4 ms·

> The troops like the A-10 because it's loud and impressive and makes them feel like they haven't been forgotten. Even if this is entirely true, moral goes a h

> The troops like the A-10 because it's loud and impressive and makes them feel like they haven't been forgotten. Even if this is entirely true, moral goes a hell of a long way on in the army as does the fear this creates with the enemy. That said I was of the understanding the A-10 was very effective for supporting troops in areas like Afghanistan and similar low tech ground wars. The real issue the Air Force are tasked with protecting the country in the case of a 'real war' with more modernized opponents like China or Russia. In this case and A-10 is old tech and wont deliver much in terms of defense capability hence their lack of interest in maintaining/upgrading it.

gozur88 11y ago
Again, the A-10 only carried out 20% of the CAS missions in Afghanistan. It may have been very effective, but so was the F-16. And there's no reason to keep it around for low tech wars - if we need a dedicated aircraft to destroy mud huts we'd be better off with something cheap and easy to maintain, like Embraer's Super Tucano II.
- somegeekdude 11y ago
  The number of CAS missions carried out is not a measure of the effectiveness of those missions.
  - greedo 11y ago
    The B-1 has dropped more ordnance in Afghanistan than any other aircraft. The combination of long range, high endurance, and big payload make it perfect for this role. But the A-10 has its fan club that ignores this.
    - justin66 11y ago
      If you look at how much the B-1 cost to develop and fly... Wow.
      - greedo 11y ago
        The cost of operating the B-1B is actually cheaper than both the B-52 and the B-2 (though that's not saying much since the B-2 is a hangar queen). Afghanistan is a hard nut to crack due to being landlocked, surrounded by enemies, and with primitive facilities. B-1s do well in this situation since they can fly out of Diego Garcia, carry a shit ton of fuel, and munitions, and have a crew that is used to long duration flights. Once it was equipped with the AN/AAQ-28 Litening pod, it really came into its own for providing CAS. People also misunderstand what CAS is. CAS stands for Close Air Support, but doesn't mean the aircraft providing it has to be close, but that the munitions are hitting close to the FEBA (where our troops are).
        justin66 11y ago
        Pretty much everything is a lot cheaper to fly than the B-2 (by a wide margin) but I wonder about the B-52. It's such an anomaly. It does kind of seem like the last plane we still fly that was made to be a big, dumb bomb truck, which might be a pretty useful role with the new smart bombs, laser designation of targets, and so on. But keeping all that old hardware flying...
rstupek 11y ago
The troops like the A-10 because it can loiter over them low and slow and provide support for a longer period than the F-35 will ever be able to. It can carry a substantial amount of ordinance beyond its impressive 30mm cannon. The mission of CAS is best served by the A-10 and not a fighter bomber which can't do either role well
- gozur88 11y ago
  I see a lot of people assert that, but I don't see any reason to believe it's true. Targeting pods and guided bombs make "low and slow" attacks unnecessarily risky, and the plane is too slow to get on station in emergencies.

gozur88 11y ago

Again, the A-10 only carried out 20% of the CAS missions in Afghanistan. It may have been very effective, but so was the F-16. And there's no reason to keep it around for low tech wars - if we need a dedicated aircraft to destroy mud huts we'd be better off with something cheap and easy to maintain, like Embraer's Super Tucano II.

somegeekdude 11y ago
The number of CAS missions carried out is not a measure of the effectiveness of those missions.
- greedo 11y ago
  The B-1 has dropped more ordnance in Afghanistan than any other aircraft. The combination of long range, high endurance, and big payload make it perfect for this role. But the A-10 has its fan club that ignores this.
  - justin66 11y ago
    If you look at how much the B-1 cost to develop and fly... Wow.
    - greedo 11y ago
      The cost of operating the B-1B is actually cheaper than both the B-52 and the B-2 (though that's not saying much since the B-2 is a hangar queen). Afghanistan is a hard nut to crack due to being landlocked, surrounded by enemies, and with primitive facilities. B-1s do well in this situation since they can fly out of Diego Garcia, carry a shit ton of fuel, and munitions, and have a crew that is used to long duration flights. Once it was equipped with the AN/AAQ-28 Litening pod, it really came into its own for providing CAS. People also misunderstand what CAS is. CAS stands for Close Air Support, but doesn't mean the aircraft providing it has to be close, but that the munitions are hitting close to the FEBA (where our troops are).
      - justin66 11y ago
        Pretty much everything is a lot cheaper to fly than the B-2 (by a wide margin) but I wonder about the B-52. It's such an anomaly. It does kind of seem like the last plane we still fly that was made to be a big, dumb bomb truck, which might be a pretty useful role with the new smart bombs, laser designation of targets, and so on. But keeping all that old hardware flying...

rstupek 11y ago

The troops like the A-10 because it can loiter over them low and slow and provide support for a longer period than the F-35 will ever be able to. It can carry a substantial amount of ordinance beyond its impressive 30mm cannon. The mission of CAS is best served by the A-10 and not a fighter bomber which can't do either role well

gozur88 11y ago
I see a lot of people assert that, but I don't see any reason to believe it's true. Targeting pods and guided bombs make "low and slow" attacks unnecessarily risky, and the plane is too slow to get on station in emergencies.