4 ms·

As I understand it the real advantage of the A-10 is persistence. It can stay around and provide close support for a long time period relative to a fast jet. Ap

As I understand it the real advantage of the A-10 is persistence. It can stay around and provide close support for a long time period relative to a fast jet. Apparently the shooters on the ground like having this type of support... Why not let the Army decide what ground support planes it gets and leave the Air Force to gain air superiority and strategic bombing.

lmm 11y ago
> Why not let the Army decide what ground support planes it gets and leave the Air Force to gain air superiority and strategic bombing. Because then we end up paying for 4 complete militaries. Everyone loves having their own set of toys, and can make the case for why a particular role makes sense for them.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  But surely one lesson from the F-35 is that sometimes having specialised equipment can be cheaper than having one multi-role item?
  - lmm 11y ago
    Sometimes? Sure. But just letting each branch do what they want isn't the right way either.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      Of course. Yes I realise that my post might have seemed like that. There should clearly be a joint strategy. However, as I understand it the US Army currently can't have fixed wing planes (although they can have helicopters) yet are the ones that need close air support and also understand what is needed from it best.
dsfyu404ed 11y ago
It's a purpose built close air support platform so it naturally has very good low speed manoeuvrability. It was designed in part to replace the A-2(? the prop driven one, number might be wrong) and was designed to kill Soviet tanks (among other things) in an era where smart munitions weren’t the default (so you had to get close to have precision) and "our close air support can't get close enough without risking our own troops" was a real problem in Vietnam. As a requirement of being expected to go head to head with Soviet tanks it was designed to get very shot up and still fly away. All this winds up translating really, really well to a modern (asymmetrical) conflict these capabilities let it somewhat overlap roles with attack helicopters. It has better loitering and payload capabilities, while being much harder to hit with an RPG. Even if it takes a direct hit there's a pretty good chance it won't go down. Another perk is that bullets are cheap compared to bombs and you can swiss-cheese someone without the explosion caving in the roof of the elementary school two streets over. The F35 is not a close air support aircraft so even if it's employed in that role, it won't fit it as well. You can drive a nail with a pipe wrench, but that doesn't mean it's a direct replacement for a hammer. TL;DR: The A-10 can fulfil most of the role of an attach helicopter without nearly as much risk. A10:F35 = grapefruit:tangerine
rjaco31 11y ago
It's a complex situation. Basically, on one hand, the Air Force wants to keep a firm grasp even on CAS because they don't want the creation of a second Air Force in the Army. But on the other hand, they just despise CAS and see it as a 'less noble' kind of mission for the Air Force.

lmm 11y ago

> Why not let the Army decide what ground support planes it gets and leave the Air Force to gain air superiority and strategic bombing. Because then we end up paying for 4 complete militaries. Everyone loves having their own set of toys, and can make the case for why a particular role makes sense for them.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
But surely one lesson from the F-35 is that sometimes having specialised equipment can be cheaper than having one multi-role item?
- lmm 11y ago
  Sometimes? Sure. But just letting each branch do what they want isn't the right way either.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Of course. Yes I realise that my post might have seemed like that. There should clearly be a joint strategy. However, as I understand it the US Army currently can't have fixed wing planes (although they can have helicopters) yet are the ones that need close air support and also understand what is needed from it best.

dsfyu404ed 11y ago

It's a purpose built close air support platform so it naturally has very good low speed manoeuvrability. It was designed in part to replace the A-2(? the prop driven one, number might be wrong) and was designed to kill Soviet tanks (among other things) in an era where smart munitions weren’t the default (so you had to get close to have precision) and "our close air support can't get close enough without risking our own troops" was a real problem in Vietnam. As a requirement of being expected to go head to head with Soviet tanks it was designed to get very shot up and still fly away. All this winds up translating really, really well to a modern (asymmetrical) conflict these capabilities let it somewhat overlap roles with attack helicopters. It has better loitering and payload capabilities, while being much harder to hit with an RPG. Even if it takes a direct hit there's a pretty good chance it won't go down. Another perk is that bullets are cheap compared to bombs and you can swiss-cheese someone without the explosion caving in the roof of the elementary school two streets over. The F35 is not a close air support aircraft so even if it's employed in that role, it won't fit it as well. You can drive a nail with a pipe wrench, but that doesn't mean it's a direct replacement for a hammer. TL;DR: The A-10 can fulfil most of the role of an attach helicopter without nearly as much risk. A10:F35 = grapefruit:tangerine

rjaco31 11y ago

It's a complex situation. Basically, on one hand, the Air Force wants to keep a firm grasp even on CAS because they don't want the creation of a second Air Force in the Army. But on the other hand, they just despise CAS and see it as a 'less noble' kind of mission for the Air Force.