Jump to content

A-10 in the WSJ today


Recommended Posts

Interesting article about the A-10 in the Wall Street Journal.  It reminded me of a discussion I had with my dad many years ago.  He was a turret gunner in TBMs during WW2.  He didn't see why we needed to spend money on new planes when the old ones still worked.  I hesitated to remind him what happened to all those brave young men in the TBDs that he didn't have to go to war in. 

 

Geoff M

Link to post
Share on other sites

The nostalgia of the A-10 is great, the capability it brings to the fight is not.   It is a good CAS platform in uncontested airspace but that’s about it.   The F-15E, F-16, F-35, F-18, B-52, and B-1 are also great CAS platforms because precision guided munitions have enabled any aircraft to provide CAS.     
 

I’m a soldier, I have seen the A-10 in combat and the pilots are amazing.   I’ve had the A-10 provide CAS,  I’ve also had all the other aircraft mentioned provide CAS.    In a theater with uncontested airspace like Iraq unmanned platforms like the MQ-9 have the highest value.   In contested airspace the A-10 isn’t survivable so it’s out of that fight.  
 

I love seeing the A-10 fly, but it’s time to let it go.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of makes sense. Like the cruise missiles put the battleship out of business.  
But yet the good old delivery platform, the B-52, has proven over and over again its value for almost 70 years.  B-52 and the C-130 were some amazing designs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2023 at 7:53 AM, Scott Smith said:

Kind of makes sense. Like the cruise missiles put the battleship out of business.  
But yet the good old delivery platform, the B-52, has proven over and over again its value for almost 70 years.  B-52 and the C-130 were some amazing designs.  


Precision guided munitions have kept the B-52 relevant.   It can take off from the US and hit a target anywhere in the world.   It can launch cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away or it carry a huge amount of ordnance and loiter in uncontested airspace for a very long time.    
 

An AC-130 can carry a lot of GBU-39s plus a lot more.  
 

What has kept the B-52 viable is the same thing that makes the A-10 obsolete.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dutch said:

Bring back the AD/A-1 Skyraider!

That connects with this which just crossed my path, and has a final point about anachronism and reputation which sounds a lot like this thread,

https://news.yahoo.com/fighter-plane-designed-us-navy-213700704.html


 

Quote

 

Business Insider
A fighter plane designed for the US Navy during World War II was still taking down jet fighters over Vietnam 20 years later

 ...  A flying anachronism, Skyraiders earned one of the best reputations any combat aircraft could have.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2023 at 4:01 PM, nspreitler said:

The nostalgia of the A-10 is great, the capability it brings to the fight is not.   It is a good CAS platform in uncontested airspace but that’s about it.   The F-15E, F-16, F-35, F-18, B-52, and B-1 are also great CAS platforms because precision guided munitions have enabled any aircraft to provide CAS.     
 

I’m a soldier, I have seen the A-10 in combat and the pilots are amazing.   I’ve had the A-10 provide CAS,  I’ve also had all the other aircraft mentioned provide CAS.    In a theater with uncontested airspace like Iraq unmanned platforms like the MQ-9 have the highest value.   In contested airspace the A-10 isn’t survivable so it’s out of that fight.  
 

I love seeing the A-10 fly, but it’s time to let it go.   

You had CAS from a F-35?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Da SWO said:

You had CAS from a F-35?


No, that was an error.  I personally haven’t had CAS from an F-35 they didn’t reach FOC until after my last combat tour.  I have from F-22s though. 
 

The F-35 is very capable of it now.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/14/2023 at 3:46 PM, Geoff M said:

Interesting article about the A-10 in the Wall Street Journal.  It reminded me of a discussion I had with my dad many years ago.  He was a turret gunner in TBMs during WW2.  He didn't see why we needed to spend money on new planes when the old ones still worked.  I hesitated to remind him what happened to all those brave young men in the TBDs that he didn't have to go to war in. 

 

Geoff M

Your dad has a great point. One can argue the Navy divested itself of the A-6 platform too soon, which would have been a nice addition to the stack over the last 20 years. Similarly, it would be nice to have the S-3 capabilities that were lost. Had the AF retired the A-10 when it wanted years ago it would not have been available for the fight at hand over the past few years. This current combat deployment may be the A-10's last one.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no question that the A-6, S-3, A-10 have/had usefulness left in them.  The issue is more of a spreading around of finite amount of resources and money.  Aging aircraft require more maintenance and maintenance is expensive and requires more resources (manpower).  The services would rather spend that money on newer more capable aircraft.  Congress is more concerned with keeping bases fully staffed and running in the home district than keeping the services up to date.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...