I’m not saying the Air Force wasn’t dragging feet on the A-10.
I’m saying that constant reference to the A-10 are a non-starter, because it simply isn’t the most effective aircraft we have. Not by a long shot.
We use it in an explicit and limited role. Period.
It doesn’t go into unvetted and unattrited airspace.
It sure as hell doesn’t go alone if there’s enemy air or ADA.
Look at it for what it does and be happy, but also recognize its speed, range and deployment limitations.
Aircraft like the F-16 didn’t drop more ordnance simply because there were more of them. The did it because they got there FIRST, before A-10s were even allowed in the area and they got there faster and farther out. They also dropped their stuff A LOT more accurately. The deployment options for the F-16 and F/A-18 were simply much, much greater.
It’s a great thing that the A-10 “C” is finally getting a digital electronics and sensor suite. But all that stuff is still strapped to an aircraft that’s severely limited to its current role.
I thought the A-10 was for Soviet Armored columns? And they were to be with out ADA? Who knew?
Come on, the A-10 community is the red headed step child.
Last to get anything, and because it shows up late with little, it’s its fault.
I can see even in air uncontested enviroment, pressing down enemy with , relatively, more costly aircraft because you have many targets, distance and time problems. Once done, it doesn’t make sense to use up fighters dropping bombs on un air contested ground enemies.
I guess it is like the German that was captured in France and said of fighting Americans, ‘Now I know what it is like to fight a rich mans army.”