| Tango01 | 13 Aug 2014 9:21 p.m. PST |
"In February 2014, Secretary of Defense Hagel briefed that retiring the A-10 fleet would save $3.5 USD billion over five years That equals a savings of $700 USD million per year, not exactly chump change. A few months later, in April, the Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Mark Welsh , actually bumped the estimate up by exactly $700 USD million to $4.2 USD billion. This means either the A-10's annual operating expenses went up by 20% to $840 USD million per year, or the new savings is calculated over six years instead of five. Either way, the intended message was unambiguous: Air Force leadership did some math and made a logical decision. Retiring the A-10 fleet will save a lot of money and these days saving money is a necessity, not an option. But in June, the House of Representatives voted to prevent the Air Force…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
 Legion 4  | 14 Aug 2014 7:06 a.m. PST |
Yeah … like that's going to happen … |
| GROSSMAN | 14 Aug 2014 8:20 a.m. PST |
Is there anyuone out there (who doesn't work for a defense contractor) that would trade 300 A-10s for 30 F-35s? |
| ernieR | 14 Aug 2014 9:13 a.m. PST |
if i was a grunt on the ground i'd happily trade 300 F-35s for 30 A-10s . |
| Tgerritsen | 14 Aug 2014 9:40 a.m. PST |
That's a neat trick the author pulls in that article. 'We can save the Air Force enough money by cutting F-35's out of the Navy and Marine Corps budget…' I wonder how the Navy and Marine Corps feel about taking a hit to their budget to bolster the Air Force. The better way to save the A10 would be to give them straight over to the Army and let them have them, though the Air Force would never let that happen. I'm a huge A10 fan, but it is getting long in tooth. I don't for a minute buy that an F35 (or even an F16) could replace an A10 other than for the Fast Pass, Haul Ass kind of CAS, but I have to wonder at how truly survivable any manned craft would be in the weeds against an enemy that had modern aa kit. Even with the new C model upgrades for the A10, I have to wonder how survivable it is outside of insurgency situations. They'd be fantastic against ISIL, but even 20 years ago, A10 pilots were really worried about how good the Russian missile technology was getting. It's one thing to be confident that your plane can take the hit, it's quite another to have to put it to the test. |
| Mako11 | 14 Aug 2014 4:52 p.m. PST |
Only takes 3 x F-35Bs to save $700 USD million a year. |
| Ron W DuBray | 14 Aug 2014 5:24 p.m. PST |
No other US air craft would have made it home after this hit
or this one
link or this one
|
| Legion 4 | 15 Aug 2014 7:40 a.m. PST |
She can certainly take a beating … |
| Dynaman8789 | 15 Aug 2014 9:49 a.m. PST |
The question is not if other aircraft would have survived those hits – it is if other aircraft would have been hit at all. I love the A-10 but at this point it is being kept around for nostalgia's sake. AH-64s can do the close in work better and fast movers the long range work. |
| Lion in the Stars | 15 Aug 2014 2:00 p.m. PST |
Apaches don't have the utter bombload of an A10. Apaches can haul maybe 2000lbs, while an A10 carries 16,000lbs. 8 times the payload of an Apache. |
| Dynaman8789 | 15 Aug 2014 3:16 p.m. PST |
Which means practically nothing, the Apache still gets the job done. |
| Whitestreak | 15 Aug 2014 6:10 p.m. PST |
Lol. "It is if other aircraft would have been hit at all" Man, that is funny. Almost as funny as the idea that the Apache can do it better. The AH-64 is a wonderful aircraft & does its job well. F-16s, F-18s & F-15s do their jobs well. A dedicated CAS bird will do that well, too. Either a new version of the A-10 or something new, but I wouldn't expect one of the four above to do that job well. |
| Legion 4 | 16 Aug 2014 4:00 p.m. PST |
As a Grunt in my youth, I worked with A-10s and AH-1s. Would be glad to have either or both in support … As I would AH-64s or any of the other aircraft mentioned … CAS IS GOOD …  |
| Lion in the Stars | 17 Aug 2014 11:27 a.m. PST |
The question is not if other aircraft would have survived those hits – it is if other aircraft would have been hit at all. Let's see here, the A10 has a lower IR signature than anything other than the F117, and the newest IR-guided MANPADS are all-aspect (so would even lock onto an F117 from skin friction). So you're still looking at missile hits. And any aircraft down in the weeds can be hit by AA guns. So you're still dealing with the possibility of gun hits. |
| Deadone | 17 Aug 2014 7:35 p.m. PST |
Given current medium altitude tactics, the A-10s not getting hit by MANPADS/AA and neither are the F-15/-16/18s. Given current opponents (insurgents) they're not even getting hit by MANPADS/AA because Taliban don't field them and most of the Iraqis ones are obsolete SA-7 types. They're not getting hit by the average medium-high radar guided missiles because most of the systems still in service are obsolete SA-2/-3/-6 systems easily defeated by US electronic warfare. In general most countries don't even operate these.
However against the rare modern IADS based on S300, even F-15/-16/18 will struggle. These are anywhere up to Mach 6 in speed so even a Mach 2 fighter will struggle avoiding them if they have a lock and EW isn't working. Luckily these systems are rare as hens teeth.
The Israelis have said the F-35 stealth advantage will only last only 5 years in a Middle Eastern scenario (so that's about 2025 given service entry in 2019-20 for Israel). The USN has questioned viability of emphasis on stealth. Hence survivability is not an issue in any current scenario unless it's a war against China/Russia F-15/-16/18 does have a speed advantage in terms of response time. They are also truly multirole not just in terms of A2A and A2G but often reconnaissance, SEAD/DEAD and in F/A-18E/Fs case, A2A refuelling. |
explores another variant in the European Buildings range.
