USAF wants to scrap F-22

Ritch

LE
The A-10 isn't a fighter aircraft and as mentioned previously, the F18 isn't used by the USAF.

I think if the A-10 was retired any time soon, there would be outrage from the boots on the ground.

*I suspect @PhotEx will be along shortly to provide expert analysis from his endless internet trawls.*

Edit: Scratch that, he's already turned up.
 

RBMK

LE
Book Reviewer
As an aside.

The F/A-18, even the later models are also pretty crap being mostly 1970s technology, too slow and with not enough range.

I would say that the USN needs a F/A-18 replacement before anything else.
 
I’m amazed that the USAF still haven’t realised that - politically - only way to get rid of the A10 is with a replacement/successor aircraft.


No doubt developing it as some form of terminator 3 style VTOL flying tank that could replace attack helicopters would be a clever move as well.
 
The A-10 isn't a fighter aircraft and as mentioned previously, the F18 isn't used by the USAF.

I think if the A-10 was retired any time soon, there would be outrage from the boots on the ground.

*I suspect @PhotEx will be along shortly to provide expert analysis from his endless internet trawls.*

Edit: Scratch that, he's already turned up.
I suspect that the boots on the ground don't care that much about different models of aircraft, as long as the sky god's turn up in a timely manner and visit death and destruction on enemy forces. That's what I was told by family members who got into difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan. The truth is, as has been explained in here before, A-10 is far from the best close support aircraft. These days it's not necessary to go low and slow to achieve precision. An F-15 or B-1 can be overhead faster, and deliver smart munitions to ruin the bad guys' day just as effectively as a big gun going Braaaaaap. In a near peer conflict the A-10 couldn't even get into theatre until air superiority is established, and would be vulnerable to Manpads etc. An F-35 would be better in any contested environment.
The USAF knows that.
 
The USAF knows that.
As an aside.

The F/A-18, even the later models are also pretty crap being mostly 1970s technology, too slow and with not enough range.

I would say that the USN needs a F/A-18 replacement before anything else.
The F-15 and F-16 are both older platforms than the F18, (1976,1978 vs 1983) but still perfectly effective. Anyway, the F-18 is, in reality two rather different aircraft of different vintages (1999 for the E/F).
The USN's choice of F-18 replacement was the F-35C, it just won't get enough, soon enough, so will keep the F18 in service.
 

Ritch

LE
I suspect that the boots on the ground don't care that much about different models of aircraft, as long as the sky god's turn up in a timely manner and visit death and destruction on enemy forces. That's what I was told by family members who got into difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan. The truth is, as has been explained in here before, A-10 is far from the best close support aircraft. These days it's not necessary to go low and slow to achieve precision. An F-15 or B-1 can be overhead faster, and deliver smart munitions to ruin the bad guys' day just as effectively as a big gun going Braaaaaap. In a near peer conflict the A-10 couldn't even get into theatre until air superiority is established, and would be vulnerable to Manpads etc. An F-35 would be better in any contested environment.
The USAF knows that.
B-1 is slowly being taken out of service and will be replaced by the B-21 Raider. It also can take an age to get into position (or reposition in case of mis-drop). I do think the A-10 fills a certain role.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
In a near peer conflict the A-10 couldn't even get into theatre until air superiority is established, and would be vulnerable to Manpads etc. An F-35 would be better in any contested environment.
The USAF knows that.

not disputing this for a second, but the USSR / Warpac forces in central europe in the 80s, if it had kicked off, were hardly struggling for anti-air kit. what was the plan back then if the A-10 was so helpless??
 

RBMK

LE
Book Reviewer
When the A-10 was built we didn't have the range of precision munitions available, and MANPADS weren't as effective. The A-10s job would have been to take out the hoardes of T-72s rolling across Poland and Germany in the event of WW3 kicking off. They would have operated under an umbrella of fast movers who would be keeping the MiGs away.

Things have changed somewhat since then.

ETA: Boeing have tried to sell surplus A-10s to other countries but this has been repeatedly been blocked by the USAF so there must be a market for them. They must be seen as useful otherwise why would their sale be blocked?
 
The A-10 is not a fighter and is thus not well regarded by the USAF.

One of the former heads of the USAF had a son who flew A-10’s. He was once heard to joke that he no longer had a son...

And yet the boys on the ground like them when a local action can only be won by taking loads of infantry casualties - or calling in an A10
Not an enemy armoured vehicle in sight but it is their air support of choice in very recent History.

Maybe its replacement should come from Army / Marines budget - not Airforce ?
 
And yet the boys on the ground like them when a local action can only be won by taking loads of infantry casualties - or calling in an A10
Not an enemy armoured vehicle in sight but it is their air support of choice in very recent History.

Maybe its replacement should come from Army / Marines budget - not Airforce ?

Whether 'the boys on the ground like them' is utterly immaterial, what is by far the most important factor is the effect you wish to achieve.

The USAF have provided CAS in theatres various and from platforms various for decades; the 'we want CAS flown by grunts' arguments died a long time ago.
 
Whether 'the boys on the ground like them' is utterly immaterial, what is by far the most important factor is the effect you wish to achieve.

The USAF have provided CAS in theatres various and from platforms various for decades; the 'we want CAS flown by grunts' arguments died a long time ago.

I understand that . The arguments have been revisited multiple times in the last 20+ ( 70!+) years.
And at all levels DoD, Political, Media , Grunt on ground, Arrse and elsewhere.

I get all the factors of time to target, loitering time, munitions load and effectiveness.

Yes - an F16 etc can deliver a precision strike from 20k ft with the same munitions and same guidance systems.

There appears to be a massive morale booster in an airframe designed to fly 'down and dirty' and 'in your face' - especially in recent conflict.

It lifts spirits in our people and it taunts some of Alans mates to make rash decisions - and get smashed again.
 
I understand that . The arguments have been revisited multiple times in the last 20+ ( 70!+) years.
And at all levels DoD, Political, Media , Grunt on ground, Arrse and elsewhere.

I get all the factors of time to target, loitering time, munitions load and effectiveness.

Yes - an F16 etc can deliver a precision strike from 20k ft with the same munitions and same guidance systems.

There appears to be a massive morale booster in an airframe designed to fly 'down and dirty' and 'in your face' - especially in recent conflict.

It lifts spirits in our people and it taunts some of Alans mates to make rash decisions - and get smashed again.
An F16 can do a show of force aswell? It's not stapled to an altitude!

@Magic_Mushroom who had alot of experience of actual air ops of Afghan as a E3 Sentry Mission Commander told tales the last time this came up that he often couldn't get A10s to troops in contact because they were so slow!

The likelyhood of Afghan style ops is minimal in the future.
 
An F16 can do a show of force aswell? It's not stapled to an altitude!

@Magic_Mushroom who had alot of experience of actual air ops of Afghan as a E3 Sentry Mission Commander told tales the last time this came up that he often couldn't get A10s to troops in contact because they were so slow!

The likelyhood of Afghan style ops is minimal in the future.
1.Yes - see my 2nd paragraph.

2. I highly value M_M's input

3. I think we are in for plenty more Proxy Wars.
Anything else today - we are big hitters in something we really don't want to happen.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
And yet the boys on the ground like them when a local action can only be won by taking loads of infantry casualties - or calling in an A10
Not an enemy armoured vehicle in sight but it is their air support of choice in very recent History.

Maybe its replacement should come from Army / Marines budget - not Airforce ?

US Army aviation is very limited and I believe they're prohibited from operating fast jet types. the USAF brass hate the A-10 but they're loathe to let the army in on what they see as their turf, from what I'm led to understand.
 
US Army aviation is very limited and I believe they're prohibited from operating fast jet types. the USAF brass hate the A-10 but they're loathe to let the army in on what they see as their turf, from what I'm led to understand.

As I understand it - they DON'T exactly hate the A-10
It had its Time and Place - but Ivan never showed up.

It just does not fit in with Future Projection and associated Budgets,

The fact that troops on the ground want the best support that is possible - AT THAT TIME - may be wibble to some people.

I think there is a case for air cover totally in control of Army Groups on the ground.

Small, Local, tactical.
A-10 does it and is sexy.
+ 40 years and I think we can do even better.
 
not disputing this for a second, but the USSR / Warpac forces in central europe in the 80s, if it had kicked off, were hardly struggling for anti-air kit. what was the plan back then if the A-10 was so helpless??
A liberal sprinkling of tactical nukes.

Don’t believe all of the hype that gets pushed out about weapon systems either modern day or in the past.

Do you really think USAF would be having people volunteering to fly A10s with a very low chance of survival?

Had things gone shooty shooty bang bang there’d have been planes and helicopters falling from the sky as well as a significant amount of artillery from both sides.

Remember that this was a time when many front line units were little more than a speed bump expected to last no more than 12 - 24 hours.

Soviet kit wasn’t too shabby, neither was training and doctrine. I’ll let you into a little secret. They would’ve been a hell of a lot less predictable than genforce and a lot more flexible.

I don’t think I ever saw an excel use where we practised against their surprisingly effective deception techniques.
 
US Army aviation is very limited and I believe they're prohibited from operating fast jet types. the USAF brass hate the A-10 but they're loathe to let the army in on what they see as their turf, from what I'm led to understand.
Its not a codified regulation, it was/is an agreement between the Army and USAF, and USN.

The Key West agreement of 1948



 

Latest Threads

Top