McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate

[Zimme83]

See Rule #14

[PR3D4TOR]

And keeping the A-10 in spite of the USAF not wanting it is "the will of the people"? Sure...

[artik]

First of all guys... don't go to P..s otherwise the thread would be locked

Having to buy Naval aircraft designs to meet mission needs (A-1, F-4, A-7).

Actually F-4 was a great success.

Also I think if USAF wasn't missing F-5 they would be needed much fewer Phantoms.

You know there were only few cases when an aircraft designed for an land based air force become successful naval plane, but there were many cases of other way around: F-18, F-4, A-4 and more.

[Widewing]

See Rule #14

[HPriller]

In an age of laser guided bombs accurate to a matter of inches, and cheap drones that can be thrown up en masse, you really do have to question the need for the A-10.  It's design goal was to prevent columns of soviet armor from overwhelming, that's what that giant gun was made for.  I'm no fan of the F-35 either, but endlessly bemoaning a capability gap while the US still has an overwhelmingly stronger air force than the rest of the world isn't going to be an argument I'd buy into.  Personally, I'm all for doing whatever costs the least when it comes to the US taxpayer.  I'm sick of paying for Team America World Police.  We have a huge technological *and* numerical edge in the air compared to everyone else and no credible opposition.  Unless we plan to use these weapons to annex new territories and plant our flag/make a 51st state, they are just a waste of money.  If in 20 years a credible threat starts to emerge, then we can justify the expenditure for new military toys.  The fact is the A-10 is obsolete, the F-35 very well could be by the time we need face off with it.  Better to print out the weapons once we need them rather than burn more money on them while 20% of the children in this country aren't even food secure.  There are waaaay bigger fish to fry.

[Serenity]

Better to print out the weapons once we need them rather than burn more money on them while 20% of the children in this country aren't even food secure.  There are waaaay bigger fish to fry.

LOL!!! Oh dear lord, do you have ANY idea just how long it takes to develop a new weapon from the ground up?!

[FBKampfer]

Too long. Someone's profiting off of slow development   and shotty work, and needs to stop.

[Serenity]

Too long. Someone's profiting off of slow development   and shotty work, and needs to stop.

Oh, I don't disagree, but even in a pure, honest, genuine environment, waiting to develop the next weapon until we need it is WAY too late to start such a thing.

[HPriller]

Necessity is the mother of invention.  Yes, I agree waiting till you need it is too late, but the current development cycle is ridiculously too long to the point of things being likely to be obsolete before they are even completed.  Compare it to the pace of development of weapons in WW2.  Start to finish was measured in months not decades.  Also consider that we live in an age of information, nobody is going to pull a brand new air supremacy fighter out of thin air.  It's too complex a project and too many satellites, cameras, microphones, etc are watching.  Credible threats can be seen far in advance of when they could in the past.  If all development stopped in the US it would still take years perhaps decades for any other country to mount an equivalent force.  Continued nose to the grindstone development of weaponry only serves to make it easier for the rest of the world to steal/copy our technology.  The Chinese and Russians are benefitting from all of the hard development work the US has done on weapons (just take that carbon copy of the C-17 the Chinese have for example), spying has gotten easier and more effective than ever.

National competition has gone from warfare to economic and current policy isn't helping the US win the economic battle.   I don't think it's in the best interest of the US to keep pouring billions more into our bloated and horribly mismanaged military juggernaut when meanwhile we are losing the economic war.   UNLESS, it is with the intention to use said weapons to expand our global influence and that means all out bloody warfare and planting our flag on what is currently considered foreign soil and meaning to keep it there permanently.  Now this too is probably a very bad idea though as it would make the rest of the world see the US as the bad guy and they'd dogpile on the United States faster than Donald Trump blew up his presidential prospects.  Nobody dares to cross a border and plant a flag anymore lest the rest of the world instantly decry them as the ultimate evil and carve them up like a roast turkey.

The line used to go 'if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything', what it really is these days is 'if you *dare* stand for something, you'll fall to everyone'.

Hopefully, it's needless to say but all of the above is just my opinion on the subject, feel free to disagree and present a counter argument.

[FBKampfer]

Agreed.

Imo, what we really need is a small, highly specialized army right now. One that is comprised disproportionately of  special forces.

And then we need smaller numbers of largely modular weapons and vehicles with a large surge capacity. Train to fight the current threat, but prepare to switch gears quickly.

[PR3D4TOR]

... Compare it to the pace of development of weapons in WW2.  Start to finish was measured in months not decades. ...

Years, not months. P-51 probably had the shortest development time. Prototype NA-73X flew in 1940. Early Allison powered A-36 and Mustang I entered service with RAF in 1942. The mature weapon system P-51B entered service in the winter of 1943-1944. F-35 prototype first flew in 2006.

[artik]

Years, not months. P-51 probably had the shortest development time. Prototype NA-73X flew in 1940. Early Allison powered A-36 and Mustang I entered service with RAF in 1942. The mature weapon system P-51B entered service in the winter of 1943-1944. F-35 prototype first flew in 2006.

Few things...

It shouldn't take a great deal of time to develop an aircraft, take a look on some of best selling aircraft around:

- A-4 Skyhawk, first flight 1954, introduction 1956 - 2 years
- MiG-21 - first flight 1956, in service 1959 - 3 years
- Mirage III - first flight 1956, introduction 1961 - 5 years
- F-4 Phantom, first flight 1958, introduction 1960 - 2 years
- F-15 - first flight 1972, introduction 1976 - 4 years
- F-16 - first flight for YF-16 1973, introduction 1978 - 5 years
- MiG-29 - first flight 1977, introduction 1983 - 6 years

Some Most Revolutionary designs:

- Harrier - Hawker Siddeley P.1127 1960, Harrier in serice 1969 - 9 years - first ever operation STOVL aircraft!!!
- Have Blue first flight 1977, F-117 in service 1983 - 5 years first ever stealth bomber.



At this point I wanted to "trash" the F-35 (F-35B: 2006 - 2015 - 9 years, F-35A - 2016 - 10 years and F-35C 2018 -12 years planned)

However I realized that F-35 isn't outstanding, if I take delay from first flight to introduction of latest airframes:


Gripen   1988 - 1997   9 years
Rafale   1986 - 2001   15 years
Typhoon 1994 - 2003   9 years
Raptor   1997 - 2005   8 years

It looks like modern industry "unlearned" how to develop an aircraft. Today you have all CAD/CAM technologies, digital simulations you couldn't dread of in 60th and yet it takes 2-3 more times to produce an aircraft. 

Horrible!

[PR3D4TOR]

The complexity of modern weapon systems is staggering. Even when compared to systems developed in the 1970's and 80's like the MiG-29. Sure you can still go to war in a P-51 or MiG-21, but you won't be coming back.

[artik]

Sure you can still go to war in a P-51 or MiG-21, but you won't be coming back.

First of all - don't underestimate MiG-21... MiG-21 Bison with up-to date radar, Helmet display, modern ECM and VVR+BVR missiles with 21,800 lbf "WEP" engine with well trained crew is very formidable opponent even against F-15C - as was shown at Red Flag.

The complexity of modern weapon systems is staggering. Even when compared to systems developed in the 1970's and 80's like the MiG-29.

I shouldn't double or quadruple  the time of the development. The weapon systems are get upgraded all the time and avionics is being replaced up to several times during airframe lifespan. If it was so complicated (~= the design of a new aircraft) the upgrades would never be done.

[Saxman]

And keeping the A-10 in spite of the USAF not wanting it is "the will of the people"? Sure...

So what, the guys on the ground whose tulips are saved by that equipment day in and day out don't count as "the people?"