McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate

[Zimme83]

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.

The losses during D- day were 127 planes in 14,674 sorties, a loss rate of 0,87% (to all causes)....

Edit: But if u dont like the Il-2 as an example u can take the A-1. same concept.

[Wolfala]

I think it's still a relevant airframe.

[PR3D4TOR]

The losses during D- day were 127 planes in 14,674 sorties, a loss rate of 0,87% (to all causes)....

I'm talking about post D-Day.

[PR3D4TOR]

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.

The USAF don't want the A-10, but I guess you know better.

[Volron]

   Something tells me that the F-35 will not accept small arms fire as well as the A-10, let alone AAA.  Down low, the bigger threat are bullets, not missiles.


The "Jack of all Trades" is more cost efficient since you don't have to train three different people on three different airframes.  Not to mention parts for repairs and upgrading.

That being said, I do not think it is effective in the long run.  While an argument can be made that we have the Apache, it is much slower and fly's lower than an A-10.  This makes it far more susceptible to small arms and AAA.  Not to mention is isn't as tough as the A-10, though you can't thumb your nose at it.


All in all, I think an upgrade to the A-10's, be it further improvement to the existing airframe or development of an entirely new airframe, is something that would be useful.  Something with as much, if not better/more, durability and loiter time, as well as ordinance.

[Widewing]

Worth a read....

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248

This one too...

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/major-obvious-f-35-pilot-says-a-10-will-always-be-bett-1696947416

[PR3D4TOR]

The USAF has abandoned "down low" to drones and smart weapons. The A-10's in service are flying up their few remaining hours and soon they will no longer be serviceable.

[Zimme83]

I'm talking about post D-Day.

Of course there were German Air activity over france post D-day, but against the 14,674 sorties the allied flew during D-day the Germans managed to fly 172 sorties... And the odds werent becoming any better afterwards. There were rare occasions of success for the Luftwaffe but they still lost 50% of their fighter force in france  between 6-30 of june.

[Zimme83]

The USAF has abandoned "down low" to drones and smart weapons. The A-10's in service are flying up their few remaining hours and soon they will no longer be serviceable.

just like they abandoned guns when AAM were introduced...

[PR3D4TOR]

After D-Day the Luftwaffe more or less withdrew from directly confronting the western allies in numbers until they had transfered fresh units from the eastern front and rebuilt their forces in the fall of 1944. During Operation Market Garden the Luftwaffe inflicted significant losses on the Allied air bridge claiming 209 Allied aircraft destroyed. Despite Allied air superiority they lost 144 transport aircraft in the space of a handful of days.

[PR3D4TOR]

just like they abandoned guns when AAM were introduced...

That's a nonsensical comparison.

[Widewing]

The USAF don't want the A-10, but I guess you know better.

They never did. They tried to kill it when first proposed. You see, if it isn't a strategic bomber or (edit grammar) Sierra Hotel fighter, it doesn't fit the USAF self interest. They don't like having to support the Army unless it's flying razzle-dazzle fighters. They had no choice but to take the A-10, and they've resented it ever since.

The fact remains that the A-10 was designed for battle over the Fulda Gap, where MANPADs (SA-7 and SA-14 and now SA-18) would be as common as trees. Tactics were developed to minimize risk. At least one A-10 was hit by SA-14 in Iraq, and it shrugged it off, more or less. As it was engineered to do. It was flown back to base, engine replaced, minor damage repaired and back flying in three days.

As a side note, the SU-25 is still in service and I've not seen any reported plans to retire it. Why do you think that is? Perhaps it's still the best aircraft in Russian service for the envisioned mission? I'd say so.

[Zimme83]

After D-Day the Luftwaffe more or less withdrew from directly confronting the western allies in numbers until they had transfered fresh units from the eastern front and rebuilt their forces in the fall of 1944. During Operation Market Garden the Luftwaffe inflicted significant losses on the Allied air bridge claiming 209 Allied aircraft destroyed. Despite Allied air superiority they lost 144 transport aircraft in the space of a handful of days.

And how many of those low and slow C-47 were brought down by AAA?

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/38158-new-book-about-us-c-47-losses-in-operation-market-garden/
Here there are a long list of C-47 losses during Market-Garden, the word "fighter" is not mentioned once... Not a single confirmed kill of a C-47 by a fighter on that list...

[Widewing]

The USAF has abandoned "down low" to drones and smart weapons. The A-10's in service are flying up their few remaining hours and soon they will no longer be serviceable.

No it hasn't. Where do you get such nonsense?

[PR3D4TOR]

And how many of those low and slow C-47 were brought down by AAA?

Many. Like I said the Luftwaffe claimed 209 aircraft.