Senate Panel Dodges A-10 Retirement Decision

a reply to: TDawgRex

anything that can fly after half of it is shot off is a tough mother not worth getting rid of. Its designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator, and half of one wing missing! Also its better for belly landings and even without primary or secondary hydraulics it can be flown using a mechanical backup. Landing gear can deploy and lock with nothing but gravity and wind resistance. I mean the thing is a beast.

Its ugly, slow, and not a fighter pilots shiny dream machine but its effective, durable, and proven.

The army should get them since they make the most use of them.

I have always loved the A-10. I hope they keep them around for a while longer.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: mbkennel

I agree A-10s would be better against MANPADs or even other attack helicopters. Better but not invulnerable and as far as I am aware there aren't any current theater of operations where we are coming up against either and as Tdawg said the F-35 is slotted for those roles where they would fair better in both scenarios you presented than an A-10.

Really? These scenarios are both lower altitude ground attack. The RAM on the F-35 is OK for long range air-2-air and radar guided SAM but in the MANPAD and smaller unit level level the SAM threat is IR & visual targeted, not radar. The F-35 has one very hot engine without awesome kinematics and power of F-22, and A-10 has two much cooler turbofans and can actually survive hits.

And frankly the A-10 will deter the shooters from popping their heads & transporters up quite a bit more effectively.

Yes, maybe swarms of very cheap and scary drones would be an alternative (smart artillery in effect) instead of F-35 but none have the kind of gun the -10 has or the eyes & experience to distinguish friend from foe.

What's cheaper than drones? Drone jammers.

a reply to: boomer135

I really miss seeing Tops In Blue. They were fun to watch.

a reply to: mbkennel

Sorry but I will have to reiterate that a pair of Apaches could still fill the role for our current theaters of operations in conjunction with f-35s. If things change to where MANPADs become a threat then of course I will change my mind. If the A-10s were given to the Army that would work as well because there is nothing like having support in your direct chain.

I never brought up anything about drones, but I don't think those are a threat in our current theaters of operation either however I could be wrong it has been almost 7 years since I wore a uniform.

But keeping the A-10 flying is one of the few times I agree with Congress and not the USAF. They don't like the CAS mission anyways. I say give it back to the Army. The Marines already have theirs.

Doesn't even seem like the air force should be tasked with CAS in the first place. Let the army and the marines handle their own CAS and equip them with the tools, training, and the pilots to do so. The air force should be busy elsewhere with SEAD, DEAD, and maintaining air superiority over the battlefield. Lots of other important targets for the air force to hit on the ground behind the front lines in a conflict anyways. Just seems like a better idea from a logistical standpoint to let one branch handle it's own ass when the SHTF, and call in the air force if absolutely necessary.

The A-10 is a remarkable aircraft. It still has a role to play in any conventional military conflict the U.S could find itself in, and the F-35 is not even close to being an adequate replacement. Even Russia understood the necessity for such an aircraft and tried to mimic the A-10 with the SU-25, and yet it's still an inferior plane despite being newer than the A-10.

Unless the USAF has some black project they are about to roll out that is specifically designed for CAS, I have no idea what motivation they could have in replacing the hog. There's no way they could have that much faith in the F-35. The payloads aren't even comparable, the A-10 is practically a flying tank, and well...

This:

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: mbkennel

Sorry but I will have to reiterate that a pair of Apaches could still fill the role for our current theaters of operations in conjunction with f-35s. If things change to where MANPADs become a threat then of course I will change my mind. If the A-10s were given to the Army that would work as well because there is nothing like having support in your direct chain.

I never brought up anything about drones, but I don't think those are a threat in our current theaters of operation either however I could be wrong it has been almost 7 years since I wore a uniform.

A pair of apaches in conjunction with F-35's still can't do what A-10's can because apaches are not only reliant on terrain to do their jobs effectively, but they also lack the range and firepower that a-10's have. Neither apaches or f-35's can take the kind of punishment an a-10 can. Factor in payload, munitions capabilities, and range as well as susceptibility to AAA, small arms fire, and shoulder fired projectiles and there is just no comparison imo.

F-35's are better suited to replacing F-18 hornets as capable fighter bombers that can do multiple roles well, but there is no way they can excel at CAS to the degree the hog does.

I just don't see why anyone would even suggest scrapping the a-10.

see the difference??




a reply to: tkwasny

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I just don't see why anyone would even suggest scrapping the a-10.

Then maybe you should look into why they are suggesting it. I have already given my opinion and arguing with me has zero effect of changing policy.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: mbkennel

Sorry but I will have to reiterate that a pair of Apaches could still fill the role for our current theaters of operations in conjunction with f-35s. If things change to where MANPADs become a threat

Estonia? Ukraine?