3 ms·

I almost started to say I don't understand the military's obsession with fixing things that aren't broke, but then I remembered defense contractors, campaign co

I almost started to say I don't understand the military's obsession with fixing things that aren't broke, but then I remembered defense contractors, campaign contributions, defense spending, and egos.

Scramblejams 11y ago
Ego's a big part of it here. The Air Force has historically demonstrated disinterest in programs that aren't "sexy," which is high-end fighter aviation in a nutshell. It's not just fixed-wing close air support that's hurting. It also manifests in the USAF not buying enough tanker, airlift and other assets to do the job.
- bigdubs 11y ago
  The "sexiness" isn't just because of their egos; sexiness fuels recruiting, which is ultimately how the air force is effective. Granted I'm not sure what isn't sexy about the GAU-8 firing; probably the craziest gun attached to an aircraft ever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX6s6dryF9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX6s6dryF9M
  - stan_rogers 11y ago
    It's more a matter of the A10 being the craziest aircraft attached to a gun, ever. The aircraft was basically designed as an answer to the question, "how do we put this cannon where we need it in a hurry?"
    - bigdubs 11y ago
      It's also the size of a VW Beatle. People think the gun is just the barrel but the ammo belt and drive are enormous.
- treerunner 11y ago
  An argument could be made, when considering the Air Force's costly desire for sexiness, that we will also be paying for the 2003 campaign of Shock and Awe for many years to come.
awesomerobot 11y ago
Job creation
vonmoltke 11y ago
Actually, the A-10 is "broke" in the sense that it can no longer perform its mission in a modern air defense environment. The current fleet is also old and wearing out. That said, there are plenty of military commitments that involve CAS in environments with minimal to non-existent air defense. The sensible thing to do would be to replace the A-10 in kind with a fairly cheap, modern version while working on a more expensive, more survivable complement. That makes too much sense for the Five-Sided Playpen, though.
- tyingq 11y ago
  Here's an article from the same author that presents a different view: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-rationale-for-retiring-the-a-10-warthog-is-bu-1562789528 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-rationale-for-ret... I'm no military expert, but it's fairly convincing.
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    From the article: > In other words, the same "inhospitable environment" that Pentagon leaders are pitching to justify the A-10's final farewell, are exactly the same conditions the jet was designed to survive in some 40 years ago. I disagree with that assessment. The top-end of air defense capabilities is much better than when the plane was designed. The A-10 is vulnerable to the same systems that have continued to evolve to combat ever more advanced attack helicopters. That said, I agree with his assessment that the USAF is more interested in replacing the red-headed step-child of the force with a sexy new fighter jock platform than in actually providing an effective CAS platform for the Army. That's why they'll never do what I suggested and replace the A-10 with a newer, similar CAS aircraft to pair with a sexy, high-threat-environment ground attack aircraft.
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  > it can no longer perform its mission in a modern air defense environment. In recent experience, the enemy doesn't have a functioning air defense after the first few hours. The fancy planes and cruise missiles blew it all up. Then the A-10 is free to work relatively safely for the next several years.

Scramblejams 11y ago

Ego's a big part of it here. The Air Force has historically demonstrated disinterest in programs that aren't "sexy," which is high-end fighter aviation in a nutshell. It's not just fixed-wing close air support that's hurting. It also manifests in the USAF not buying enough tanker, airlift and other assets to do the job.

bigdubs 11y ago
The "sexiness" isn't just because of their egos; sexiness fuels recruiting, which is ultimately how the air force is effective. Granted I'm not sure what isn't sexy about the GAU-8 firing; probably the craziest gun attached to an aircraft ever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX6s6dryF9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX6s6dryF9M
- stan_rogers 11y ago
  It's more a matter of the A10 being the craziest aircraft attached to a gun, ever. The aircraft was basically designed as an answer to the question, "how do we put this cannon where we need it in a hurry?"
  - bigdubs 11y ago
    It's also the size of a VW Beatle. People think the gun is just the barrel but the ammo belt and drive are enormous.
treerunner 11y ago
An argument could be made, when considering the Air Force's costly desire for sexiness, that we will also be paying for the 2003 campaign of Shock and Awe for many years to come.

awesomerobot 11y ago

Job creation

vonmoltke 11y ago

Actually, the A-10 is "broke" in the sense that it can no longer perform its mission in a modern air defense environment. The current fleet is also old and wearing out. That said, there are plenty of military commitments that involve CAS in environments with minimal to non-existent air defense. The sensible thing to do would be to replace the A-10 in kind with a fairly cheap, modern version while working on a more expensive, more survivable complement. That makes too much sense for the Five-Sided Playpen, though.

tyingq 11y ago
Here's an article from the same author that presents a different view: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-rationale-for-retiring-the-a-10-warthog-is-bu-1562789528 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-rationale-for-ret... I'm no military expert, but it's fairly convincing.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  From the article: > In other words, the same "inhospitable environment" that Pentagon leaders are pitching to justify the A-10's final farewell, are exactly the same conditions the jet was designed to survive in some 40 years ago. I disagree with that assessment. The top-end of air defense capabilities is much better than when the plane was designed. The A-10 is vulnerable to the same systems that have continued to evolve to combat ever more advanced attack helicopters. That said, I agree with his assessment that the USAF is more interested in replacing the red-headed step-child of the force with a sexy new fighter jock platform than in actually providing an effective CAS platform for the Army. That's why they'll never do what I suggested and replace the A-10 with a newer, similar CAS aircraft to pair with a sexy, high-threat-environment ground attack aircraft.
robotresearcher 11y ago
> it can no longer perform its mission in a modern air defense environment. In recent experience, the enemy doesn't have a functioning air defense after the first few hours. The fancy planes and cruise missiles blew it all up. Then the A-10 is free to work relatively safely for the next several years.