the A-10 will have to take time to get over the target, access the situation and decide whether to go down into the weeds or do it safely from 15K above the ground, not 15K altitude but 15K above the ground level. The A-10 mostly goes for the safety of altitude in today's environment. But if he elects to go down into the weeds, he is going to be jinxing, twisting and turning to stay alive. Down in the dirt is the hardest way to fly and the most stressful to not only the bird but the pilot. Every time you do this, the air frame gets another hairline crack. Get enough of them and the bird is headed to the boneyard to be used as replacement parts.

The 3 most widely used CAS birds in Afghanistan are the AC-130, B-1 and B-52. Most CAS is done by the Spec Ops that are on the front lines whether by themselves or supporting Afghan Troops. I would like to say I know those numbers but Spec Ops just won't broadcast those numbers. And that includes the AC-130 since it's part of the Special operations units. But the B-1 and Buffs both give a high figure. Much higher than the A-10.

With all that, the A-10 will be out of service (by my estimate) by 2024 and completely out of the inventory by 2028 by other's estimates due to the airframes reaching their life cycles. Those few that are left will be sent to the guard units where they will be allowed to die quietly. It's not congress or the pentagon or anyone else that makes that determination but the A-10 itself.

 

[DrainBamage]

unlike the A-10 the Scorpion is very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment same as the Tucano.

The A-10 is also very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment, they can't use it when SAMs are in play.

 

[Ringel05]

unlike the A-10 the Scorpion is very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment same as the Tucano.

The A-10 is also very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment, they can't use it when SAMs are in play.

They can sustain severe damage and are still flyable.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

unlike the A-10 the Scorpion is very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment same as the Tucano.

The A-10 is also very vulnerable in a high risk combat environment, they can't use it when SAMs are in play.

They can sustain severe damage and are still flyable.

So can the F-15/16/18. Missing part of the tail section is pretty common on aircraft at war. Even the Buff has returned with damage that only the C-130 could have survived. In fact, the F-15E has done something the A-10 could never do. Return to base with the right wing completely blown off. Your point is for ALL Fighter and Assault Birds, not just the A-10.

 

[ABikerSailor]

But only the A-10 has a titanium bathtub around the pilot. Makes for better survival in combat. Yeah, you might be able to get by missing parts of the aircraft, but the plane will NOT fly missing parts of the pilot.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But only the A-10 has a titanium bathtub around the pilot. Makes for better survival in combat. Yeah, you might be able to get by missing parts of the aircraft, but the plane will NOT fly missing parts of the pilot.

So did the A-7 Crusader. Yet it was taken out of service when it got long on the tooth. In fact, there was even a flyoff between the A-7E and A-10.

The A-7 was already a well developed weapon system. But it carried a single 20mm cannon vulcan internally. But it could carry a 30mm cannon externally. and had the same hardpoints as the A-10. It was only 1000 lbs away from the same weapon load. But it could use weapons that the A-10 had to grow into.

The Navy would fly strike missions without CAP with the A-7. If they were threatened, a few would pickle it's load and go Mig Hunting since only the Mig-21 was a viable threat to the A-7. It had almost the same top speed (the A-7 was faster) as the Mig-17 and could turn dive and climb with it. There were a few NV pilots that would punch out when faced with clean A-7s. The Mig-17 stood a better chance against a F-4 who didn't have guns and wallowed when dog fighting.

During the flyoff, only internal weapons were allowed. If the A-7 were allowed to carry a centerline 30mm gun they would have been clearly matched for guns. They didn't consider that the A-7 had over 3 times the range and it could fly with almost anything in a dog fight. The Test was extremely slanted to allowing the A-10 to win. The best Attack Bird did NOT win or was not allowed to win.

Oh, and did I say that the A-7 was also a titanium bathtub?

The AF really didn't want the A-10. They already had an extremely good CAS bird that could pretty well do it all. But Congress set the test criteria and they determined the winner even before the flight. The A-10 was a consolation prize. And a really great CAS and ground attack bird was put away in it's stead.

The A-7 ushered in many of the things we take for granted in today's fighters like the HUD. It had a longer range than the F-16 with conformal fuel tanks. It had many times the loiter time than anything except a heavy bomber or an AC. The Greeks recently replaced their A-7H models but it left a huge gap in their air power.

The A-7 is what we need today. While the F-16 can out turn it, the A-7 could take much more punishment in the same fight. Not only that, the A-7 could get down in the weeds and did all the time. And could go from a heavily loaded ground attack to an Air to Air Fighter just by jettisoning his bomb and rocket load. I watched them work in South East Asia quite a bit protecting down pilots and the ACs. These were wonderful birds that it took 49 years to get it out of the military skies. Only age caught up with it finally. Along with shrinking budgets (USAF was allowed only the A-10 and were forced to get rid of the A-7). Kind of sounds familiar, doesn't it.

While it was competing with the A-6 and A-1 for ground attack and CAS, it had no equal as the go to, ready in a moments notice jack of all trades bird. It there were new versions of it today it would blow the A-10 away in a fair flyoff. And do it cheaper. The A-10 had years before it filled only one set of the A-7s shoes but it never fill all of them.

So the A-10 was a titanium cockpit. Big deal and certainly not a game changer.

 

[DrainBamage]

They can sustain severe damage and are still flyable.

Sometimes they can, but that doesn't make it a plane that is suitable for a high threat environment. You don't send airplanes into a combat environment hoping they'll survive being hit by SAMs, you send other airplanes that won't get hit.

Look no further than Iraq, where after a spat of A-10 shoot downs they put severe limitations on their use and switched to high flyers (like F-16) in areas deemed high threat.

 

[Ringel05]

They can sustain severe damage and are still flyable.

Sometimes they can, but that doesn't make it a plane that is suitable for a high threat environment. You don't send airplanes into a combat environment hoping they'll survive being hit by SAMs, you send other airplanes that won't get hit.

Look no further than Iraq, where after a spat of A-10 shoot downs they put severe limitations on their use and switched to high flyers (like F-16) in areas deemed high threat.

True but the F-16 still can't really do the job the A-10 does, it won't fly that slow without dropping out of the sky.

 

[DrainBamage]

The job was CAS, which the F-16 can do. There is no inherent requirement that CAS is only done by aircraft that fly slow, most CAS sorties today are by F-16s and the most volume is by B-1s.

The overwhelming majority of CAS is simply dropping precision guided bombs on targets, and an F-16/B-1/F-18/F-15E can do it as well as any A-10.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They can sustain severe damage and are still flyable.

Sometimes they can, but that doesn't make it a plane that is suitable for a high threat environment. You don't send airplanes into a combat environment hoping they'll survive being hit by SAMs, you send other airplanes that won't get hit.

Look no further than Iraq, where after a spat of A-10 shoot downs they put severe limitations on their use and switched to high flyers (like F-16) in areas deemed high threat.

True but the F-16 still can't really do the job the A-10 does, it won't fly that slow without dropping out of the sky.

ICUUCMe comes into mind here. Low and slows gives your enemy a target. The enemy we face today isn't just a bunch of ragtag AK47 nobodies. Our birds are facing even the Turkish Backed well equipped forces. In the last couple of days, those forces have exchanged fire with US troops. If you believe that they don't have shoulder fired SA missiles in their possession or portable AA trucks, you would be sadly mistaken.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The job was CAS, which the F-16 can do. There is no inherent requirement that CAS is only done by aircraft that fly slow, most CAS sorties today are by F-16s and the most volume is by B-1s.

The overwhelming majority of CAS is simply dropping precision guided bombs on targets, and an F-16/B-1/F-18/F-15E can do it as well as any A-10.

And the Buff is now capable of doing it even better. The B-1 got the mods first. Now the Buff is coming on line with them as well. It enables for them to change their mission while in flight and hit a designated target even with friendly's are around. And do it from 50K feet up where nothing but a real serious Surface to Air Facility would be a problem.

 

[onaquest]

They can sustain severe damage and are still flyable.

Sometimes they can, but that doesn't make it a plane that is suitable for a high threat environment. You don't send airplanes into a combat environment hoping they'll survive being hit by SAMs, you send other airplanes that won't get hit.

Look no further than Iraq, where after a spat of A-10 shoot downs they put severe limitations on their use and switched to high flyers (like F-16) in areas deemed high threat.

i think the A-10 should be compared more with helicopter gunships than F-16's and other fast jets.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They can sustain severe damage and are still flyable.

Sometimes they can, but that doesn't make it a plane that is suitable for a high threat environment. You don't send airplanes into a combat environment hoping they'll survive being hit by SAMs, you send other airplanes that won't get hit.

Look no further than Iraq, where after a spat of A-10 shoot downs they put severe limitations on their use and switched to high flyers (like F-16) in areas deemed high threat.

i think the A-10 should be compared more with helicopter gunships than F-16's and other fast jets.

I agree on this one. The Marines don't miss having the A-10 since they fly pretty much the same mission with the AH-1Zs with about the same range. While it has less munitions, it has more than enough. And the AH-1Z uses the terrain for cover. It's hard to hit even so from the front. There just isn't a lot there to hit.

It Army could use their AG-64s for the same mission but they don't. I guess they would rather bitch about how the AF only has one bird that they like. Newsflash: An AH-64 is one bad MOFO. But the Army keeps trying to think up new mission for them. Like when the Royal Guard for Iraq was entrenched at the Airport. The Army sent in their AG-64s by themselves. One was lost and not a single one landed without severe damage. The AF sent in their F-16s and forced them to surrender. You need to send the bird that can do the job without losses. And the AH-64 is a very capable CAS bird with about the same range as the A-10. While the A-10 drops down to just above the terrain and can be vulnerable, like the AH-1, it uses terrain to keep out of harms way and only has to show it's radar dome.

Unlike the Marines, the Army never has really completely used the capability of the Attack Chopper.