A-10 Warthogs will not undergo necessary modifications

I agree, but one thing that the f-18 lacks in comparison is speed.

The -18 is a naval attack aircraft, and not as great as a superiority fighter. Sure it can hold bombs and torpedoes, but what about intercepting SU’s in the middle of the ocean? We hear about Flankers being intercepted all the time, but never by an F18. The F-15 is dead, which was the great superiority fighter. While the F-18 is good at what it does, sacrifices must be made to be balanced.

1 Like

The A-10 will still be far cheaper in the cost per sortie than the F35 which is the biggest cost you would face in a conflict. While the F-35 would be great for interdiction missions the A-10 was never designed for that role but for the CAS and armored division deterrence as stated above. The F35 doesnt fill any of those two. The fact is that they are trying to put the F35 into a role that it cannot fill and where there are no aircraft suited for the role that the A-10 is supposed to be in. As the lead engineer for the F16 said you short change your aircraft if you make it a multi role aircraft. While you may need a multi role for certain branches of the military (cough Navy and Marines) due to limited space available on combat ships, the USAF is not limited in placement of aircraft, thus they have no real need for a multi role but instead need to focus on a weapon individually suited to provide the best of service for that mission parameter. That is why you dont see the USAF having one single bomber type. You have the quick response bomber in the B1, the stealth and precision bomber in the B2, and the B52 for non priority bombing missions.

1 Like

It’s gonna be a long process. We will still have A10s around for a while. They talked doing this when I was in the Air Force in 2006.

Who cares about speed. That is not what’s needed.

There is a reason that not all bombers are supersonic. There is a reason that fighters aren’t as fast as the F-15 anymore. That reason is money. Speed isn’t everything. In fact, it’s very little. Versatility, stealth, capabilities are much more attractive.

Air superiority is a thing of the past. There is no need for that anymore, for the most part, and sure, intercepts still do occur, by -18’s.

That is huge. One of the most important things in a multi role fighter is capabilities.

By the way, the F-18 has a longer point to point range than the F-14…

Go off stats, not off personal preference.

2 Likes

Hard to argue that. However, it goes back cost. Not only is it cheaper to operate newer aircraft due to age, it’s also cheaper to have a more common fleet. Why have the A-10 be cheaper for one type of mission, than have the F-35 that can be used for them all.

Hence the change to the 35.

1 Like

True but if you are providing CAS in a F-35 you are inevitable putting yourself in the way of potential AA fire. Imagine the fallout from a lose of an F35 on that. Losing a 150million dollar aircraft to a 50 million aircraft (high balling lifetime air frame modification costs) would nearly ground the F35s operations in that area of combat. And CAS you are going to come across that. There is nothing stealth will do for you if you are strafing. The cost of a potential lose of air frame is what kept the F22 out of combat in the ME for a long time until the ISIS conflict. A cheap and hard to kill CAS like the A10 outweighs the inclusion of a Multi role in that field.

2 Likes

They shouldn’t fear that, though. It was built for a reason, use it. I feel like the F-22’s was a bit more hesitant as it was the first of its kind. No point to beat the old one to hell when you have a new one at your disposal, waiting to be used.

That is why the F-117 was shot down, because it was not stealth when attacking. I know that the B-2 now has advanced design to prevent against this, not sure about the F-22 or F-35.

1 Like

CAS is different. You stealth has little to no advantage as you arent being shot at by SAMs or other guided rockets you are being shot at by RPGs, AA guns, flak and small arms.

1 Like

As a taxpayer, I implore you to seek out the cost of operation per hour for each airframe. Then, find the cost of each unit.

Second, after you’ve found those, define the roles of each airframe. Please let me know the armament capabilities of each as well as their loiter times.

Ask any warfighter, army, marine, Air Force, navy, anyone on the ground, outside the wire what they want to show up when they are in it, 9/10 times, it’s the A10. Plain and simple it saves lives and takes lives, no questions asked.

The A10 has one job. It is also very good at that job. It doesn’t need stealth because that’s not it’s mission. It’s mission is to support those on the ground when they need it most. Even the F117 and all its stealth was shot down.

Just like the F22, the 35 will be to new and shiny for them to use chasing dust around in the mountains, heck, the F22 is JUST NOW being used in war…

You keep saying Lockheed Martin, please read what I wrote.

Ah shoot, sorry, my brain must have had a hiccup and confused them for some reason.

It was retired because it was useless… it showed we could develop a “fighter bomber” that was stealth. It couldn’t fight anything and we already had the B2… why keep it around when it’s only capable of dropping 2 bombs at a time? The cost verse capable destruction doesn’t make sense.

This simply put is not true. Again, look at the costs. The price of one F35 could pay for the operation of multiple squadrons of A10s.

The designing and poor oversight are the root of the 35’s problems. Sure is ironic how they cut the cost down by millions per unit after the new president took office…

This is also false. Who ever owns the sky, owns the battlefield.

Air superiority is not just “dog fighting”. The tog gun days of dog fighting may almost be gone, air superiority is by far still 100% applicable

Correct, correct, and correct. however, my rough ideas still stand. Times change, combat changes, and as a result, equipment must change. Is the A-10 the right thing to change? Maybe.

But what was the F-117s job? Certainly not a fighter. “F” was the wrong prefix. Bomber, well,

The rest of the quote is important. I used the F-22 as the fighter example, for the lousy excuse the F-117 was as a fighter. You used B2, but the same principle. A better option to what the F-117 did, or even didn’t do.

Can’t really argue, you are correct. It is still a multi-reason problem to the F-35’s delays,

Also true, just in his sense, he was not talking about

but rather air to air. This was his quote.

Air superiority was the wrong term, by me an him. That was on the topic of “dog fighting”, which is pretty much dead.

Yup, I agree that dog fighting, at least for the super powers is over. We can launch missles off a plane from 100 miles away and hit another jet. Can’t get very close when you never “see” each other lol

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.