Legendary A-10 'Warthog' sends ISIS fleeing even as it faces Pentagon cuts

[radcen]

The Air Force has always thought itself too good for the A-10. Fine. I've been saying for 30 years that it should be transferred to the Army.

Legendary A-10 'Warthog' sends ISIS fleeing even as it faces Pentagon cuts

Legendary A-10 'Warthog' sends ISIS fleeing even as it faces Pentagon cuts | Fox News

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The Air Force has always thought itself too good for the A-10. Fine. I've been saying for 30 years that it should be transferred to the Army.

Well, A-10 should be retired, because after all it's an inexpensive aircraft made in the 70s, so how can we expect the poor defense contractors make a profit? You would really prevent some CEO of the defense corporation from sending his kids to private college? Heartless little guy!

 

[radcen]

Well, A-10 should be retired, because after all it's an inexpensive aircraft made in the 70s, so how can we expect the poor defense contractors make a profit? You would really prevent some CEO of the defense corporation from sending his kids to private college? Heartless little guy!

:lol:

Could we have them make more A-10s? :shrug:

 

[EMNofSeattle]

:lol:

Could we have them make more A-10s? :shrug:

The only downside to that, is that then they can't bill us for putting in a A ****ty engine like what happened with the F-35.

Simple projects like A-10s, are a lot lower profit margin then The F35, the F35 is a crooked defense contractors wettest dream come true

 

[radcen]

The only downside to that, is that then they can't bill us for putting in a A ****ty engine like what happened with the F-35.

Simple projects like A-10s, are a lot lower profit margin then The F35, the F35 is a crooked defense contractors wettest dream come true

Considering that the A-10... ya know, works... I'd almost be willing to pay F-35 money for new ones.

 

[Redress]

The Air Force has always thought itself too good for the A-10. Fine. I've been saying for 30 years that it should be transferred to the Army.

In which case the army would be looking to retire it. The A-10 is expensive to maintain, replacement parts are simply not available, cannibalization rates are extremely high meaning more down aircraft and double maintenace to fix anything, with the S-3 retired an extremely expensive depot maintenance facility is kept open for just a few aircraft, and the A-10. for all it's godly ability at CAS, pretty much sucks at everything else. The military is going multi-role, and that is not going to change, nor should it. The military has a limited budget and wants to spend it where it will do the most good overall. That is not the A-10.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

In which case the army would be looking to retire it. The A-10 is expensive to maintain, replacement parts are simply not available, cannibalization rates are extremely high meaning more down aircraft and double maintenace to fix anything, with the S-3 retired an extremely expensive depot maintenance facility is kept open for just a few aircraft, and the A-10. for all it's godly ability at CAS, pretty much sucks at everything else. The military is going multi-role, and that is not going to change, nor should it. The military has a limited budget and wants to spend it where it will do the most good overall. That is not the A-10.

Entirely a manufactured crisis. We can easily resume production on A-10 parts. We already have multi role aircraft, too.

The retirement of the A-10 is political cover for the astounding failure of the JSF project. Do we even have an active squadron yet for the billions over budget it's ran? And now the guns on the JSF don't work because of software problems they'll get around to solving in 2019.

And for nothing too. Might as well fly the 10 until drones replace all manned playforms

 

[Redress]

Entirely a manufactured crisis. We can easily resume production on A-10 parts.

No, actually it would not be profitable for any one to make them.

We already have multi role aircraft, too.

And we are going to have more because they are cost effective.

The retirement of the A-10 is political cover for the astounding failure of the JSF project.

The air force has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for quite some time. Your random conspiracy nonsense based on zero evidence does not fit.

Do we even have an active squadron yet for the billions over budget it's ran? And now the guns on the JSF don't work because of software problems they'll get around to solving in 2019.

New aircraft are going to be expensive and slow to get online. That has alot to do with the high expectations put on them. In the long run, those expectations are good things.

And for nothing too. Might as well fly the 10 until drones replace all manned playforms

Or we could fly something more effective and more apt to actually be able to get off the ground when needed.

 

[VanceMack]

In which case the army would be looking to retire it. The A-10 is expensive to maintain, replacement parts are simply not available, cannibalization rates are extremely high meaning more down aircraft and double maintenace to fix anything, with the S-3 retired an extremely expensive depot maintenance facility is kept open for just a few aircraft, and the A-10. for all it's godly ability at CAS, pretty much sucks at everything else. The military is going multi-role, and that is not going to change, nor should it. The military has a limited budget and wants to spend it where it will do the most good overall. That is not the A-10.

I dont know about all that. The aircraft has essentially been modernized, ALL A/C had new wings and hardware in a retro-fiit in 2010, the avionics package is all state of the art and flies the same gear (albeit with different control panels) as the F-16 and 15. Then there is this...


Cost per flying hours is the lowest in the fleet. I dont see anything on missed sortie rates but by all accounts its still one of the most reliable airframes flying.
(yes...the slow, ugly thing was my airframe for several years so I am biased)

 

[Mark F]

Entirely a manufactured crisis. We can easily resume production on A-10 parts.

Can we?

How many of those manufacturers still exist?
How much of the tooling?
What is the cost to re-tool and produce these parts again?

 

[radcen]

Given the cost of current modern aircraft, and we're making points about cost effectiveness should we want to make more spare parts for an older aircraft? Really?

 

[Redress]

I dont know about all that. The aircraft has essentially been modernized, ALL A/C had new wings and hardware in a retro-fiit in 2010, the avionics package is all state of the art and flies the same gear (albeit with different control panels) as the F-16 and 15. Then there is this...
View attachment 67179290

Cost per flying hours is the lowest in the fleet. I dont see anything on missed sortie rates but by all accounts its still one of the most reliable airframes flying.
(yes...the slow, ugly thing was my airframe for several years so I am biased)

Can you link to the source of that chart?

And do not get me wrong, I love me the A-10. Got to do a walkaround/through with some of the airforce maintenance guys and we were all OOO and AHHH and loved it. Really is a cool airframe that is overdue for retirement. I think of them like the F-14, great at one role, awesome design, but the single role concept is all but dead/

 

[Redress]

Given the cost of current modern aircraft, and we're making points about cost effectiveness should we want to make more spare parts for an older aircraft? Really?

The cost of current aircraft is high because of inflation and what all they are expected to be able to do.

 

[VanceMack]

Can you link to the source of that chart?

And do not get me wrong, I love me the A-10. Got to do a walkaround/through with some of the airforce maintenance guys and we were all OOO and AHHH and loved it. Really is a cool airframe that is overdue for retirement. I think of them like the F-14, great at one role, awesome design, but the single role concept is all but dead/

Chuck Hagel’s A-10 Legacy » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

I've become a little more enlightened on the capability of attack helicopters. I think they can do a similar job to the A-10. But supersonic fighter jets were never meant to be attack aircraft. The F-16, the AF-15E Strike Eagle...good concepts but they simply cant carry the CAS workload. So far the F-35 hasnt been able to either. OA aircraft have a unique mission.

 

[faithful_servant]

The A-10 is designed to support ground troops against ground troops. If you want to replace it, you have to re-invent that wheel. The JSF simply isn't the tool for the job. It's attack speed is too high, giving it too small a window of engagement. An A-10 can fly slow enough to pour in gunfire to the point that it will destroy pretty much anything other than deeply embedded and hardened target. Tanks?? Spent uranium shells will overwhelm reactive armor and turn the best into Swiss cheese. Bunker?? The A-10 can keep it's main gun on one point and punch a hole through a whole lot of concrete. The only thing that comes close are combat helos.

Keep it in service, keep it using up-to-date tech and keep it killing bad guys and protecting good guys.

 

[11Bravo]

The Air Force has always thought itself too good for the A-10. Fine. I've been saying for 30 years that it should be transferred to the Army.

I'd rather an AH64 have my back than an A10

 

[joko104]

In which case the army would be looking to retire it. The A-10 is expensive to maintain, replacement parts are simply not available, cannibalization rates are extremely high meaning more down aircraft and double maintenace to fix anything, with the S-3 retired an extremely expensive depot maintenance facility is kept open for just a few aircraft, and the A-10. for all it's godly ability at CAS, pretty much sucks at everything else. The military is going multi-role, and that is not going to change, nor should it. The military has a limited budget and wants to spend it where it will do the most good overall. That is not the A-10.

A message I agree with. The A-10 is likable because it's an oddity. But not only is it very outdated but it is becoming very expensive to keep flying. Restoring and updating is very costly.

 

[joko104]

I'd rather an AH64 have my back than an A10

The A10 can do a couple of straffing passes. That's about all it can do. It can not stick around. It can't do rescue. Nor bring backup to the ground. It needs an airfield.

Everyone likes the A10. Every branch of service wants other aircraft instead more.

 

[joko104]

Given the cost of current modern aircraft, and we're making points about cost effectiveness should we want to make more spare parts for an older aircraft? Really?

Parts for older aircraft don't cost older prices. It cost as much to make new wings for an A10 as most other aircraft. But that doesn't then make for a new aircraft. It makes for a 4+ decade old design and aircraft with new wings. It was the massive wing replacement costs for which the Air Force threw in the towel on them. Of all the things the Air Force wants - and the list is as massive as are the tasked the AF is looked at to fulfill, the A10 didn't make the list.

Everyone likes the A10. Everyone liked the P51 and original Thunderbolt too. Military equipment isn't based on likability. No branch of the military wants to take the money away from other things for the old A10, and that's what it comes down too. There is no contractor conspiracy involved.

 

[joko104]

The A-10 is designed to support ground troops against ground troops. If you want to replace it, you have to re-invent that wheel. The JSF simply isn't the tool for the job. It's attack speed is too high, giving it too small a window of engagement. An A-10 can fly slow enough to pour in gunfire to the point that it will destroy pretty much anything other than deeply embedded and hardened target. Tanks?? Spent uranium shells will overwhelm reactive armor and turn the best into Swiss cheese. Bunker?? The A-10 can keep it's main gun on one point and punch a hole through a whole lot of concrete. The only thing that comes close are combat helos.

Keep it in service, keep it using up-to-date tech and keep it killing bad guys and protecting good guys.

Then you have to say what aircraft you want given up.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The retirement of the A-10 is political cover for the astounding failure of the JSF project.

Not really, the Air Force never wanted the A-10 in the first place. It was a battle to make them accept it in the first place, and they have been trying to cancel it for decades now. Even 20 years ago there were plans to cut them but they were simply to successful in the Gulf War to let go.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Can we?

How many of those manufacturers still exist?
How much of the tooling?
What is the cost to re-tool and produce these parts again?

They have not been made in decades, so manufacturing would have to start again from scratch.

Quite expensive, and a new manufacturer would have to be named. Fairchild Republic no longer exists, and the remnants of the company have changed hands several times in the last 15 years (including owners in Germany and Israel).

But the cost really should not matter, because these things save lives on the battlefield. And I for one do not put a measuring scale on how many lives are needed to theoretically save before they are needed.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Chuck Hagel’s A-10 Legacy » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

I've become a little more enlightened on the capability of attack helicopters. I think they can do a similar job to the A-10. But supersonic fighter jets were never meant to be attack aircraft. The F-16, the AF-15E Strike Eagle...good concepts but they simply cant carry the CAS workload. So far the F-35 hasnt been able to either. OA aircraft have a unique mission.

In that you are correct. However, something has to be realized when talking about helicopters.

They are incredibly vulnerable. So vulnerable in fact that in most war games they were considered an expendable asset. This is very different from aircraft. And ironically, the cost of an A-10 in 1984 was pretty equivalent to that of an AH-64. Making it an amazingly inexpensive aircraft. But also having a lifespan on the battlefield much longer then that of a helicopter. We have seen that even unguided rocket launchers can take down helicopters, they can't do that to A-10s (and even guided ones have problems taking it out).

 

[11Bravo]

The A10 can do a couple of straffing passes. That's about all it can do. It can not stick around. It can't do rescue. Nor bring backup to the ground. It needs an airfield.

Everyone likes the A10. Every branch of service wants other aircraft instead more.

Yea I know first hand that having a 64 at your 6, the enemy gets way more terrified.

 

[faithful_servant]

Then you have to say what aircraft you want given up.

Why is that??