McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate

[Widewing]

One more point.... Northrop Grumman has a contract to support the A-10 through 2016. Rumor is that they will propose a thoroughly updated, complete rebuild of the entire fleet of A-10s that would cut operational costs and increase operational availability. This would extend service life to 2035 or longer. I would not be surprised if this was floated before the end of summer. You can bet it will get a lot of support due to it's potential bang for the buck.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the rumor is based in fact.

[PR3D4TOR]

I want Yvonne Strahovski and Jennifer Lawrence to knock on my door looking to do dirty, dirty things to me, but it's not gonna happen.

The USAF can WANT all they, well, want. That doesn't mean they CAN.

Unlike your little fantasy there (who wouldn't want THAT), it is in fact the USAF that perform these CAS missions and it is for the most part within their power to change how they do things.

[USRanger]

I wouldn't be alive today if not for if not for the A-10.  My children would be fatherless if the F-35 had been there instead.  All I have to say on it.

[Karnak]

The USAF seems to want to change that. Like I said, they're leaving the low and slow approach.

You keep saying this like it is a new thing.  The USAF has wanted that since the day the A-10 was proposed.

I am not opposed to a replacement for the old A-10, but it needs to be a replacement that works, not pressing a fast mover into a role it can't adequately fill.

[PR3D4TOR]

The majority of CAS missions the USAF flies are done with other aircraft according to the article I posted.

[Karnak]

The majority of CAS missions the USAF flies are done with other aircraft according to the article I posted.

(Image removed from quote.)

That chart is meaningless as there is not any detail about the kinds of CAS each did.  Nobody is saying the F-35 can't handle some, or even most, CAS situations.  We're saying it, and other fast movers, can't handle 100% of CAS situations.  Wishing otherwise doesn't make those 10-20% of situations not happen.

[PR3D4TOR]

Can you describe a "CAS situation" only the A-10 could handle?

[JVboob]

F16s have a ton of check marks. 

The 16s from my unit have done a bunch of CAS missions. The 16s are very effective at it, but it doesnt have the payload or the fear factor of Mr. Burrrrrrrrrp.

The A10 is the most efficent CAS plane IMO. If what wide wing said is true then I hope it stays around EVERY one of my friends in USA or USMC have said the A10 has saved their arses. The F35 F15 F16 F/A18 C130s AH1s or AH64s will never beable to CAS as well as the A10 can. Untill a new plane can fill that role as effective or more effective the USAFs only option should be is to leave the Hog alone and let it do what it was designed to do.


 And ive heard praise of the 16 as well and come to find out a bird from my unit was the one that made a run for my marine buddy.

[PR3D4TOR]

[artik]

The question is how CAS is performed. Yes, there always were slow low good ground support aircraft, starting from Stuka and armored IL-2 up to modern A-10 and Su-25 that can have great deal of punishment and get close to targets.

However what is common to Ju-87, IL-2, A-10 and Su-25? They can operate when you have local air superiority, otherwise they are canon fodder - this is right for Aces High and for modern combat.

Now the question is if you need to get close to the target low and slow? It is good question - if you think that you don't need to get low and slow than you probably don't need choppers like AH-64 & AH-1 - that are even more vulnerable than A-10 or Su-25 at modern battle field.

If you use this argument that A-10 and Su-25 are dangerous in modern combat environment than retire all combat choppers fleet - so I don't buy this argument.

On the other hand if you operate F-16 like aircraft in that role - you can always drop your bombs and go on equal terms against opponents, A-10 and other specialized type of aircraft would need air cover.

A-10 and other similar aircraft are very efficient in CAS and probably do stuff better than F-16 in their role. F-16s + drones + choppers can substitute them by different means - as everybody already do it.

Now it is question of budget and goals. Can you afford to keeps specialized aircraft or can't? For example USAF is only operator of A-10. Su-25 is operated by much wider range of countries (outside CIS as well) but I assume Su-25 is cheaper to build and operate.

So bottom line:

- So would retiring A-10 jeopardize CAS abilities - no - almost every other force does CAS without it, also it may look different and may cost more at war time in comparison to dedicated aircraft.
- Would be it more cost effective to operate F-16 and other aircraft types in CAS role in long term (not, I'm not talking about F-35) - it is a question to to USAF.

[artik]

BTW an example of really good CAS for both targeting and situational awareness (without A-10)

[Patches1]

This entire discussion can be closed by the execution of one simple deed: give the A-10 to the Marines! The Marines will show you what Close Air Support is all about, since they invented it!

And aerial evacuation of wounded? Yep! The Marines invented that!

Oh! And the use of helicopters to move troops around the battlefield? Yep! The Marines invented that, too!

[JVboob]

Operationally the A10 is cheaper than your fast movers. But like artik said vulnerable with out air superiority. F16s 15s 18s ect can work them over till reasonable air superiority is aquired then pass the torch to the A10s and continue CAP.

As the chart above stated the A10 is $4,000~ cheaper to operate per hour than a 16 (second cheapest non-drone). Keep the A10s grounded and when its 80% CAS sorties operate them. The problem is maintaing the ageing fleet.

[TOMCAT21]

Guys on the ground , like myself, appreciate the fact that at any given time, the reliable warthog is on station to provide us the CAS we may need. The A10 is still a much viable aircraft in todays world. It's proven itself over and over. If ain't broke why bother to fix it ? A10's can take the damage and still bring the pilot home safe.

[Skuzzy]

True. However, the A-10 is old and won't be around for long no matter how much anyone wants it to. Production shut down 30 years ago, the company no longer exists and the people who worked on it are retired or dead.

This is just nonsense.  The age of a plane has nothing to do with the ability to support it.  The newest B-52H was built in 1962, but continued upgrades will keep them flying to 2040.

"The A-10 Aircraft Structural Integrity Program began with the initial A-10 OEM development contract, with the definition of materials and processes, design analyses, component and full scale testing, and data collection and analysis on an aircraft by aircraft basis, to validate analyses and accurately predict fatigue damage for the optimization of inspection intervals and maximization of aircraft availability. The A-10 OEM Team continues to be a key member of the A-10 ASIP Team, providing loads and structures analysis, performing full scale and component testing, developing structural reinforcements and non-destructive inspection techniques to prevent structural failure, analyzing manufacturing methods for aircraft improvements and providing overall weapons system expertise for the support of the warfighter."

The is no reason why the A-10 cannot be supported, as long as there is deemed a need for them.