- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
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
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!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.
:lol: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:
Considering that the A-10... ya know, works... I'd almost be willing to pay F-35 money for new ones.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
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.
Entirely a manufactured crisis. We can easily resume production on A-10 parts. We already have multi role aircraft, too.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
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...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.
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)
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?
Chuck Hagel’s A-10 Legacy » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the NamesCan 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/
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.
I'd rather an AH64 have my back than an A10
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 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.
The retirement of the A-10 is political cover for the astounding failure of the JSF project.
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?
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.
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.
Then you have to say what aircraft you want given up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?