Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not along side of. How about replacement. The A-10 is in serious trouble right now. The Age of the bird is working against it. There was over 300 at one time. Last official count was 186. They lost one recently moving it down to 185. With the lack of replacement wings, another 100 are seriously in jeopardy. That leaves 85. The wings are not being made at this time.
The problem is, do you sink another 10 mil into the A-10 with an airframe that will take it out starting in 5 years or do you spend that 10 mil on a completely new AC that can also do the job and be around at least 20 years.
Not along side of. How about replacement. The A-10 is in serious trouble right now. The Age of the bird is working against it. There was over 300 at one time. Last official count was 186. They lost one recently moving it down to 185. With the lack of replacement wings, another 100 are seriously in jeopardy. That leaves 85. The wings are not being made at this time.
The problem is, do you sink another 10 mil into the A-10 with an airframe that will take it out starting in 5 years or do you spend that 10 mil on a completely new AC that can also do the job and be around at least 20 years.
this debate is nothing new and has been ongoing for many years. the problem is does the U.S. even want a dedicated close air support aircraft like the A-10 or do they just want other platforms to take up the slack. cause if they did then they would have re-tooled the old production line a long time ago or even begun developing a new aircraft. as I'm unaware of either options going forward i just assume that they want to run the A-10 into the ground and find alternative craft to do its duties in the future.
Not along side of. How about replacement. The A-10 is in serious trouble right now. The Age of the bird is working against it. There was over 300 at one time. Last official count was 186. They lost one recently moving it down to 185. With the lack of replacement wings, another 100 are seriously in jeopardy. That leaves 85. The wings are not being made at this time.
The problem is, do you sink another 10 mil into the A-10 with an airframe that will take it out starting in 5 years or do you spend that 10 mil on a completely new AC that can also do the job and be around at least 20 years.
this debate is nothing new and has been ongoing for many years. the problem is does the U.S. even want a dedicated close air support aircraft like the A-10 or do they just want other platforms to take up the slack. cause if they did then they would have re-tooled the old production line a long time ago or even begun developing a new aircraft. as I'm unaware of either options going forward i just assume that they want to run the A-10 into the ground and find alternative craft to do its duties in the future.
The Air Force doesn't like the A-10 because it isn't supersonic. Thus, because they can't just get rid of them, they are ignoring them and hoping that no one will notice they are demolishing them through neglect. I would not be surprised if the Army decided to get back into fixed wing aircraft again and started building them under their own contract. It is an old airframe for sure, but a well proven one. Let the Air Force have their fast movers and let the Army take over the CAS role.
Not along side of. How about replacement. The A-10 is in serious trouble right now. The Age of the bird is working against it. There was over 300 at one time. Last official count was 186. They lost one recently moving it down to 185. With the lack of replacement wings, another 100 are seriously in jeopardy. That leaves 85. The wings are not being made at this time.
The problem is, do you sink another 10 mil into the A-10 with an airframe that will take it out starting in 5 years or do you spend that 10 mil on a completely new AC that can also do the job and be around at least 20 years.
this debate is nothing new and has been ongoing for many years. the problem is does the U.S. even want a dedicated close air support aircraft like the A-10 or do they just want other platforms to take up the slack. cause if they did then they would have re-tooled the old production line a long time ago or even begun developing a new aircraft. as I'm unaware of either options going forward i just assume that they want to run the A-10 into the ground and find alternative craft to do its duties in the future.
The Air Force doesn't like the A-10 because it isn't supersonic. Thus, because they can't just get rid of them, they are ignoring them and hoping that no one will notice they are demolishing them through neglect. I would not be surprised if the Army decided to get back into fixed wing aircraft again and started building them under their own contract. It is an old airframe for sure, but a well proven one. Let the Air Force have their fast movers and let the Army take over the CAS role.
like you i also think that an armoured plane delivering bombs and gun fire is irreplaceable on a battlefield. bang for buck is what would motivate the U.S.A.F retiring such a monster like the A-10 just as much as its speed or rather lack of. the cost to run the A-10 fleet is about 4 billion a year. thats $11500 an hour compared to $1000 an hour for a new platform like the super tucano and i bet a drone could do the job even less than that. but none of them would be nearly as dominate and intimidating on the battlefield as the A-10.
5 Attack Planes That Could Replace the A-10 Warthog
Not along side of. How about replacement. The A-10 is in serious trouble right now. The Age of the bird is working against it. There was over 300 at one time. Last official count was 186. They lost one recently moving it down to 185. With the lack of replacement wings, another 100 are seriously in jeopardy. That leaves 85. The wings are not being made at this time.
The problem is, do you sink another 10 mil into the A-10 with an airframe that will take it out starting in 5 years or do you spend that 10 mil on a completely new AC that can also do the job and be around at least 20 years.
this debate is nothing new and has been ongoing for many years. the problem is does the U.S. even want a dedicated close air support aircraft like the A-10 or do they just want other platforms to take up the slack. cause if they did then they would have re-tooled the old production line a long time ago or even begun developing a new aircraft. as I'm unaware of either options going forward i just assume that they want to run the A-10 into the ground and find alternative craft to do its duties in the future.
The Air Force doesn't like the A-10 because it isn't supersonic. Thus, because they can't just get rid of them, they are ignoring them and hoping that no one will notice they are demolishing them through neglect. I would not be surprised if the Army decided to get back into fixed wing aircraft again and started building them under their own contract. It is an old airframe for sure, but a well proven one. Let the Air Force have their fast movers and let the Army take over the CAS role.
Not along side of. How about replacement. The A-10 is in serious trouble right now. The Age of the bird is working against it. There was over 300 at one time. Last official count was 186. They lost one recently moving it down to 185. With the lack of replacement wings, another 100 are seriously in jeopardy. That leaves 85. The wings are not being made at this time.
The problem is, do you sink another 10 mil into the A-10 with an airframe that will take it out starting in 5 years or do you spend that 10 mil on a completely new AC that can also do the job and be around at least 20 years.
this debate is nothing new and has been ongoing for many years. the problem is does the U.S. even want a dedicated close air support aircraft like the A-10 or do they just want other platforms to take up the slack. cause if they did then they would have re-tooled the old production line a long time ago or even begun developing a new aircraft. as I'm unaware of either options going forward i just assume that they want to run the A-10 into the ground and find alternative craft to do its duties in the future.
The Air Force doesn't like the A-10 because it isn't supersonic. Thus, because they can't just get rid of them, they are ignoring them and hoping that no one will notice they are demolishing them through neglect. I would not be surprised if the Army decided to get back into fixed wing aircraft again and started building them under their own contract. It is an old airframe for sure, but a well proven one. Let the Air Force have their fast movers and let the Army take over the CAS role.
like you i also think that an armoured plane delivering bombs and gun fire is irreplaceable on a battlefield. bang for buck is what would motivate the U.S.A.F retiring such a monster like the A-10 just as much as its speed or rather lack of. the cost to run the A-10 fleet is about 4 billion a year. thats $11500 an hour compared to $1000 an hour for a new platform like the super tucano and i bet a drone could do the job even less than that. but none of them would be nearly as dominate and intimidating on the battlefield as the A-10.
5 Attack Planes That Could Replace the A-10 Warthog
The Tucano is based on a trainer. Not a deal killer, but that is what it was originally designed to do. Add to that the fact that it takes FIVE Tucano's to carry the same amount of ordnance as the A-10, and you aren't really saving anything at all. Fortunately there are many Hog advocates, who have been able to get the ear of those who need to know what is going on so I think the A-10 is going to be around for a lot longer than its enemies think.
"The Air Force also confirmed Tuesday that it plans to maintain the majority of its A-10 Warthogs in coming years despite past considerations of divesting the entire fleet.
An Air Force official said the A-10 fleet was being kept indefinitely, but in the future, some A-10 aircraft could be retired as other aircraft become operational.
Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain, who has worked for years to stop the Air Force's efforts to retire the A-10, said the Pentagon's decision was in part a recognition of the political landscape on Capitol Hill.
"It didn't matter what was in their budget, it wasn't going to be retired," the Arizona Republican said.
"Rep. Martha McSally, R-Arizona, a retired Air Force pilot who was the first female fighter pilot to fly in combat, has led the charge in Congress to keep the A-10 in the air and has looked to the new administration to get the Pentagon on her side.
She lobbied Vice President Mike Pence on the issue when he came up to the Hill and she also talked to Trump about the Warthog's capabilities, as well as the culture around personnel recovery and close-air support, according to a House aide.
"She got him smart on the A-10 and its role," the aide told CNN.
Air Force gives new life to A-10 Warthog aircraft - CNNPolitics
Not along side of. How about replacement. The A-10 is in serious trouble right now. The Age of the bird is working against it. There was over 300 at one time. Last official count was 186. They lost one recently moving it down to 185. With the lack of replacement wings, another 100 are seriously in jeopardy. That leaves 85. The wings are not being made at this time.
The problem is, do you sink another 10 mil into the A-10 with an airframe that will take it out starting in 5 years or do you spend that 10 mil on a completely new AC that can also do the job and be around at least 20 years.
this debate is nothing new and has been ongoing for many years. the problem is does the U.S. even want a dedicated close air support aircraft like the A-10 or do they just want other platforms to take up the slack. cause if they did then they would have re-tooled the old production line a long time ago or even begun developing a new aircraft. as I'm unaware of either options going forward i just assume that they want to run the A-10 into the ground and find alternative craft to do its duties in the future.
The Air Force doesn't like the A-10 because it isn't supersonic. Thus, because they can't just get rid of them, they are ignoring them and hoping that no one will notice they are demolishing them through neglect. I would not be surprised if the Army decided to get back into fixed wing aircraft again and started building them under their own contract. It is an old airframe for sure, but a well proven one. Let the Air Force have their fast movers and let the Army take over the CAS role.
They don't like them because they have no range. 150 mile radius just doesn't cut it when you are trying to cover a 1000 mile range. Yes, you can inflight refuel but what happens when the tankers are not available? Do you ground the other planes (bombers, fighters and cargo) just so you can always have tankers available for the A-10? Or do you put your tankers on your real money makers and get them to that 1000 mile radius to blow things up, deliver that cargo, fly over flights, etc.. It's not the speed or the lethality of the A-10 that is the problem. It's the lack of range.
Not along side of. How about replacement. The A-10 is in serious trouble right now. The Age of the bird is working against it. There was over 300 at one time. Last official count was 186. They lost one recently moving it down to 185. With the lack of replacement wings, another 100 are seriously in jeopardy. That leaves 85. The wings are not being made at this time.
The problem is, do you sink another 10 mil into the A-10 with an airframe that will take it out starting in 5 years or do you spend that 10 mil on a completely new AC that can also do the job and be around at least 20 years.
this debate is nothing new and has been ongoing for many years. the problem is does the U.S. even want a dedicated close air support aircraft like the A-10 or do they just want other platforms to take up the slack. cause if they did then they would have re-tooled the old production line a long time ago or even begun developing a new aircraft. as I'm unaware of either options going forward i just assume that they want to run the A-10 into the ground and find alternative craft to do its duties in the future.
The Air Force doesn't like the A-10 because it isn't supersonic. Thus, because they can't just get rid of them, they are ignoring them and hoping that no one will notice they are demolishing them through neglect. I would not be surprised if the Army decided to get back into fixed wing aircraft again and started building them under their own contract. It is an old airframe for sure, but a well proven one. Let the Air Force have their fast movers and let the Army take over the CAS role.
like you i also think that an armoured plane delivering bombs and gun fire is irreplaceable on a battlefield. bang for buck is what would motivate the U.S.A.F retiring such a monster like the A-10 just as much as its speed or rather lack of. the cost to run the A-10 fleet is about 4 billion a year. thats $11500 an hour compared to $1000 an hour for a new platform like the super tucano and i bet a drone could do the job even less than that. but none of them would be nearly as dominate and intimidating on the battlefield as the A-10.
5 Attack Planes That Could Replace the A-10 Warthog
The Tucano is based on a trainer. Not a deal killer, but that is what it was originally designed to do. Add to that the fact that it takes FIVE Tucano's to carry the same amount of ordnance as the A-10, and you aren't really saving anything at all. Fortunately there are many Hog advocates, who have been able to get the ear of those who need to know what is going on so I think the A-10 is going to be around for a lot longer than its enemies think.
"The Air Force also confirmed Tuesday that it plans to maintain the majority of its A-10 Warthogs in coming years despite past considerations of divesting the entire fleet.
An Air Force official said the A-10 fleet was being kept indefinitely, but in the future, some A-10 aircraft could be retired as other aircraft become operational.
Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain, who has worked for years to stop the Air Force's efforts to retire the A-10, said the Pentagon's decision was in part a recognition of the political landscape on Capitol Hill.
"It didn't matter what was in their budget, it wasn't going to be retired," the Arizona Republican said.
"Rep. Martha McSally, R-Arizona, a retired Air Force pilot who was the first female fighter pilot to fly in combat, has led the charge in Congress to keep the A-10 in the air and has looked to the new administration to get the Pentagon on her side.
She lobbied Vice President Mike Pence on the issue when he came up to the Hill and she also talked to Trump about the Warthog's capabilities, as well as the culture around personnel recovery and close-air support, according to a House aide.
"She got him smart on the A-10 and its role," the aide told CNN.
Air Force gives new life to A-10 Warthog aircraft - CNNPolitics
You should notice that both are from Arizona. Guess where most of the replacement parts are coming from? I don't have to look it up. It's pretty apparent. The A-10 gets most of it's support from Arizona and the ones paying for the reelection of those two would remove their support if both of them were to turn on the A-10. It's not about what is best for the USAF, it's what is best for corporate America.
Not along side of. How about replacement. The A-10 is in serious trouble right now. The Age of the bird is working against it. There was over 300 at one time. Last official count was 186. They lost one recently moving it down to 185. With the lack of replacement wings, another 100 are seriously in jeopardy. That leaves 85. The wings are not being made at this time.
The problem is, do you sink another 10 mil into the A-10 with an airframe that will take it out starting in 5 years or do you spend that 10 mil on a completely new AC that can also do the job and be around at least 20 years.
this debate is nothing new and has been ongoing for many years. the problem is does the U.S. even want a dedicated close air support aircraft like the A-10 or do they just want other platforms to take up the slack. cause if they did then they would have re-tooled the old production line a long time ago or even begun developing a new aircraft. as I'm unaware of either options going forward i just assume that they want to run the A-10 into the ground and find alternative craft to do its duties in the future.
The Air Force doesn't like the A-10 because it isn't supersonic. Thus, because they can't just get rid of them, they are ignoring them and hoping that no one will notice they are demolishing them through neglect. I would not be surprised if the Army decided to get back into fixed wing aircraft again and started building them under their own contract. It is an old airframe for sure, but a well proven one. Let the Air Force have their fast movers and let the Army take over the CAS role.
They don't like them because they have no range. 150 mile radius just doesn't cut it when you are trying to cover a 1000 mile range. Yes, you can inflight refuel but what happens when the tankers are not available? Do you ground the other planes (bombers, fighters and cargo) just so you can always have tankers available for the A-10? Or do you put your tankers on your real money makers and get them to that 1000 mile radius to blow things up, deliver that cargo, fly over flights, etc.. It's not the speed or the lethality of the A-10 that is the problem. It's the lack of range.
I don't know where you get your 150 range from but it is inaccurate. For the CAS role the A-10's combat radius is 250 nm with a 1.8 hour loiter time, and a 10 minute combat power time.
Not along side of. How about replacement. The A-10 is in serious trouble right now. The Age of the bird is working against it. There was over 300 at one time. Last official count was 186. They lost one recently moving it down to 185. With the lack of replacement wings, another 100 are seriously in jeopardy. That leaves 85. The wings are not being made at this time.
The problem is, do you sink another 10 mil into the A-10 with an airframe that will take it out starting in 5 years or do you spend that 10 mil on a completely new AC that can also do the job and be around at least 20 years.
this debate is nothing new and has been ongoing for many years. the problem is does the U.S. even want a dedicated close air support aircraft like the A-10 or do they just want other platforms to take up the slack. cause if they did then they would have re-tooled the old production line a long time ago or even begun developing a new aircraft. as I'm unaware of either options going forward i just assume that they want to run the A-10 into the ground and find alternative craft to do its duties in the future.
The Air Force doesn't like the A-10 because it isn't supersonic. Thus, because they can't just get rid of them, they are ignoring them and hoping that no one will notice they are demolishing them through neglect. I would not be surprised if the Army decided to get back into fixed wing aircraft again and started building them under their own contract. It is an old airframe for sure, but a well proven one. Let the Air Force have their fast movers and let the Army take over the CAS role.
They don't like them because they have no range. 150 mile radius just doesn't cut it when you are trying to cover a 1000 mile range. Yes, you can inflight refuel but what happens when the tankers are not available? Do you ground the other planes (bombers, fighters and cargo) just so you can always have tankers available for the A-10? Or do you put your tankers on your real money makers and get them to that 1000 mile radius to blow things up, deliver that cargo, fly over flights, etc.. It's not the speed or the lethality of the A-10 that is the problem. It's the lack of range.
I don't know where you get your 150 range from but it is inaccurate. For the CAS role the A-10's combat radius is 250 nm with a 1.8 hour loiter time, and a 10 minute combat power time.
Easy. You are using a clean A-10 range with only it's gun. That isn't how it's flown in combat. In order get the 250 nm range, you can't be carrying anything other than a drop tank. Start loading it down with the other weapons and you not only shorten the speed but you also shorten the range. I am probably being generous even 150 nm with it loaded for actual combat and expecting it to do any loiter time. It's like saying a F-16 has range and payload equal to the F-35A when the F-16 is loaded for combat. Hell, the F-16 loaded out is lucky to even get over Mach 1.
You keep using the "Clean" ratings with just the gun. It just doesn't work like that and still get your 250nm range with the 1.8 hour loiter time.
this debate is nothing new and has been ongoing for many years. the problem is does the U.S. even want a dedicated close air support aircraft like the A-10 or do they just want other platforms to take up the slack. cause if they did then they would have re-tooled the old production line a long time ago or even begun developing a new aircraft. as I'm unaware of either options going forward i just assume that they want to run the A-10 into the ground and find alternative craft to do its duties in the future.
The Air Force doesn't like the A-10 because it isn't supersonic. Thus, because they can't just get rid of them, they are ignoring them and hoping that no one will notice they are demolishing them through neglect. I would not be surprised if the Army decided to get back into fixed wing aircraft again and started building them under their own contract. It is an old airframe for sure, but a well proven one. Let the Air Force have their fast movers and let the Army take over the CAS role.
They don't like them because they have no range. 150 mile radius just doesn't cut it when you are trying to cover a 1000 mile range. Yes, you can inflight refuel but what happens when the tankers are not available? Do you ground the other planes (bombers, fighters and cargo) just so you can always have tankers available for the A-10? Or do you put your tankers on your real money makers and get them to that 1000 mile radius to blow things up, deliver that cargo, fly over flights, etc.. It's not the speed or the lethality of the A-10 that is the problem. It's the lack of range.
I don't know where you get your 150 range from but it is inaccurate. For the CAS role the A-10's combat radius is 250 nm with a 1.8 hour loiter time, and a 10 minute combat power time.
Easy. You are using a clean A-10 range with only it's gun. That isn't how it's flown in combat. In order get the 250 nm range, you can't be carrying anything other than a drop tank. Start loading it down with the other weapons and you not only shorten the speed but you also shorten the range. I am probably being generous even 150 nm with it loaded for actual combat and expecting it to do any loiter time. It's like saying a F-16 has range and payload equal to the F-35A when the F-16 is loaded for combat. Hell, the F-16 loaded out is lucky to even get over Mach 1.
You keep using the "Clean" ratings with just the gun. It just doesn't work like that and still get your 250nm range with the 1.8 hour loiter time.
Wrong. The numbers I quoted are for the aircraft when configured for the CAS role. They are well known.
The Air Force doesn't like the A-10 because it isn't supersonic. Thus, because they can't just get rid of them, they are ignoring them and hoping that no one will notice they are demolishing them through neglect. I would not be surprised if the Army decided to get back into fixed wing aircraft again and started building them under their own contract. It is an old airframe for sure, but a well proven one. Let the Air Force have their fast movers and let the Army take over the CAS role.
They don't like them because they have no range. 150 mile radius just doesn't cut it when you are trying to cover a 1000 mile range. Yes, you can inflight refuel but what happens when the tankers are not available? Do you ground the other planes (bombers, fighters and cargo) just so you can always have tankers available for the A-10? Or do you put your tankers on your real money makers and get them to that 1000 mile radius to blow things up, deliver that cargo, fly over flights, etc.. It's not the speed or the lethality of the A-10 that is the problem. It's the lack of range.
I don't know where you get your 150 range from but it is inaccurate. For the CAS role the A-10's combat radius is 250 nm with a 1.8 hour loiter time, and a 10 minute combat power time.
Easy. You are using a clean A-10 range with only it's gun. That isn't how it's flown in combat. In order get the 250 nm range, you can't be carrying anything other than a drop tank. Start loading it down with the other weapons and you not only shorten the speed but you also shorten the range. I am probably being generous even 150 nm with it loaded for actual combat and expecting it to do any loiter time. It's like saying a F-16 has range and payload equal to the F-35A when the F-16 is loaded for combat. Hell, the F-16 loaded out is lucky to even get over Mach 1.
You keep using the "Clean" ratings with just the gun. It just doesn't work like that and still get your 250nm range with the 1.8 hour loiter time.
Wrong. The numbers I quoted are for the aircraft when configured for the CAS role. They are well known.
Well known by whom? I show the ferry range of just 800 miles. That is without bombs, missiles and loaded light on the gun ammo along with at least 2 drop tanks. Now, you made the claim, let's see the cite for it. Otherwise, my 150 nm stands.
A-10 / Current Aircraft of the United States Air Force - USAF.com
Range: 288 miles (250 nautical miles) carrying 9,500 pounds (4,275 kilograms) of weapons and with a 1.7-hour loiter time
Translation: 250 nm means it has a 125 mile radius with a 1.7 hour loiter. And it gets the credit for other birds. For instance, one would claim only the A-10 can do CAS. The last highly decorated CAS was started with an AC-130 and finished by Apaches. Since most of the CAS missions right now are Spec Ops, the A-10 is not their first choice. The AC-130 is the first choice. But since those missions aren't reported openly, no one outside of USAF and Army Spec Ops records that data. Considering ALL troops on the front lines are Spec Ops, they use their own birds for support along with AH-64 Support if it goes on for more than a few minutes. Spec Ops has ZERO A-10s assigned to it. Now, if ALL front lined troops are Spec Ops care to tell me where all these A-10s are being used for CAS.
Newsflash: The AC-130 is even a more accurate weapon system. If you think the 30 mil on the A-10 is impressive, check out when Spectre opens up with it's 30 (25mm depending on model) mm and 105mm. And it places them within a few feet. And if you think a AC-130 can't hit a moving target, they routinely nail even running and zig zagging ground troops. The AC-130 ws originally designed for CAS but it got side tracked into nailing supply lines, tanks, ferries and anything along a supply line. And it does it all above the altitude that a should fired missile can hit.
The (O)A-10 is way tto specialized these days. Even when there is a large formation of bad guys, they use the other birds to soften them up. And that includes the AC-130. Until that is done, the A-10 can't operate.
Not along side of. How about replacement. The A-10 is in serious trouble right now. The Age of the bird is working against it. There was over 300 at one time. Last official count was 186. They lost one recently moving it down to 185. With the lack of replacement wings, another 100 are seriously in jeopardy. That leaves 85. The wings are not being made at this time.
The problem is, do you sink another 10 mil into the A-10 with an airframe that will take it out starting in 5 years or do you spend that 10 mil on a completely new AC that can also do the job and be around at least 20 years.
this debate is nothing new and has been ongoing for many years. the problem is does the U.S. even want a dedicated close air support aircraft like the A-10 or do they just want other platforms to take up the slack. cause if they did then they would have re-tooled the old production line a long time ago or even begun developing a new aircraft. as I'm unaware of either options going forward i just assume that they want to run the A-10 into the ground and find alternative craft to do its duties in the future.
The Air Force doesn't like the A-10 because it isn't supersonic. Thus, because they can't just get rid of them, they are ignoring them and hoping that no one will notice they are demolishing them through neglect. I would not be surprised if the Army decided to get back into fixed wing aircraft again and started building them under their own contract. It is an old airframe for sure, but a well proven one. Let the Air Force have their fast movers and let the Army take over the CAS role.
They don't like them because they have no range. 150 mile radius just doesn't cut it when you are trying to cover a 1000 mile range. Yes, you can inflight refuel but what happens when the tankers are not available? Do you ground the other planes (bombers, fighters and cargo) just so you can always have tankers available for the A-10? Or do you put your tankers on your real money makers and get them to that 1000 mile radius to blow things up, deliver that cargo, fly over flights, etc.. It's not the speed or the lethality of the A-10 that is the problem. It's the lack of range.
They don't like them because they have no range. 150 mile radius just doesn't cut it when you are trying to cover a 1000 mile range. Yes, you can inflight refuel but what happens when the tankers are not available? Do you ground the other planes (bombers, fighters and cargo) just so you can always have tankers available for the A-10? Or do you put your tankers on your real money makers and get them to that 1000 mile radius to blow things up, deliver that cargo, fly over flights, etc.. It's not the speed or the lethality of the A-10 that is the problem. It's the lack of range.
I don't know where you get your 150 range from but it is inaccurate. For the CAS role the A-10's combat radius is 250 nm with a 1.8 hour loiter time, and a 10 minute combat power time.
Easy. You are using a clean A-10 range with only it's gun. That isn't how it's flown in combat. In order get the 250 nm range, you can't be carrying anything other than a drop tank. Start loading it down with the other weapons and you not only shorten the speed but you also shorten the range. I am probably being generous even 150 nm with it loaded for actual combat and expecting it to do any loiter time. It's like saying a F-16 has range and payload equal to the F-35A when the F-16 is loaded for combat. Hell, the F-16 loaded out is lucky to even get over Mach 1.
You keep using the "Clean" ratings with just the gun. It just doesn't work like that and still get your 250nm range with the 1.8 hour loiter time.
Wrong. The numbers I quoted are for the aircraft when configured for the CAS role. They are well known.
Well known by whom? I show the ferry range of just 800 miles. That is without bombs, missiles and loaded light on the gun ammo along with at least 2 drop tanks. Now, you made the claim, let's see the cite for it. Otherwise, my 150 nm stands.
A-10 / Current Aircraft of the United States Air Force - USAF.com
Range: 288 miles (250 nautical miles) carrying 9,500 pounds (4,275 kilograms) of weapons and with a 1.7-hour loiter time
Translation: 250 nm means it has a 125 mile radius with a 1.7 hour loiter. And it gets the credit for other birds. For instance, one would claim only the A-10 can do CAS. The last highly decorated CAS was started with an AC-130 and finished by Apaches. Since most of the CAS missions right now are Spec Ops, the A-10 is not their first choice. The AC-130 is the first choice. But since those missions aren't reported openly, no one outside of USAF and Army Spec Ops records that data. Considering ALL troops on the front lines are Spec Ops, they use their own birds for support along with AH-64 Support if it goes on for more than a few minutes. Spec Ops has ZERO A-10s assigned to it. Now, if ALL front lined troops are Spec Ops care to tell me where all these A-10s are being used for CAS.
Newsflash: The AC-130 is even a more accurate weapon system. If you think the 30 mil on the A-10 is impressive, check out when Spectre opens up with it's 30 (25mm depending on model) mm and 105mm. And it places them within a few feet. And if you think a AC-130 can't hit a moving target, they routinely nail even running and zig zagging ground troops. The AC-130 ws originally designed for CAS but it got side tracked into nailing supply lines, tanks, ferries and anything along a supply line. And it does it all above the altitude that a should fired missile can hit.
The (O)A-10 is way tto specialized these days. Even when there is a large formation of bad guys, they use the other birds to soften them up. And that includes the AC-130. Until that is done, the A-10 can't operate.
Did you even bother to read your own link? I think not!
Range: 288 miles (250 nautical miles) carrying 9,500 pounds (4,275 kilograms) of weapons and with a 1.7-hour loiter time
Armament: One 30 mm GAU-8/A seven-barrel Gatling gun; up to 16,000 pounds (7,200 kilograms) of mixed ordnance on eight under-wing and three under-fuselage pylon stations, including 500 pounds (225 kilograms) of retarded bombs, 2,000 pounds (900 kilograms) of general-purpose bombs, incendiary and Rockeye II cluster bombs, combined effects munitions, Maverick missiles and laser-guided/electro-optically guided bombs; infrared countermeasure flares; electronic countermeasure chaff; jammer pods; 2.75-inch (6.99 centimeters) rockets; illumination flares and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles.
Crew: One
Mandatory:
Mandatory:
As an oldtime Spectre, All I can say is, it's so cute. Had the building been attacked by an AC-130, it would have been leveled in less than 1 orbit instead of peppered with ammo. The only way to prevent the bad guys from using a warehouse for concealment is to level the thing to the ground. In comparison to the AC-130, the A-10 just makes the "Cute" rate.
