3 ms·

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 wea

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.
bubuga 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. I'm sure that the A-10 can still perform its mission in a modern air defense environment, mainly due to the fact that the bulk of today's missions involve an enemy with limited resources, limited industrial capabilities, and limited technical skills. > The current fleet is also old and wearing out. I'm sure the US is quite capable of putting up a military aicraft program for a mark 2 version of the A10 thunderbolt, one which is focused on tackling the maintenance/cost issues of the current version and even increase the reliability of the whole airframe. The last four decades in the aviation field were very fertile with regards to technical progresses.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  > I'm sure that the A-10 can still perform its mission in a modern air defense environment, mainly due to the fact that the bulk of today's missions involve an enemy with limited resources, limited industrial capabilities, and limited technical skills. To answer both you and robotresearcher, the US has not faced an opponent with a modern air defense system since Vietnam. The closest was Serbia, and NATO specifically held off on low level missions for a while there because of the Serb AD network. > I'm sure the US is quite capable of putting up a military aicraft program for a mark 2 version of the A10 thunderbolt, one which is focused on tackling the maintenance/cost issues of the current version and even increase the reliability of the whole airframe. The last four decades in the aviation field were very fertile with regards to technical progresses. That's basically what I said in the next sentence. I'm not sure what your point is here.

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.

bubuga 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. I'm sure that the A-10 can still perform its mission in a modern air defense environment, mainly due to the fact that the bulk of today's missions involve an enemy with limited resources, limited industrial capabilities, and limited technical skills. > The current fleet is also old and wearing out. I'm sure the US is quite capable of putting up a military aicraft program for a mark 2 version of the A10 thunderbolt, one which is focused on tackling the maintenance/cost issues of the current version and even increase the reliability of the whole airframe. The last four decades in the aviation field were very fertile with regards to technical progresses.

vonmoltke 11y ago
> I'm sure that the A-10 can still perform its mission in a modern air defense environment, mainly due to the fact that the bulk of today's missions involve an enemy with limited resources, limited industrial capabilities, and limited technical skills. To answer both you and robotresearcher, the US has not faced an opponent with a modern air defense system since Vietnam. The closest was Serbia, and NATO specifically held off on low level missions for a while there because of the Serb AD network. > I'm sure the US is quite capable of putting up a military aicraft program for a mark 2 version of the A10 thunderbolt, one which is focused on tackling the maintenance/cost issues of the current version and even increase the reliability of the whole airframe. The last four decades in the aviation field were very fertile with regards to technical progresses. That's basically what I said in the next sentence. I'm not sure what your point is here.