Here we go again. Retiring the A-10

[rwsmith]

A General just got relieved of his command for saying to his underlings that it is treason to try to block the retirement of the A-10 because they won't get enough newer planes. One comment:

DON'T RETIRE THE A-10 UNTIL YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS BETTER IN ALL ASPECTS AND IN SUFFICIENT NUMBERS.

And they don't have to use uranium bullets at soft targets. Big waste. Modify if need be.

PS: We've told NATO that we will build them the mother of all planes. They didn't say it would be so expensive that no one could afford more than a few copies. The US HAS to buy these planes out of embarrassment to show that, "Hey, we can buy these great planes, you can, too"

 

[Ματθιας]

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.

 

[Johnmuratore]

The A-10 is one of the most effective weapons we've ever had.

 

[Engineer1911]

A gun is good. A big Gatling gun is even better.

 

[PR24]

A gun is good. A big Gatling gun is even better.

A GAU-8 spewing 30mm's of hate send a clear message indeed.

 

[Arik]

The A-10 is one of the most effective weapons we've ever had.

And there is your first sign

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

The A-10 will remain in our arsenal for years to come along with the politics swirling around it.

 

[Snapping Twig]

 

[Vulcan Bob]

With the dawn of the high-tech age we were told things like guns on fighters and Infantry have become obsolete. Well tell that to Phantom jocks with malfunctioning missals and the grunt on the ground with the rifle. You don't own the airspace till the bad guys are splashed and the Infantry owns the real estate, guns are needed for both tasks. The Warthog does it's job superbly and very well should be kept in inventory, we still need gunfighters in the air and on the ground. Heck, I think we should still have the A1D Sky Raider loaded for bear loitering around Indian territory.

 

[69camfrk]

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.

You Sir, are precisely correct. That said, the A-10 is magnificent at what it does, and the F-35 was so bad they had to reduce performance paramaters in order for it to qualifiy and production to begin. It is a big giant stinkin' lemon I can smell in my part of the country. Not that I think the .gov would rip the taxpayer to the bone and put all of us in the poor house. The powers that be have already made all the rules and at our level, we seem to think we have some decision making ability left. No one will be held accountable for this debacle. And we will be in the poor house when the wheels finally fall off the cart.

 

[rwsmith]

I'll bet dollars to donuts.....

I'll bet dollars to donuts that it is going to be less expensive to send an A 10 out on a ground support sortie than an F-35. It is simple and robust and if one does get knocked down it will be one 'heck' of a lot cheaper to replace. I'm not saying that the F-35 isn't a great plane and will do a lot that an A 10 can't do, but it's going to have to do VERY well in ground support to replace the Warthog.

PS: Price for one A 10 is about 12 million dollars. The CHEAPEST version of the F-35 will be 85 million dollars. The 'B' version will be one hundred million and the 'C' version will be 112 million. These costs are based on full production.

 

[rwsmith]

Simply put.....

You Sir, are precisely correct. That said, the A-10 is magnificent at what it does, and the F-35 was so bad they had to reduce performance paramaters in order for it to qualifiy and production to begin. It is a big giant stinkin' lemon I can smell in my part of the country. Not that I think the .gov would rip the taxpayer to the bone and put all of us in the poor house. The powers that be have already made all the rules and at our level, we seem to think we have some decision making ability left. No one will be held accountable for this debacle. And we will be in the poor house when the wheels finally fall off the cart.

The game is rigged and the fix is in. Merit has little, if anything, to do with decisions. It matters completely how the money is doled out.

 

[69camfrk]

The game is rigged and the fix is in. Merit has little, if anything, to do with decisions. It matters completely how the money is doled out.

Yup. Even voting in this country is all eyewash unless you are voting for dog catcher or something, where it might have merit. The "system" has taken over and we are being fleeced to pay for it all regardless of how big the train wreck is going to be.

 

[LVSteve]

Of course the fix is in. Jobs in certain congressional districts, profits for the military industrial complex, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[the ringo kid]

The Bradley Fighting Vehicle part deux??? Why dont some in govt LEARN something from history???????

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

 

[Watchdog]

Any proposed A-10 retirement wouldn't have been newsworthy right now if this general hadn't phrased things wrong. But like some other past military leaders, he didn't think before he spoke. Now it's a national incident, he's out of a job, and may possibly be "asked" to retire. Or he may just resign on his own. He has his thirty years in and as a Major General, he's been making right at $176K a year. Probably could get close to that in retirement. I'd have my papers turned in before they could salute me if I were him.

John McCain, head of the Armed Services Committee, agrees that Post should have been fired, but has also initiated a review of the A-10 in order to evaluate its usefulness. I'm not sure how much on the up-and-up McCain's review will be, though.

The whole thing is unfortunate. General Post didn't order junior officers not to talk to Congress, but he put it in terms guaranteed to make officers leery of talking to anyone about anything.

I don't think (and I do hope) that the A-10 will not be retired any time soon. It's too effective. And it's a huge psychological deterrent to any ground forces. It just flat scares the beejesus out of tank crews, anti-aircraft missle crews, and foot soldiers.

I'm a strong proponent of an effective and well funded/well equipped military, and would love to see an increased defense department budget.

Why get rid of something that works so well?

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

 

[GatorFarmer]

One is left with the distinct impression that the USAF did not care for the A10 from the first on a certain level. It is a far less glamorous mission than air superiority. If I recall, the AF wanted to retire the A10 around the time of the first Gulf War. But then the things proved to work and work well, and there were media reports that they could be fixed with duct tape and Coke cans.

Back around 1960something the Army wanted to do their own airsupport. Thus the hardpoints on the Mohawk recon aircraft. The AF objected....Promised to keep doing ground support and eventually the A10 was born.

Supposedly Stuka Pilot Hans Rudel had some role in the A10, if nothing else in the design philosophy. He was a believer in a big gun on a plane for shooting up AFVs.

The new Russian tanks, the Armata,have a built in AA gun, btw.

 

[Hank783]

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

 

[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!