Saving the A-10 fiscal year '15

[MAKO69 186]

Some videos on the A-10's program congressional hearings for fiscal year 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+Trotski 832]

The old saying "if it aint broke, dont fix it" applies here , using aircraft that aren't specific for task is both counter productive, as it removes those aircraft from their primary role, and illogical, as F16's and 15's are not ideal mud movers, yes they are capable of it, but not as capable as the A10, also they do not have the survivability of the A10 in a hostile AAA/SAM environment, and one final thought........AVENGER !!! Nuff said.

[herd 1]

Just get rid of it already, it's old and out-dated and will fall apart if we enter a conventional conflict where we shoot at anything more than some insurgents. I'd like to see it retain its iconic nature in retirement instead of watching them fall out of the sky because some people like having them.

 

A-10 is actually more vulnerable in a hostile AAA/SAM environment because it's slow and low and those things are easy to hit, plus they don't operate in AAA/SAM environments as CAS is used in low-threat. It does not have any higher survivability because it's NOT a titanium aircraft the only titanium part is where the pilot sits (To which the F-35 actually has a titanium composite airframe). We don't need a 30mm cannon anymore because modern tanks can now shrug it off and a 20mm or 25mm can do just fine against any soft skin targets and on top of that the only reason we needed a low and slow glorified Stuka was because when the A-10 was designed we didn't have the electronics and sensors we have today to easily detect targets on the ground and we had to solely rely on the Mk1 eyeball, not to say eyeball identification is out, but it's also lead to a lot of mistakes we can now avoid. 

[MAKO69 186]

Boeing was awarded a contract to refit 173 with new wings, looks like you'll be seeing them for a bit longer.

[herd 1]

Boeing was also awarded to pull F-18 legacy hornets back from the grave when they're starting to drop out of the sky at an alarming rate no? It's unwise and unsafe and uneconomical to keep pushing these old airframes.

[MAKO69 186]

 

Says you, there more to it then slapping on new wings. It's cost effective to refurbish, than build new.

[+Trotski 832]

Old....yeah.....outdated....yeah......but what else can do the same job , with the same success rate....that isn't the Apache, the F35 ?....a pile of junk that is. like I said if it aint broke dont fix it, just build newer versions, as for my comment about surviveability,  I was meaning the pilot not the airframe in particular, but even the airframe is tough as old boots, finally the Avenger, so, it cant take out MBT's anymore, but It sure as hell puts the fear of fukkit into the poor bastard on the receiving end of it, it will pretty much eat through anything that the poor grunts on the ground are having a bit of trouble dealing with, with the added morale boost of the damn thing, or the demoralisation if you are getting the pointy end shoved in your sorry face. It's a bit like the RAF and Royal Navy loosing their Harriers, yes the aircraft is "old" tech but it worked, and it worked well......and remind me....how long has the C130 been in service ? Too much emphasis on getting bling and shiny shit, instead of utilising what is already at hand, and ok, will cost to maintain, but still cheaper than that pile of junk the F35 . as for old airframes , out of date airframes......the F15/16 are just as old but I dont hear plans for tham being replaced in any hurry. Its all a money making scheme for the corporates and the top brass on the payrolls of the Aerospace companies.

Edited December 9, 2016 by trotski00

[MigBuster 2,861]

The USAF are phasing the F-16 out according to one roadmap they have released by around 2025............as ever may be subject to change but they are holding back on some vital upgrades....of course no point wasting money if the replacement (F-35) is so superior.

 

The A-10 has some areas of A-G it is very good at like CSAR but don't forget the F-16 was primarily A-G in USAF service from the start and has been and is superior in some A-G missions (Just like the F-15E).

 

The C-130 is still around because it can still carry a useful cargo load.........aerial combat on the other hand has changed beyond all recognition from the 1970s driven by a massive change in technology.

[herd 1]

I'm not going to argue the capabilities of old versus new aircraft when all that is offered on your part is nostalgia and hyperbole, with all due respect. It's almost like once we hit the fourth generation of aircraft all regard for innovation has just disappeared, I suppose you think that the replacement of the F-4 phantom with the F-15 was also just a money making scheme for top the brass of Aerospace companies? Whether you like it or not, the F-35 is highly capable and will one day replace many of the aircraft we currently have, one day you'll also see the Blue Angels flying them. You can't just keep adding crap old equipment, it's a lot less versatile and capable than just a brand new aircraft. 

 

Any aircraft cannon, let alone the overrated GAU-8 Avenger, such as a Vulcan will put the fear of fukkit into any poor bastard on the receiving end. 

 

Just because something worked in the past and worked against some third world insurgents doesn't mean it will work on the modern battlefield, S-300/400 SAMs would have a field day against Harriers, F-15s, F-16s, A-10s etc etc

 

Don't get me wrong, I love all the old birds, but it does them no service to keep them in service long past their shelf life with the main reason being "Well we like it"

Edited December 9, 2016 by herd

[+Trotski 832]

Oh I dont doubt the F35 will become an acceptable airframe at some point,  because it will have to, too much money has been wasted on it , same with the eurofighter development and the MRCA/Tornado before it, so no I am not saying we must keep something , because we like it, I am saying dont ditch kit untill you have something in place to replace it, and I'm sorry but the F35 hasn't swayed me at all, I think its a bag of shite , like the Tornado was, untill they faffed about with it and made it almost acceptable, I'm just saying that certain aircraft, such as the C130, and the B52, which are both ancient in comparison to the A10 are still in service, because there is nothing to adequately replace them, or rather there wasn't in the case of the Hercules , the F15 was a logical step up from the Phantom, as was the F16 , and yes they are both capable mud movers when the need arises, but the thing is with A10's are the loiter capability, and the low speed, which is desirable in a ground attack aircraft, thats why Apache is so good at its job, cos it can hang around and spoil the bad guys day, I am all for replacing tired and non fiscally viable kit, but not at the expense of having nothing at all, the RAF is a good case in point, with Harrier force gone, and the Jags and buccs out of service, the RAF has limited ground support if us poor benighted Brits ever need it, certainly nothing low and slow , so that was my point, not the fact that the A10 should be kept just because.

[herd 1]

Fair enough, I can't disagree with your reasoning, I've just run across too many people who want to keep something for the reason of simply liking it, and later it's paid for dearly. 

[+Trotski 832]

No no, that was never my intent or reasoning, maybe I phrased it inadequately , my main issue is with the  upper echelons of the military, making piss poor judgements, for example, when I was in the RAF Regiment, some bright spark thought it was a great idea to make us into light armoured units, bear in mind our role was Harrier site defence, and taking and holding forward airbases, and defending those airbases, so mobility was indeed a factor that was paramount, however we were mobile in Landrovers etc, and the Spartan/scorpion idea was sort of ok, however, they deemed that as we had Scorpion, that we no longer needed 81mm mortars, so in a stroke, they took away our indirect fire capability, and replaced it with a CVRT with a direct fire capability only, this experiment in ludicrous bullshit lasted for 8 years or so, until some one actually listened to us and binned the bloody light armour, and reverted us back to how an Infantry unit SHOULD be armed, I agree the F16's and 15's are caapable of doing the job, however when they do that job, they are diverted from their main role of being fighters/interceptors, which I guess for the US isn't such a big deal as they have a massive Air Force anyhow, but I still think that a specific aircraft for CAS, Recon, Iron hand / Wild Weasel is better than having an aircraft that is jack of all trades but master of none, and lets be honest there are options available, such as the Scorpion which is tailored for the job. I'm all for change, as long as the change is actually viable, and logical, the jury is out on the F35 personally I hate the damn thing, but then I hated Tornado too, but the Tornado was never excellent, unlike the F16 and F15, and the A10 ..........dont get me started on the infantry mans gripe about 5.56 vs 7.62 .....us old bold cold war warriors do like our 7.62  lol 

[herd 1]

I'll have to say it was extremely foolish for the RAF and Fleet Air Arm to retire their entire Harrier fleet without a single replacement, especially in the case of the RN who have absolutely no replacement until god knows when they fully get F-35s, on top of that we're getting our new QE supercarrier which will have no planes on it.

 

The thing about the F-15 and F-16 is that in the F-16 was designed from the offset to have CAS capability and the F-15E is fully capable of it. The US would be more capable of diverting strength from other units to cover the retirement of an older aircraft than that of other smaller nations. I used to agree with the jack of all trades master of none saying but modern multi-role aircraft have proven to be more capable than single role aircraft, in the case of the F-15E for example completely retains its air to air capabilities but with the added capability of being a very competent CAS, recon, SEAD and such with its versatility and modern systems, not all aircraft can be as competent as it entirely relies on how much the original design allows for upgrades, in the case of the A-10 we are extremely limited in how much we can upgrade it anymore. 

 

Every new plane receives a large amount of doubt and dislike from the flyers of the previous generation, the same amount of doubt and controversy was made about the F-117, and B-2 especially for some examples. F-35 program is doing a lot better than people would give credit for, it's actually relatively cheap for what it's accomplishing at that, I think it'll dispell with the master of none saying as unlike other aircraft before it, it is actually designed to handle these missions much like newer 4th gen multi-role platforms are achieving such as the Rafale and Gripen.

[+Trotski 832]

Hmmmmm....still not a fan, I still think the Raptor is a better aircraft, but I'm not techno boffin with a slide rule, so I may be wrong, on top of that, the F35 is one of the ungainliest fugly bloody things , the A10 is no looker, but the F35 aesthetically is pretty gruesome, I know thats not reallly an issue, but it doesn't help either, the old saying about if the aircraft looks right, it flys right is generally true. the A10 may be ugly, but it looks right , the 35 is just the arse end of a pig with piles to my jaded modellers eye  lol I also do get the whole logic behind a multi role aircraft, and I am most definately in favour of them, however CAS is a very specialised issue, and that is why certainly since the end of WWI ground attack aircraft, have been just that, even the Russians are still using good old Froggy , but I do get the point you are making, of course we havent discussed the use of drones , also a very viable and capable platform, and a lot cheaper than a manned aircraft, also a massive loiter capability, even iff the payload they carry at the moment is a little limited. Another thing maybe to consider is the likely hood of a non limited conflict, the old style all out war is unlikely to be an occurrence anymore, so maybe super duper , you cant bend it , got cup holders in the cockpit option is not the way to go, again, I aint a general, who knows this sorta stuff, just a grunt with my arse in the grass and in need of a friendly airstrike.

[herd 1]

Really all people like you and I can do is wait and see hoping that the best outcome is in our favor.

 

The problem with drones is that they lack the situational awareness of an actual pilot since flying them is somewhat equal to trying to fly a plane while only being able to see through an MFD

 

I'll agree that the F-35 isn't that prettiest platform, but it's started to grow on me, hell I used to completely hate the thing and would recite everything Piere Spray would say on RT lol.

[+Trotski 832]

Yeah I dont buy into the pete spray line of reasoning, I just dont like the aircraft , unreasonable maybe, I'm sure it will become a reasonable aircraft at some point, but an aircraft that is outstanding ? hmmmmm........I agree with your comments about SA with the drones, but they are a definite asset if not perfect, the other option of course is to increase the amount of helicopter gunships available, the Apache is a mean mother frakker, the only downside is the speed that they fly at, making them a bit slow to get to a hot spot . I stand by my comments about members of the top brass being in the pockets of the aerospace industry though, going back to my statement about the CVRT being equipped on RAF Regiment Squadrons, the Air Officer Commanding the Regiment just happened to be married into the family of the CEO of Alvis, funny that eh !! 

[MAKO69 186]

I'm pro F-35, the program is way behind schedule by some say 8 others say 10 years. It's all about money with keeping legacy aircraft. Both the F-22 & F-35 have had the orders cut back from all future operators. If the full compliment of those airframes were to be built it would be a different tune. The Air Force brass wants to retire the A-10, but the Army brass wants to keep them, and congress is in agreement to keep the A-10 around until there are sufficient numbers of what's coming down the pipe to finally take over the job of the A-10. The days of mission specific aircraft are coming to an end. I see nothing wrong with keeping the A-10. The Program for the F/A-18C+ program is a no brainier too. With legacy hornets and now 1st production superhornets timing and trapping out it has to be done. It be great to wave a magic wand and have all F-35 be built and ready for combat missions, but it takes time to build them, fix issues that come along, then start the transition for maintenance and flight crews to the new aircraft, while still training people on the aircraft to be replaced. For the U.S. Navy it takes about 10+ years to fully transition to an aircraft, similar time line for the USAF. So they are forced to do this with older aircraft. It's all about money, is a waste of money to refurb older aircraft until its replacements are online, Yup! It's what has to be done to keep the U.S.'s troops safe. Complain all you want, but it's going to happen & it will keep on happening. Plenty of old airframes still working.

 

 

Herd,

The F-16 was built to fill a role of day time fighter 1st. The air to ground mission was added later to the program.