Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: A-10s In Poland
SYSOP    7/29/2015 5:06:55 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
UpChuck.Liberals       7/29/2015 10:47:13 PM
Now you Chair Force Generals, try flying one of your pretty new high tech toys in there then send in a clean up crew.
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       7/30/2015 12:01:22 AM
I am was wondering about A-1D Skyraider. A modernized version might be a decent COIN (counter insurgency) aircraft for export. Compared to others in that category, it has much larger payload. I don't know how big COIN market is, though. I suppose, today, the owner would be Boeing.
 
 
Quote    Reply

sublimebohemian       7/30/2015 7:06:30 PM
Anyone care to make an argument why we should be ridding ourselves of the A10? The argument I frequently hear is that it would be in fact be easily neutralized by modern AA systems. However, wouldn't we risk this anyway with a more sophisticated system? Seems like once air superiority is established this is the unit to send to make the enemy truly pay for lack of air control. Loiter time + cost of operation + risk of loss + ease of replacement = something noteworthy to this armchair.
 
Quote    Reply

Nate Dog    not a capability issue   8/3/2015 11:28:55 PM
Rather, personnel and money, or lacy thereof. 
 
 
AF sights constantly it'll need the mechanics whom work on the A-10's pulled off, re trained (and now!) and get them ready for the F-35. Money to maintain the fleet, again, not enough going round, needed for the F-35. 
Its not a capability issue. Just a resources one. Hence very hard to argue against.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       8/4/2015 1:24:08 PM
I know it's been debated to death, but I do think there to be potential for a low cost COIN aircraft; especially when you look at the scale of insurgency across the globe, and the many air forces which simply can't afford or maintain advanced equipment.
 
When the British intervened in Afghanistan in 1919, RAF WWI type SE5s made a notable contribution.  Some of that may have been psychological, due to the technology of the day, but a robust short-take off capable bi-plane, like the AN2 or what have you, with a modern high performance diesel engine would be cheap and easy to operate by the most backwards of forces.  Even with a limited warload, such a COIN aircraft would add a new perspective and scout etc, and losing one doesn't need to be much more of a deal than losing a Ford Ranger....
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       8/4/2015 4:25:05 PM
>Its not a capability issue. Just a resources one. Hence very hard to argue against
 
On the resource front, I think much of it falls into the shady defense contracts.. and transparency.  Cost of ownership needs to be included in the price tag / budget..   The B2 -> present aircraft the air force is buying have a large number of maintenance hours (cost) per flight hour...  and what they are saying.. is they didn't budget properly for it..in dollars or support personnel. (Sounds like somebody should be in trouble for that... you would be in the business world.. or even at the family level.. buying a gas guzzling high maintenance and costly to insure vehicle.. on a fixed budget..)
 
The idea that discontinuing the A-10.. "fixes" this.. doesn't seem to wash for me.. It may make up some of the shortfall.. but the A-10.. all things considered.. seems to be the lowest cost per flight hour "combat" aircraft in the air force inventory.. by a significant margin... So.. dollar and personnel wise.. it doesn't seem to make up the difference.. The F-22 for example.. costs roughly 400% more per flight hour.. than the A-10.. I'm guessing the F-35 is somewhat less..  but still...  But I claim ignorance on most of this stuff.. I am but a humble tax payer.. wondering where all that money goes..
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics