Originally Posted by
Jackonicko
The A-10A isn't a light attack and ISR aircraft for operating from austere forward airstrips. It isn't a two-seater. It isn't cheap to operate. It's a great aircraft, and it fulfils a similar role, but it isn't OA-X. Now whether more A-10As would be more useful than OA-X is an interesting and entirely legitimate question…..
You're missing the point, Jacko. I'm not suggesting that the A-10 (C, actually - not A) is a light attack platform, I'm suggesting it has infinitely more operational potential than anything else being looked at, rendering (in my mind) the OA-X programme moot. It covers all the requirements, and much, much more besides.
It
is cheap to operate, (compared with anything else in the current inventory), it
can operate from austere strips (and those high mounted engines are a much less risky proposition in doing so, compared with 'low hanging' props), pretty much everything is replaceable 'in the field' and any ISR ability you might think it lacks (check out the ROVER avionics update etc) is easily mitigated by podded equipment as may be required / carried. If you've a mind to (but why, given the ability to lug much more around?), they're easily converted to twin seaters, too (see YA10-B).
I dunno, maybe it's me - but it seems foolish to procure anything in these uncertain times with an operationally limited profile. How cheap or effective will these OA-X airframes be when they're sitting in the boneyard, or worse, smoking holes in the ground as a result of being tailored to a pretty specific asymmetric threat?
This whole issue really begs to be seen as the utter nonsense it is, if you ask me.