By: Levsha
- 26th February 2014 at 17:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A lot of aircraft can fly very low, i.e. 'terrain masking', including the F-16. The A-10 can't do a lot of what a F-16 can do - the F-16 can do just about everything the A-10 can.
By: Levsha
- 26th February 2014 at 17:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What do you mean by small arms - assault rifles and light machineguns - They are hardly a problem for both aircraft? Heavier guns like Shilka, Tunguska are.
By: Levsha
- 26th February 2014 at 18:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A round from an AK would certainly ruin my day. No F-16 has ever been shot down by an AK, or any other type of infantry firearm - light machinegun, rifle, etc - as far as I know.
By: Freehand
- 26th February 2014 at 19:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How important is the Avenger cannon to the equation? No other type of aircraft can put those type of rounds on target, so fast and so many. The closest thing would be an AH-64 at a slower volume and subject to greater threats from AAA to 12 year-olds with AK's. A scenario involving China is the only one where the A-10 could probably perform its designed mission. The U.S. and China are not going to war any time soon. No drone is going to fly into hostile airspace and deal with the modern PLAAF, even with air cover.
By: TR1
- 26th February 2014 at 20:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A lot of aircraft can fly very low, i.e. 'terrain masking', including the F-16. The A-10 can't do a lot of what a F-16 can do - the F-16 can do just about everything the A-10 can.
It certainly cannot take a MANPAD or a small SAM as well, not to mention any sort of medium or large caliber AA guns.
It is a limited niche, but lets not pretend like it doesn't exist.
On ever military forum, I see Afghan and Iraq veterans praising the A-10 support they got, even over F-16 support. Yes, they are infantry and not the AF, but their word counts for something.
By: Acatomic
- 26th February 2014 at 22:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here, let me fix that for You ;)
Hmmm.... lets examine the last, say, 25 years for "major" conflicts in which the US have got involved.
1. Afghanistan. A-10 critical to supporting those at greatest risk (i.e. the troops on the ground, not the pilots in the sky.)
2. Iraq II. A-10 critical to removing any armoured vehicles and to providing on-call air support to troops in country and city.
3. Serbia/Yugoslavia. Originally not used due to the interdiction nature of the strike plan, but being used eventually.
4. Bosnia. Not used extensively. No troops on ground.
5. Iraq I. A-10 critical to scud hunts, removing armoured columns and on-call support. The initial proposed retirement of the A-10 was halted due to its performance.
So, in 4 out of 5 conflicts the A-10 has seen extensive use.
In the 3 conflicts where troops have been on the ground, the A-10 has been absolutely essential. Given the assumption that the primary role of the USAF would be to support the US Army in any conflict where they are engaged, you have to ask... why are they being retired again?
By: 19kilo10
- 27th February 2014 at 01:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember in 4th grade (1978) my class took a field trip to Davis Monthan AFB where my Dad worked at the time. (He was an A-7 pilot) one of the neat things we did was we got to sit in the cockpit of an A-10. Something special for an 11 year old! I'm 46 now...........my point being.....that plane is OLD!
By: FBW
- 27th February 2014 at 01:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember in 4th grade (1978) my class took a field trip to Davis Monthan AFB where my Dad worked at the time. (He was an A-7 pilot) one of the neat things we did was we got to sit in the cockpit of an A-10. Something special for an 11 year old! I'm 46 now...........my point being.....that plane is OLD!
yeah, I remember sticking my fingers in the 30mm gun at a commander's day airshow at Griffiss AFB when I was younger. Somewhat of amazing to think the majority of the USAF inventory was built when I was a child. And yes, it is time for some changes. I wouldn't want to fly on an airliner as old as those F-15's, A-10's that populate ACC.
By: Pioneer
- 27th February 2014 at 02:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
“Yes, they are infantry and not the AF, but their word counts for something” (TR1)
Yes one would think so! One should not forget that the principle reason the ‘Attack Experimental’ (AX) – A-10 program was followed through (even then to the protest of the USAF, who was infatuated with massive ‘fast movers’ like the Republic F-105), was because the US Army literally said to the USAF and Congress – ‘if you don’t give us this specialised aircraft our grunts need, we’ll have no choice but to acquire our own ‘fixed wing’ close support aircraft (aka the US Army’s comprehensive evaluation of the Fiat G.91R/3, Douglas A4D-2N Skyhawk and Northrop N-156F for the roles of organic FAC (Forward Air Control), tactical reconnaissance and CAS), regardless of the Key West Agreement (1947)'
It should also not be forgotten that with the USAF’s lukewarm agreement to go ahead with the ‘Attack Experimental’ (AX) – A-10 program. The US Army would forego the drive for their “Advanced Aerial Fire Support System’ (AAFSS), launched by the U.S. Army in 1964 with the intention of providing all 'an army attack helicopter high-performance specialized in fire support.” TR1, I don’t think you fully comprehend the politics and competitive nature of the U.S. military machine – USAF – ‘Infantry what’s infantry??’
How important is the Avenger cannon to the equation? No other type of aircraft can put those type of rounds on target, so fast and so many. (Freehand)
I totally agree with you Freehand! Once again people and organisations have become obsessed with technology, and think that ‘smart’/’precision’ bombs and missile can deal with everything on the modern battlefield. As a grunt, I cannot and would not call upon even a SDB II sized weapon if I was in close contact with an enemy. Whereas the A-10 with its GAU-8/A Avenger can and is called in for such accurate CAS fire, when in close contact with the enemy, with far less risk of sustaining friendly fire and collateral damage.
I think A-10 is no longer necessary for tank plinking, F-16 had a merry ole time plinking them in Iraq.
Why did the pilots call the new leisure tank plinking? (obligatory)
With all due respect obligatory, the Iraq War MkII, could hardly be claimed to have been a functional/viable hostile air defence threat to U.S forces. The 'F-16 had a merry ole time plinking Iraqi tanks with such ease was specifically because the Iraqi’s no longer had any creditable intergraded air defence system, let alone weapons platforms, save that of the old true and trusted ZSU-23 and S-60 AAA. Most of the Iraqi SAM systems had been destroyed in the Gulf War 1, and what had not had fallen into disrepute or unserviceable. They even lacked MANPADS!
The freedom of such operations by the USAF negated any meaningful (true) threat, and allowed the F-16’s to operate at altitudes which would not be permissible in a ‘real war’ in my opinion
A-10 cannot operate in anything other than a permissive environment, there was a great article about the life expectancy for an A-10 pilot over CENTAG during the cold war, it's worth a google. IADS have only gotten better, the A-10 cannot be expected to, and will not survive in a near-peer conflict such as the one you are implying. In GWI, A-10's were restricted to within 30 miles of the Saudi Kuwait border, the one mission they flew over Republican guard forces (60 miles) resulted in two losses and seven damaged aircraft. (FBW)
Thanks FBW, I’ll look up that “article about the life expectancy for an A-10 pilot over CENTAG during the cold war”.
One thing I will say, not being an expert or anything, is that the I’m somewhat weary of such reports. The USAF (and for that matter all U.S military services) can be very productive in criticism about a weapons system/platform they neither want or deems as needing ‘urgent’ replacing. As already mentioned the USAF has been hell bent on the demise and letter withdrawal of the A-10, even before it was built, let alone put into operational service. Hell they even pushed for the acquisition of their nemeses service – the USN’s LTV A-7F Corsair to replace the ‘specialised’ A-10. Even though the evaluation of both aircraft proved once again that the A-10 was the better aircraft for the job! The USAF has never wanted the A-10 purely and simply because it’s not a ‘fast mover’, supersonic or able to carry eight air-to-air missiles. The USAF tried pushing for a so-called ‘specialised’ attack/CAS variant of it’s once love child – the General Dynamics F-16 (you know the Light Weight Fighter Program, the USAF did all in it’s power and every sly of hand to burn, bash and bury for the sake of more hot rods – their ‘FX’ – the F-15 Eagle!!) – aka the General Dynamics A-16.
I can’t help but wonder, with the USAF always using the analogy that given aircraft can’t survive the modern threat of modern generation air defence systems like that of the Russian’s and PRC, then why haven’t they completely and utterly neglected the SEAD and ECM role and mission?
I would expect A-10 to go down roughly as easily when hit by SA-3 as F-117, and it won't dodge much better (obligatory)
I agree my friend, not many aircraft would survive a S-125 Neva direct hit period!
But then again, no other aircraft, with the possible exception of the Su-25 ‘Frogfoot’ was designed with so much intentional redundancy and protection incorporated into it’s design – something Fairchild (Republic) learnt and applied from it’s F-15 loses over Vietnam! Something neither the F-16 or F-35 can say!
An interesting thought might be that the U.S. Army take on the A-10C’s under their own ORGBAT After all in the late 1980’s, the U.S. Army argued “that the Key West agreement of 1948 under which they were prohibited from operating fixed-wing combat aircraft was now obsolete, and that the USAF's A-10s should be turned over to them for use alongside AH-64 Apache helicopters. In 1990, Congress decreed that some USAF A-10As and OV-10 Broncos be turned over to the Army and Marine Corps beginning in 1991.
However on November 26, 1990, the USAF was ordered to retain two wings of A-10s for the CAS mission and announced that they would retrofit up to 400 existing Block 30 F-16C/Ds with new equipment to perform the CAS mission.” http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f16_37.html
By: FBW
- 27th February 2014 at 02:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
anks FBW, I’ll look up that “article about the life expectancy for an A-10 pilot over CENTAG during the cold war”.
One thing I will say, not being an expert or anything, is that the I’m somewhat weary of such reports. The USAF (and for that matter all U.S military services) can be very productive in criticism about a weapons system/platform they neither want or deems as needing ‘urgent’ replacing. As already mentioned the USAF has been hell bent on the demise and letter withdrawal of the A-10, even before it was built, let alone put into operational service. Hell they even pushed for the acquisition of their nemeses service – the USN’s LTV A-7F Corsair to replace the ‘specialised’ A-10. Even though the evaluation of both aircraft proved once again that the A-10 was the better aircraft for the job! The USAF has never wanted the A-10 purely and simply because it’s not a ‘fast mover’, supersonic or able to carry eight air-to-air missiles. The USAF tried pushing for a so-called ‘specialised’ attack/CAS variant of it’s once love child – the General Dynamics F-16 (you know the Light Weight Fighter Program, the USAF did all in it’s power and every sly of hand to burn, bash and bury for the sake of more hot rods – their ‘FX’ – the F-15 Eagle!!) – aka the General Dynamics A-16.
I can’t help but wonder, with the USAF always using the analogy that given aircraft can’t survive the modern threat of modern generation air defence systems like that of the Russian’s and PRC, then why haven’t they completely and utterly neglected the SEAD and ECM role and mission?
regards Pioneer,
I would direct you to the Elements of Power Blog about some of these claims ( that guy should be paying me royalties for how much I've been linking to him lately, (joke). Really, his blog is topflight as he worked on some of these projects and has interesting and informed perspective)
It's a good read, not just because I agree with his views, mostly because they are informed, researched, and documented. Lastly, there is a defense media bias, the A-10 and F-16 are and have been media darlings for years. GWI proved that the "informed" media were very wrong. The f-16 was largely a disappointment, the A-10 was successful in a very limited role. The true superstars were the F-111, and the F-15. Both were throughly trashed by defense commentators for years. The F-111 really never got credit for it's outstanding performance. The F-15 did get a measure of redemption, you should read some of the commentators "opinions"on the F-15 during the 80's. I'm old enough to remember the whole "F-15 is an extravagance, it's too big, too complex, too reliant on technology to work, we NEED the F-16 and it's close-in dogfighting". Alas, those forces are still at work, and still fighting the war over southeast Asia that ended in 1972.
By: Curious
- 27th February 2014 at 02:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can understand that role of A-10 can be taken over by other non-specialized aircraft, say F-15s for heavy ground attack with loiter capacity. But another issue would be, as to how is Apache Helo more survivable on any battlefield compared to A-10?
By: Freehand
- 27th February 2014 at 13:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can understand that role of A-10 can be taken over by other non-specialized aircraft, say F-15s for heavy ground attack with loiter capacity. But another issue would be, as to how is Apache Helo more survivable on any battlefield compared to A-10?
I'd say the AH-64 isn't any more survivable than the A-10. The AH-64 is armored, but a couple of well-placed round to the tail rotor and its gone. The A-10 has taken missile hits in the 1990 Gulf War and survived. Any other aircraft may have very well been lost under those circumstances. An exception being the Israeli F-15 that lost a whole wing and managed to fly back home.
By: Bager1968
- 28th February 2014 at 05:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes one would think so! One should not forget that the principle reason the ‘Attack Experimental’ (AX) – A-10 program was followed through (even then to the protest of the USAF, who was infatuated with massive ‘fast movers’ like the Republic F-105), was because the US Army literally said to the USAF and Congress – ‘if you don’t give us this specialised aircraft our grunts need, we’ll have no choice but to acquire our own ‘fixed wing’ close support aircraft (aka the US Army’s comprehensive evaluation of the Fiat G.91R/3, Douglas A4D-2N Skyhawk and Northrop N-156F for the roles of organic FAC (Forward Air Control), tactical reconnaissance and CAS), regardless of the Key West Agreement (1947)'
It should also not be forgotten that with the USAF’s lukewarm agreement to go ahead with the ‘Attack Experimental’ (AX) – A-10 program. The US Army would forego the drive for their “Advanced Aerial Fire Support System’ (AAFSS), launched by the U.S. Army in 1964 with the intention of providing all 'an army attack helicopter high-performance specialized in fire support.”
Note that the AH-56 was named the winner in March 1966, production past the initial 10 ordered in January 1968 was postponed in 1969, and final cancellation was in August 1972.
The USAF had, in November 1965, ordered a USAF-specific variant of the A-7 Corsair II - to the point of specifying a variant of the Rolls-Royce Spey engine (RR-Allison TF41) in place of the TF30 of the USN's A-7s (the USN followed by ordering the A-7E with the TF41). The A-7D flew in 1968, and entered service in 1970. The USAF first deployed the A-7D to Vietnam in October 1972.
One thing I will say, not being an expert or anything, is that the I’m somewhat weary of such reports. The USAF (and for that matter all U.S military services) can be very productive in criticism about a weapons system/platform they neither want or deems as needing ‘urgent’ replacing. As already mentioned the USAF has been hell bent on the demise and letter withdrawal of the A-10, even before it was built, let alone put into operational service. Hell they even pushed for the acquisition of their nemeses service – the USN’s LTV A-7F Corsair to replace the ‘specialised’ A-10. Even though the evaluation of both aircraft proved once again that the A-10 was the better aircraft for the job!
The YA-7F Strikefighter project was initiated in June 1985, first flew in November 1989, and was cancelled in 1990, with the two prototypes (converted A-7Ds) sent to museums in 1991.
By: TomcatViP
- 28th February 2014 at 20:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The new fast flying Helicopters might be what turns the old A10 obsolete. Despite its formidable weapon load advantage, the bring back stats might speak in its defavor.
Perhaps the Ukrainian crisis might have an impact on the delays.
IMOHO, a small A10 fleet seen as an A37 substitute in the war on drug makes senses. Think that the proliferation of heavy caliber canons and Manpad might requires its unique capabilities there.
By: Freehand
- 1st March 2014 at 13:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Keeping a squadron or two around might be prudent given the nature of the conflicts the U.S. fights. What is cheaper to operate and A-10 or an F-16? What role will the USAF's new COIN aircraft (A-29) factor into this situation?
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 1st March 2014 at 14:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: AlanR
- 1st March 2014 at 14:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If I were in a hostile environment, I think I'd much rather be sitting in an A-10 than any helicopter.
(Isn't "Helo" the term used for US Navy helicopters :) )
New
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii
- 1st March 2014 at 19:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Keeping a squadron or two around might be prudent given the nature of the conflicts the U.S. fights.
A large part of the savings is from being able to get rid of the entire logistics train and support infrastructure. Cutting a few squadrons here and isn't going to close the gap, it's types that need to be got rid of.
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 26th February 2014 at 17:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A lot of aircraft can fly very low, i.e. 'terrain masking', including the F-16. The A-10 can't do a lot of what a F-16 can do - the F-16 can do just about everything the A-10 can.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 26th February 2014 at 17:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Apart from take some small arms fire to the engine...
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 26th February 2014 at 17:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What do you mean by small arms - assault rifles and light machineguns - They are hardly a problem for both aircraft? Heavier guns like Shilka, Tunguska are.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 26th February 2014 at 18:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
An F-16 can no more take a "badly" placed round from an AK-47 than you or I.
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 26th February 2014 at 18:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A round from an AK would certainly ruin my day. No F-16 has ever been shot down by an AK, or any other type of infantry firearm - light machinegun, rifle, etc - as far as I know.
Posts: 980
By: Freehand - 26th February 2014 at 19:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How important is the Avenger cannon to the equation? No other type of aircraft can put those type of rounds on target, so fast and so many. The closest thing would be an AH-64 at a slower volume and subject to greater threats from AAA to 12 year-olds with AK's. A scenario involving China is the only one where the A-10 could probably perform its designed mission. The U.S. and China are not going to war any time soon. No drone is going to fly into hostile airspace and deal with the modern PLAAF, even with air cover.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 26th February 2014 at 20:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It certainly cannot take a MANPAD or a small SAM as well, not to mention any sort of medium or large caliber AA guns.
It is a limited niche, but lets not pretend like it doesn't exist.
On ever military forum, I see Afghan and Iraq veterans praising the A-10 support they got, even over F-16 support. Yes, they are infantry and not the AF, but their word counts for something.
Posts: 117
By: Acatomic - 26th February 2014 at 22:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here, let me fix that for You ;)
Posts: 770
By: 19kilo10 - 27th February 2014 at 01:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember in 4th grade (1978) my class took a field trip to Davis Monthan AFB where my Dad worked at the time. (He was an A-7 pilot) one of the neat things we did was we got to sit in the cockpit of an A-10. Something special for an 11 year old! I'm 46 now...........my point being.....that plane is OLD!
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 27th February 2014 at 01:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yeah, I remember sticking my fingers in the 30mm gun at a commander's day airshow at Griffiss AFB when I was younger. Somewhat of amazing to think the majority of the USAF inventory was built when I was a child. And yes, it is time for some changes. I wouldn't want to fly on an airliner as old as those F-15's, A-10's that populate ACC.
Posts: 719
By: Pioneer - 27th February 2014 at 02:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes one would think so! One should not forget that the principle reason the ‘Attack Experimental’ (AX) – A-10 program was followed through (even then to the protest of the USAF, who was infatuated with massive ‘fast movers’ like the Republic F-105), was because the US Army literally said to the USAF and Congress – ‘if you don’t give us this specialised aircraft our grunts need, we’ll have no choice but to acquire our own ‘fixed wing’ close support aircraft (aka the US Army’s comprehensive evaluation of the Fiat G.91R/3, Douglas A4D-2N Skyhawk and Northrop N-156F for the roles of organic FAC (Forward Air Control), tactical reconnaissance and CAS), regardless of the Key West Agreement (1947)'
It should also not be forgotten that with the USAF’s lukewarm agreement to go ahead with the ‘Attack Experimental’ (AX) – A-10 program. The US Army would forego the drive for their “Advanced Aerial Fire Support System’ (AAFSS), launched by the U.S. Army in 1964 with the intention of providing all 'an army attack helicopter high-performance specialized in fire support.”
TR1, I don’t think you fully comprehend the politics and competitive nature of the U.S. military machine – USAF – ‘Infantry what’s infantry??’
I totally agree with you Freehand! Once again people and organisations have become obsessed with technology, and think that ‘smart’/’precision’ bombs and missile can deal with everything on the modern battlefield. As a grunt, I cannot and would not call upon even a SDB II sized weapon if I was in close contact with an enemy. Whereas the A-10 with its GAU-8/A Avenger can and is called in for such accurate CAS fire, when in close contact with the enemy, with far less risk of sustaining friendly fire and collateral damage.
With all due respect obligatory, the Iraq War MkII, could hardly be claimed to have been a functional/viable hostile air defence threat to U.S forces. The 'F-16 had a merry ole time plinking Iraqi tanks with such ease was specifically because the Iraqi’s no longer had any creditable intergraded air defence system, let alone weapons platforms, save that of the old true and trusted ZSU-23 and S-60 AAA. Most of the Iraqi SAM systems had been destroyed in the Gulf War 1, and what had not had fallen into disrepute or unserviceable. They even lacked MANPADS!
The freedom of such operations by the USAF negated any meaningful (true) threat, and allowed the F-16’s to operate at altitudes which would not be permissible in a ‘real war’ in my opinion
Thanks FBW, I’ll look up that “article about the life expectancy for an A-10 pilot over CENTAG during the cold war”.
One thing I will say, not being an expert or anything, is that the I’m somewhat weary of such reports. The USAF (and for that matter all U.S military services) can be very productive in criticism about a weapons system/platform they neither want or deems as needing ‘urgent’ replacing. As already mentioned the USAF has been hell bent on the demise and letter withdrawal of the A-10, even before it was built, let alone put into operational service. Hell they even pushed for the acquisition of their nemeses service – the USN’s LTV A-7F Corsair to replace the ‘specialised’ A-10. Even though the evaluation of both aircraft proved once again that the A-10 was the better aircraft for the job! The USAF has never wanted the A-10 purely and simply because it’s not a ‘fast mover’, supersonic or able to carry eight air-to-air missiles. The USAF tried pushing for a so-called ‘specialised’ attack/CAS variant of it’s once love child – the General Dynamics F-16 (you know the Light Weight Fighter Program, the USAF did all in it’s power and every sly of hand to burn, bash and bury for the sake of more hot rods – their ‘FX’ – the F-15 Eagle!!) – aka the General Dynamics A-16.
I can’t help but wonder, with the USAF always using the analogy that given aircraft can’t survive the modern threat of modern generation air defence systems like that of the Russian’s and PRC, then why haven’t they completely and utterly neglected the SEAD and ECM role and mission?
I agree my friend, not many aircraft would survive a S-125 Neva direct hit period!
But then again, no other aircraft, with the possible exception of the Su-25 ‘Frogfoot’ was designed with so much intentional redundancy and protection incorporated into it’s design – something Fairchild (Republic) learnt and applied from it’s F-15 loses over Vietnam! Something neither the F-16 or F-35 can say!
An interesting thought might be that the U.S. Army take on the A-10C’s under their own ORGBAT After all in the late 1980’s, the U.S. Army argued “that the Key West agreement of 1948 under which they were prohibited from operating fixed-wing combat aircraft was now obsolete, and that the USAF's A-10s should be turned over to them for use alongside AH-64 Apache helicopters. In 1990, Congress decreed that some USAF A-10As and OV-10 Broncos be turned over to the Army and Marine Corps beginning in 1991.
However on November 26, 1990, the USAF was ordered to retain two wings of A-10s for the CAS mission and announced that they would retrofit up to 400 existing Block 30 F-16C/Ds with new equipment to perform the CAS mission.”
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f16_37.html
Thanks gents for your valued knowledge and input
Regards
Pioneer
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 27th February 2014 at 02:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
regards Pioneer,
I would direct you to the Elements of Power Blog about some of these claims ( that guy should be paying me royalties for how much I've been linking to him lately, (joke). Really, his blog is topflight as he worked on some of these projects and has interesting and informed perspective)
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/search/label/CAS%20Myths here is the A-10 link (hate war is boring but….) http://www.warisboring.com/2013/01/21/life-expectancy-of-a-cold-war-a-10-pilot/
It's a good read, not just because I agree with his views, mostly because they are informed, researched, and documented. Lastly, there is a defense media bias, the A-10 and F-16 are and have been media darlings for years. GWI proved that the "informed" media were very wrong. The f-16 was largely a disappointment, the A-10 was successful in a very limited role. The true superstars were the F-111, and the F-15. Both were throughly trashed by defense commentators for years. The F-111 really never got credit for it's outstanding performance. The F-15 did get a measure of redemption, you should read some of the commentators "opinions"on the F-15 during the 80's. I'm old enough to remember the whole "F-15 is an extravagance, it's too big, too complex, too reliant on technology to work, we NEED the F-16 and it's close-in dogfighting". Alas, those forces are still at work, and still fighting the war over southeast Asia that ended in 1972.
Posts: 343
By: Curious - 27th February 2014 at 02:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can understand that role of A-10 can be taken over by other non-specialized aircraft, say F-15s for heavy ground attack with loiter capacity. But another issue would be, as to how is Apache Helo more survivable on any battlefield compared to A-10?
Posts: 980
By: Freehand - 27th February 2014 at 13:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd say the AH-64 isn't any more survivable than the A-10. The AH-64 is armored, but a couple of well-placed round to the tail rotor and its gone. The A-10 has taken missile hits in the 1990 Gulf War and survived. Any other aircraft may have very well been lost under those circumstances. An exception being the Israeli F-15 that lost a whole wing and managed to fly back home.
Posts: 3,614
By: Bager1968 - 28th February 2014 at 05:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne.http://www.helis.com/60s/h_h56.php
Note that the AH-56 was named the winner in March 1966, production past the initial 10 ordered in January 1968 was postponed in 1969, and final cancellation was in August 1972.
The USAF had, in November 1965, ordered a USAF-specific variant of the A-7 Corsair II - to the point of specifying a variant of the Rolls-Royce Spey engine (RR-Allison TF41) in place of the TF30 of the USN's A-7s (the USN followed by ordering the A-7E with the TF41). The A-7D flew in 1968, and entered service in 1970. The USAF first deployed the A-7D to Vietnam in October 1972.
The YA-7F Strikefighter project was initiated in June 1985, first flew in November 1989, and was cancelled in 1990, with the two prototypes (converted A-7Ds) sent to museums in 1991.
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 28th February 2014 at 20:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The new fast flying Helicopters might be what turns the old A10 obsolete. Despite its formidable weapon load advantage, the bring back stats might speak in its defavor.
Perhaps the Ukrainian crisis might have an impact on the delays.
IMOHO, a small A10 fleet seen as an A37 substitute in the war on drug makes senses. Think that the proliferation of heavy caliber canons and Manpad might requires its unique capabilities there.
Posts: 980
By: Freehand - 1st March 2014 at 13:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Keeping a squadron or two around might be prudent given the nature of the conflicts the U.S. fights. What is cheaper to operate and A-10 or an F-16? What role will the USAF's new COIN aircraft (A-29) factor into this situation?
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 1st March 2014 at 14:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From August 2011.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...ce-combat.html
(2010 data)
A-10A: 24,000
F-15C: 36,633
F-15E: 28,639
F-16C: 16,087
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?95008-list-of-combat-aircraft-flight-cost-per-hour/page3
Posts: 4,996
By: AlanR - 1st March 2014 at 14:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If I were in a hostile environment, I think I'd much rather be sitting in an A-10 than any helicopter.
(Isn't "Helo" the term used for US Navy helicopters :) )
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 1st March 2014 at 19:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A large part of the savings is from being able to get rid of the entire logistics train and support infrastructure. Cutting a few squadrons here and isn't going to close the gap, it's types that need to be got rid of.