“We aren’t acquiring new A-10s (though maybe we should be), so the cost of maintaining the existing fleet isn’t that great in comparison to buying new F-35s and training pilots and air crews.”
We’re never acquiring any new A-10 aircraft again, because the tooling for the production line has already been destroyed some years ago.
The A-10 is not a substitute for the F-35. The F-35 is built as a multi-role replacement for a variety of aircraft such as the F-16 and F-18 aircraft which have reached end-of-life serviceability or are being retired for other reasons. Whether or not the F-35 will ever prove to be adequate for its intended multi-role purpose, it is all that the armed forces has available due to the insistence from Congress and the DoD to attempt to save money with an all purpose, fifth generation, stealth, and joint services strike fighter. The Air Force has no present hope of acquiring any alternative, so it must make this aircraft work until Congress and a future administration sees fit to fund and replace the F-35. In the past, the Air Force and Navy spent a lot of money on competitive aircraft designs, which allowed the best designs to replace those designs which failed to measure up to the tasks they were assigned. Now, each design is not allowed to have a competitor and becomes too important to allow failure.
“Yet the A-10 has a CRITICAL mission - to support the tens/hundreds of thousands of live bodies on the ground against tanks and APCs. It seems to me that the A-10 is an absolutely critical piece of the puzzle for maintaining our deterrent and fighting wars, and it is both very effective and relatively cheap at the same time.”
The other aircraft and squadrons which are not yet being retired because the A-10 is being retired are also an “absolutely critical piece of the puzzle,” so which other aircraft and squadrons would you retire instead of the A-10? Would you retire the B-1 strategic bomber fleet which has been used as a nuclear weapons deterrent and a bomber in recent military campaigns? Would you retire the rest of the B-52 bombers instead of the A-10? Would you retire the air refueling aircraft which save lives and keep numerous other aircraft flying where there are no airfields to refuel? Perhaps you propose to retire the air transport aircraft being used at full capacity to keep everyone supplied to save lives? Perhaps you dislike the F-16 and/or F-15 fighters and fighter-bombers and are willing to retire one-third of their aircraft? Exactly which aircraft and squadrons are you going to advise the Air Force Chief of Staff to retire so the A-10 aircraft and squadrons do not have to be retired?
The Air Force has been ordered to cut one trillion dollars from its budget in the next ten years. If other aircraft and squadrons are retired to save the A-10 from being retired now, which of those other aircraft and squadrons are you going to retire instead of the A-10 in the next round of cuts in a few years? Do you intend to retire the A-10 in the next round of cuts or yet another of those other aircraft and squadrons?
“AS SUCH, the only people who might possibly be considered as treasonous in this debate are (again, IMHO) those fanatical backers/beneficiaries of the F-35 who are trying to kill the A-10.”
If you don’t use the F-35 as the replacement for the F-15, F-16, and F18 aircraft reaching their end-of-life service, then what will you use? The A-10 is certainly not going to fulfill those roles, so what do you propose to use as their replacements?
Not doubting you in any way X but why would the A-10’s tooling be destroyed rather than saved? Strictly a costs, due to various reasons, issues or something elase?