Will the A-10 go?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 2,814

If I were in a hostile environment, I think I'd much rather be sitting in an A-10 than any helicopter.

It depends on the hostile environment. Can an A-10 seek cover behind a treeline or a small hill.

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 980

How so? I feel as if reducing the number in operation and the resulting flight hours might show a significant cost savings. Based on the hourly rates from 2010, the F-15C should be the one to go.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

How so? I feel as if reducing the number in operation and the resulting flight hours might show a significant cost savings. Based on the hourly rates from 2010, the F-15C should be the one to go.

F15C is needed in the vast empty spaces of the Pacific.

@Alan:

(Isn't "Helo" the term used for US Navy helicopters )

Large bladed tech, slower rotor rotation speed, tilting rotor and a dramatic increase in speed might lead to a sensible decrease in acoustic detection.

Some have reported that the Tiger is undetectable unless at close range.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 3,381

How so? I feel as if reducing the number in operation and the resulting flight hours might show a significant cost savings.

Significant perhaps, but not enough. There is a direct quote to that effect from a snr. USAF official that I can't be bothered looking up.

EDIT: Not the quote I was thinking of, but close enough:

Janes

General Mark Welsh, the USAF chief of staff, said on 11 December that divesting from entire fleets of aircraft may be the only way to achieve the level of savings required, and the A-10 is a prime candidate.

"We looked at divesture of fleets of airplanes because it is one of the very few practical ways to get at dollar signs with a B [for billion] behind them [....]

The service would have to shut down three to four times as many F-16 squadrons to achieve the same level of savings, he said, and at that point the USAF would not be equipped to do its air superiority mission.

Member for

14 years

Posts: 4,996

It depends on the hostile environment. Can an A-10 seek cover behind a treeline or a small hill.

No, but it would less likely to have the need.

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 980

F15C is needed in the vast empty spaces of the Pacific.

What about the F-22A? There are not as many of them as there are F-15C's, but a redistribution of the fleet could cover those gaps. Not to mention the Navy could kick in and provide over-water support with their F/A-18's.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

Hack something in the vast array of F22 soft, and grounded it is for a couple of day at least.

The possibility of just this will preclude the USAF to retire the 15 until an equal nbr of 35A are at hand reach.

I do agree with the 18 but it does not fit the per $ view unless you decide to base them on USAF airbases ;)

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 980

No doubt the F-22A is vastly more complex and technical than the F-15C/D. What's wrong with using F/A-18's at the coastal bases?

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

[...]What's wrong with using F/A-18's at the coastal bases?

I was thinking about projection of power over the Pacific. Not about defense of CONUS where the 16 might be more adapted in peace time (on a per $ basis again).

The USN have 500+ F18. If you deprived them of, let's say 150 of that total (1/3rd of their fleet), the USN does not lost only 1/3rd of its capacities but far more. Units are rotating, not single tasked etc... Unless you plan to park some carrier to make for money aswell.

The prob is that the capacities are scarce and nobody wants to cut in the priorities (well, Obama just did that by refocusing away from regional conflict... and Paf! what he just got... Ukraine! :rolleyes: *).

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 980

I may be coming at this from the wrong angle. I am only considering defense of the CONUS and not being the world's police force. The U.S. should certainly not get involved in the Ukrainian situation. What about keeping the carriers off-shore? What is the farthest we'd have to project in the pacific? The Marshall Islands, Guam?