"Another A-10 thread" Topic

The USAF is preparing for the eventuality of being forced by congress to maintain its A-10 fleet (rejoice!), by proposing alternative cuts of either retiring its remaining B-1B's (all 66 of them) or putting 350 F-16's into long-term storage:

link

Which is more palatable, retiring the B-1's or reducing the Viper fleet?

Considering we're going to replace the F-16s with F-35s anyway, I think we can handle a few years with a few less F-16s/F-35s in the fleet. There is nothing 350 Vipers can do that the remainder of the Air Force can't already do (better).

I'd say slash the F-15C/D fleet. It's an ageing one trick pony.

Then slash a chunk of the F-16 fleet whilst leave the SEAD/DEAD squadrons and ANG air defence squadrons.

I'd also get rid of the B-52 nuclear role and then slash either the B-52 or B-1B.

I'd also reduce the A-10 fleet – 350 aircraft is a lot.

That would allow funding for:

- Restarting canned F-16 upgrade to enable them to serve to 2030 (as originally planned)

- Upgrade F-15Es to true multi-role capability complete with AESA radar (already planned but I don't think funding has been allocated).

- Help fund additional C-130H replacement program

- Allow funding to be freed up for Long Range Strike Bomber to replace current strategic bomber force.

There is nothing 350 Vipers can do that the remainder of the Air Force can't already do

Not true.

The F-16 is the only DEAD/SEAD tasked jet in the USAF. SEAD/DEAD refers to destruction/suppression of enemy ground based air defence. F-16 uses AGM-88 HARM for this role.

F-16 is also a far more economical asset for air policing over the continental USA. (i.e. intercepting errant civilian aircraft). F-15 is too expensive for this role.

<quote> There is nothing 350 Vipers can do that the remainder of the Air Force can't already do (better).</quote>

Isn't the f-16 called the "Falcon"?

I guess if they drop it, then there won't be another "Iron Eagle" movie (Which is ironic since the F15 is the "Eagle")

Most F16 pilots call them Vipers.

I honestly think that the cuts to the F16 fleet would be a better option to retiring all the B1s. The B1s have a huge conventional payload, 50% greater than a B2.

Cutting government waste, fraud, and abuse would easily permit all of the above to be fully funded, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

Not true.

The F-16 is the only DEAD/SEAD tasked jet in the USAF. SEAD/DEAD refers to destruction/suppression of enemy ground based air defence. F-16 uses AGM-88 HARM for this role.

F-16 is also a far more economical asset for air policing over the continental USA. (i.e. intercepting errant civilian aircraft). F-15 is too expensive for this role.

Read my post again, there is nothing 350 F-16s can do that the REMAINDER of the Air Force can't already do. The remainder of the Air Force would include another 800-900 F-16s, ergo its a non-issue.

Pilot superstition: never call an aircraft by its given name falcon is viper, thunderbolt II is warthog and B52 is a BUFF

I say keep all of the B-1s and F-16 and A-10 then kill the F-35 project.

Read my post again, there is nothing 350 F-16s can do that the REMAINDER of the Air Force can't already do. The remainder of the Air Force would include another 800-900 F-16s, ergo its a non-issue.

Oh I see.