Here we go again. Retiring the A-10

[LVSteve]

Why do we want to retire one of the best air to ground support weapons ever invented??????

There is a movement in the air force that says close air support can be provided by drones or by launching Small Diameter Bombs from many miles away. Politicians, the Pentagon and the USAF are now so risk averse to pilot casualties/captures that they no longer want a non-stealthy aircraft that operates within the reach of every SAM/AAA system ever made. For them the risks outweigh the benefits of the way the A-10 can deliver ordnance and eyes on target.

 

[Watchdog]

Politicians, the Pentagon and the USAF are now so risk averse to pilot casualties/captures that they no longer want a non-stealthy aircraft that operates within the reach of every SAM/AAA system ever made.

I'm genuinely surprised they aren't trying to phase out the Apache, too.

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

I'm genuinely surprised they aren't trying to phase out the Apache, too.

Zoomies don't fly the Apache, or they probably would.

 

[Retired W4]

My son, a third generation combat pilot, is doing a tour with Marine JTAC's and now thinks/hopes he will be able to get back into the A-10 when this tour is done. It's too early to tell so we wait. He is an O-4 now with three tours in Afghanistan flying the Hog. My big concern is the young folks in the pilot pipeline who make it through only to be dumped into drones. I just can't imagine how that would feel. Keep up the positive dialog on the A-10.

 

[Edmo]

One big issue is age...

The 716 A-10s were all built in the 70's and early 80's. That is a lot of years of flying for an attack aircraft. Add in a few wars and you have a very old and well used fleet of airframes.

I'm a big fan of the A-10 and it's capabilities. It will take quite an airplane to match the A-10's firepower and loiter time.

Hopefully, the decision makers will not lose sight of mission requirements. Whatever replacement they pick will not be chosen to fight in the sky over Afghanistan, but against a enemy which poses a much higher threat to our aircraft.

Edmo

 

[Ματθιας]

The argument that the A-10 non stealthy and vulnerable is odd considering that it was designed to fight and survive in a WW3 battlefield.

 

[Engine 21]

The A-10 is in the same class of weapons as the Garand M1 rifle, the .50 cal. mg, the B-52 and the Abrams battle tank - they all are classic and simply can not be replaced.


KEEP the A-10 IN SERVICE.

 

[loknload]

Bottom line is that those who want to retire these, need to be retired themselves! I believe that to a certain point some of these people are more useless then the equipment they keep wanting to retire!

 

[the ringo kid]

One big issue is age...

The 716 A-10s were all built in the 70's and early 80's. That is a lot of years of flying for an attack aircraft. Add in a few wars and you have a very old and well used fleet of airframes.

I'm a big fan of the A-10 and it's capabilities. It will take quite an airplane to match the A-10's firepower and loiter time.

Hopefully, the decision makers will not lose sight of mission requirements. Whatever replacement they pick will not be chosen to fight in the sky over Afghanistan, but against a enemy which poses a much higher threat to our aircraft.

Edmo

I wish they would just start building new ones--same exact design since its tried and proven.

 

[Retired W4]

Individual airframes in the fleet rotate through a very rigorous inspection program looking for cracks and corrosion in places not normally seen. With the glass cockpit, newer navigation equipment and targeting pod and other upgrades it has been somewhat modernized. I only wish they had upgraded the engines along the way, which was available. Ya'll know what makes airplanes fly? Money!

 

[Practical]

Retire them or keep them, we no longer fight wars to win. It comes down to cost/budget restraints. But costs no longer matter as everything is being financed by a bankrupt government.

In the end, the F-35 costs will eat the A-10 into retirement - and it won't matter if it's a lemon as long as someone gets paid.

The reality is that manned flight is ending.

Warplanes will be mostly unmanned in 10 years.

Then warplanes will be swarms of robotic planes, various tiny to huge drones and smart flying sensor and flying munitions.

 

[Practical]

The A-10 is in the same class of weapons as the Garand M1 rifle, the .50 cal. mg, the B-52 and the Abrams battle tank - they all are classic and simply can not be replaced.


KEEP the A-10 IN SERVICE.

And they will be rendered obsolete in 10-20 years or less.

 

[Ματθιας]

We've been hearing that manned warplanes will be obsolete for decades. I didn't buy then, I don't buy it now.

 

[LVSteve]

The argument that the A-10 non stealthy and vulnerable is odd considering that it was designed to fight and survive in a WW3 battlefield.

It was developed with the early 1970s view of Warsaw Pact capabilities and resulting WWIII scenario. Like most scenarios, it was subject to change, and it came a year after the A-10 first flew. The Yom Kippur War revealed the full horror of Soviet supplied battlefield SAMs and the damage they could inflict. While the A-10 went ahead, other measures had to be invented to deal with the severity of the new threat. Wild Weasel units suddenly got new money and equipment. We saw the benefits of this investment in Gulf War one.

As an aside, somebody in the know said that after the Wall came down they got to ask questions of Warsaw Pact troops about their equipment and readiness. The sheer number of expendables held by each SAM unit was staggering. Where NATO estimated a couple of hundred, there would be thousands. When the estimate was nearing thousand for things like the highly mobile SA-8, the Soviets were hoarding ten thousand or more. Fancy flying an A-10 into that lot?

 

[Retired W4]

Bekaa Valley ring a bell ref soviet AD in the hands of terrorist?