Posted on 10/20/2019 10:52:08 AM PDT by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
Too bad YOU aren’t the Mach 2 jet jock top brass making the decisions.
Two seater was a prototype of an A-10 for night missions.
Sadly, to re-build and start a production line is REALLY expensive. Being essentially a single mission jet, the powers that be are thinking a multi-mission jet and are for some reason favoring a less capable jet for the air-to-ground role (JSF).
Thank you. My sincere pleasure.
I thank you for paying me to learn to fly jets, and then paying me to fly the A-10.
There are and were a lot of weapons that the troops loved, that the brass hated. Sometimes the troops hated a truly effective weapons system — like, for instance, the Sherman tank. There were tons of reasons that the Sherman “made sense” for an army that would be fighting thousands of miles overseas. Looked at from the Sherman crew perspective I can say that I don’t blame them.
The A-10 has lots of virtues. Chief among them is it’s ability to operate from relatively crude forward bases like Bagram. OTOH, it lacks the speed of an F-16 or F/A-18 to deliver ordnance to more distant locations where a company might be pinned down on a ridgeline. If the A-10 is already on-station great. But an intelligent enemy isn’t going to attack when it knows the A-10’s are around. So right away your preferred air platform in Afghanistan is handicapped.
A very small fraction of what just developing a replacement would cost.
Say, did that congressionally called for demo of the F-35 vs. A-10 CAS capability ever happen?
Multiple reasons -
1. The original tooling was destroyed long ago - by order of Congress. IIRC, Dick Cheney had more than a little to do with that.
2. Even if the original tooling still existed, modern manufacturing has *seriously* moved on since the 1970s when this plane was being developed. The old way would cost way more and be way slower than modern methods.
3. The original manufacturer and most of the suppliers are long gone.
4. It would likely cost more to make tooling to reproduce the original plane in its entirety using the old techniques than it would to design a new one using new technology.
What we should be doing (and should have been doing since 2000) is designing a brand new, tougher, more heavily armed and armored replacement for the A-10. You can only slap upgrades and rebuilds on an old platform for so long before it becomes a case of diminishing returns.
My take would be such that the sentiments and opinions on what systems should be in place to make our men and women so respected AND feared on the battlefield be taken into account. It should be a standard that an adversary look at the possibility of facing our warriors and ultimately demure, preferring to negotiate rather than suffer a devastating onslaught that would only result in tremendous wailing and sorrow in their capitals and countrysides.
The sight of our flag and our arrayed forces should strike terror into any adversary's hearts.
Not that our warriors be used as props or toys to be played with by those in power, but to be used when absolutely necessary and when all prudent options are exhausted. Once committed, however, the fight should be short and sweet. And resoundingly positive.
I think there’s a bombing range out at Fort Indiantown Gap. They’ll use regional airports like Lancaster for T&G’s so that the pilots can keep their proficiency up.
I used to live in Brickerville and later over in Northern York County. I used to see the A-10’s swooping over Ski Roundtop. I presumed that they were shooting approaches over at New Cumberland Airport or possibly Harrisburg International where I used to see KC-135’s & Ospreys.
The A-10 will take tremendous damage and bring the pilot home. No question. But the other problem is a stat that doesn’t get reported — how many of those 700 original airframes have already been written off due to battle damage? I don’t know, but I suspect that the cumulative number is between 20 & 40%. These planes have been in heavy use since the first Gulf War.
That’s my thought. I used to live in the Lititz area and still see them flying in the neighborhood, from time to time. I’ve also seen Navy training planes of some sort, smaller Cessna types with US Navy markings, doing touch and goes at LNS.
716 were built, only 281 remain in inventory.
Many have in fact timed out, been rendered unservicable or otherwise have had to be retired. There’s something like 30 unflyable examples on display to give you some idea.
Someone told me long ago the A-10 had a "bathtub" that kept the crew well protected and that the airframe was constructed to take punishment. Whether the present A-10 is upgraded or an equally formidable successor based upon the design is developed, it seems to me that the creature is still a useful tool in the arsenal.
“I’ve also seen Navy training planes of some sort, smaller Cessna types with US Navy markings, doing touch and goes at LNS.
There are a few T-28 Trojans (former Navy trainers) in private ownership and a few of those still sport Navy paint jobs. When I lived out in central PA there were 2 or 3 of them hangared over at Smoketown Airport. The T-28 looks like a mini A-1 Skyraider. Big @ss radial engine in the nose. There are also a lot of T-6 Texans (Navy version is SNJ) in private hands. Some of those sport their original military paint schemes.
OK. Maybe those are what I have seen. Thanks for the info!
Yes! Turns out that among other problems, the F-35 *cannot* provide enough sorties to replace the A-10.
Hear! Hear!
Add carrier take off and landing capability and have The Marines fly it!
Don't give it to a branch that hates it and wants to be no slower than Mach 2 and no closer than 35,000 vertical feet to any actual combat!
“716 were built, only 281 remain in inventory.”
OK. So now I’m putting you in the hypothetical position of a pentagon USAF 3-star general and your job is to balance the budget priorities for the USAF. $48 million to re-wing and update (say 50%) of your 281 flyable A-10 airframes is chickenfeed. An easy ‘Yes’. But then you have to balance that with the needs to replace a big chunk of your F-15 & F-16 fleets with F-35’s. And THAT gets you very quickly into the training of future pilots. Each fighter pilot is going to cost you about $10 million before he hits his/her first operational squadron. 281 X $10M over say 5 years. Then there’s spare engines, fuel, training budgets. Again it’s not a huge percentage of the budget, but it is still a single-mission aircraft.
To put it into a sports analogy — would you trade your 1st round pick in 2020 for Tom Brady? The A-10 is the Tom Brady of ground attack aircraft. But it’s old and there isn’t a lot of mileage left even if you are a huge fan.
THAT would be interesting in a theater of operations!
There’s a bigger issue with the A-10 - it can’t really operate in an area where the US doesn’t have air supremacy because supersonic jets will likely blow it out of the sky. In areas where the US has air supremacy, it does very well.
“Add carrier take off and landing capability and have The Marines fly it!”
Today’s Marine Corps would insist that the new ground-support craft be STOVL and possibly stealthy. So there goes a huge chunk of your ordnance & loitering capability. Moving the A-10’s over to the Marines is unfortunately not going to be well received by either the USAF or the USMC.
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.