McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate

[Muzzy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/06/29/mccain-fires-a-salvo-in-the-fight-to-save-the-a-10-warthog/

Yet another round in the debate over the tried and true A-10 airframe vs the controversial F-35. There are some interesting points in the conversation; the murkiest one being cost-effectiveness. The F-35 is obviously expensive both in terms of raw cost and the logistical issues needed to get it into the field. What is unclear to me is whether it is actually cheaper in the long run to fly a single multi-mission, highly expensive airframe, or two or three specialized designs. Is the cost savings worth the reduced ground support effectiveness? Are there any real cost-savings at all?

[PR3D4TOR]

The A-10 is not longer a viable platform against a modern opponent. Low and slow simply isn't survivable anymore. It's still great for COIN, but not much else. If we build an air force designed to fight goat herders in some 'stan, we'll lose if confronted by another world power. We need aircraft that can win against what the Chinese and other world powers have coming off the line 20 years from now.

[Zimme83]

On the other hand that lesson has been learned over and over again. Ground attack planes from the IL-2, To A-1, SU-25 and A-10 has one thing in common, they were designed to work low and slow. It inevidably leads to casualties but a slow, well armoured plane still is more effective than a fast fighter. U dont go low and slow unless u can go really low and slow. Using F-35 for CAS will lead to casualties, it will fall victim to AAA just as often as the A-10. Down low u are not that helped by stealth technology.

[USCH]

The A-10 is not longer a viable platform against a modern opponent. Low and slow simply isn't survivable anymore. It's still great for COIN, but not much else. If we build an air force designed to fight goat herders in some 'stan, we'll lose if confronted by another world power. We need aircraft that can win against what the Chinese and other world powers have coming off the line 20 years from now.

how many 10's have been shot down in the 10 years of the last wars? To say that they are no longer viable is mind numbingly dumb. Clearly you have not looked at what the 10 CAN do vs. the 35. Not to mention I don't thing the 35 has tripple redundancy. And as others have said, stealth doesn't work when you can see the damned thing with your own eyes.
The only way the A-10 should be replaced is to have a "new and improved" version of what works. Replacing the 10 is just as dumb as using the B-1 to replace the B-52 for its roll. And I don't see that happening any time soon.

To replace the A-10 with anything that has been currently built is just dumb. I'm not training in my Z-28 for a Corvette, why? Because I need 3 seats... It doesn't make the vette a bad car but its not correct for the roll that needs to be played.

[USCH]

The A-10 is not longer a viable platform against a modern opponent. Low and slow simply isn't survivable anymore. It's still great for COIN, but not much else. If we build an air force designed to fight goat herders in some 'stan, we'll lose if confronted by another world power. We need aircraft that can win against what the Chinese and other world powers have coming off the line 20 years from now.

[Hajo]

The Luftwaffe built many planes to be a jack of all trades.  Didn't work out to well as I recall.

[PR3D4TOR]

On the other hand that lesson has been learned over and over again. Ground attack planes from the IL-2, To A-1, SU-25 and A-10 has one thing in common, they were designed to work low and slow. It inevidably leads to casualties but a slow, well armoured plane still is more effective than a fast fighter. U dont go low and slow unless u can go really low and slow. Using F-35 for CAS will lead to casualties, it will fall victim to AAA just as often as the A-10. Down low u are not that helped by stealth technology.

How many slow ground attack planes did the western allies produce? Fast, powerful Typhoons and P-47 were the right choice in WWII. The Il-2 was a death trap.

[PR3D4TOR]

how many 10's have been shot down in the 10 years of the last wars?

How many world powers have the A-10 fought in that time period? None. Like I said, the A-10 is still a good COIN aircraft. Against goat herders it does quite well.

[PR3D4TOR]

The Luftwaffe built many planes to be a jack of all trades.  Didn't work out to well as I recall.

The Fw 190 and Ju 88 were excellent multi purpose aircraft.

[Zimme83]

On the eastern front, had IL-2 been used in the west it had been much more succesful. But fast and powerful in WW2 is no way near fast and powerful today. The A-10 can go as faster than a pony.

[PR3D4TOR]

Against modern air defenses like MANPADs aircraft are far more vulnerable now than in WWII. The Il-2 would have been just as much dog meat on the Western front as in the East.

[icepac]

The A10 only flew missions after air superiority cap was established by faster fighters.

[Zimme83]

Against modern air defenses like MANPADs aircraft are far more vulnerable now than in WWII. The Il-2 would have been just as much dog meat on the Western front as in the East.

Except that there would have been very few enemy fighters around to intercept it. Not even the C-47:s in the airborne attacks in -44 were attacked by German fighters in any numbers.

[PR3D4TOR]

The Luftwaffe made the 2nd TAF and the 9th AF their primary target over the western front post D-Day. You sound like you think there was no Luftwaffe in the west after D-Day.

[Guppy35]

The A-10 is not longer a viable platform against a modern opponent. Low and slow simply isn't survivable anymore. It's still great for COIN, but not much else. If we build an air force designed to fight goat herders in some 'stan, we'll lose if confronted by another world power. We need aircraft that can win against what the Chinese and other world powers have coming off the line 20 years from now.

Which war do you think we are going to fight?  Odds are pretty good it will be more of the same where low and slow still makes more sense then fast, unproven and expensive.