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

[US Conservative]

`
Let me state something...I don't believe everything I read, especially from certain people.

Lockheed’s F-35 Stealth Fighter: A $1.5 Trillion Waste of Tax Dollars
Senior Air Force Officer: The F-35 Is An Epic Waste
Time to cancel the F-35

Look at the development cost of the superhornet. Note the date. Factor in inflation. :2wave:

 

[VanceMack]

Im a shooter, the only thing Im laughing at are the assumptions based on television. And after all, we are discussing flying death machines.

I spent 12 years with these aircraft. The description was apt and funny. It is what they sound like when they fire the cannon and we have often joked about how it would suck having that be the last thing you hear. Its OK to have fun and laugh about stuff.

 

[Oozlefinch]

They replaced the wings and hardware on every A-10 in the fleet. The initial investment upgraded the life cycle an additional 30 years. Thats not 2 billion per aircraft. ST. LOUIS, Sept. 4, 2013 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] will continue improving U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II mission readiness, and decreasing maintenance costs, through a follow-on order for 56 replacement wings for that aircraft. Boeing is on contract to build up to 242 wings, including these, at its plant in Macon, Ga. Refitting the fleet with new wings will improve the mission availability of A-10s by an estimated 4 percent and will help save the Air Force an estimated $1.3 billion in maintenance costs during the next 30 years. This latest order is valued at $212 million. Including this agreement, the Air Force has ordered 173 wings. The efforts of Boeing, its suppliers, and the Air Force will allow the A-10 fleet to operate into 2035.

At 3.8 million per wing with a total of 256 A-10s in the fleet, that comes out to 972.8 million for the complete wing retrofit.

Yea, less then half of what he claimed.

Given that the fights we get our armies into these days are fairly small skirmishes the support fire is generally given by artillery. If they want a bigger hit they use a drone to drop a bomb. If they wanted small bombs on drones they would put some small bombs on drones. They do not need a separate 1970's system that attracts fire and gets hit often to spray cannon fire all over the place. Why spend billions of dollars on it when they could use the money to build a new system to do a much better job?

And do you really plan to fight all future wars on what we are fighting right now?

"These days", you mean the last couple of years. Because it was only a decade ago that we were in division sized battles and fighting actual wars.

You know the old saw, right? The most sure way to loose the next war is to plan to fight again the last war. And your "last war" is the current insurgency.

You do not use this as the future plan for fighting wars and battles. Unless you like seeing our troops return home in body bags.

 

[VanceMack]

Yea, less then half of what he claimed.



And do you really plan to fight all future wars on what we are fighting right now?

"These days", you mean the last couple of years. Because it was only a decade ago that we were in division sized battles and fighting actual wars.

You know the old saw, right? The most sure way to loose the next war is to plan to fight again the last war. And your "last war" is the current insurgency.

You do not use this as the future plan for fighting wars and battles. Unless you like seeing our troops return home in body bags.

They probably have budgeted in hangar costs, manpower etc. Its a sneaky little trick program managers do to build in buffers for upgrades and overruns. You cant just submit a cost for raw materials and product. You have to submit a cost for the labor to install them (as if the depot staff werent already working at the depot and being paid). They have done the same thing for war cost estimates for 12 years.

 

[Jack Hays]

What did he fly?

C-46 and C-47 in WW2 (Hump pilot). B-26 Invader in Korea. C-46, C-47 and C-119 post-Korea and in USAF Reserve. C-130 in Vietnam era.

 

[US Conservative]

I spent 12 years with these aircraft. The description was apt and funny. It is what they sound like when they fire the cannon and we have often joked about how it would suck having that be the last thing you hear. Its OK to have fun and laugh about stuff.

I laugh about funny stuff all the time.

 

[Tim the plumber]

And do you really plan to fight all future wars on what we are fighting right now?

"These days", you mean the last couple of years. Because it was only a decade ago that we were in division sized battles and fighting actual wars.

You know the old saw, right? The most sure way to loose the next war is to plan to fight again the last war. And your "last war" is the current insurgency.

You do not use this as the future plan for fighting wars and battles. Unless you like seeing our troops return home in body bags.

Which is why you should get rid of the old stuff and use new stuff that does it better.

The artillery provides indirect firepower.

The close support of attack helicopters adds to this and is highly effective when the enemy does not have the capacity to shoot them down effectively.

It the enemy has good AA then sending in A-10s is silly. They will get shot to bits by the much better SAMs and stuff that would be deployed were we to face a decently strong enemy. Not that there are any around today.

In conditions where there are lots of effective AA you use a drone or a missile like cruse. Then it matters a lot less if they shoot the thing down.

Between helicopters and drones there are no missions which would be better done by A-10s.

 

[braindrain]

Which is why you should get rid of the old stuff and use new stuff that does it better.

The artillery provides indirect firepower.

The close support of attack helicopters adds to this and is highly effective when the enemy does not have the capacity to shoot them down effectively.

It the enemy has good AA then sending in A-10s is silly. They will get shot to bits by the much better SAMs and stuff that would be deployed were we to face a decently strong enemy. Not that there are any around today.

In conditions where there are lots of effective AA you use a drone or a missile like cruse. Then it matters a lot less if they shoot the thing down.

Between helicopters and drones there are no missions which would be better done by A-10s.

I am sorry but going off your posts in this thread it seems like you don't have much knowledge about this topic.

 

[Bodi]

Did I read that right, $2 billion to replace wings?

That's what he said...

 

[Oozlefinch]

Which is why you should get rid of the old stuff and use new stuff that does it better.

The artillery provides indirect firepower.

The close support of attack helicopters adds to this and is highly effective when the enemy does not have the capacity to shoot them down effectively.

It the enemy has good AA then sending in A-10s is silly. They will get shot to bits by the much better SAMs and stuff that would be deployed were we to face a decently strong enemy. Not that there are any around today.

In conditions where there are lots of effective AA you use a drone or a missile like cruse. Then it matters a lot less if they shoot the thing down.

Between helicopters and drones there are no missions which would be better done by A-10s.

Funny how you can ignore anything that you do not like, and just pontificate on your own.

The very point of the A-10 is that it operates below the capabilities of the majority of SAM systems. A fact I have pointed out over and over again, but you keep ignoring over and over again.

But apparently to you everything ever made is better then the A-10, so how about giving us what makes you such an expert in this field?

I am sorry but going off your posts in this thread it seems like you don't have much knowledge about this topic.

Really not, especially since he keeps returning to the exact same bogus argument over and over again.

That's what he said...

Then people wonder why I no longer pay attention to what some people post.

Sorry, but I only deal in reality. In the capabilities of systems that are in the field now, or very close to being deployable. Not sci-fi fantasy about future intelligent robot drones that do not need human pilots, not in supersonic submarines, not in death rays, or any of that coprolite. I also do not deal in propaganda or nationalistic nonsense, just simple facts.

 

[joko104]

I never said that the A-10 was like the P-51. Am I constricted to like-minded planes?

I assume by that figure you mean the entire fleet of A-10's? Worth it when those will be much more effective than two B-2's would be at the same cost.

So you would give up 2 B-2s to keep the A-10s?

Do you think the ground support and maintenance crew for 2 B-2s could handle servicing all the A-10s everywhere?

It is not just the cost of the aircraft. It also is the continual training costs of hundreds of new A-10 pilots and continual training costs of maintenance crews - and the continual maintenance costs of upgrading the hundreds of A-10s including the electronics.

I don't think many people understand the costs, staff and support equipment involved in keeping aircraft flying. War birds are not like commercial jet liners that you can just keep refueling and sending back up for weeks and months.

 

[joko104]

Funny how you can ignore anything that you do not like, and just pontificate on your own.

The very point of the A-10 is that it operates below the capabilities of the majority of SAM systems. A fact I have pointed out over and over again, but you keep ignoring over and over again.

But apparently to you everything ever made is better then the A-10, so how about giving us what makes you such an expert in this field?



Really not, especially since he keeps returning to the exact same bogus argument over and over again.



Then people wonder why I no longer pay attention to what some people post.

Sorry, but I only deal in reality. In the capabilities of systems that are in the field now, or very close to being deployable. Not sci-fi fantasy about future intelligent robot drones that do not need human pilots, not in supersonic submarines, not in death rays, or any of that coprolite. I also do not deal in propaganda or nationalistic nonsense, just simple facts.

Is there ANY outdated weapons system you don't want the military to use rather than modern weapons systems? Any at all? Do you also advocate blimps? Double winged aircraft could really get in low and slow. Any limit you want of what the military could no longer do?

The A-10 is a dinosaur not applicable in 99% of situations calling for air power and there are other systems that can take care of that 1% - and do it better.

 

[Paxaeon]

Look at the development cost of the superhornet. Note the date. Factor in inflation. :2wave:

`
I'll side with the pro's on this....The F-35 is a colossal waste of tax dollars. I respond well to facts when presented and you have provided none.

 

[joko104]

We are involved in many theaters of engagement now - and in many ready-to-battle stages elsewhere.

Name ONE where the A-10 is being used? Name any battle potential where only the A-10 can get the job done? The list of things the A-10 can't do is almost endless.

And don't use the claim the A-10 is cheap. It costs about the same in terms of maintenance, air crew and group crew as other aircraft to keep flying and ready to go.

 

[joko104]

Funny how you can ignore anything that you do not like, and just pontificate on your own.

The very point of the A-10 is that it operates below the capabilities of the majority of SAM systems. A fact I have pointed out over and over again, but you keep ignoring over and over again.

But apparently to you everything ever made is better then the A-10, so how about giving us what makes you such an expert in this field?



Really not, especially since he keeps returning to the exact same bogus argument over and over again.



Then people wonder why I no longer pay attention to what some people post.

Sorry, but I only deal in reality. In the capabilities of systems that are in the field now, or very close to being deployable. Not sci-fi fantasy about future intelligent robot drones that do not need human pilots, not in supersonic submarines, not in death rays, or any of that coprolite. I also do not deal in propaganda or nationalistic nonsense, just simple facts.

What you deal in? WWII mentality, and even then wrongly.

In air battles, technological superiority is everything.

But what you want is OTHER countries to have death rays, intelligent drones, stealth, and all-critical electronic superiority. The Air Force would still be flying Buffaloes under your reasoning and aircraft carriers never built.

 

[Bodi]

So you would give up 2 B-2s to keep the A-10s?

Do you think the ground support and maintenance crew for 2 B-2s could handle servicing all the A-10s everywhere?

It is not just the cost of the aircraft. It also is the continual training costs of hundreds of new A-10 pilots and continual training costs of maintenance crews - and the continual maintenance costs of upgrading the hundreds of A-10s including the electronics.

I don't think many people understand the costs, staff and support equipment involved in keeping aircraft flying. War birds are not like commercial jet liners that you can just keep refueling and sending back up for weeks and months.

I would take the A-10's over the B-2's in a heartbeat along with all the pilots, training and over head.

 

[joko104]

I would take the A-10's over the B-2's in a heartbeat along with all the pilots, training and over head.

Wow. Who needs bombs or stealth, or for that matter nukes, when you have big machine guns, huh? As long as we have a slow, short range, highly visible aircraft with a big machine gun no country is every going to mess with us and we can't lose.

And one thing ground troops absolutely don't want is air support that hangs around for more than a few minutes for a couple of straffing runs - and is based at least a couple hundred miles away that can't pick up any wounded or bring supplies like those damn helicopters can.

 

[Bodi]

Wow. Who needs bombs or stealth, or for that matter nukes, when you have big machine guns, huh? As long as we have a slow, short range, highly visible aircraft with a big machine gun no country is every going to mess with us and we can't lose.

And one thing ground troops absolutely don't want is air support that hangs around for more than a few minutes for a couple of straffing runs - and is based at least a couple hundred miles away that can't pick up any wounded or bring supplies like those damn helicopters can.

What are you talking about. I said 2 B-2's for all the A-10's. We would still have all sorts of stealth aircraft including B-2's. Why would we lose the nukes or other fighters?

The A-10 is simply bad ****ing ass on the battlefield. It makes mince meat of tanks and armoured columns as well as soldiers. Why would wouldn't want them is the confusion thing,

 

[Oozlefinch]

I would take the A-10's over the B-2's in a heartbeat along with all the pilots, training and over head.

Especially since the A-10 is one of the least expensive aircraft in our inventory to operate and keep in working condition.

You can fly an A-10 for 8 hours for what it costs to operate a B-2 for 1 hour. And this incorporates such things as fuel and ordinance costs, maintenance costs, training costs, and replacement parts and upgrades. The A-10 is one of the least expensive aircraft we have ever had in our inventory both in cost per unit and cost per flight hour.

 

[joko104]

What are you talking about. I said 2 B-2's for all the A-10's. We would still have all sorts of stealth aircraft including B-2's. Why would we lose the nukes or other fighters?

The A-10 is simply bad ****ing ass on the battlefield. It makes mince meat of tanks and armoured columns as well as soldiers. Why would wouldn't want them is the confusion thing,

For more than a year, the A-10 has been the subject of one of the Pentagon’s fiercest budget fights with Congress. The Air Force wants to retire the jet in favor of funding the newer F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. By eliminating the A-10, the Air Force brass believes it could save more than $4 billion. The military also says the plane—the newest of which was built in 1984—cannot survive or operate effectively in combat missions against advanced defenses. “The time has come to move forward,” Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said in a July interview with Breaking Defense, an online magazine that covers the military and defense industry.

 

[joko104]

The $4 billion represents just over 2% of the TOTAL Air Force budget.

The Air Force operates 2/3rds of our nuclear triade - ballistic missiles and bombers. The Air Force operates space surveillance technology and operations. The Air Force does a large share all aircraft based surveillance. The Air Force has it's fighter force. It's air refueling. The Air Force trains ground crews and maintenance personnel for the other branches. The Air Force is responsible for drones and drone technology. The Air Force has to design and update electronic warfare and security systems.

BUT because 30 year old aircraft with a big machine gun is cool the Air Force instead should spend over 2% of its total budget on those. \

Fortunately, our military leaders and planners are old people whose view of military systems are nostalgia for cool old war machines.

The P38 with its 20mm cannons was really cool. Why not have those instead of the A-10? A 40mm cannon could be put into a B25, something even the A-10 can't carry or we could put 4 30cal gatlin guns into B29s. Maybe the Air Force should build those? They'd be much cheaper, carry more ammo and have a much longer range.

 

[joko104]

These advocacies of maintaining antiquated military systems - which inherently means at the cost of new systems - are joke nostalgia threads.

Costing the same to operate, which would win in a fight: F16 versus A10? I say F16 hands down. The I-like-old-stuff folks apparently say the A10.

Which better supports ground troops? The AH-1 and or A-10? I say the AH-1. It can be kept close, doesn't need an airfield. It can say directly over an area for hours, but both bring and pick up from the ground. The A-10 can't do any of that.

Which would be better on a bombing mission? A B-2 or an A-10. I say a B-2. But apparently some claim the A-10.

Again, fortunately our military planners aren't old foolish armchair warriors with only visions of the past.

 

[joko104]

Especially since the A-10 is one of the least expensive aircraft in our inventory to operate and keep in working condition.

You can fly an A-10 for 8 hours for what it costs to operate a B-2 for 1 hour. And this incorporates such things as fuel and ordinance costs, maintenance costs, training costs, and replacement parts and upgrades. The A-10 is one of the least expensive aircraft we have ever had in our inventory both in cost per unit and cost per flight hour.

That's because it is really crappy compared to the others on the chart.

 

[joko104]

Yea, less then half of what he claimed.



And do you really plan to fight all future wars on what we are fighting right now?

"These days", you mean the last couple of years. Because it was only a decade ago that we were in division sized battles and fighting actual wars.

You know the old saw, right? The most sure way to loose the next war is to plan to fight again the last war. And your "last war" is the current insurgency.

You do not use this as the future plan for fighting wars and battles. Unless you like seeing our troops return home in body bags.

Except you only plan for past battles, not future ones.

 

[joko104]

Apparently many on this thread believes the singular purpose of all branches of service is to defend and support infantry.

For the A-10 to even operate safely we must first have total control of the air as it could not take on enemy fighters. That means its our infantry versus their's. But apparently ours cannot function without all branches of service dedicated for the primary role of supporting the infantry.

The largest budget for the branches of service already is the Army. Apparently they want the Navy and Air Force budgets to be spent on the Army too.

Maybe there's something wrong with our infantry tactics if they can not function without our entire military existing for them, where the other side doesn't need any air or naval support whatsoever in opposition.