3 ms·

The given reason the A-10 is retiring is very effective MANPADS are proliferating and the A-10 is too vulnerable. It doesn't seem so easy to dismiss the point t

The given reason the A-10 is retiring is very effective MANPADS are proliferating and the A-10 is too vulnerable. It doesn't seem so easy to dismiss the point to me. Many systems people claim are great have worked well against dirt poor "insurgents" in recent foolish wars of choice. Arming against a more serious adversary is a separate question.

Donzo 12y ago
Then again, the US chooses to go to war a lot, so that doesn't negate the value of this aircraft.
CapitalistCartr 12y ago
Manpads are a threat to all aircraft. Any good CAS means going low enough and slow enough to see what's going on. This makes any CAS vulnerable to a variety of ground attacks. The AF solution is to fly higher and faster: great for them less good for the ground troops. A better solution will probably be drones. But, again, the AF is cool on drones when everyone else loves them (including CIA). The major problem is the AF won't let the army provide it's own ficed-wing CAS, but doesn't have enthusiasm for the job.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  I read a claim that said AF have a higher drone loss than the other branches, because they let their "pilots" do manual landings...
jschwartzi 12y ago
Could an A-10 survive a direct hit from a MANPADS or two?
- digi_owl 12y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Durability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde... Would not surprise me...
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  It's a good question. Not one that A10 drivers would like to find out the hard way. A10 / CAS aircraft need counter-measures. IIRC, the USAF's answer to this is that the F35 will do CAS from high altitude with smart-munitions.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    Which is another way of saying that the F-35 will not do close air support.
    - hga 12y ago
      Well, it certainly can't do it with cannon, they can carry about 1/10 the number of rounds the A-10 does, and they're much less effective.
sgnelson 12y ago
And again, the alternative is? Not to provide CAS at all? Precision munitions from 30,000 feet? As others have already stated, that's pretty much the job of any CAS; go get your butt shot off while trying to destroy the other guy first. Just because MANPADS are becoming more dangerous and more ubiquitous doesn't mean that the job of CAS no longer exists, it simply means that the ongoing battle of offense versus defense continues. You adapt, you move on. If the Air Force wants to create a new, better, A-10 (as the A-10 was a new remake of the A-1), and then retire the A-10, I don't think many people would be complaining. But the fact is, the Air Force keeps coming up with rather asinine, nonsensical, and downright lies about why they should get rid of the A-10, but yet they have nothing to replace it with. The whole argument of "But it's a dangerous environment, it might not survive" doesn't quite fly when you're talking about fighting wars. That's what wars are, dangerous environments in which people might not survive. It doesn't mean that you still don't fight them (ignoring the fact that yes, we've certainly have made poor choices in which wars to start/fight in lately).

Donzo 12y ago

Then again, the US chooses to go to war a lot, so that doesn't negate the value of this aircraft.

CapitalistCartr 12y ago

Manpads are a threat to all aircraft. Any good CAS means going low enough and slow enough to see what's going on. This makes any CAS vulnerable to a variety of ground attacks. The AF solution is to fly higher and faster: great for them less good for the ground troops. A better solution will probably be drones. But, again, the AF is cool on drones when everyone else loves them (including CIA). The major problem is the AF won't let the army provide it's own ficed-wing CAS, but doesn't have enthusiasm for the job.

digi_owl 12y ago
I read a claim that said AF have a higher drone loss than the other branches, because they let their "pilots" do manual landings...

jschwartzi 12y ago

Could an A-10 survive a direct hit from a MANPADS or two?

digi_owl 12y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Durability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde... Would not surprise me...
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
It's a good question. Not one that A10 drivers would like to find out the hard way. A10 / CAS aircraft need counter-measures. IIRC, the USAF's answer to this is that the F35 will do CAS from high altitude with smart-munitions.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Which is another way of saying that the F-35 will not do close air support.
  - hga 12y ago
    Well, it certainly can't do it with cannon, they can carry about 1/10 the number of rounds the A-10 does, and they're much less effective.

sgnelson 12y ago

And again, the alternative is? Not to provide CAS at all? Precision munitions from 30,000 feet? As others have already stated, that's pretty much the job of any CAS; go get your butt shot off while trying to destroy the other guy first. Just because MANPADS are becoming more dangerous and more ubiquitous doesn't mean that the job of CAS no longer exists, it simply means that the ongoing battle of offense versus defense continues. You adapt, you move on. If the Air Force wants to create a new, better, A-10 (as the A-10 was a new remake of the A-1), and then retire the A-10, I don't think many people would be complaining. But the fact is, the Air Force keeps coming up with rather asinine, nonsensical, and downright lies about why they should get rid of the A-10, but yet they have nothing to replace it with. The whole argument of "But it's a dangerous environment, it might not survive" doesn't quite fly when you're talking about fighting wars. That's what wars are, dangerous environments in which people might not survive. It doesn't mean that you still don't fight them (ignoring the fact that yes, we've certainly have made poor choices in which wars to start/fight in lately).