A10's to be sold on?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BONE (not heard it called that before) is a very different aircraft designed for a very different mission, though that doesn't detract from its CAS capabilities.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the USAF won't be able to do CAS without the A-10, I think the point is that they'll not be able to do it as well.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the USAF won't be able to do CAS without the A-10, I think the point is that they'll not be able to do it as well.
Cheap and effective or not is for someone else to argue. What I'd like is for someone above three star level to tell the truth, that the replacement isn't as effective, as measured by the guy on the ground. If its the A-10s time to go, so be it, however a little truth would go a long way.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheap and effective or not is for someone else to argue. What I'd like is for someone above three star level to tell the truth, that the replacement isn't as effective...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be interested to know what the cost-per-dead bad guy is across the platforms. I'm betting that the A-10 is slightly cheaper than the B1 or in fact any other platform other than maybe the Apache?
Actually, I'd bet that the Apache is not cheap just simply because helicopters aren't rather than due to the weapons systems used.
Actually, I'd bet that the Apache is not cheap just simply because helicopters aren't rather than due to the weapons systems used.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Original quote by West Coast: Cheap and effective or not is for someone else to argue. What I'd like is for someone above three star level to tell the truth, that the replacement isn't as effective, as measured by the guy on the ground.
The Air Force A-10 fighter, according to the Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Mark Welsh, is the best close-air support aircraft in the world, yet he’s determined to retire hundreds of them — the entire fleet — to the desert. Why? Despite this reality, the close-air support mission — the only mission for which the A-10 was designed and the primary mission for which its pilots train — has always been of secondary importance to the Air Force leadership which views air superiority, tactical and global strike (bombing), strategic airlift and aerial refueling as more important. Therefore, support of the development and acquisition of the service’s three core modernization programs: the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter; the next-generation tanker, and the Long-Range Strike Bomber.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drum roll please:
Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Herndon, Virginia, has been awarded a $33,500,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for engineering support. Contractor will provide evaluations, analysis, repair designs and testing to support the requirements for the A-10 Structural Integrity Program. Work will be performed at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, and is expected to be complete by April 28, 2020. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. No funds are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the contracting activity (FA8202-15-D-0001).
can ALL be very effective in various CAS scenarios.
I look forward to the feedback after a drone does a show of power run down the valley.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast.
You may be wasting your time with the effectiveness debate
Other platforms may well be more accurate, cheaper to fly, be faster, carry more weapons etc etc but that may have no bearing on how their effectiveness is measured on the ground as I'm sure you know.
If the blokes on the ground know an A10 makes the baddies keep their heads down or run away then that is the added value that money can't buy, and high tech systems can't replace.
You may be wasting your time with the effectiveness debate
Other platforms may well be more accurate, cheaper to fly, be faster, carry more weapons etc etc but that may have no bearing on how their effectiveness is measured on the ground as I'm sure you know.
If the blokes on the ground know an A10 makes the baddies keep their heads down or run away then that is the added value that money can't buy, and high tech systems can't replace.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barnstormer,
Couldn't agree more, I will always look at it from the point of view of the "customer" and over the course of 10 years in that ****hole it was always AH/A10. I appreciate the job done by others but they never came close. If this is the end of A10 then I doff my cap, I'm not convinced by the cost argument against something like JSF but I am WAY down the food chain and bow to those in the know. But, for my money, when I look at airframes that have been going for far longer, I'm sad to see it go. It worked FACT.
Couldn't agree more, I will always look at it from the point of view of the "customer" and over the course of 10 years in that ****hole it was always AH/A10. I appreciate the job done by others but they never came close. If this is the end of A10 then I doff my cap, I'm not convinced by the cost argument against something like JSF but I am WAY down the food chain and bow to those in the know. But, for my money, when I look at airframes that have been going for far longer, I'm sad to see it go. It worked FACT.
Meanwhile, over at the government department of the "Right hand not knowing what the Left hand is doing", Boeing's contract to manufacture A10 re-wing kits was recently renewed...
Yet retiring the A10 is about "saving money"
Yet retiring the A10 is about "saving money"
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing's contract to manufacture A10 re-wing kits was recently renewed...
Inertia in systems can be a tricky thing.
rh200
It would seem to be an inertia issue in that case.
The A-10 issue comes down to a few basics, I think.
F-16s, F-15Es and F/A-18s can do effective CAS today, as long as they have a targeting pod (these have advanced greatly in the last 10-15 years) and the right weapons.
The A-10 has advantages - persistence and a large air-to-ground-optimized gun. In some circumstances its low-speed handling and reduced vulnerability to groundfire are important. On the other hand it can't do lots of things that other aircraft can.
How many A-10s does the AF need? Probably not 300. However, as large and as inflexible an organization as the AF is, it's hard to scale down costs with the fleet number.
The other side of the problem is that the AF is now getting an accelerating stream of F-35s - big, complex aircraft with poor (its fans say "maturing") reliability and an automated logistics system that doesn't work. But if the AF doesn't feed the training pipeline now, with experienced MX people who can soon be instructors, it may find itself in a couple of years with a metric
ton of F-35s with appalling readiness numbers. The F-16 force is already feeling the pain.
Chopping A-10 releases a bunch of people who can either be assigned to F-35 or fill the gaps on F-16.
It would seem to be an inertia issue in that case.
The A-10 issue comes down to a few basics, I think.
F-16s, F-15Es and F/A-18s can do effective CAS today, as long as they have a targeting pod (these have advanced greatly in the last 10-15 years) and the right weapons.
The A-10 has advantages - persistence and a large air-to-ground-optimized gun. In some circumstances its low-speed handling and reduced vulnerability to groundfire are important. On the other hand it can't do lots of things that other aircraft can.
How many A-10s does the AF need? Probably not 300. However, as large and as inflexible an organization as the AF is, it's hard to scale down costs with the fleet number.
The other side of the problem is that the AF is now getting an accelerating stream of F-35s - big, complex aircraft with poor (its fans say "maturing") reliability and an automated logistics system that doesn't work. But if the AF doesn't feed the training pipeline now, with experienced MX people who can soon be instructors, it may find itself in a couple of years with a metric
ton of F-35s with appalling readiness numbers. The F-16 force is already feeling the pain. Chopping A-10 releases a bunch of people who can either be assigned to F-35 or fill the gaps on F-16.
Originally Posted by Danny42C
"That's what the RAF told the USAAF, Danny". Their informant was talking through his hat, IMHO. Which British aircraft ever used them? (if you count out the original batch).
Guest
Posts: n/a
GeeRam,
A very palpable hit ! Mea Culpa ! Obsessed with my own problems "Up the Jungle", I quite forgot the little contretemps in the N. African desert which was going on at the same time.
Only connection with Allisons in our neck of the woods would be Col. Claire Chennault's "Flying Tigers". And, post-war, our original AN-CPN4 GCA kit came with an Allison powered generator set, but I was told we couldn't afford the spares for it, so had to send the Allisons back and put in a rotary converter from our domestic supply instead (much quieter, anyway).
Thanks for the correction !
Danny.
A very palpable hit ! Mea Culpa ! Obsessed with my own problems "Up the Jungle", I quite forgot the little contretemps in the N. African desert which was going on at the same time.
Only connection with Allisons in our neck of the woods would be Col. Claire Chennault's "Flying Tigers". And, post-war, our original AN-CPN4 GCA kit came with an Allison powered generator set, but I was told we couldn't afford the spares for it, so had to send the Allisons back and put in a rotary converter from our domestic supply instead (much quieter, anyway).
Thanks for the correction !
Danny.
Regarding the A10, the USAF is finding out what the RAF did a few years ago - salami slicing numbers of arframes does not produce significant cost savings, but removing an entire type from the inventory does. If another type can do the job to an acceptable standard (even if not as well) then that's teh way to go.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Dave, I absolutely disagree, "acceptable" doesn't cut it when soldiers lives are on the line. They deserve the absolute backing of those that send them into bad places to do a tough tough job. That includes the support of world beating equipment. We in the British army have tried acceptable and we've been found out....
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Dave, I absolutely disagree, "acceptable" doesn't cut it when soldiers lives are on the line. They deserve the absolute backing of those that send them into bad places to do a tough tough job. That includes the support of world beating equipment.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Original quote by Davef68:
If another type can do the job to an acceptable standard (even if not as well) then that's teh way to go.
If another type can do the job to an acceptable standard (even if not as well) then that's teh way to go.
If all the US Joint Chiefs of Staff were cluster together in a hell hole and needed CAS, do you think they would choose the B-1, an F-15, an F-16 (all of which use smart bombs that are sometimes dumb) or a CAS A-10? According to you, they would choose the B-1, acceptable standard, except for these 5 US soldiers.
Original quote by rh200:
Whilst a noble sentinment, the vast majority knows that is not what happens in reality. Every thing we do has a trade off, cost benefit analyisis. Always has, always will be.
Whilst a noble sentinment, the vast majority knows that is not what happens in reality. Every thing we do has a trade off, cost benefit analyisis. Always has, always will be.
