4 ms·

I think divestment of the A10s make sense. Those Fairchild frames are super dated and ill-suited for battles against peer adversary.

darth_avocado 4y ago
A10s are probably not the one you need to retire. In an all out war, they’re the easiest to maintain and the best ones to fly with damages. They do have a specific role, but in that role, it is one of the hardiest planes to exist.
- nradov 4y ago
  A-10s are basically useless in the Pacific theater. They don't have the range, speed, or defensive systems to even make it to the fight. (And the same limitations make attack helicopters even more useless there.) A few squadrons composed of airframes in the best physical condition (fewest stress cracks) will probably be kept around for potential use in low intensity conflicts in other theaters but most will have to go to the boneyard.
  - ianburrell 4y ago
    A-10 are too expensive for low intensity conflicts. Planes like Super Tucano would be better if we need to fight that kind of war. It would have been better if US kept Super Tucanos instead of giving them to Afghan air force. It is also quite possible that drones will do the CAS job by the time it is needed again. Or that missiles will make too dangerous for anything.
    - tiahura 4y ago
      How about a C-2 based gunship. Carrier launchable so Navy could buy.
      - nradov 4y ago
        Forget it. The Navy would never buy a new aircraft that could only ever be used for CAS in low intensity conflicts. They have no budget for that mission and no extra space in carrier air wings. The Air Force will probably keep a few AC-130 gunships around but they're just not survivable against any sort of competent air defense.
      - ianburrell 4y ago
        Gunships are less survivable than A-10. They only operate at night because they are so vulnerable. They are only for special circumstances. I’m not sure we need CAS solution, bombers and fighters at medium altitude with precision munitions worked well. Light attack works well for counter insuregency. For contested airspace like Ukraine, drones might be the only option.
- ianburrell 4y ago
  A-10 are expensive to maintain because of their age. The high maintenance budget is the reason AF is retiring them. Their role has almost completely disappeared and Ukraine has proven it. Su-25, the Russian equivalent, have been shot down at alarming rates because of all the MANPADs, SAMs, and fighters.
- pknomad 4y ago
  I know it's highly unpopular thing to say but A10's are also failing at their own role. Its main gun cannot achieve penetration against modern armor and their armor cannot survive against modern AA.
  - wrp 4y ago
    Even at the time of Gulf War 1, the A-10 was performing less well than popularly imagined. See the article "The Gulf crisis: The media point of view,' by David Hackworth (1991). (http://libgen.rs/scimag/10.1080%2F09592319108423001 http://libgen.rs/scimag/10.1080%2F09592319108423001)

darth_avocado 4y ago

A10s are probably not the one you need to retire. In an all out war, they’re the easiest to maintain and the best ones to fly with damages. They do have a specific role, but in that role, it is one of the hardiest planes to exist.

nradov 4y ago
A-10s are basically useless in the Pacific theater. They don't have the range, speed, or defensive systems to even make it to the fight. (And the same limitations make attack helicopters even more useless there.) A few squadrons composed of airframes in the best physical condition (fewest stress cracks) will probably be kept around for potential use in low intensity conflicts in other theaters but most will have to go to the boneyard.
- ianburrell 4y ago
  A-10 are too expensive for low intensity conflicts. Planes like Super Tucano would be better if we need to fight that kind of war. It would have been better if US kept Super Tucanos instead of giving them to Afghan air force. It is also quite possible that drones will do the CAS job by the time it is needed again. Or that missiles will make too dangerous for anything.
  - tiahura 4y ago
    How about a C-2 based gunship. Carrier launchable so Navy could buy.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Forget it. The Navy would never buy a new aircraft that could only ever be used for CAS in low intensity conflicts. They have no budget for that mission and no extra space in carrier air wings. The Air Force will probably keep a few AC-130 gunships around but they're just not survivable against any sort of competent air defense.
    - ianburrell 4y ago
      Gunships are less survivable than A-10. They only operate at night because they are so vulnerable. They are only for special circumstances. I’m not sure we need CAS solution, bombers and fighters at medium altitude with precision munitions worked well. Light attack works well for counter insuregency. For contested airspace like Ukraine, drones might be the only option.
ianburrell 4y ago
A-10 are expensive to maintain because of their age. The high maintenance budget is the reason AF is retiring them. Their role has almost completely disappeared and Ukraine has proven it. Su-25, the Russian equivalent, have been shot down at alarming rates because of all the MANPADs, SAMs, and fighters.
pknomad 4y ago
I know it's highly unpopular thing to say but A10's are also failing at their own role. Its main gun cannot achieve penetration against modern armor and their armor cannot survive against modern AA.
- wrp 4y ago
  Even at the time of Gulf War 1, the A-10 was performing less well than popularly imagined. See the article "The Gulf crisis: The media point of view,' by David Hackworth (1991). (http://libgen.rs/scimag/10.1080%2F09592319108423001 http://libgen.rs/scimag/10.1080%2F09592319108423001)