3 ms·

>This article, like most others, overlooks the primary reason the A-10 has been slated for retirement for so long even though no one contests its effectiveness

>This article, like most others, overlooks the primary reason the A-10 has been slated for retirement for so long even though no one contests its effectiveness in its role. Due to the way the aircraft was designed, it has very limited upgradeability compared to most US military aircraft. The real reason is that it has always been the red-headed step-child of the ch-Air Force. There has never been any real interest in the CAS role from the mgmt, other than to keep that turf away from the Army and Marine Corps. >While the airframe still makes for a great weapons platform, the sensor suites, avionics, and countermeasures are obsolete, and not in a good way. They've been doing a lot of nasty hacks to allow it to support modern weapon systems and electronics but there are a growing number of important capabilities that simply cannot be "backported" to that airframe. I was about to make a similar comment that the A10 performs its role well despite having relatively primitive weapons / targeting systems. But I disagree about the reason for the obsolete weapons / electronics. Sensors and computers have only gotten smaller and better, and I am afraid I don't understand why you think that the A10 cannot be fitted with proper electronics and sensors. >This has been increasing its vulnerability to more advanced threats The definition of a CAS role practically implies that the airplane can only operate in an arena where air-superiority is assured. The A10 is by definition vulnerable to "more advanced threats" and so will any acceptable substitute share similar vulnerabilities. >Its shelf-life has been extended by virtue of it being used in practice against adversaries with unsophisticated weaponry. Exactly the kind of adversary it is being deployed against, though it has proven itself against others as well. >It is a relic of the Cold War not just in its history but, unfortunately, also in its defenses and weaponry with no obvious upgrade path. To replace it with something that could support the capabilities they desire, they would need to design a completely new airframe. I agree, and I hope they call it the A10-mkII, and that it is practically a modern rebuild of the A10.

jandrewrogers 12y ago
The vulnerabilities and limitations of concern are not addressed by air superiority. It lacks modern protection from more sophisticated ground threats. Basically, the US military is concerned because they know that they already have ground threat capabilities that would significantly reduce the survivability of platforms like the A-10. Looking forward, they expect this level of weapon sophistication to trickle down to increasingly unsophisticated adversaries. The A-10 lacks the power systems required to drive modern defenses and weapons. It is no different than how the US military has been planning for the obsolescence of heavy armor.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  >The vulnerabilities and limitations of concern are not addressed by air superiority. It lacks modern protection from more sophisticated ground threats. >Basically, the US military... Chair force types itching for a new jet. > Looking forward, they expect this level of weapon sophistication to trickle down to increasingly unsophisticated adversaries. That is a totally reasonable assumption. I agree that MANPADS may prove problematic. There is the potential to develop countermeasure for these, just not the will, which is a shame because the rotors would benefit from it as well. But, the AF doesn't care for those, either. >The A-10 lacks the power systems required to drive modern defenses and weapons. You state this as if it were some kind of objective proven fact. It isn't. It may be the case that some existing weapons system can't be bolted on; but it is not a credible assertion to say that that a suitable solution cannot be developed. >It is no different than how the US military has been planning for the obsolescence of heavy armor. It is quite different. Heavy armor is useless, everyone knows it, and to the .mil's credit they are phasing it out. The A10 fills an important CAS role that other platforms can't replace. The F35 definitely isn't going to perform well as an A10 replacement. The Apache works well, but for some reason (sortie cost / availability?) it hasn't obsoleted the A10. Some yet undeveloped unmanned drone might be able to do so, but that is yet to be demonstrated.
  - unsigner 12y ago
    Interesting about heavy armor - can you point me at something to read?
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      Sure. Here are a couple of recent news articles. > http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-m... > http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-the-tank-the-army-says-it-doesnt-need-it-but-industry-wants-to-keep-building-it/2014/01/31/c11e5ee0-60f0-11e3-94ad-004fefa61ee6_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-th...

jandrewrogers 12y ago

The vulnerabilities and limitations of concern are not addressed by air superiority. It lacks modern protection from more sophisticated ground threats. Basically, the US military is concerned because they know that they already have ground threat capabilities that would significantly reduce the survivability of platforms like the A-10. Looking forward, they expect this level of weapon sophistication to trickle down to increasingly unsophisticated adversaries. The A-10 lacks the power systems required to drive modern defenses and weapons. It is no different than how the US military has been planning for the obsolescence of heavy armor.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
>The vulnerabilities and limitations of concern are not addressed by air superiority. It lacks modern protection from more sophisticated ground threats. >Basically, the US military... Chair force types itching for a new jet. > Looking forward, they expect this level of weapon sophistication to trickle down to increasingly unsophisticated adversaries. That is a totally reasonable assumption. I agree that MANPADS may prove problematic. There is the potential to develop countermeasure for these, just not the will, which is a shame because the rotors would benefit from it as well. But, the AF doesn't care for those, either. >The A-10 lacks the power systems required to drive modern defenses and weapons. You state this as if it were some kind of objective proven fact. It isn't. It may be the case that some existing weapons system can't be bolted on; but it is not a credible assertion to say that that a suitable solution cannot be developed. >It is no different than how the US military has been planning for the obsolescence of heavy armor. It is quite different. Heavy armor is useless, everyone knows it, and to the .mil's credit they are phasing it out. The A10 fills an important CAS role that other platforms can't replace. The F35 definitely isn't going to perform well as an A10 replacement. The Apache works well, but for some reason (sortie cost / availability?) it hasn't obsoleted the A10. Some yet undeveloped unmanned drone might be able to do so, but that is yet to be demonstrated.
- unsigner 12y ago
  Interesting about heavy armor - can you point me at something to read?
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    Sure. Here are a couple of recent news articles. > http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-m... > http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-the-tank-the-army-says-it-doesnt-need-it-but-industry-wants-to-keep-building-it/2014/01/31/c11e5ee0-60f0-11e3-94ad-004fefa61ee6_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-th...