A-10 Being Retired

[NineLine]

Then why keep the B-52?

 

Isnt part of the budget cuts for funding of a new bomber?

[Scrim]

Don't think so. Last time I checked, I'm pretty sure they were keeping the B-52 on for a while, due to small issues such as the new stealth ones supposed to replace it costs a shit tonne to keep operational, and can't fly through rain, sleet, hail, or clouds in general because the coating would be too damaged by it (When Penguins Flew and Water Burned). Which may or may not be an issue if your squadron is scrambled to drop nukes or whatever else would warrant sending such expensive, stealth bombers, and there's a cloud over the base. Or the target. Or anywhere along the designated routes to and from the target.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Scrim

[PFunk1606688187]

Isnt part of the budget cuts for funding of a new bomber?

 

Not relevant to the point at hand.

 

In any environment the B-52 can survive so should the A-10. Therefore the whole slow non-stealth detractor can't be as serious a limitation as some think it would be.

[NineLine]

Here this is what I read:

 

Hagel also said the Pentagon would eliminate the Air Force fleet of A-10 "Warthog" close air support planes, which are much beloved by ground troops, in order to ensure continued funding of the new long-range bomber, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and a new aerial refueling tanker.

 

Don't think so. Last time I checked, I'm pretty sure they were keeping the B-52 on for a while, due to small issues such as the new stealth ones supposed to replace it costs a shit tonne to keep operational, and can't fly through rain, sleet, hail, or clouds in general because the coating would be too damaged by it (When Penguins Flew and Water Burned). Which may or may not be an issue if your squadron is scrambled to drop nukes or whatever else would warrant sending such expensive, stealth bombers, and there's a cloud over the base. Or the target. Or anywhere along the designated routes to and from the target.

[Scrim]

Oh, I thought you meant they were getting rid of the BUFFs in favour of the new stealth bombers.

[Picksplitter]

Tragic... the a10 will be mothballed.

 

I see it as the same mistake made when 'they' decided that the F-4 Phantom II didn't need a gun...

 

When the substance yet again 'hits the fan' and 'they' realize there's no viable unit to do the job, the a10 will be resurrected in short order.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Picksplitter

[Brassbud]

The US Military's biggest adversary isn't Russia or even China...it's Social Security and Medicare.

 

Against those foes, the A-10's gun is quite useless.

[Snoopy]

The US Military's biggest adversary isn't Russia or even China...it's Social Security and Medicare.

 

Against those foes, the A-10's gun is quite useless.

 

Perfectly said! I could add a handful more entitlement programs to that list but that would start getting political.

[Exorcet]

Do the sensors of the F-35 have X-ray vision that enables it to send a Maverick through clouds against tanks? Oh right, it doesn't.

Does the A-10?

 

Oh right, it can't even carry air-to-ground missiles without breaking its stealth, now can it?

The A-10 can't use stealth at all, so the F-35 wins here.

 

in case of a relatively low cloud cover, it will RTB because it can't see anything.

Or just fly lower. Or use non-purely IR/laser munitions.

 

F-16 and F-15E are better suited for CAS.

What advantages do they have?

[danilop]

The A-10 can't use stealth at all, so the F-35 wins here.

 

Give one example where stealth was needed for CAS sortie in the last couple of decades.

 

Now, for Air Superiority fighter you NEED stealth, because you fly in high threat environment until you hopefully establish air supremacy and RADAR free battlefield. Only after that you move the ground troups in and can fly CAS. No need for stealth.

 

The only possible scenario when you would need stealth for CAS/ground attack plane is full scale invasion on Russia and China (or covert operations).

 

Now, that is not very likely to happen, isn't it? :)

Edited March 1, 2014 by danilop

[Exorcet]

Give one example where stealth was needed for CAS sortie in the last couple of decades.

That kind of supports the F-35. You probably won't need stealth, so the idea that it will have a limited payload is silly. If you find yourself in the situation where you need stealth, the A-10 dies and the F-35 can support ground forces.

 

Go from need to want, and you always want stealth as an option obviously. With longer range/cheaper SAM systems it may become easier for an enemy to defend territory without air superiority.

 

Now, for Air Superiority fighter you NEED stealth, because you fly in high threat environment until you hopefully establish air superiority and RADAR free battlefield. Only after that you move the ground troups in and can fly CAS. No need for stealth.

That's how you hope it goes, and if it goes that way, fine. If it doesn't, you can't do anything with A-10's.

 

The only possible scenario when you would need stealth for CAS/ground attack plane is full scale invasion on Russia and China.

 

Now, that is not going to happen, isn't it? :)

Who knows, although having the ability to wage war with Russia or China makes them less likely to want to wage war.

[danilop]

F35 project is controversial ... for a reason.

 

Way too expensive for intended role and scenarios not very likely to happen. Especially in this economy ...

 

...

That's how you hope it goes, and if it goes that way, fine. If it doesn't, you can't do anything with A-10's.

...

 

Well, if you fail to establish air supremacy and your opponent's air defenses remain fully operational in the air or on the ground, your attack failed. You don't send troops in (ergo, you don't fly CAS) because it would be a slaughter ... ;)

Edited March 1, 2014 by danilop

[Exorcet]

F35 project is controversial ... for a reason.

That doesn't impact its performance though.

 

 

 

Well, if you fail to establish air supremacy and your opponent's air defenses remain fully operational in the air or on the ground, your attack failed. You don't send troops in (ergo, you don't fly CAS) because it would be a slaughter ... ;)

 

I agree. But you could also go from having superiority to losing it, having part of the initially successful ground forces cut off. Or you could be the defending side or an ally to the defending side that joins later. These cases would make it a bit more plausible for there to be strong enemy presence around friendly ground troops.

 

But the main point was no matter how you look at it stealth is a win for the F-35.

 

If stealth isn't needed, the F-35 can carry weapons like the A-10.

 

If stealth is needed, the A-10 is useless.

[danilop]

...But the main point was no matter how you look at it stealth is a win for the F-35.

...

 

Indeed. It is.

 

It comes at huge price though, it is roughly ten times more expensive than A10.

 

The main question is: Does it replace ten A10 in real world CAS scenarios?

Edited March 1, 2014 by danilop

[GGTharos]

Does it matter? It wasn't designed to replace the A-10, it simply has to replace the A-10 because there's nothing else.

 

Viewing it from the perspective of CAS only is silly.

 

This thing replaces or enhances ISR assets in a way that nothing else can do, it replaces the F-16 in the SEAD and CAP role, and it replaces the F-18 in those same roles.

It replaces them in the basic ground-attack role, and it effectively replaces the F-111 and F-15E in penetration strikes where stealth is required.

 

It replaces anything that was out there to kick down the door, and brings the equivalent of (automated) SOJ platform.

 

So what people who complain about its cost don't get is:

 

It reduces the need for other assets, does a lot of stuff on its own, and frankly, high-tech fighters simply do cost that much.

 

Indeed. It is.

 

It comes at huge price though, it is roughly ten times more expensive than A10.

 

The main question is: Does it replace ten A10 in real world CAS scenarios?

[Kybosh]

It seems so short sighted... I'm sure they'll be regretting this decision in the not-to-distant future. :/

 

No actually this is just the beginning from King Obama. Soon China will destroy the USA and the Soviets will reclaim power in the east.

 

It's a brave new world!

[NineLine]

The F-35 is considered a multi-role fighter.... that should be a hint there :)

 

Does it matter? It wasn't designed to replace the A-10, it simply has to replace the A-10 because there's nothing else.

 

Viewing it from the perspective of CAS only is silly.

 

This thing replaces or enhances ISR assets in a way that nothing else can do, it replaces the F-16 in the SEAD and CAP role, and it replaces the F-18 in those same roles.

It replaces them in the basic ground-attack role, and it effectively replaces the F-111 and F-15E in penetration strikes where stealth is required.

 

It replaces anything that was out there to kick down the door, and brings the equivalent of (automated) SOJ platform.

 

So what people who complain about its cost don't get is:

 

It reduces the need for other assets, does a lot of stuff on its own, and frankly, high-tech fighters simply do cost that much.

[danilop]

This is all about A 10 being retired and it's suggested that F35 will fulfill it's role (CAS) in the future.

 

For special strikes and covert missions F35 is of course far superior.

 

The argument is: Why on Earth you would risk to put F35 worth $130 million in CAS high risk environment (small fire, manpads) when there is equipment ten times cheaper with decades old excellent track record in the field?

 

I don't get it, honestly. :D

 

Does it matter? It wasn't designed to replace the A-10, it simply has to replace the A-10 because there's nothing else.

 

Viewing it from the perspective of CAS only is silly.

 

This thing replaces or enhances ISR assets in a way that nothing else can do, it replaces the F-16 in the SEAD and CAP role, and it replaces the F-18 in those same roles.

It replaces them in the basic ground-attack role, and it effectively replaces the F-111 and F-15E in penetration strikes where stealth is required.

 

It replaces anything that was out there to kick down the door, and brings the equivalent of (automated) SOJ platform.

 

So what people who complain about its cost don't get is:

 

It reduces the need for other assets, does a lot of stuff on its own, and frankly, high-tech fighters simply do cost that much.

[NineLine]

This is all about A 10 being retired and it's suggested that F35 will fulfill it's role (CAS) in the future.

 

For special strikes and covert missions F35 is of course far superior.

 

The argument is: Why on Earth you would risk to put F35 worth $130 million in CAS high risk environment (small fire, manpads) when there is equipment ten times cheaper with decades old excellent track record in the field?

 

I don't get it, honestly. :D

 

Who said it would be the only thing filling the role, there is talk of drones and Apache's as well... also, why would you risk A-10s in a manpad rich environment anyways? So you have to ask in a larger scale war against a more capable force, how safe would it be to be an A-10 pilot? The days of low-level slow ground attacks may be coming to a close... I dont think so yet, I think its early, but that might be what they are banking on...

[Exorcet]

Indeed. It is.

 

It comes at huge price though, it is roughly ten times more expensive than A10.

 

The A-10 can't be a fighter, the price is justified.

 

The main question is: Does it replace ten A10 in real world CAS scenarios?

Yes. It loses to the A-10 in niche situations though.

 

This is all about A 10 being retired and it's suggested that F35 will fulfill it's role (CAS) in the future.

 

For special strikes and covert missions F35 is of course far superior.

 

The argument is: Why on Earth you would risk to put F35 worth $130 million in CAS high risk environment (small fire, manpads) when there is equipment ten times cheaper with decades old excellent track record in the field?

 

I don't get it, honestly. :D

 

Because the other way is expensive. F-35's for fighter/deep strike/CAS is easier to deal with than 5 planes to cover all of those. The US already made a mess with the F-22 by cutting orders rather than killing off the F-15.

[outlawal2]

This is all about A 10 being retired and it's suggested that F35 will fulfill it's role (CAS) in the future.

 

For special strikes and covert missions F35 is of course far superior.

 

The argument is: Why on Earth you would risk to put F35 worth $130 million in CAS high risk environment (small fire, manpads) when there is equipment ten times cheaper with decades old excellent track record in the field?

 

I don't get it, honestly. :D

 

Well here is the deal... They are going to keep the F-35 JSF.. PERIOD. They will find a way to keep it and of that there is no doubt at this point. So once you make that commitment.. And you realize that despite what politicians think, Money is NOT in an endless supply, then you have to cut SOMETHING to support your F-35... The A-10 with it's old airframe, obsolete gun and Butt Ugly silhouette is hard to keep around when it's nice pointy nosed, younger, faster, hotter, stealthier sibling shows up..

 

The unfortunate truth is that SOMETHING has to go, so few would support the idea of maintaining the dinosaur in this budgetary environment..

 

Especially when the decision is set in stone that they are going to build the F-35.. they will make it work even if it means changing procedures / strategies, etc..

[Pilotasso]

The A-10 is a huge morale booster for pinned grunts on the ground.

 

Its apparent obsolescence also is a strong point going for it because it has less delicated components, less points of failure, cheaper to maintain and not much of airborne threats since most airforces around the world are shrinking their fighter forces.

 

One thing that makes me shiver as a engine maintenance planner about the F-35 are all those huge power section major components like the compressor and turbine wheels and the hot section blades must be huge and they are all life limited, so should be all the DAS sensors that surrounds the ship not to mention the need to fill all the maintenance access doors gaps and camlock fasteners with radar absorbent putty every time the aircraft needs to be serviced.

 

Yes the F-35 is overall more powerful and versatile but these days the A-10 as a close air support in asymmetrical conflicts is all the more appealing rather than a luxury stealth deep penetration fighter.

 

The reason why the A-10 is getting axed is because the general public and some in the military don't mind seeing a low tech low flying aircraft armed with dumb weapons being phased out in favour of a high tech high flying stealth fighter armed with precision weapons (though the A-10 can carry them the public just is not educated enough to think otherwise).

Edited March 1, 2014 by Pilotasso

[MatzWarhog]

Just a mild reminder. NOTHING is happening to anything until it is passed by congress. IOW, the A-10 isn't going anywhere soon. :D

[Scrim]

Does the A-10?

 

 

The A-10 can't use stealth at all, so the F-35 wins here.

 

 

Or just fly lower. Or use non-purely IR/laser munitions.

 

 

What advantages do they have?

 

That is a pathetic way of arguing, and I'm not responding to it. Every single one of those arguments I explained, but you took the conclusions out of context to look clever or something. Ridiculous.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Just a mild reminder. NOTHING is happening to anything until it is passed by congress. IOW, the A-10 isn't going anywhere soon. :D

On my way back from a Mexico business trip few months ago, I spent a day i Tuscon, AZ. I visited Pima air and space museum and the A-10's were taking off and flying all over the museum grounds. It was cool to watch them climbing and catching up formation ...