Posted on 02/25/2014 1:56:03 PM PST by bkopto
TUCSON, AZ (Tucson News Now) - The Defense Secretary announced today that he is recommending the elimination of the A-10, the mainstay aircraft at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, as part of a proposed military budget.
Chuck Hagel made the announcement today in at the Pentagon.
The Air Force has said it would save $3.5 billion over five years by cutting the entire fleet of 343 A-10s.
Hagel said he consulted with the military service chiefs on how to balance defense and budget requirements.
(Excerpt) Read more at tucsonnewsnow.com ...
Bump to that!
Yeah ... I have been a fan of the ‘hog since the late 1970s ...
I always thought we should have kept the P-47 for close air support too although the A-10 should not be cut, nor the U-2. We need to dump the junky F-35.
The Embraer seems like a cool plane too.
The USAF has been trying to kill the A-10 since its introduction into service. They don’t low and slow. Fighter Mafia and all that. I don’t pin this so much on Obama as the Air Farce Brass. If it had been purely up to the USAF the B-52 would have been retired in the 1970s.
The USAF has been a Space and then Air Force for over a decade now. They see mud-moving somewhat beneath them in the classic sense of the A-10.
“The thing about bombs and missiles in a CAS role is - they run out.
A good pair of human eyes behind a 20MM cannon in a highly survivable machine has proved its worth over and over again.
They just forget - or choose not to remember.
But what do I know - they killed my bird, too (P-3s).”
A 30mm runs out shells eventually. No aircraft or mission is perpetually sustainable. An orbiting B-52 can carry literally hundreds of SDBs. All targeted via GPS within an inch or two of reality. Do you want an A-10 or a B-52 riding shotgun for you? The A-10 is a fantastic airplane but technology is a beast. And it’s catching up.
When the A-10 was originally envisioned it was an aircraft that would operate simply and solely in Western Europe. A modernized Stuka. When an orbiting F-18 now has the ability to drop a 100 lb munition into a cone the size of a picnic basket on command from 20,000 feet.......what then? If I a field commander with an orbiter with SBDs in the area why do I need the down and dirty? I pipe up the coordinates and moments later down rains Hell.
Sorry, but the initial U-2 airframe is a late 1950s product. I saw my first U-2, up close, in-flight, as it made its approach to the runway at Howard AFB, June 1962.
My mother and I ended up talking to some uniformed AF officers shortly thereafter - it took a while to convince them that we were sea shell collectors.
The people to ask are the grunts on the ground, pinned down under fire from a superior enemy force. We should ask them when they call in for DANGER CLOSE ordnance delivery would they rather tlk to an A10 driver who can see them in the trees or would they rather have some airman dropping a few 500-pounders from 50,000ft. I think I can guess that answer.
Good answer. The A-10 driver is relying upon 20 year old tech to pickle his ordinance. Other aircraft, not as much. Today an aircraft at 50K can hit a small CEP target with munitions.
Personally, a grunt on the ground, I don’t care what platform delivers the help so long as it gets there in a timely and effective manner. A-10. B-52. Piper Cub. If they can do it they are my best bud.
A Specter gun ship would probably do better than the A-10 at attacking ground forces but is very vulnerable to anti aircraft artillery and missiles.
For that reason the operate mainly at night.
I’m aware of the USAF feelings on the A-10. I did a little work on the A-10C test plans before leaving that world. I also spent enough time in the F-111 to be aware of the USAF’s feelings about ANY old plane.
However, I will admit that targeting pods are pretty incredible now, and someone dropping from 30K may well be more accurate than someone trying to drop at 100’. But then, I remember doing 10 deg dives with dumb bombs, and the difficulty of target acquisition.
“But then, I remember doing 10 deg dives with dumb bombs, and the difficulty of target acquisition.”
How many times an A-10 can support the men on the ground compared to the F-35?
An A-10 can deliver the same smart ammunition.
Weapons payload
F-35A/C: 8,100 kg
A-10A: 7,250 kg
Hardpoints:
F-35A/C: 6 + 2 internal bays
A-10: 11
Cannon:
F-35A/C: 25 mm / 180 rounds (3 seconds)
A-10: 30 mm / 1,200 rounds (17 / 34 seconds)
The A10 can deliver about the same weight of bombs and has more hardpoints to deliver smaller ones. The A-10 cannon can deliver 5 to 10 times more rounds.
The next thing is the VTOL F-35B has no internal gun, has less payload, has less range ... and is the dedicated future CAS aircraft for the Marines.
The difference is dumb rounds are about 100 times cheaper compared to smart ammunition not to mention the platform delivering the ammunition.
Dumping the A-10 won’t save a dime.
Pilots must train and you can’t do everything in a simulator.
http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/
Simulator time is also not quite cheap.
Post 66...new builds, maybe you’ll learn something.
The 80% factor is based on Flt hours...oh how do I know? Maybe I’m just some armchair dumbass who plays pretend with generalities on FR, like the vast majority who have outed themselves on this thread.
The average U-2S fleet aircraft has only used about 20 percent of its projected airframe life. That means the average Dragon Lady has almost 60,000 flight hours, 6,644 nine-hour missions or 35 years left on the airframe.
The Air Force has been trying for two years to kill Global Hawk, due to its lower operating altitude , less capable sensors and limitations such as an inability to operate in icing conditions .
Perhaps one attribute of interest is the U-2 ’s ability in a compromised, jammed environment . Pilots are able to navigate without a GPS signal , Austin says.
Did you read post#66? Try it, maybe you’ll learn something.
http://www.dvidshub.net/news/132787/one-flight-ultra-lord#.U5nXWxBdWtY
“People assume that because the U-2 has been in the news since the 50s that it is the same airplane,” he said. “That is quite far from the truth. The U-2 of today is an entirely new aircraft; it’s a better tool for the job than it’s ever been.”
Bartholomew continued, saying just because something is old doesn’t mean it needs to be thrown away.
“A fork hasn’t changed its shape in forever,” he said. “But the fork still works, so why would you change it? The basic shape of the U-2 hasn’t changed either, but the engine is new, the cockpit is new and the equipment we carry is all state-of-the-art.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.