WISD0MTREE Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Here is the plane. Should the USAF retire it? Consider that it -Was introduced in 1977 -Is Will be fairly expensive to maintain +Is a HUGE moral booster (Or drainer, depending on your side. There is a difference between being saved/killed by a random bomb from a drone too high to be seen and being saved/watching your buddies die from a plane dive at nearly a 90* angle) +Cheaper than the F-35s which will replace them -Can't be used in any war in which the US/allies don't have air superiority -Isn't new technology that can be experimented with +Pilot is more mentally in the fight versus some drone pilot +/-POGO claims that the A-10 is safer (2nd safest) for civilians and friendlies on the ground than other planes, but the USAF claims the opposite (conveniently as they want to retire the plane). +Is highly praised by pilots Discuss. Some pics for entertainment... Edited August 4, 2015 by WISD0MTREE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Explain why you think it is expensive to maintain. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 Explain why you think it is expensive to maintain. I meant to say it will become expensive. Boeing said that they might stop production of A-10s and when planes usually stop getting produced, then they get expensive. Just like the F-16. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted August 4, 2015 Administrators Share Posted August 4, 2015 It's a pretty sweet looking plane. I don't know anywhere close to enough to formulate an opinion on it being retired or not, though. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Even so, I think your opinion of what is extensive or not is a bit off relatively speaking. The A-10 is cheap as shit to maintain 'relatively speaking' and will remain so indefinitely. /////// Unrelated: The USAF has never liked the Close Air Support (CAS) mission. It is a cultural bias stretching back to its formative years as the Army Air Corps, whose leaders bought into the Douhet camp. However, that mission remains one of their tasks under Joint Doctrine even if they don't like it. Until there is a credible replacement I would favor keeping the bloody thing. The army maintains RW capability to perform a similar role. Similar is not the same thing though. fwiw, when you are having a bad day (or night) an AWT can make life a lot better very quickly. 1 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatnate Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Will they keep it? No. Should they keep it, probably. Will they replace it? I wish. CAS is hard, and the F-35 won't do the job. Something has to swiss-cheese enemy tanks, and it should be pretty similar to the A-10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I'm going to miss it if they retire it. Definitely one of my favorites. 1 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Jerry Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Until we are done fighting wars in the desert, which we probably never will be, I think we need this plane.....or some newer version of the same thing. The CAS mission is very crucial one and needs to be continued. A fairly heavily armored plane that can shrug of RPGs and heavy machine gun fire and give awesome closein support is a game changer, weather it's the A10, or something new with vertical takeoff and landing ability would be the ticket! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 Even so, I think your opinion of what is extensive or not is a bit off relatively speaking. The A-10 is cheap as !@#$ to maintain 'relatively speaking' and will remain so indefinitely. "indefinitely" Yeah, nope. I know a guy who just dropped a ton of cash to repair a 1966 Ford Mustang. Eventually, it will get expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Sterling Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 The real question we should be asking is why the !@#$ aren't we bringing back the f-14 Quote Genesis, best band NA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 "indefinitely" Yeah, nope. I know a guy who just dropped a ton of cash to repair a 1966 Ford Mustang. Eventually, it will get expensive. Cars are not warplanes. So yeah, nope. Eventually they will be irrelevant and retired. This will occur long long before they would be relatively expensive. something new with vertical takeoff and landing ability would be the ticket! emmmm, naw. Everything is a trade off. This is very true in regards to aircraft. You are asking for something that is of marginal value at best, VSTOL, and exchanging some amount of range, payload, survivability, and sensors. You tie this to desert warfare where brownouts are a real concern further limiting the effectiveness of VSTOL. So no. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Jerry Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Cars are not warplanes. So yeah, nope. Eventually they will be irrelevant and retired. This will occur long long before they would be relatively expensive. emmmm, naw. Everything is a trade off. This is very true in regards to aircraft. You are asking for something that is of marginal value at best, VSTOL, and exchanging some amount of range, payload, survivability, and sensors. You tie this to desert warfare where brownouts are a real concern further limiting the effectiveness of VSTOL. So no. All you need to counter the brown out effects is to use some of the same avionics the Ossprey uses. Once its down to certain altitude (not quite sure how high up) it can pretty much land its self. I'll find a link to it latter when I'm not working from my phone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) Comme on. You have been in the millitary. The failure rate of (insert system here) is always non-negligible. And Murphy says it will always fail at the worst time. But whatever, you failed to address my core argument. Why would you sacrifice payload, range, flight dynamics, survivability, etc. in exchange for this capability? I would easily take more of all those things over VTOL. Edited August 5, 2015 by LordRahl2 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 Cars are not warplanes. So yeah, nope. Eventually they will be irrelevant and retired. This will occur long long before they would be relatively expensive. Go repair a PT-17. Still in use by Mexico. What about the An-2? MiG-17? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Sure. Let me continue to explore your fantasy. I can also ask silly questions. Is the united States Mexico or North Korea? Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted August 6, 2015 Author Share Posted August 6, 2015 (edited) Sure. Let me continue to explore your fantasy. I can also ask silly questions. Is the united States Mexico or North Korea? How exactly is this relevant? EDIT: Oh. Eventually they will be expensive. Sure, not as expensive as the F-35, but pretty expensive. The B-52H costs around $70,000 per hour of flight, but the B1 is only about $58,000, despite the B1 being about 30 years newer. Edited August 6, 2015 by WISD0MTREE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 mmmmhmmmm, sure as you wish. A-10 will be expensive relative to its 'replacement'. Whatever you you say. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 EDIT: Oh. Eventually they will be expensive. Sure, not as expensive as the F-35, but pretty expensive. The B-52H costs around $70,000 per hour of flight, but the B1 is only about $58,000, despite the B1 being about 30 years newer. Is that including maintenance or is that just fuel costs? 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted August 6, 2015 Author Share Posted August 6, 2015 mmmmhmmmm, sure as you wish. A-10 will be expensive relative to its 'replacement'. Whatever you you say. Where did I say it will cost more than the F-35? Is that including maintenance or is that just fuel costs? I believe it is maintenance and not fuel costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willam von Waldreich Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 No, the A10 despite its age is one of the most dependable aircraft in the USAF. Between its load capacity, ability to carry an assortment of ASM's, UGB's, GPB's, and LASM's, plus the large fuel tanks and the nose mounted gattling cannon...its just a beast of an aircraft. Yes, its slow, its not very mobile but you get a group of these things together you can knock out some armor pretty fast and efficient Quote The United States of Belveria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatnate Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 How exactly is this relevant? EDIT: Oh. Eventually they will be expensive. Sure, not as expensive as the F-35, but pretty expensive. The B-52H costs around $70,000 per hour of flight, but the B1 is only about $58,000, despite the B1 being about 30 years newer. Looking at per flight hour expenditures (like $17K), I change my answer. Fly those babies until they're 90, just make sure there's no SAM at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefferson Davis III Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 The A-10 is a wonderful aircraft, just, is it what we need. In todays conflict, I would consider signing the A-10's to the Marines who would gladly take'em, the USAF's current need is an aircraft that can stay over the battlefield longer while still delivering a great deal of pay load. currently they are working on small prop planes that can stay over the battlefield for hours at a time while delivering as much payload as the A-10, problem is it is very slow and very detectable by radar. So it wouldn't last in a dog fight. Besides, the Marines work better with hand me down equipment than the other branches do with their new stuff. Quote "Head-shots for days" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Rodriguez III Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) Waste not want not. As has been echoed elsewhere. If the AF doesn't want them, then give them to the Marines. They already love the thing and have been firsthand wtiness to its efficacy. Granted it would probably cost a bit to retool them to launch from carriers and have more of an amphibious role, but as was also mentioned, the Marines are really good with that. The army would probably love a few as well. Edited August 9, 2015 by Jose Rodriguez III 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatnate Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Waste not want not. As has been echoed elsewhere. If the AF doesn't want them, then give them to the Marines. They already love the thing and have been firsthand wtiness to its efficacy. Granted it would probably cost a bit to retool them to launch from carriers and have more of an amphibious role, but as was also mentioned, the Marines are really good with that. The army would probably love a few as well. It would take a new aircraft to make carrier launches and landings. The A-10's take off distance is 4,000 ft and it was in no way designed to handle a catapult, there is no way to make it a carrier plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Rodriguez III Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 Then...don't retool it and just leave them at the nearest air force/Naval Aviation/Army base with a detachment of Army/Marine Pilots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.