A-10 Being Retired.

[GScholz]

Yes, the A-10 is getting long in the tooth. They've already swapped wings on all of them and there is simply only so much you can do to prolong the service life of an aircraft. We're facing the same problem with our aging fleet of F-16s; they're all F-16As from the early '80s, and despite numerous upgrades and new wings we're flying up the last hours of those airframes. What then can you replace the A-10 with that is available now? The F-35 is the natural choice; it isn't ideal, but considering the alternatives it is the best choice. Building new A-10s is prohibitively expensive, and I'm assuming buying SU-25s from Russia is out of the question, what US aircraft currently in production or in development is better suited for the job?

[Saxman]

Yes, the A-10 is getting long in the tooth. They've already swapped wings on all of them and there is simply only so much you can do to prolong the service life of an aircraft. We're facing the same problem with our aging fleet of F-16s; they're all F-16As from the early '80s, and despite numerous upgrades and new wings we're flying up the last hours of those airframes.

Yet there hasn't been a B-52 built since 1963, and the Air Force expects to have THOSE in service into the 2040s or beyond...

The fact is there's a trillion dollar elephant in the room the military is desperate to justify the cost for, so they're going to try to force it into a role it wasn't built for. What the Air Force SHOULD do is turn the A-10 over to the Army to supplement the attack helicopter fleet in the CAS role. Too bad the Air Force is too butthurt over the idea of the Army operating their own fixed-wing aircraft and not have to rely on them for CAS.

Stupid inter-service rivalry.

[GScholz]

It's the flying hours not the age that matters. After the wing swap in 2012 the A-10 could also fly until 2040 or so unless retired early. It all depends on how much they fly them, especially in combat. They WILL be replaced eventually regardless of how much you don't want that to happen. Nothing lasts forever.

[DREDIOCK]

90% of all fighting aircraft will eventually be replaced by remotely controlled unmanned drones.
Cheaper and can be made just as effective. And little no no risk for those who pilot them. Not to mention aircraft can be designed to fly in envelopes and to sustain Gforces a human could never tolerate

[Saxman]

90% of all fighting aircraft will eventually be replaced by remotely controlled unmanned drones.
Cheaper and can be made just as effective. And little no no risk for those who pilot them. Not to mention aircraft can be designed to fly in envelopes and to sustain Gforces a human could never tolerate

And drones have been proven to be hijackable.

[caldera]

90% of all fighting aircraft will eventually be replaced by remotely controlled unmanned drones.
Cheaper and can be made just as effective. And little no no risk for those who pilot them. Not to mention aircraft can be designed to fly in envelopes and to sustain Gforces a human could never tolerate

I hope there is a back up contingency for when our satellites are all hacked, jammed or destroyed.  As awesome as it is, dependence on all this technology is our Achilles heel.

[Rich46yo]

Its not just the flying hours that stresses an airframe but also the type of flying thats done with them. Bombers get beat up some when we've had to have them in dense air when forced to change their attack profiles but its been a long time since we've had to do that. So they fly mostly slow with no high stress maneuvers. But correct me if Im wrong, I dont believe that stressed airframes has been used as a reason they are being sent to the bone yard. The A10-C has enough flying hours left on its frame to remain a credible deterrent. While we would have to cut down the fleet we could still retain a credible A10 fleet.

And despite its age and so called tech disadvantage we keep getting into asymmetric fights against opponents unable to defend against it.

Like I said. I dont agree with retiring them all.

[XxDaSTaRxx]

I hope there is a back up contingency for when our satellites are all hacked, jammed or destroyed.  As awesome as it is, dependence on all this technology is our Achilles heel.

The A-10 does rely on a lot of technology....

For the A-10 to operate in units like she does when flying with wingmen in DCS, she requires a lot of communication and know how to work as a unit. Say you've got a TGP view on a column of Russian Main Battle Tanks.

You could broadcast the location and orientation of the TGP over the TAD to members within your group ID, allowing your mates to see what your seeing at the same location in the press of the button. Formation maverick releases are common practice in my squad, when on ops on the server firing range. In simulator mode, there are no icons for enemy vehicles. You've got to find then via the maverick or TGP seekers. Once you do find the GVs, you can relay the location to your formation.

Rifling mavericks in unison takes a lot of communication, and if you don't all clarify targets you could end up with two very expensive missile on the same target.
.
Tech is the upper hand that the A-10 has in the battlefield when operating in units.

[GScholz]

Its not just the flying hours that stresses an airframe but also the type of flying thats done with them. Bombers get beat up some when we've had to have them in dense air when forced to change their attack profiles but its been a long time since we've had to do that. So they fly mostly slow with no high stress maneuvers. But correct me if Im wrong, I dont believe that stressed airframes has been used as a reason they are being sent to the bone yard. The A10-C has enough flying hours left on its frame to remain a credible deterrent. While we would have to cut down the fleet we could still retain a credible A10 fleet.

And despite its age and so called tech disadvantage we keep getting into asymmetric fights against opponents unable to defend against it.

Like I said. I dont agree with retiring them all.

They're not being retired yet. The USAF have been trying to retire them since the day the Army forced them to get the plane in the first place, but the politicians stopped it this time like they always have done. But eventually they will be replaced by F-35s.

[DaveBB]

Over half the U.S. F-16D fleet is grounded due to longeron cracks. 

I'm not sure of the exact composition of the F-16 or A-10, but I can say that aluminum experiences age hardening.  It gets old (~30 years), and it gets brittle. 

[Traveler]

Yes, the A-10 is getting long in the tooth. They've already swapped wings on all of them and there is simply only so much you can do to prolong the service life of an aircraft. We're facing the same problem with our aging fleet of F-16s; they're all F-16As from the early '80s, and despite numerous upgrades and new wings we're flying up the last hours of those airframes. What then can you replace the A-10 with that is available now? The F-35 is the natural choice; it isn't ideal, but considering the alternatives it is the best choice. Building new A-10s is prohibitively expensive, and I'm assuming buying SU-25s from Russia is out of the question, what US aircraft currently in production or in development is better suited for the job?

Not buying it, are you telling me that to build a new off the shelf A-10 cost as much as it does to build an F-35? 

[GScholz]

Probably a lot more considering they'd have to build a whole new production line for it.

[Traveler]

Probably a lot more considering they'd have to build a whole new production line for it.

throw in the fact that once the A10 was built it would work, vs. the F35 todate.  still not buying it.

[GScholz]

They'd have to reinvent the A-10 first... All the tooling and jigs, all the parts. It's been out of production for 30 years and they scavenging the bone yard for parts just to keep them flying. Buy it or not.

[SmokinLoon]

Other than reading a few books and tidbits on the issue, I'm not an expert on the A10.  However, from all I've learned nothing in the world can deliver the direct firepower via 30mm cannon, direct fire rockets, indirect fire rockets, a multitude of bombs, AND take the damage that it can.  That means it can loiter until the enemy crawls out its hole.  Plus, there is something to be said for its ability to fly low-n-slow and do so enough to have the pilot be seen saluting the troops on the ground as it flies over. 

I'm not sold on the F35 being able to do all that.

Me thinks the Harrier would be better to have vs the F35 for close fire support missions.  I guess I'll read some more.