Which is basically my point. CAS is a mission, not a platform. Some platforms excel in some CAS mission scenarios and others in other mission scenarios. USAF is pretty unique in that it has multiple platforms to perform the various CAS missions (and so far, we haven't even touched on C-130 and other gunships and armed UAVs in the CAS role). And yeah, shooting a 30mm is cheap compared to shooting a Maverik missile. But JDAMS are pretty cheap too and very effective in the CAS role and getting more and more effective. And fielding and maintaining an entire fleet of A-10s just so you can shoot "cheap" bullets when you have many other CAS capable platforms may not be a cheap solution in the overall scheme of things.

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.

"the replacement?" There is no single "replacement" for the A-10. Instead, there are multiple fleets of multiple types of aircraft, including drones, helicopters, various tactical jets (including and not exclusively the F-35), gunships, and heavy bombers that can ALL be very effective in various CAS scenarios.

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.

Simple as that.:rolleyes:

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 they be as effective? I could hang dumb bombs on a helicopter and it could be "effective" if it breaks the will or kills the opposition. I'm hoping for a higher standard.
I look forward to the feedback after a drone does a show of power run down the valley.

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.

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.

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" :ugh:

Would it not be that until every thing is down and commited, the other department has to go on regardless and assume, hence possible being caught short.

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 :mad: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.

The RAF had plenty of Alison experience to tell the USAAF that, with 18 x squadrons of Tomahawk/Kittyhawk in NA (plus a further 4 x RCAF, 3 x SAAF & 2 x RAAF sqns)

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.

The RAF used a few in Italy (Borrowed form the Americans) for recon purposes as well. The RAF tac rec squadrons really liked their Allison Mustangs and only replaced them because replacements were running low.

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.

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....

Couldn't agree more RTL. Spot on:ok:

Bob C

Meanwhile the UK is rapidly approaching a decision point regarding the WAH-64D :hmm:

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.

B-1 Stealth Bomber "Friendly Fire" Strike Kills 5 US Soldiers In Afghanistan

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.:\:mad:
Lives in the field are cheap when you are sitting in the DOD or MoD comfortable offices reviewing the numbers, eh?:E