A-10 Being Retired

NineLine · February 25, 2014

I think that if the A-10 does go away, the US military will be able to adjust just fine once the F-35 is in service, accompanied with all the other tools available... it wont be the same as the US military with A-10s, but I am sure it will be fine none the less.

tflash · February 25, 2014

The A-10 is not the only aircraft that can provide effective CAS, BTW the only reason it is still in the game is because it has been upgraded with ... the same Litening Pod that is also fielded on a myriad of other aircraft types.

Read Hagel's entire speech on the matter here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/dod-aims-to-scrap-a-10-to-keep-f-35-alive-in-new-budget/

AlpineYoda · February 25, 2014

Sad thing is that a10 is nowdays only suitable against third world, but yeah not like any western country would like to attack against 1st world countries so newer stealth plane only doing CAS seems like waste of money. I guess it still have some use against farmers with rusty AKs.

Farmers with rusty AKs have killed a lot more Americans over the last ten years than Chinese stealth fighters. I'm guessing the next 10 years may not be much different.

MatzWarhog · February 25, 2014

Here's my take. The A-10 is an ultra-effective CAS platform that was bought and paid for YEARS ago. They, and their pilots have survived thousands of CAS missions where the troops on the ground lives were saved, and the A-10 and it's pilot came home. Upgrades for the the current fleet of A-10s is POCKET CHANGE compared to $160,000,000 per F-35, a program that is currently $167 BILLION over-budget, and won't see deployment until 2016... 10 years after it's first flight. Cost effective???

"When taking into account the cost of flying and maintaining the F-35 over the course of its life, the program could surpass a trillion dollars, according to the Government Accountability Office."

As of last week:

"...the program office acknowledged to AFP that the F-35B, the short-takeoff variant for the Marine Corps, suffered cracks in its bulkheads during stress tests. As a result, the durability tests have been suspended and the plane may have to be modified." Yep... sounds just about ready to fly, huh?

I've seen mention here that "The A-10 would be useless in a war with China or Russia or...". Give me a break... where are the most likely places we'll be engaged in ground combat in the not so distant future? Syria, Yemen, numerous places in Africa! All places fighting with the same or near same military capabilities as Iraq and Afghanistan, where CAS for ground troops is a paramount issue.

So why kill an effective, resilient, proven, tried and true CAS platform? Because there are no lobbyists for more and improved A-10s and upgrades for the current ones that have been flying for nearly 40 years, including over 20 years of proven performance and cost effectiveness. On the other hand, we have scores of lobbyists for the grossly over-budget, unproven, still not deployed, and non-specific CAS platform F-35.

So if you had to make a budget decision for building a deck in your backyard, when you arrived at the Big Box DIY hardware store, would you rather spend $100 for a old fashioned circular saw that has proven it's effectiveness for almost a century, or spend $800 for a "Just Released" laser saw with no extensive real use data to show it's effectiveness or estimated lifespan?

Cut the number of troops, cut effective cost effective weaponry, and continue to spend more money than the other top 10 military spending countries in the entire world. The Industrial Military Complex at it's finest. :doh:

AlpineYoda · February 25, 2014

Here's my take. The A-10 is an ultra-effective CAS platform that was bought and paid for YEARS ago. They, and their pilots have survived thousands of CAS missions where the troops on the ground lives were saved, and the A-10 and it's pilot came home. Upgrades for the the current fleet of A-10s is POCKET CHANGE compared to $160,000,000 per F-35, a program that is currently $167 BILLION over-budget, and won't see deployment until 2016... 10 years after it's first flight. Cost effective???

"When taking into account the cost of flying and maintaining the F-35 over the course of its life, the program could surpass a trillion dollars, according to the Government Accountability Office."

As of last week:
"...the program office acknowledged to AFP that the F-35B, the short-takeoff variant for the Marine Corps, suffered cracks in its bulkheads during stress tests. As a result, the durability tests have been suspended and the plane may have to be modified." Yep... sounds just about ready to fly, huh?

I've seen mention here that "The A-10 would be useless in a war with China or Russia or...". Give me a break... where are the most likely places we'll be engaged in ground combat in the not so distant future? Syria, Yemen, numerous places in Africa! All places fighting with the same or near same military capabilities as Iraq and Afghanistan, where CAS for ground troops is a paramount issue.

So why kill an effective, resilient, proven, tried and true CAS platform? Because there are no lobbyists for more and improved A-10s and upgrades for the current ones that have been flying for nearly 40 years, including over 20 years of proven performance and cost effectiveness. On the other hand, we have scores of lobbyists for the grossly over-budget, unproven, still not deployed, and non-specific CAS platform F-35.

So if you had to make a budget decision for building a deck in your backyard, when you arrived at the Big Box DIY hardware store, would you rather spend $100 for a old fashioned circular saw that has proven it's effectiveness for almost a century, or spend $800 for a "Just Released" laser saw with no extensive real use data to show it's effectiveness or estimated lifespan?

Cut the number of troops, cut effective cost effective weaponry, and continue to spend more money than the other top 10 military spending countries in the entire world. The Industrial Military Complex at it's finest. :doh:

I agree with everything you said, except your analogy doesn't go far enough. The cost of maintaining the A10 fleet for 5 years saves 3.5BN in the new budget. So, let's say 15 years for $10BN to make the following math easy.

$10BN versus that GAO $1TN estimate is more like a new $10 blade for your existing saw or $1000 for a new one that looks really cool, isn't made to cut deck wood especially well (your primary need), and tends to fall apart during testing.

NineLine · February 25, 2014

Guys, lets not get too carried away with the political posts... I know this subject comes really close to those lines, but please be careful not to get carried away.

Flagrum · February 25, 2014

I have no real figgures at hand, but perhaps also to consider are the costs savings for a couple of F-35 that you don't have to buy as the job they should do would still be done by the existing A-10.

I would not be too surprised if you could keep the A-10 fleet running for a few years ...?

(imagine how many F-35 you need to replace a A-10 if you just take loiter time into account :o)

NineLine · February 25, 2014

I have no real figgures at hand, but perhaps also to consider are the costs savings for a couple of F-35 that you don't have to buy if you keep the existing A-10.

I would not be too surprised if you could keep the A-10 fleet running for a few years ...?

(imagine how many F-35 you need to replace a A-10 if you just take loiter time into account :o)

I doubt the hole left by the A-10 will only be filled by the F-35, they talk about drones as well...

Flagrum · February 25, 2014

I doubt the hole left by the A-10 will only be filled by the F-35, they talk about drones as well...

Well, ok, drones would be probably even more cost effective - an other argument against the F-35. But not an argument pro keeping the A-10.

I guess, in the end, one can calculate and shift figgures with no end until the end result matches the intentions of whoever presents such figgures ... :o)

NineLine · February 25, 2014

Well, ok, drones would be probably even more cost effective - an other argument against the F-35. But not an argument pro keeping the A-10.

I guess, in the end, one can calculate and shift figgures with no end until the end result matches the intentions of whoever presents such figgures ... :o)

No its not an argument to keep the A-10, but its not an argument against the F-35 either.

PFunk1606688187 · February 25, 2014

The thing is the F-35 is taking its time being implemented as a platform into the military's branches, but there's still the current aircraft to fill the gap. They obviously can't fill the entire gap or else the A-10 would've been retired a long time ago when all those aircraft were still there.

If drones are the real answer to filling the hole left by the A-10, where is that development at? Is there even a priority put on it? I have heard a lot about a lot of different kinds of drones, but what is there being made right now, or will be available sometime soon, that can do something the A-10 can that all the other faster ground attack capable aircraft can't?

If the Pentagon is saying they don't think the next 20 years will see a real American ground war again that kind of tells me they aren't really considering CAS a priority at all. Naturally the Army and the Marines are sitting there gong "oh good, so... ideas?"

NineLine · February 25, 2014

Again, I dont think it will be any one asset that fills the hole left by the A-10...

The thing is the F-35 is taking its time being implemented as a platform into the military's branches, but there's still the current aircraft to fill the gap. They obviously can't fill the entire gap or else the A-10 would've been retired a long time ago when all those aircraft were still there.

If drones are the real answer to filling the hole left by the A-10, where is that development at? Is there even a priority put on it? I have heard a lot about a lot of different kinds of drones, but what is there being made right now, or will be available sometime soon, that can do something the A-10 can that all the other faster ground attack capable aircraft can't?

If the Pentagon is saying they don't think the next 20 years will see a real American ground war again that kind of tells me they aren't really considering CAS a priority at all. Naturally the Army and the Marines are sitting there gong "oh good, so... ideas?"

PFunk1606688187 · February 25, 2014

Again, I dont think it will be any one asset that fills the hole left by the A-10...

I don't believe my question suggesting that either.

NineLine · February 25, 2014

I don't believe my question suggesting that either.

Well what are you suggesting the A-10 can do that no other asset in the US arsenal cant do? No, not one aircraft can replace the A-10, but a number of them can do parts of the A-10s job and that fills any holes left.

Scrim · February 25, 2014

Show me an A-10 that can do any of that while carrying a dozen GBU-12's.
...
A-10's don't float around in risky places because they can, they do it only if they must. There's a reason why they've 'been equipped with longer range capability.
...
The USA is going through quite a bit of strife right now, and while the A-10 'may have always been on the chopping block', what's happening right now is indicative of a different problem.
...
Yeah, except that the F-35 has already proven you wrong.

Sigh, you sure do know how to glue separate things together if it makes you sound smart when answering.

Yes, they go down lower when they must, i.e. when doing CAS tasks, and what is the almost single purpose of the A-10? Don't expect me to believe F-35s will go down low for CAS against conventional enemies.

NineLine · February 25, 2014

Sigh, you sure do know how to glue separate things together if it makes you sound smart when answering.

Yes, they go down lower when they must, i.e. when doing CAS tasks, and what is the almost single purpose of the A-10? Don't expect me to believe F-35s will go down low for CAS against conventional enemies.

Maybe the F-35 doesnt need to go down low to do the job required, just because it doesnt fly like the Hawg, doesnt mean it cant do the same job. Or perhaps you use another asset...

GGTharos · February 25, 2014

What Sithspawn said.

The F-35 can't completely replace the A-10, and there will be people who need it that will miss it.

I don't think it's time has come, but I'm not going to rant on something we don't do here: Politics.

The A-10's purpose was not CAS, though it serves well in that role: It was smashing the wave of soviet tanks coming over the fulda gap.

That it excels at CAS is great, and it should be continued to be used that way. But don't discount what an F-35 can bring to the fight. Where other aircraft need help to stop a target, it doesn't. It might only be dropping 'a couple of 500lb'ers' and only passing over the target once, but those bombs WILL land on someone's head.

Sigh, you sure do know how to glue separate things together if it makes you sound smart when answering.

Yes, they go down lower when they must, i.e. when doing CAS tasks, and what is the almost single purpose of the A-10? Don't expect me to believe F-35s will go down low for CAS against conventional enemies.

Scrim · February 25, 2014

The sole edge the F-35 has, or rather will have when finished, is a radar that is primarily designed for air to air combat, but can also be used to some extent to search the ground. However, couple that with the fact that the F-35 will be to expensive and to fragile to send low over the battlefield, and that there's nothing that renders the A-10 incapable of being equipped with exactly the same radar, or one solely dedicated for ground targeting, and I really think it becomes a quite mute upper hand.

The A-10's purpose was not CAS, though it serves well in that role: It was smashing the wave of soviet tanks coming over the fulda gap.

No, just no. No. No. No. Knocking out tanks is CAS. I'll... I'll just leave it at that.

NineLine · February 25, 2014

If you are talking fighting a major war, and not something like has been done, you arent going to want and send A-10s low over the battlefield either... its not the cold war anymore, and most major countries are going to have better control of their skies in a major conflict.

The sole edge the F-35 has, or rather will have when finished, is a radar that is primarily designed for air to air combat, but can also be used to some extent to search the ground. However, couple that with the fact that the F-35 will be to expensive and to fragile to send low over the battlefield, and that there's nothing that renders the A-10 incapable of being equipped with exactly the same radar, or one solely dedicated for ground targeting, and I really think it becomes a quite mute upper hand.

No, just no. No. No. No. Knocking out tanks is CAS. I'll... I'll just leave it at that.

danilop · February 25, 2014

What if someone manage to shoot down the mega expensive F-35 (if doing CAS, sooner or later it has to go low, and everything is possible even with old tech when fighting aircraft which flies low)?

Huge political mess! Much bigger than hypothetical shooting down of A10. Don't forget that one downing of F-117 by inferior Soviet era technology practically ended service life of that plane.

In war, you HAVE to think about and expect losses.

Huge gamble to use F35 for roles that A10 covers well enough.

Edited February 25, 2014 by danilop

NineLine · February 25, 2014

What if someone manage to shoot down the mega expensive F-35 (if doing CAS, sooner or later it has to go low, and everything is possible even with old tech when fighting aircraft which flies low)?

Huge political mess! Much bigger than hypothetical downing of A10. Don't forget that one downing of F-117 by inferior Soviet era technology practically ended service life of that plane.

In war, you HAVE to think about and expect losses.

Huge gamble to use F35 for roles that A10 covers well enough.

Why does it have to go low? What situation? I am thinking if it got low and slow like an A-10, the pilot might have made a mistake.

GGTharos · February 25, 2014

What if someone manage to shoot down the mega expensive F-35 (if doing CAS, sooner or later it has to go low, and everything is possible even with old tech when fighting aircraft which flies low)?

I don't believe the USAF cares. They always do loss projections for various scenarios.

Huge political mess! Much bigger than hypothetical shooting down of A10. Don't forget that one downing of F-117 by inferior Soviet era technology practically ended service life of that plane.

What ended its service life, practically, was the F-22. The shoot-down did nothing except score headlines.

In war, you HAVE to think about and expect losses.

Yeah, and at all times you have to be thinking of your logistics.

Huge gamble to use F35 for roles that A10 covers well enough.

Why? A-10's don't go low if they don't have to, either, and they've certainly been shot down in action.

danilop · February 25, 2014

Oh well, I don't see economical logic at all, but if US wants to bomb Al-Qaeda or the goat herders turned Taliban with F35 instead of A10, it's OK with me. :D

I cannot imagine modern war where F35 would be useful and where it could do more damage than combination of other assets in USAF today ... And wars for which it is projected for, will never happen.

It looks that generals in USAF have to find a reason for F35 existence :D

NineLine · February 25, 2014

Its why they have drones and other assets.... and when you are on the receiving end of a bomb, does it matter what dropped it to you?

Oh well, I don't see economical logic at all, but if US wants to bomb Al-Qaeda or the goat herders turned Taliban with F35 instead of A10, it's OK with me. :D

I cannot imagine modern war where F35 would be useful and where it could do more damage than combination of other assets in USAF today ... And wars for which it is projected for, will never happen.

It looks that generals in USAF have to find a reason for F35 existence :D

danilop · February 25, 2014

Its why they have drones and other assets.... and when you are on the receiving end of a bomb, does it matter what dropped it to you?

It's all about the other end - US tax payer's money, but that's not on me to comment being non US citizen.

Sign In

A-10 Being Retired

Recommended Posts

NineLine

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

tflash

AlpineYoda

MatzWarhog

AlpineYoda

NineLine

Flagrum

NineLine

Flagrum

NineLine

PFunk1606688187

NineLine

PFunk1606688187

NineLine

Scrim

NineLine

GGTharos

Scrim

NineLine

danilop

NineLine

GGTharos

danilop

NineLine

danilop

Recently Browsing 0 members