Grounding A-10s will save $4.2 billion, decision ‘clear’: USAF general

[Oldman1]

Can you please elaborate how it is?

You know its a tank buster. Have a couple of them and they can wipe out multiple tanks. They designed them to fight against the massive Soviet armies with their massive amount of tanks.

 

[janon]

Quite possibly the ugliest thing that has ever flown.

If there is any possibility of the US selling these, I hope India purchases 80-100 of them for cheap. That way we could immediately retire our mig-27s without suffering a number crunch. It's a shame to let these fine birds die a premature death in a boneyard.

 

[Oldman1]

Quite possibly the ugliest thing that has ever flown.

If there is any possibility of the US selling these, I hope India purchases 80-100 of them for cheap. That way we could immediately retire our mig-27s without suffering a number crunch. It's a shame to let these fine birds die a premature death in a boneyard.

In my opinion its one of the coolest looking aircraft.

 

[janon]

In my opinion its one of the coolest looking aircraft.

Which is why they say beauty is subjective!

 

[Battle Axe]

For Senior Members:

Won't it be prudent for PAF to ground ageing Mirages now, especially Mirage III aircrafts, they are a huge cost to maintain and then, there is no foreseeable conflict that involves us extensively bombing somewhere with Mirages. The F-7Ps can stay in to make numbers while the Mirages should just be shifted down to war time assets.

And the saved bucks can go to expanding the production facilities in Kamra to atleast 50 A/C per year, which we are capable of but are producing a hardly 20-30. Time to see the money bring spent on Mirages go into JFT Block II.

 

[Dandpatta]

If there was a mean machine that ever flew, it was this... the A-10 Warthog ! Never will there by a ferocious beast in the air than this!

The Soviets incidentally had their version of A-10 called the Su-25 .. but pales in the 'looks' department.

 

[Dash]

Using F16's and F35 instead of A10's will cut cost's? Sounds surprising, as the A10's lifecycle cost seems to be quite less than that f16's and F35's....

Saying that, F16's and F35 being multirole would be better consolidation of platforms, and move away from dedicated roles like close air support like the A10.... F16's and F35 can be used for air superiority, not A10's.....F16's are like tool box with varieties of tricks up their sleeve whereas A10's are just pure Hammers.

A better perspective would have been the cost to operate say a squadron of A10's for say 1000 flying hours and compare the same cost for f16 and f35, with weighted average due to multirole capabilities.

The world is moving towards more multi-role capabilities in one than specialized. I always felt A-10s are not so useful, that role could be partially devided by Apaches and F-16s.

 

[MilSpec]

The world is moving towards more multi-role capabilities in one than specialized. I always felt A-10s are not so useful, that role could be partially devided by Apaches and F-16s.

the difference being, neither f16/f35 nor the apache can sustain the beating that the A10 can...

 

[Penguin]

AMARC Experience - AMARC Experience (A10s in western most, left part)
The AMARC Experience - Area Guide (read)

If there was a mean machine that ever flew, it was this... the A-10 Warthog ! Never will there by a ferocious beast in the air than this!

The Soviets incidentally had their version of A-10 called the Su-25 .. but pales in the 'looks' department.

Su-25 Frogfoot

Northrop A-9 (which lost out against the A-10)

 

[illuminatidinesh]

A-9 and su-25 looks similar....
I love the A-10 though

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

The world is moving towards more multi-role capabilities in one than specialized. I always felt A-10s are not so useful, that role could be partially devided by Apaches and F-16s.

Really?

A-10 pilots train for 1 thing and 1 thing only. Shooting. No aerobatic twists and turns. Pulling the Trigger to save lives of platoon, companies, battalions. They consistently train with US Army/ Marines on exercises. No other AF plane has that amount of hours in CAS.

Read this http://www.reddit.com/comments/1qrhfq

US Soldiers/ Marines love the A-10 because it can get where it needs to go. You're not going to see any commander hesitate to bring an A-10 into any CAS situation, but they will give strict commands to anyone else.

You have to look at the entire picture.

The A-10 was forced on the USAF and since then they had a deep seeded hatred for the A-10 the only thing that kept it alive this long was the influence the US Army was able to get on Congress. The A-10 is also subordinated to the US Army, and the USAF has always wanted to show itself as an independent separate institution since they were separated from the US Army. The USAF always talked about how strategic bombing won WW2, and stylized the AF as single-handedly capable of winning any battle/war by itself. Which itself is at odds since the entire modern warfare strategy is based on combined-arms. The AF was greatly criticized in after the Vietnam War that it didn't take CAS seriously as it did the Strategic Bombings all over N. Vietnam, that was supposedly suppost to bring 'N. Vietnam to its knees'.

The A-10 production line was the ONLY line that was shut-down during President Reagan's spending on defense hay-day. The 80's was when if it was related to defense you could exceed the budget and still got a pat on the back. fyi. in the late 80's there was supposed to be a more modern A-10 version, guess who shot that down after the Defense Sect. approved it.

The USAF's old motto? 'Victory through Air Power alone'.

A better perspective would have been the cost to operate say a squadron of A10's for say 1000 flying hours and compare the same cost for f16 and f35, with weighted average due to multirole capabilities.

Is it better to have only multirole fighters, instead of dedicated ones like the A-10? Or will the cheaper cost of ownership of A-10s (compared to F-35s) negate that, and also the cost of maintaining that platform and all the personnel for it? In short, is this a good move?

Fun fact: for the same cost of building the F-35 and operating it for 5 decades, the country could fly the A-10 for another 342 years.

The Soviets incidentally had their version of A-10 called the Su-25 .. but pales in the 'looks' department.

Your comparing an all American Bold Eagle with a Tweety bird?

oh. and btw. the USAF is going to ask for a couple hundred billion $$$$ to commission a new Strategic Bomber design. Imagine that.

 

[SrNair]

This thing can use only when you got a complete air superiority.Other wise it is vulnerable to enemy fighter jets

 

[vostok]

Just today, to the Russian airbase in Kyrgyzstan arrived 4 more Su-25.

 

[janon]

This thing can use only when you got a complete air superiority.Other wise it is vulnerable to enemy fighter jets

What if fighter jets provide cover/escort? That's how our mig-27s, jaguars, and all other strike aircrafts operate.

 

[gambit]

This thing can use only when you got a complete air superiority.Other wise it is vulnerable to enemy fighter jets

You missed the point, which is CLOSE AIR SUPPORT.

Like it or not, and I am speaking as a die hard Air Force guy, every time ground troops are involved, then the air component of the war should be subordinate to ground objectives, in other words, air power should be used to support gaining Earth real estates and even air superiority should work towards this goal by doing its job. If ground troops need a COMPLEMENT to the helo, then air power should provide it, and if the A-10 has proven to be superior to other air resources, then the A-10 should be preserved. If air superiority is needed, then the Air Force should make that possible so the best CAS platform could do whatever necessary to support the Army.