The A-10 is no longer being manfactured. What’s going to replace it?
I haven’t heard of anything. This is most likely due to the Air Force command being the self-important twits (sorry Airman Doors) they are. Somehow, if it doesn’t cost 50 billion a jet, it isn’t worth their time. The fact that the A-10 is probably the single most successful airplane of all time and has probably caused more damage doesn’t seem to register with them.
Then again, I might just be totally wrong.
They’ve stopped making them, but that doesn’t mean they’ll phase them out of service. The army tried to do that once before, and had to abandon plans to scrap them because nothing else could do what they do.
The B-52 has been out of production for a long, long time, yet the air force plans to continue flying them until 2040. That’s amazing - they’ll be almost 90 years old by then. A 90 year old plane today would be an old biplane.
In fact, the A-10’s are currently undergoing an upgrade program (including some that are getting all-new wings which are being manufactured by Boeing), and are scheduled to remain in service until at least 2028.
I think they had plans to replace it with a ground attack variant of the F16 but that got canceled.
Fact is the A-10 is not exactly a complicated aircraft, if the airforce really needed new ones , I am pretty sure that the design to flight time would be a matter of months.
Declan
What are you sorry for? I’m not real keen on the brains-over-brawn approach, either.
That’s true.
Now, let’s not get carried away here. It does its job and it does it well, but the C-130 is by far the most versatile airplane of the last half century. It’s a troopship, a trash hauler, a gunship, a communications platform, a covert-insertion platform, and a bomber. Can the A-10 do all that? Nope.
By the way, my aircraft is a C-130, so I’m a bit biased. Still, prove me wrong.
In any event, the planned replacement for close air support is a variant of the F-35, intended to replace the Harrier (and a plethora of other aircraft). Hopefully, after all is said and done, we’re not looking at a repeat of the TFX fiasco of the 60s. The F-111 was a decent plane and all, but let’s be realistic-it was good at most but great at none. We’ll see what the F-35 turns out to be.
I suspect that advanced UAVs will also play a major role in the future - cheaper, more disposable, loiter capability, and carrying a larger weapons load-out. And with localised battlefield control, targeting can be managed by people on the ground and in the situation - leading to fewer “friendly fire” incidents.
A UAV won’t be flying with a 30mm gatling, however. It will be using Hellfires and other antitank missiles.
Just my WAG
Si
I would think UAV also. Exposed to enemy fire position like low-level close air support is their preferred habitat. Also note, that UAVs have shorter development time - from design to fielding - than manned vehicles. All that safety standards and crew protection are not issue and there are more off-the-shelf parts that can be used.
I see no reason why UAV couldn’t be fitted with 30mm gatling. It’s quite good weapon after all. Somewhat heavy though, and with most probable tendency towards more lighter vehicles (rather than few heavy) missiles and lower caliber cannons and machine guns seems better choice.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is replacing the A-10 in the Air Force inventory beginning in about 20 years. Link.
Yah.
Brilliant. :rolleyes:
Paint a Fighter green–SHAZAM! It becomes a ground attack plane. :smack:
Heh. I had the same reaction when I heard of the F-14 “Bombcat”.
There was quiet a bit more to it than that: link, link, and link
To the OP, precision guided weapons are transforming the CAS role to where almost anything with wings or a rotor can do the job.
I as thinking combat planes. In terms of actually blowing stuff up real good, it’s probably the best ever. Not a fighter jet, maybe, but you can’t have anything.
Funny thing is that even now the A-10 is incredibly effective, precisely because it’s not dependant on that. You don’t have to have any set up; it can just buzz in and destroy anything that needs killing, then hang around to kill anything else that needs killing. And it’s so freaking tough that it’s very hard to shoot down. It’s just got more weapons than you can shake a stick at.
I always dreamed of flying an A-10 or F4 Phantom.
The gun on the A10 is so powerful that when it fires, the recoil significantly decelerates the plane. It would have to be a huge UAV to be practical to carry it.
The Avenger gatling isn’t quite the tank buster it was designed to be in the 60s. Partly in response to its development, East Bloc tanks were designed with heavier top armor that made them significantly less vulnerable to it. Which isn’t to say that it’s useless - there are plenty of vehicles less armored than a tank that it makes short work out of, and it has a varied of other weapons to engage tanks with.
The A-10 was originally scheduled to be retired from 2008 to 2011 IIRC and the duties would be replaced by the JSF/F35. I thought it was foolish because the A10 is a very cost effective platform at what it does, and superior in most ways to the F35 in that role. I bet the performance in Afghanistan changed some minds.
The question has to be asked:
Is our military hell bent on developing weapons for an enemy that doesn’t exist?
The A-10 has done a superior job at the tasks it was handed. (No knock on the C-130 but the tasks are entirely different. It’s like comparing a semi-truck to a subway train).
We’ve lost over 4,000 soldiers in Iraq to roadside bombs, infantry fire and other makeshift, cobbled together weapons. A super sophisticated replacement to the A-10 does nothing to protect the troops that are in harms way. It will however cost a lot of money. How many A-10’s have been taken down by the enemy because the were not capable of handling their missions?
Really, WTF is going on with the military? I need to be convinced that they are dealing with reality and not spending a shitload of money on video games.
We are on the verge of losing another war and they are telling us that we need to be prepared. Prepared for what? Another ass-kicking?
You got it in one, but I would probably nit pick the hell bent part.
The US military has just about stopped dedicated platforms ,which is what the A-10 is. Close air support.
The speed and intensity of modern warfare dictates that you go with what ever you have in the cupboard, in 91 the americans and allies went with multi-role and the Iraqis with dedicated , it was over in three weeks for reducing Iraqi airforce, air defense , and command and control.
No strategic surprise , Iraqis knew the storm was coming and yet they could not stop the onslaught.
Declan
I’m not sure I get what you are saying. There is absolutely no doubt that the American military can wreak destruction at levels that are almost unimaginable. The power is indisputable.
After that, as we saw with “Shock and Awe”, so what?
All wars are political. It’s not about how much destruction you can create but how well you can protect yourself.
Has Bin Laden been “smoked out of his hole and killed?” Personally, if I have to pick up the check, I would rather give the job to a Warthog than anything else that’s been proposed.
And the casualties you mentioned were the result of the enemy adapting with what they could do, rather than complaining that the american tanks were protected by force fields.
Most people dont want genocidal levels of enemy and civillian casualties, so your left with winning the peace through attrition, which is whats happening now. If you want to do occupation with a force level thats somewhere between WW2 and Vietnam, you are going to have to bring back the draft , if not your stuck with the situation at hand.
Actually I believe its how to coerce the enemy into ending the war on favourable terms to you. Take Iraq , simply put down weapons , and make happy faces with american forces and they are gone inside a year, but someone wants a destablizing effect on the region and are prolonging the insurgency beyond what it should take. Its not like they are dealing with the Russians , Chinese or English.
Yeah , I personally think that he has been smoked at Tora Bora and the audio cassettes that have been released are essentially fakes, and the bomb that smoked him , I would love it if were dropped by an A-10.
Declan
Nothing. In the first place, no one wanted the A-10 since it wasn’t “sexy” . It did so well in Desert Storm that now no one wants to nay-say it, but the Air Force wants sexy air superiority Fighters and high tech bombers.
To some degree that’s true. There are people that think the A-10 should’ve been an army plane similar to attack helicopters - better integration, liasons, understanding the role, mission planning, etc.
Another factor may have been that the airframe may be getting expensive to operate. I have my doubts, since it’s such a simple, rugged plane that doesn’t do much high speed stuff, but while it was cheap to make and operate during its lifetime, if the airframe doesn’t take well to its extended service it can be expensive to keep the things up. Part of the reason for the retirement of the F-14 despite its superiority in many ways to the F-18 was because the airframes were very stressed and keeping them in flying shape was expensive and time intensive.