Elimination of the A-10 doesn't make much sense...

"doodon2whls" (doodon2whls) 09/23/2013 at 11:30 • Filed to: A-10, planelopnik, warthog

0

13

It seems like a foolish move to eliminate this great platform from the Air Force inventory. Is it being targeted to make way for 'new platforms' ? I fear that the A-10 is falling victim to some internal DoD politicking, and I don't like it one bit.

Sure, the A-10 is slow and old, but it has proved to be an incredibly versatile/flexible platform. Just a few bullets lifted from the AFT story linked below:

1) Least expensive operation/hour of all Air Force Fighters ($17,564/hr).

2) 6.5 times the number of rounds on board than the F-35.

3) A-10 ordnance capacity: 16,000 lbs (!)

http://www.airforcetimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/…

Long live the Warthog !

(/rant)

Chairman Kaga > doodon2whls 09/23/2013 at 11:33

3

Funny story. I took my daughter to the park Saturday and overheard two guys, obviously AF buddies, talking about flying A-10s over Afghanistan. I wanted to be all like, "Ehmegad, that plane is like soooo badass. I'm pretty good at Ace Combat and the A10 is like soooo my favorite plane. Do you guys want to come over and play Ace Combat? I have a pizza and some cola."

But I didn't.

Atomic Buffalo > doodon2whls 09/23/2013 at 11:38

0

What the DoD is saying is "we know we're never ever going to get into an extended ground war ever again."

Saracen > doodon2whls 09/23/2013 at 11:46

6

It doesn't make sense to replace such a durable, inexpensive plane that is so good at its role with a super expensive multirole aircraft.

Meanwhile, they still use the B-52.

95HondaV6 > doodon2whls 09/23/2013 at 11:47

0

One of the most intelligent designs ever
Elimination is both foolish and stupid
Yes! :: "Long live the Warthog!"

pauljones > doodon2whls 09/23/2013 at 11:55

1

The A-10 is something of a work of art; like all of the 4th-gen aircraft, it is a masterful exercise in functional, no-compromise design created to fulfill one mission area and be absolutely dominant at it. Unfortunately, that's just not the sort of philosophy that we see any more. The Pentagon is still reeling at the cost of programs like the F-22, F-35, and the DDG-1000 - and it's trying to do everything it can to counter-balance the phenomenal amount of money they've blown on them.

In a sense, minimizing infrastructure is a perfectly logical way of saving money; having one multi-mission aircraft that can perform multiple roles and have a single supply chain is perfectly rational. On the other hand, particularly with the F-35, the inability to perform any one role with any level of mastery will cost it, and us, more money in the long run than simply maintaining dedicated mission platforms. To me, it makes more sense to be cautious about how many different types of aircraft that we have, but to still maintain dedicated mission platforms, even if that means we have to operate fewer of each type of aircraft.

If it makes you feel any better, though, the A-10 will actually probably still live on. The Air Force could transfer them to National Guard units (as they've already done with half of them), which would save a great deal of money and still keep them in the inventory at need. Alternatively, I do believe the Army has stepped up and said that if the Air Force is unwilling to operate them, the Army will.

PelicanHazard > doodon2whls 09/23/2013 at 12:17

2

The A-10 typifies everything government representatives claim as 'American':

Gets the job done right

Innovative ("Let's strap wings to a friggin' huge gun!" the designers thought)

Unrelentingly punishing to foes

Inordinately kind to friends (pilots, support crew, AF accountants...)

Humble (it's ugly and knows it, but doesn't care because it's not important, like the afterburners it doesn't have)

Sure, it's slow and an old design now, but the BUFF is still kicking and the A-10 is extremely effective for solving problems that need eight tons of explosive and depleted uranium express delivered from a shoddy airbase to an enemy address. It's like asking a supermodel with a pistol to replace a frontiersman with an elephant gun.

McLarry > doodon2whls 09/23/2013 at 12:22

0

Definitely a shame, but not particularly surprising... Part of the rationale for funding the F35 was that it would replace so many other airframes at once. To actually push the program through and then not replace the platforms they've been saying all along that they're going to replace wouldn't make much sense. But, then again, since when does government make sense?

Grindintosecond > doodon2whls 09/23/2013 at 12:22

1

Dod: "we will shoot down targets from great distances with missiles and hit them from afar. We will never see them"

...enter 'NAM...

Dod: "oh hell, our missile only planes are getting out dogfighted, and too fast for surgical strikes n ground support. Our distance strikes are missing recently moved targets. Lets build dedicated dogfighters and strike planes again."

Enter the f16, 18, a10.

"We will never have a ground conflict needing support. We need multirole planes again that can't do a specific mission as good as dedicated craft. "

During extended ground conflicts against terror and a growing chineese govt. They predict no extended groundwars? A-10s rock in pinpoint attack and are hackproof..unlike a more expensive drone programs. They were built because of the suck multirole planes excessive speed n manuverability couldn't support troops. There's a reason the U2 is being used again...the replacement drones sucked. A-10s have always been hated by airforce commanders. They are in assistance to the Army guys...not leading/winning battles. So unless they can win by bombing and striking only, they don't want it.

Guess what....we proved you can't win by that tactic...the current wars have shown it. They'll bring em out of mothball when all the drones get hacked and multiroles get shot down

Mattbob > doodon2whls 09/23/2013 at 12:33

0

Bakkster, touring car driver > doodon2whls 09/23/2013 at 12:40

0

I really hope this is just a bluff to get more budget. Threaten to cancel the one airframe that can't be replaced, stuff the budget with all the other things under threat, wait for congress to fund the A10 and hope they don't pull the funding from other places.

doodon2whls > McLarry 09/23/2013 at 12:50

0

What they need to do (unfortunately) is cancel the F-35 which is terribly over budget, delayed, and under-performing to date.

Part of the problem is system complexity. The 'tried and true' system engineering techniques that originated in the 1940's are no longer capable to efficiently managing the complexity of today's new software intensive and performance optimized materiel systems. Platform level requirements are decomposed down several levels to component design requirements with minimal ability to reason about the interactions at the component or sub-sub-system levels. Things turn ugly in a hurry during real or simulated testing when unintended or unexpected interactions at the sub-system level are realized and engineering change request volume explodes. Integration phase - _that_ is when the cost overruns and schedule delays really impact system development.

Closing remark:I love a new shiny electronic toy like the next guy, but when the old banged up stamped metal Tonka toy still gets the job done, I'll rock it 'til the wheels fall off.

apr10427 - Greedo never fired > doodon2whls 09/23/2013 at 13:06

1

The battlefield survivability of the A-10 due to the advancement of anti-air weaponry is far below average at this point. The fact that a drone with a missile can do the same job as the A-10 at a lower cost makes it impossible for the Air Force to justify continued service to the bean counters.

61degrees.north > doodon2whls 09/24/2013 at 13:14

0

What the hell other aircraft is going to feature this gun? I sleep better at night knowing the GAU-8 is on our A-10s.