Any decision on the A-10 retirement yet?

[Diamondback Six]

Someone who might expect to see a SERIOUS armor-crossing-the-border problem in the near future... Poland, Baltic States or Ukraine, maybe?

[spejic]

Someone who might expect to see a SERIOUS armor-crossing-the-border problem in the near future... Poland, Baltic States or Ukraine, maybe?

But that would be against the one nation with the most and best anti-A-10 weapons.

There is a market for low level, unguided weapon aircraft, but it has all gone to the Su-25 already. And it wasn't that big a market to begin with.

[Rank11]

But that would be against the one nation with the most and best anti-A-10 weapons.

There is a market for low level, unguided weapon aircraft, but it has all gone to the Su-25 already. And it wasn't that big a market to begin with.

That is because the Su-25 is the only aircraft in that market space. The A-10 primarily carries guided weapons like LGBs, Jdams and Maverick missiles.

[habu2]

Who would buy a 30-year-old, single role aircraft today? At least out of countries we would want to do business with?

The US regularly sells old F-16s out of AMARC to foreign governments.

edit: I tried to cite examples from f-16.net but I can't seem to access their site.

[Tony Stark]

That is because the Su-25 is the only aircraft in that market space.

Good point, and why is that? Why didn't the UK or France or Germany or Sweden develop an aircraft similar to the Su-25 or A-10?

The A-10 primarily carries guided weapons like LGBs, Jdams and Maverick missiles.

As do more survivable aircraft.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Tony Stark

[Rank11]

As do more survivable aircraft.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Compared with the 'more survivable' aircraft that I imagine you are referring to, such as the F-16 and F-15, the A-10 is the one with much more armor and design features for survivability. If you are thinking that those two planes can fly around unscathed over a battlefield within the heart of an SA-15 or S-300 envelope, then I think you are wrong. If you are comparing it to the promise of the F-35, then you need to realize that it only carries 2 Jdams. You will need three F-35 sorties to hit the same number of targets one A-10 has the capability of. And it isn't going to fly around for very long unscathed within the heart of a SAM envelope either. And if you lose one of those three, it's going to be a write off probably equivalent to a squadron of A-10s.

[11bee]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Compared with the 'more survivable' aircraft that I imagine you are referring to, such as the F-16 and F-15, the A-10 is the one with much more armor and design features for survivability. If you are thinking that those two planes can fly around unscathed over a battlefield within the heart of an SA-15 or S-300 envelope, then I think you are wrong. If you are comparing it to the promise of the F-35, then you need to realize that it only carries 2 Jdams. You will need three F-35 sorties to hit the same number of targets one A-10 has the capability of. And it isn't going to fly around for very long unscathed within the heart of a SAM envelope either. And if you lose one of those three, it's going to be a write off probably equivalent to a squadron of A-10s.

Titanium armor doesn't make the A-10 more survivable against a high level air defense system. At best it might keep the pilot alive long enough to eject when he is hit by a SAM. What keeps pilots alive and able to accomplish their mission is superior speed, sensors, maneuverability, LO features and the ability to use standoff weapons.

The A-10 works great against the Taliban (as do many other US platforms). Against Russian (or even a third world nation like Syria), it is pretty much useless.

Edited April 16, 2014 by 11bee

[TaiidanTomcat]

Titanium armor does make the A-10 more survivable against a high level air defense system. At best it might keep the pilot alive long enough to eject when he is hit by a SAM. What keeps pilots alive and able to accomplish their mission is superior speed, sensors, maneuverability, LO features and the ability to use standoff weapons.

The A-10 works great against the Taliban (as do many other US platforms). Against Russian (or even a third world nation like Syria), it is pretty much useless.

^this. The ability to take getting socked in the face better than others does not make you a superior boxer. Surviving fights is not winning fights, and what has happened in the past is A-10s do get shot down, and others limp back to base and are out of the fight for the duration. Some never returned to flying status.

The other problem is that the A-10 though armored is not a tank. Tanks don't need to fly. If the A-10 is damaged to the point that it can no longer remain in the air, the result is the same as any other aircraft.

We don't even need to bring up the F-35 in this case because so many of the A-10s peers already do it better in most cases, and there is a thread about the F-35 going on already.

Lastly the A-10 isn't the only airplane that can take hits and make it home, though some people seem to think that:

Missile hit

Mid Air

Midair

Aim-9 hit

Flak

Edited April 16, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[Tony Stark]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Compared with the 'more survivable' aircraft that I imagine you are referring to, such as the F-16 and F-15, the A-10 is the one with much more armor and design features for survivability. If you are thinking that those two planes can fly around unscathed over a battlefield within the heart of an SA-15 or S-300 envelope, then I think you are wrong. If you are comparing it to the promise of the F-35, then you need to realize that it only carries 2 Jdams. You will need three F-35 sorties to hit the same number of targets one A-10 has the capability of. And it isn't going to fly around for very long unscathed within the heart of a SAM envelope either. And if you lose one of those three, it's going to be a write off probably equivalent to a squadron of A-10s.

"Survivability" isn't being a flying tank. That's an approach to a problem that has since evolved beyond a nearly 45 year old solution. Every time an A-10 is shot up, it's out of the fight. best case scenario, it's repairable, but you're still down aircraft and manpower because for every person who's repairing an A-10, you're down that many people from hanging bombs on the ones that can fly. So now your turn around time is affected. It was the A-10s getting shot up over Iraq in 1991 that led to the return to medium and higher altitude strikes. Survivability is not getting hit in the first place.

Buzzing around low and slow in non-contested airspace (such as that in Afghanistan) is perfectly fine. You can do that job with an A-6, A-7 or even an AT-6 for that matter. But that same aircraft won't survive contested airspace. An S-300 or Tor M1 will tear the s**t out of a flight of F-15s or -16s just as easily as it would a flight of A-10s, long before any of those types got close to where they needed to be.

I'm aware that the F-35 only carries 2 JDAMs, I can count. I'm also aware that it can carry things like SDB IIs, which doubles it's internal bomb payload. A-10s in Afghanistan didn't carry much more than a few bombs, sometimes a Maverick and sometimes light rocket pods. Then again, an F-35 in a low threat environment such as Afghanistan doesn't need LO, so they can hang a lot more under the wings. You can't make an A-10 LO, no matter how much you cant the tails. CAS is a mission, not a particular aircraft. A 1,000-lb JDAM is overkill against most ground targets in a CAS-mission and a 250-lb GPS/INS guided bomb with a shaped-charge warhead, hitting a tank at speed will ruin its day. I am NOT a fan of the F-35, for reasons discussed in that thread and for reasons that aren't in it that I can't discuss here. I question it's survivability, but there's no question about the survivability of a 45 year old design against the current and next-gen IADs. At least with the F-35, you have some flexibility.

When you're faced with a budget crunch, you simply cannot have "all of the above." And it's far easier to adapt a high-threat capable aircraft to a low-threat environment than it is to adapt a low-threat capable aircraft to a high threat environment.

[TaiidanTomcat]

[Check Six]

^this. The ability to take getting socked in the face better than others does not make you a superior boxer. Surviving fights is not winning fights, and what has happened in the past is A-10s do get shot down, and others limp back to base and are out of the fight for the duration. Some never returned to flying status.

The other problem is that the A-10 though armored is not a tank. Tanks don't need to fly. If the A-10 is damaged to the point that it can no longer remain in the air, the result is the same as any other aircraft.

We don't even need to bring up the F-35 in this case because so many of the A-10s peers already do it better in most cases, and there is a thread about the F-35 going on already.

Lastly the A-10 isn't the only airplane that can take hits and make it home, though some people seem to think that:

I'll never forget when I read the story of the Israeli F-15 flying back to base without a wing after a midair !!

Israeli officials called McDonnell Douglas: "Can an F-15 fly with only one wing?"

McD: "No; it's impossible."

Israeli officials: "Oh. Well; we have something to show you... !"

Edited April 16, 2014 by Check Six

[Check Six]

[Rank11]

"Survivability" isn't being a flying tank. That's an approach to a problem that has since evolved beyond a nearly 45 year old solution. Every time an A-10 is shot up, it's out of the fight. best case scenario, it's repairable, but you're still down aircraft and manpower because for every person who's repairing an A-10, you're down that many people from hanging bombs on the ones that can fly. So now your turn around time is affected. It was the A-10s getting shot up over Iraq in 1991 that led to the return to medium and higher altitude strikes. Survivability is not getting hit in the first place.

Buzzing around low and slow in non-contested airspace (such as that in Afghanistan) is perfectly fine. You can do that job with an A-6, A-7 or even an AT-6 for that matter. But that same aircraft won't survive contested airspace. An S-300 or Tor M1 will tear the s**t out of a flight of F-15s or -16s just as easily as it would a flight of A-10s, long before any of those types got close to where they needed to be.

I'm aware that the F-35 only carries 2 JDAMs, I can count. I'm also aware that it can carry things like SDB IIs, which doubles it's internal bomb payload. A-10s in Afghanistan didn't carry much more than a few bombs, sometimes a Maverick and sometimes light rocket pods. Then again, an F-35 in a low threat environment such as Afghanistan doesn't need LO, so they can hang a lot more under the wings. You can't make an A-10 LO, no matter how much you cant the tails. CAS is a mission, not a particular aircraft. A 1,000-lb JDAM is overkill against most ground targets in a CAS-mission and a 250-lb GPS/INS guided bomb with a shaped-charge warhead, hitting a tank at speed will ruin its day. I am NOT a fan of the F-35, for reasons discussed in that thread and for reasons that aren't in it that I can't discuss here. I question it's survivability, but there's no question about the survivability of a 45 year old design against the current and next-gen IADs. At least with the F-35, you have some flexibility.

When you're faced with a budget crunch, you simply cannot have "all of the above." And it's far easier to adapt a high-threat capable aircraft to a low-threat environment than it is to adapt a low-threat capable aircraft to a high threat environment.

I completely agree that survivability is not about whether a plane has armor or can fly faster anymore. That is why I questioned your comnent. The modern air defenses will knock all these planes down just the same. Survivability is going to depend on the success of the total air campaign's achievement of air superiority. And if that is not achieved, then survivability is moot no matter what aircraft. There will nit be any CAS perforned by whatever aircraft without air superiority. Therefore the arguments put forth by those who say the A-10 should be retired because it can't survive the 'modern' battlefield are invalid. Nothing else can either, so the A-10 is no better or worse compared to anything else with respect to survivability.

Is it because it's weapons are irrlevant? Well, the recently upgraded C models carry the same guided weapons as does all the other aircraft do, plus a better gun, and plus it carries more of the droppable guided ordnance than the other aircraft it is compared to except for the heavy bombers. So the argument put forth by those who say the A-10 should be retired because it just uses unguided weapons is invalid as well.

Is it because it only flies 'low and slow'? Well for the layperson, that is most likely their vision of what the A-10 does. However, the C model uses targetting pods just like any other aircraft and can conduct all its strikes, including gun strafes, from high altitude, if that is the better place to be. So that makes that argument invalid as well. Even if it was a relevant aspect.

So what is left? The only reason that is left is purely budgettary. And that is the only reason it is being retired. There is no valid military reason to retire it at this point. And why is there a 'budget crunch' there? Because of our choice to favor spending on social programs over defense. You can't escape that. That is the only reason to retire the A-10 that is not based on misunderstanding. So the question you should ask yourself is whether funding th plethora of social programs a better use of funds than defense? That is the true crux of this issue of whether to retire this weapon or not. And if the issue of bread versus swords is too touchy politically for this forum, then any thread about whether the A-10 should be retired or not should be locked because that is the only reason it is being retired. There is nothing about its performance, its capabilities, or its tactics that requires it to be retired. It is entirely political in its nature as a sacrifice to social welfare.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I completely agree that survivability is not about whether a plane has armor or can fly faster anymore. That is why I questioned your comnent. The modern air defenses will knock all these planes down just the same. Survivability is going to depend on the success of the total air campaign's achievement of air superiority. And if that is not achieved, then survivability is moot no matter what aircraft. There will nit be any CAS perforned by whatever aircraft without air superiority. Therefore the arguments put forth by those who say the A-10 should be retired because it can't survive the 'modern' battlefield are invalid. Nothing else can either, so the A-10 is no better or worse compared to anything else with respect to survivability.

Is it because it's weapons are irrlevant? Well, the recently upgraded C models carry the same guided weapons as does all the other aircraft do, plus a better gun, and plus it carries more of the droppable guided ordnance than the other aircraft it is compared to except for the heavy bombers. So the argument put forth by those who say the A-10 should be retired because it just uses unguided weapons is invalid as well.

Is it because it only flies 'low and slow'? Well for the layperson, that is most likely their vision of what the A-10 does. However, the C model uses targetting pods just like any other aircraft and can conduct all its strikes, including gun strafes, from high altitude, if that is the better place to be. So that makes that argument invalid as well. Even if it was a relevant aspect.

So what is left? The only reason that is left is purely budgettary. And that is the only reason it is being retired. There is no valid military reason to retire it at this point. And why is there a 'budget crunch' there? Because of our choice to favor spending on social programs over defense. You can't escape that. That is the only reason to retire the A-10 that is not based on misunderstanding. So the question you should ask yourself is whether funding th plethora of social programs a better use of funds than defense? That is the true crux of this issue of whether to retire this weapon or not. And if the issue of bread versus swords is too touchy politically for this forum, then any thread about whether the A-10 should be retired or not should be locked because that is the only reason it is being retired. There is nothing about its performance, its capabilities, or its tactics that requires it to be retired. It is entirely political in its nature as a sacrifice to social welfare.

I completely agree that survivability is not about whether a plane has armor or can fly faster anymore. That is why I questioned your comnent. The modern air defenses will knock all these planes down just the same.

Great retire the A-10s.

Survivability is going to depend on the success of the total air campaign's achievement of air superiority.

The A-10 will contribute the least to achieving that superiority. Multi-role fighters namely the F-16 would fly more missions including SEAD especially early on, and only later would A-10s finally be allowed to join in.

And if that is not achieved, then survivability is moot no matter what aircraft.

There will nit be any CAS perforned by whatever aircraft without air superiority.

Therefore the arguments put forth by those who say the A-10 should be retired because it can't survive the 'modern' battlefield are invalid.

Nothing else can either, so the A-10 is no better or worse compared to anything else with respect to survivability.

Wrong. But even if it wasn't, if all aircraft are equal then the A-10 becomes redundant. Retire the A-10.

Is it because it's weapons are irrlevant? Well, the recently upgraded C models carry the same guided weapons as does all the other aircraft do,

oh? like AMRAAM? HARM?

plus a better gun, and plus it carries more of the droppable guided ordnance than the other aircraft it is compared to except for the heavy bombers.

With the A-10 completely reliant on its mobility, how much do you think it would actually carry in a serious combat scenario? with minimal SEAD, Jamming, and LO how does it live?

So the argument put forth by those who say the A-10 should be retired because it just uses unguided weapons is invalid as well.

I actually argue that it becoming more like an F-16 is good reason to keep the F-16 and retire the A-10.

Is it because it only flies 'low and slow'? Well for the layperson, that is most likely their vision of what the A-10 does. However, the C model uses targetting pods just like any other aircraft and can conduct all its strikes, including gun strafes, from high altitude, if that is the better place to be. So that makes that argument invalid as well. Even if it was a relevant aspect.

So its like a slow moving F-16 that can't do as much? retire the A-10.

So what is left? The only reason that is left is purely budgettary. And that is the only reason it is being retired. There is no valid military reason to retire it at this point.

Actually there are, plus was restricted in Libya in 2011. Some were shot down in Iraq at the end of february 1991 and they had to be pulled back. I would ask you look at the A-10s history warts and all.

That is the only reason to retire the A-10 that is not based on misunderstanding. So the question you should ask yourself is whether funding th plethora of social programs a better use of funds than defense? That is the true crux of this issue of whether to retire this weapon or not. And if the issue of bread versus swords is too touchy politically for this forum, then any thread about whether the A-10 should be retired or not should be locked because that is the only reason it is being retired. There is nothing about its performance, its capabilities, or its tactics that requires it to be retired.

Thats a pretty bold assertion, and I can tell you didn't bother to read the thread before commenting. There are plenty of reasons militarily to retire the A-10. its CPFH is 20K as well an F-16 is around 23K. And F-16s are far more useful and more widespread. The types of conflicts the USAF is being told to prepare for make the A-10 an afterthought after all the hard work has been done already. There are myriad reasons to axe it.

There are good reasons to keep the A-10 around, but a good reason is not a critical reason. I can find a good use for a B-25 equipped with a LANTIRN, but its not worth doing.

If we assume the USAF buys only what it needs then anything cut is "needed" but you have to make the least worst choice. In that case the A-10 and its ability to shine only at the extremes of certain missions is a logical choice to go.

Every reason you list to keep the A-10 around is the same reason it should go. I guess its just different perspectives.

Edited April 16, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[Rank11]

I think your other football girl getup was prettier, tomkitty. Can you wear it again? For me?

Edited April 16, 2014 by Rank11

[Tony Stark]

I completely agree that survivability is not about whether a plane has armor or can fly faster anymore. That is why I questioned your comnent. The modern air defenses will knock all these planes down just the same. Survivability is going to depend on the success of the total air campaign's achievement of air superiority. And if that is not achieved, then survivability is moot no matter what aircraft. There will nit be any CAS perforned by whatever aircraft without air superiority. Therefore the arguments put forth by those who say the A-10 should be retired because it can't survive the 'modern' battlefield are invalid. Nothing else can either, so the A-10 is no better or worse compared to anything else with respect to survivability.

Air Superiority/Dominance isn't a guaranteed constant. Thanks to the mobility of modern IADS and MANPADS, it's something to be worked for and maintained. Desert Storm taught us that while you may clear the skies of the enemy's air force, but SAMs, guns and MANPADs will always be an issue.

Is it because it's weapons are irrlevant? Well, the recently upgraded C models carry the same guided weapons as does all the other aircraft do, plus a better gun, and plus it carries more of the droppable guided ordnance than the other aircraft it is compared to except for the heavy bombers. So the argument put forth by those who say the A-10 should be retired because it just uses unguided weapons is invalid as well.

Upgrading the A-10 to the C-standard is a symptom of the problem. It had to be brought up to a standard that other platforms were already at and it'll continue to have to be done so. At what point is enough enough? I haven't heard any arguments that the A-10 should be retired due to it using unguided weapons. As for the gun, is bigger really better? We have sensors and PGMs that weren't even imagined when the first Warthog flew in 1972. Ever seen Star Wars? That was 1977 and there's a line in there that they couldn't hit a two meter wide exhaust port, even with a computer. Today, we can send cruise missiles through specific windows on a building from over the horizon. It's these same weapons allow for delivery from standoff distances for greater than a gun and the new SDB IIs are designed to kill moving ground targets to enforce "no-drive zones." Now, the 30mm cannon is great for tearing up stuff, but if you're close enough to use the gun, you're also well within range of a MANPAD.

The AC-130 fleet is still around and will be for some time, so that capability to put down a lot of lead in an uncontested environment will still be around. But if having a big gun were the solution, then why hasn't the Army invest in DAP kits for their UH-60 fleets? Why haven't they brought back the ACH-47 configuration to their Chinook fleet? Why didn't the Marines ever invest in a big-gun platform? Why didn't the UK or France or Germany or Sweden or Brasil?

Is it because it only flies 'low and slow'? Well for the layperson, that is most likely their vision of what the A-10 does. However, the C model uses targetting pods just like any other aircraft and can conduct all its strikes, including gun strafes, from high altitude, if that is the better place to be. So that makes that argument invalid as well. Even if it was a relevant aspect.

It's still slow, and at those altitudes, other platforms can do the same job just as well. In fact, aircraft such as the F-16 and F-15 can carry those same targeting pods without losing a weapons station. The B-1B can as well, plus it can carry a LOT more bombs and stay on station for hours whereas an A-10 or any F-type can remain on station for only minutes. In this context, the A-10 becomes redundant.

So what is left? The only reason that is left is purely budgettary. And that is the only reason it is being retired. There is no valid military reason to retire it at this point. And why is there a 'budget crunch' there? Because of our choice to favor spending on social programs over defense. You can't escape that. That is the only reason to retire the A-10 that is not based on misunderstanding. So the question you should ask yourself is whether funding th plethora of social programs a better use of funds than defense? That is the true crux of this issue of whether to retire this weapon or not. And if the issue of bread versus swords is too touchy politically for this forum, then any thread about whether the A-10 should be retired or not should be locked because that is the only reason it is being retired. There is nothing about its performance, its capabilities, or its tactics that requires it to be retired. It is entirely political in its nature as a sacrifice to social welfare.

Yes, the A-10 is the victim of the budget environment, but wrong about there's nothing about it's performance or capabilities or tactics that requires it's retirement. It was decided to be put on the chopping block because it's capabilities were falling behind the threat and the rest of the force. Neither Congress or the White House told the AF "get rid of that plane." In fact, Murph was dead on when he predicted Congress would b*tch and moan about the Air Force's decision to retire it and react. The A-10 is NOT a defense program, it's a jobs program. Yes, the Hog is a social program.

[Rank11]

Air Superiority/Dominance isn't a guaranteed constant. Thanks to the mobility of modern IADS and MANPADS, it's something to be worked for and maintained. Desert Storm taught us that while you may clear the skies of the enemy's air force, but SAMs, guns and MANPADs will always be an issue.

Yes there will always be these types of local threats remaining. Which is one of the reasons why it would be foolish to retire the A-10 and draft newer and more ecpensive assets for the CAS mission. Purely on an accounting level, a manpad or ZU-23 hit on a F-35 would be a huge win for the adversary.

Upgrading the A-10 to the C-standard is a symptom of the problem. It had to be brought up to a standard that other platforms were already at and it'll continue to have to be done so. At what point is enough enough? I haven't heard any arguments that the A-10 should be retired due to it using unguided weapons. As for the gun, is bigger really better? We have sensors and PGMs that weren't even imagined when the first Warthog flew in 1972. Ever seen Star Wars? That was 1977 and there's a line in there that they couldn't hit a two meter wide exhaust port, even with a computer. Today, we can send cruise missiles through specific windows on a building from over the horizon. It's these same weapons allow for delivery from standoff distances for greater than a gun and the new SDB IIs are designed to kill moving ground targets to enforce "no-drive zones." Now, the 30mm cannon is great for tearing up stuff, but if you're close enough to use the gun, you're also well within range of a MANPAD.

As an American taxpayer, I would hope that we at least get a few years of use out of the C upgrade that I just helped pay for. If my child threw away a new toy the way our government spends on things like aircraft upgrades only to immediately throw it away, I would never buy the kid a new toy again. Yes they indeed spent a whole bunch of money on this upgrade just now. If anything, the amount spent on the A-10 should be deducted out of the funding of other programs as savings.

Also, there are ways of using the gun that does not put you well within the range of manpads.. The unguided weapon comment was from this thread a few posts up by somebody comparing it with the SU-25.

The AC-130 fleet is still around and will be for some time, so that capability to put down a lot of lead in an uncontested environment will still be around. But if having a big gun were the solution, then why hasn't the Army invest in DAP kits for their UH-60 fleets? Why haven't they brought back the ACH-47 configuration to their Chinook fleet? Why didn't the Marines ever invest in a big-gun platform? Why didn't the UK or France or Germany or Sweden or Brasil?

You'll have to ask them. But I could have sworn the Marines did try to turn their KC-130s into big gun gunships.

It's still slow, and at those altitudes, other platforms can do the same job just as well. In fact, aircraft such as the F-16 and F-15 can carry those same targeting pods without losing a weapons station. The B-1B can as well, plus it can carry a LOT more bombs and stay on station for hours whereas an A-10 or any F-type can remain on station for only minutes. In this context, the A-10 becomes redundant.

Like I said before, only heavy bombers carry more. And ironically, the B-1 is also another platform they would like to retire. Compared to other fighters, the A-10 is more economical since it carries more of the same ordnance and therefore requires fewer sorties to hit the same number of targets.

Yes, the A-10 is the victim of the budget environment, but wrong about there's nothing about it's performance or capabilities or tactics that requires it's retirement. It was decided to be put on the chopping block because it's capabilities were falling behind the threat and the rest of the force. Neither Congress or the White House told the AF "get rid of that plane." In fact, Murph was dead on when he predicted Congress would b*tch and moan about the Air Force's decision to retire it and react. The A-10 is NOT a defense program, it's a jobs program. Yes, the Hog is a social program.

Ok so we are now back to 'falling behind the threat.' We've already established that in order to perform CAS you need to have established and maintained air superiority, therefore the modern threat is a non-issue for the mission. What you face in the mission are the lesser threats as you pointed out at the beginning of your post.

[Gary Busey]

[Rank11]

If we assume the USAF buys only what it needs then anything cut is "needed" but you have to make the least worst choice. In that case the A-10 and its ability to shine only at the extremes of certain missions is a logical choice to go.

Every reason you list to keep the A-10 around is the same reason it should go. I guess its just different perspectives.

Retiring the 300 A-10s is only going to save 3 billion since the planes are paid for and cheap to operate. Your F-35 is going to be almost a trillion dollars. If the Air Force really wants to make a least worst choice, it can give up a pair of F-35s and save the same amount of money.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Yes there will always be these types of local threats remaining. Which is one of the reasons why it would be foolish to retire the A-10 and draft newer and more ecpensive assets for the CAS mission. Purely on an accounting level, a manpad or ZU-23 hit on a F-35 would be a huge win for the adversary.

Purely on an accounting level it makes no sense to keep A-10s. And an enemy doesn't win on "an accounting level" The more expensive assets are already doing the CAS anyway. Again the A-10 is redundant.

Whats the accounting level for captured pilots that are tortured? Or killed outright when struck by SAMs? What happens when the mission to rescue them goes SNAFU?

What does that cost you?

I get that A-10s are cheaper than F-16s (Again F-16s do more) But A-10s are more vulnerable, and they are flown by people and those people are in danger if faced with the threats they are likely to encounter in the future.

As an American taxpayer, I would hope that we at least get a few years of use out of the C upgrade that I just helped pay for. If my child threw away a new toy the way our government spends on things like aircraft upgrades only to immediately throw it away, I would never buy the kid a new toy again.

Ironically you are pulling the "my money paid for that" card while the USAF tries to save the taxpayer money by retiring an aircraft of limited future value...

Yes they indeed spent a whole bunch of money on this upgrade just now. If anything, the amount spent on the A-10 should be deducted out of the funding of other programs as savings.

You lost me there. ??

Also, there are ways of using the gun that does not put you well within the range of manpads..

Oh?

Compared to other fighters, the A-10 is more economical since it carries more of the same ordnance and therefore requires fewer sorties to hit the same number of targets.

Do we count the sorties for all the aircarft that have to escort it and provide SEAD, EW, and Air Cover??

Its not economical to have a ramp full of damaged aircraft, its not economical to sustain aircraft that can't be used in future scenarios, its not economical to lose aircraft, its not economical to lose pilots.

You are simply going to have to do better than "it can carry more pylons than its peers" especially when the USAF has 1,000s of F-16s and only a few hundred A-10s. and F-16 pylons carry more variety for more missions.

Ok so we are now back to 'falling behind the threat.' We've already established that in order to perform CAS you need to have established and maintained air superiority, therefore the modern threat is a non-issue for the mission. What you face in the mission are the lesser threats as you pointed out at the beginning of your post.

the Marines plan on providing CAS in highly contested environments with their F-35s. Part of Mr. Starks point is that those threats are never really gone, so if you are waiting for a perfect environment to use the A-10, its never going to come. Mobile SAMS and roving enemy fighters means its a non linear battlefield.

Basically your whole argument boils down to:

A. trying to make it seem like all the A-10s peers are equal and their is no difference

B.And if there is no difference, why not field the cheaper option?

[Rank11]

The insurgents' ied's only cost a few dollars and cents. The American response to that threat was billions of dollars. That is how the insurgents forced us to cut and run from from out recent wars. They had smarter accountants than we did.

There you go with the hyperbole. War is a nasty business, but a business none the less. Despite the yellow ribbons and flags, those of us on a frontline are expendable and nothing more than part of the cost versus benefits of any conflict. That's just the cruel truth.

The money saved on retiring that aircraft can be saved with less effort elsewhere. Limited future value is merely your assertion with little backup and only hyperbole.

Yes, they do strafe from outside the threat envelope. If you don't even know what I am referring to, then how can you make any assertions one way or another about the use of that aircraft?

Those sorties of sead, ew and air cover will be flown anyways whether or not A-10s are waiting to enter the area. Your F-35 will need that support as well.

You seem to assume that we will never fight a low intensity conflict in the future scenarios again.

Counting the pylons can approximate the sorties. You think you save money now, but in the end it costs more becausr you will need more F-16s to do the same job that the A-10s did.

So it does the same job, but cheaper. You got it.

[fulcrum1]

The insurgents' ied's only cost a few dollars and cents. The American response to that threat was billions of dollars. That is how the insurgents forced us to cut and run from from out recent wars. They had smarter accountants than we did.

Cut and run? Damn, I didn't get the memo! Someone come and get me, and bring some beer....lots of it.

[TaiidanTomcat]

The insurgents' ied's only cost a few dollars and cents. The American response to that threat was billions of dollars. That is how the insurgents forced us to cut and run from from out recent wars. They had smarter accountants than we did.

Brian covered this well.

There you go with the hyperbole.

See your quote above.

War is a nasty business, but a business none the less. Despite the yellow ribbons and flags, those of us on a frontline are expendable and nothing more than part of the cost versus benefits of any conflict. That's just the cruel truth.

I think its funny that you talk about cost benefit analysis and yet the service that operates the A-10 did exactly that and decided it wasn't worth keeping.

Thats just the cruel truth.

The money saved on retiring that aircraft can be saved with less effort elsewhere. Limited future value is merely your assertion with little backup and only hyperbole.

Actually there is plenty of facts to back it up, you have chosen to ignore them . Future aircraft will need to capable of Jamming, SEAD, Ground attack, and counter air. Either all of those or a combination of at least two.

The A-10 can do only one of those things. Can you count to one?

Yes, they do strafe from outside the threat envelope. If you don't even know what I am referring to, then how can you make any assertions one way or another about the use of that aircraft?

I'm curious how A-10 guns can outrange MANPADs

Those sorties of sead, ew and air cover will be flown anyways whether or not A-10s are waiting to enter the area.

Yep and all of them can also do ground attack... are we catching on?

Your F-35 will need that support as well.

The A-10s immediate problem is the F-16, because an F-16 can already do almost everything an A-10 can.

You seem to assume that we will never fight a low intensity conflict in the future scenarios again.

How would having A-10s for this future scenario work out any better than the current scenarios where we spent billions and then ran? did we not have A-10s in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Counting the pylons can approximate the sorties. You think you save money now, but in the end it costs more becausr you will need more F-16s to do the same job that the A-10s did.

You mean those same aircraft you said above are "flying anyway?"

So it does the same job, but cheaper. You got it.

If it isn't capable of using AMRAAM and HARM then it can't do the same job. pretty simple actually.

[Check Six]

Retiring the 300 A-10s is only going to save 3 billion since the planes are paid for and cheap to operate. Your F-35 is going to be almost a trillion dollars. If the Air Force really wants to make a least worst choice, it can give up a pair of F-35s and save the same amount of money.

Does the quote, "The only thing more expensive than a first-rate Air Force … is a second-rate Air Force." apply here?

Just wondering.

[fulcrum1]

The AC-130 fleet is still around and will be for some time, so that capability to put down a lot of lead in an uncontested environment will still be around.

AC-130 is small military and isn't an available option for the battlespace owner, nor are the "instant" -130's that the Marines and soon to be AF have, but that -176 they carry are via drones.

But if having a big gun were the solution, then why hasn't the Army invest in DAP kits for their UH-60 fleets? Why haven't they brought back the ACH-47 configuration to their Chinook fleet? Why didn't the Marines ever invest in a big-gun platform? Why didn't the UK or France or Germany or Sweden or Brasil?

-The Army has UH-60 DAPs.

-Problem with helicopter gunships is the 7.62 round.

-Harriers have a 25mm gun pod based on the A-10's in a smaller expeditionary package.

-Different priorities? Brazil uses the Super Tucano

In this context, the A-10 becomes redundant.

Didn't they say that in the late 80's and again in the 90's? Didn't they also say that with the Skyraider before they had to bring it back?

The A-10 is NOT a defense program, it's a jobs program. Yes, the Hog is a social program.

Some days the entire DOD seems like that.