4 ms·

The "Upgradeability" argument is a moot point considering there is no other airframe that can come close to replacing the A-10 in the missions it is best at. T

The "Upgradeability" argument is a moot point considering there is no other airframe that can come close to replacing the A-10 in the missions it is best at. To say that the plane isn't nearly "upgradeable" enough (A point on the face I would dispute, as it's already been upfitted with Pave gear) is to say, "let's get rid of the plane because it's not good enough for future battles we might fight, and if we do, then we'll have absolutely nothing capable now." It's an argument that completely lacks any real world basis. I don't get rid of my only computer because it's a Pentium 3 because it's old, until I have something that can actually replace it (and no, it won't/can't be replaced by the JSF). Also, I point out that the A-10 is actually young compared to some of the planes we're still flying. B52 anyone? U-2? We don't stop flying planes because they're old, we stop flying them because there is something better to replace them. At this time, no such thing exists for the A-10. Also, it's insane to say that the missions that the plane "Might" be used for in the future don't suit the plane, considering the missions it actually has, are almost perfect for it (ground support in Iraq as the article states). The truth is that the Air Force doesn't want the plane and they're trying to come up with any excuse to kill it, despite the fact that it actually saves US troops lives.

542458 12y ago
> The truth is that the Air Force doesn't want the plane I'm not disputing the truth of this (as their actions seem to agree with you), but what do you think motivates the air force to want to get rid of such a successful platform?
- autokad 12y ago
  #1 cost (mostly due to lack of upfront funding to keep costs down) #2 it doesnt look/scound cool like those 'new' planes. it sounds great to have a cool new jet fighter with (some) stealth and can do neat loopty loops and use the latest and greatest air to air and electronic warfare systems, BUT none of these new planes actually come anywhere close to fulfilling the close ground support role the A-10 offers. its much akin to wanting the best fantasy stat players on your sports team but come to find those metrics don't win championships / make teams.
  - crypto5 12y ago
    > none of these new planes actually come anywhere close to fulfilling the close ground support role the A-10 offers What makes you think that way? Low-end missions can be fulfilled by drones and apaches, and high-end obviously by F-35. A-10 is obsolete mostly because high precision bombs and missiles combined with good sensors are much more efficient than what A-10 has.
    - tim333 12y ago
      The new planes - they can't look out the window to figure who to shoot so well. Too high and fast. Drones - limited arms. Though they may be the future when they beef them up a bit. Apaches - the enemy machine guns them. Not protected enough. Here's a story from 2007 when the high end B1 screwed up, the Apaches were challenged and the A-10 helped save things: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/a-10s-saved-the-day-in-botched-afghanistan-raid-b78367f4fd0e https://medium.com/war-is-boring/a-10s-saved-the-day-in-botc...
      - stormcrowsx 12y ago
        The modern Apache fires its weapons from so far away there is no hope of hitting it with a machine gun. Those things are probably the most high tech the Army has, it can communicate with a drone miles ahead of it, that will transmit back the location of a vehicle and the Apache can destroy it without even having line of sight.
- inetsee 12y ago
  You don't get to be an Ace by destroying tanks, or artillery, or other ground threats. You get to be an Ace by defeating another pilot in a dogfight. That's why the Air Force is reluctant to support the A-10. They want to put all that money into their fighter jets. Close air support really should be an Army responsibility, but the Air Force doesn't want the other services flying planes. The only reason the Army is allowed to have helicopters, is because they're not "real" airplanes.
  - gonzo 12y ago
    The Navy has planes.
    - bdunbar 12y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Close air support really should be an Army responsibility, but the Air Force doesn't want the other services flying planes. The Air Force doesn't want the Army flying fixed-wing manned combat aircraft. All services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force) have manned aircraft, all services have fixed-wing manned aircraft, all services have manned combat aircraft, and all services except the Army have fixed-wing manned combat aircraft.
  - olefoo 12y ago
    This. Fighter Jets are the modern equivalent of mounted knights. Glamorous, lovely and of marginal use in a full-out war. This is why they are the favorite military service of the useless scions of the nobility that we most definitely don't have.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      Marginal utility except in the crucial battle for sir space control. Without fighters, all other airplanes and surface targets are sitting ducks.
- WalterBright 12y ago
  For an extensive treatment of this, I recommend the book "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art Of War".

542458 12y ago

> The truth is that the Air Force doesn't want the plane I'm not disputing the truth of this (as their actions seem to agree with you), but what do you think motivates the air force to want to get rid of such a successful platform?

autokad 12y ago
#1 cost (mostly due to lack of upfront funding to keep costs down) #2 it doesnt look/scound cool like those 'new' planes. it sounds great to have a cool new jet fighter with (some) stealth and can do neat loopty loops and use the latest and greatest air to air and electronic warfare systems, BUT none of these new planes actually come anywhere close to fulfilling the close ground support role the A-10 offers. its much akin to wanting the best fantasy stat players on your sports team but come to find those metrics don't win championships / make teams.
- crypto5 12y ago
  > none of these new planes actually come anywhere close to fulfilling the close ground support role the A-10 offers What makes you think that way? Low-end missions can be fulfilled by drones and apaches, and high-end obviously by F-35. A-10 is obsolete mostly because high precision bombs and missiles combined with good sensors are much more efficient than what A-10 has.
  - tim333 12y ago
    The new planes - they can't look out the window to figure who to shoot so well. Too high and fast. Drones - limited arms. Though they may be the future when they beef them up a bit. Apaches - the enemy machine guns them. Not protected enough. Here's a story from 2007 when the high end B1 screwed up, the Apaches were challenged and the A-10 helped save things: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/a-10s-saved-the-day-in-botched-afghanistan-raid-b78367f4fd0e https://medium.com/war-is-boring/a-10s-saved-the-day-in-botc...
    - stormcrowsx 12y ago
      The modern Apache fires its weapons from so far away there is no hope of hitting it with a machine gun. Those things are probably the most high tech the Army has, it can communicate with a drone miles ahead of it, that will transmit back the location of a vehicle and the Apache can destroy it without even having line of sight.
inetsee 12y ago
You don't get to be an Ace by destroying tanks, or artillery, or other ground threats. You get to be an Ace by defeating another pilot in a dogfight. That's why the Air Force is reluctant to support the A-10. They want to put all that money into their fighter jets. Close air support really should be an Army responsibility, but the Air Force doesn't want the other services flying planes. The only reason the Army is allowed to have helicopters, is because they're not "real" airplanes.
- gonzo 12y ago
  The Navy has planes.
  - bdunbar 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Close air support really should be an Army responsibility, but the Air Force doesn't want the other services flying planes. The Air Force doesn't want the Army flying fixed-wing manned combat aircraft. All services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force) have manned aircraft, all services have fixed-wing manned aircraft, all services have manned combat aircraft, and all services except the Army have fixed-wing manned combat aircraft.
- olefoo 12y ago
  This. Fighter Jets are the modern equivalent of mounted knights. Glamorous, lovely and of marginal use in a full-out war. This is why they are the favorite military service of the useless scions of the nobility that we most definitely don't have.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Marginal utility except in the crucial battle for sir space control. Without fighters, all other airplanes and surface targets are sitting ducks.
WalterBright 12y ago
For an extensive treatment of this, I recommend the book "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art Of War".