7 ms·
If the Air Force is so bent on getting rid of these wonderfully useful, tough machines, then perhaps they should entirely leave the ground support role to the U
by tired_man 10y ago
If the Air Force is so bent on getting rid of these wonderfully useful, tough machines, then perhaps they should entirely leave the ground support role to the US Marine Corps and the US Navy, both of which have a long history of providing ground attack support to troops.
The A-10 is the best damned aircraft at this role since the AD-1 Spad's were retired.
All the Air Force wants is glitter and fame, they aren't really interested in life on the ground. Give them their wish, take the A-10s and give them to someone who will use them to their fullest potential.
- grillvogel 10y agochair force amirite
- dv_dt 10y agoI suspect the problem has been that the AF doesn't want to give up the ground supt role (or maybe just the budget associated with it), but they do want to give up the plane.
- tired_man 10y agoThe Air Force wants the cash to help make up for the abysmal F-35 program. The USMC and Navy should have control of ground attack resources. Let the Air Force play with their missiles and laser death rays.
- Scramblejams 10y agoOr, I'm gonna go out on a limb here -- how about open up fixed wing close air support to the Army? The Marines are already free to run whatever they want, but they've banked on the F-35 as well. Since the end of the USAAF and the formation of the USAF, it's been sacrosanct that the Army isn't allowed to do fixed wing aviation. It may be time to look at changing that.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y agoThe Army is allowed to do fixed wing aviation, but only with a dry weight of 5000 lbs. or less.
- hga 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement most often called the Treaty of Key West in my readings.
- iofj 10y agoI bet that will turn out to be a massive tactical misjudgment by the air force once we really start switching to drones, at which point 5000lbs or less is no longer a limitation at all.
- engi_nerd 10y agoInteresting opinion. The usual interpretation of USAF history is that it never really wanted CAS aircraft at all. Flying high and fast is what the USAF has prized as a general rule. CAS is necessary and important but not sexy or what you want to fly if you hope to climb the rank ladder.
- TylerE 10y agoThe thing is, the last A-10 rolled off the production line 32 years ago. Airframes have finite lifespans.
- the_ancient 10y agoThen Build more Airframes... Start up the production again, I would rather them scrap the F35 program, which is vaporware at this point, than the A10
- adamson 10y agoHuh? F-35s are in production
- bpodgursky 10y agoF-35s will not be able to fire their cannons until the 2020's (last I checked), because the software has not been written.
- vonmoltke 10y ago2019 That said, the decision to declare Initial Operating Capacity with a software load that only has 89% of the aircraft's functionality is some politicized bullshit by the USAF.
- mikeash 10y agoThat must be one fancy-pants cannon if it takes three years to write the software to drive it. How is that even possible?
- ceejayoz 10y agoCannons have substantially nastier failure modes than the latest Twitter clone, and as such have much longer software development and testing cycles. A look into a similar process with NASA: http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff
- nerfhammer 10y agoWouldn't the Marines want the aircraft to be carrier-based, which the A-10 is not?
- gozur88 10y agoWell, LHA and LHD-based, anyway. And also short improvised landing strips. The marines wouldn't have anywhere to base the A-10. They'd have to fly out of Air Force bases.
- engi_nerd 10y ago...What about all those lovely Naval Air and Marine Corps Air Stations?
- gozur88 10y agoWe tend to not have those were we need them. Is there a Naval air base near A-stan?
- engi_nerd 10y agoThat's not what you said originally though. You said that the Navy or Marine Corps would be forced to use Air Force facilities. And there can be an air field within striking distance of Afghanistan, if necessary, as I'm sure you know. A CVN or an LHA.
- gozur88 10y ago>That's not what you said originally though. You said that the Navy or Marine Corps would be forced to use Air Force facilities. Yes... and if there's no naval base near the theater you're interested in, then...? We're not fighting wars in San Diego. >And there can be an air field within striking distance of Afghanistan, if necessary, as I'm sure you know. A CVN or an LHA. You know better than that. You're not going to base A-10s on a ship.
- michaelt 10y agoTraditionally in American politics (and doubtless in other countries too) if someone cuts your budget or doesn't increase your budget as much as you'd like, you can put pressure on them by announcing you're being "forced" to dump something useful and popular. Local government wants more money? Threaten to close libraries. Air force wants more money? Threaten to retire a plane famous for its effectiveness in a recent conflict.