[DanSC]

The A-10 is old, and so is the B-52 and the AC-130. They are also the perfect aircraft for theaters where the Air Force has air superiority, such as Afghanistan, and are vastly cheaper than the F-35 will be.

[saturn_656]

The A-10 is everything a dedicated ground attack plane should be.

The F-35 is a glass cannon in comparison. Sure it can carry plenty of firepower, but can it chew up and spit out a 57mm round?

[Regina]

sandorski sandorski:

Regina Regina:

They aren't going out of production they are just ordering less until 2018. Nothing stopping them from cutting another P.O. in 2018 for more.........or at any other point until then.

Purchase Order, that's what would be cut. I like the use of "Programs", has a nice "Oh no, these are not simple Off-the-shelf buying of things...these are R&D and all that Sciency and High Tech stuff".

I also heard suggested on another forum that even more advanced weapon systems will soon be available. So it's not like Obama just destroyed the US Military by decreasing a small percent of what really needs to be cut.

I too thought the word "Program" was being misused in this case. The fact that the US may possibly stop purchasing them means little except to the article, considering other countries are currently and will continue to use them. I too think there is better coming since this is old tech.

[Regina]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

The A-10 is everything a dedicated ground attack plane should be.

The F-35 is a glass cannon in comparison. Sure it can carry plenty of firepower, but can it chew up and spit out a 57mm round?

I thought the Apache replaced the A-10. Gave up a bit of gun but offered much more in terms of close ground support with loitering capabilities.

[DanSC]

Regina Regina:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

The A-10 is everything a dedicated ground attack plane should be.

The F-35 is a glass cannon in comparison. Sure it can carry plenty of firepower, but can it chew up and spit out a 57mm round?

I thought the Apache replaced the A-10. Gave up a bit of gun but offered much more in terms of close ground support with loitering capabilities.

The Apache can do some things the A-10 can, but the Apache cannot shrug off anti-aircraft fire like the A-10.

[sandorski]

xerxes xerxes:

sandorski sandorski:

DanSC DanSC:

Perhaps, but the two situations aren't really comparable. The Hellfire and the Tomahawk mature, extremely successful programs, not an overbudget R&D exercise.

But this is the same administration that wants to ditch the A-10 Warthog, so I'm not surprised.

An ancient aircraft with no real purpose anymore.

Old yes, but still versatile. In Afghanistan it's great in a close support role. If anything, A-10 is the kind of plane the DoD should be encouraging manufacturers to design. It's cheap to build and maintain, excels in its role and in some roles it's not really designed for, and can take more hits than even Rhianna.

The problem with planes like the F-35 is that they try to do everything and can't. And worse they're so over-designed and overpriced it's no wonder governments balk at the cost.

It's just overkill in this day and age. It was designed to take out vast numbers of advanced Soviet Armor, not a bunch of yahoos in a 4x4 Toyota.

[Jabberwalker]

I actually can't believe that they would cancel whole weapons systems without extensive studies and consultation by the armed forces. Perhaps something is coming along the renders these as expensive anachronisms.

[BRAH]

Obama keeps cutting weapons systems etc and the Russians will defintely be coming.

[Jabberwalker]

Don't panic. Their army isn't all that large anymore and it's mostly made of conscripts.

[commanderkai]

sandorski sandorski:

It's just overkill in this day and age. It was designed to take out vast numbers of advanced Soviet Armor, not a bunch of yahoos in a 4x4 Toyota.

Yes and no. I think the key situation is survivability. Unlike helicopter gunships, the A-10 is nigh invulnerable to anything that, say, the Taliban could toss at it. Helicopters are much more fragile, something that the conflict in Afghanistan proved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_av ... y_per_type

Just a list. Although only a handful of helicopter gunships have been lost (a majority are transports), there are absolutely 0 A-10 losses throughout the 13 year combat mission.

In Iraq, 16 Apaches were lost to hostile fire, with only 1 A-10 lost due to hostile fire, and that was done by an Iraqi SAM site in 2003, on top of that, the pilot survived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_av ... y_per_type

[Freakinoldguy]

sandorski sandorski:

DanSC DanSC:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Next think you know they'll pull the 250 billion in funding for the F-35.

Perhaps, but the two situations aren't really comparable. The Hellfire and the Tomahawk mature, extremely successful programs, not an overbudget R&D exercise.

But this is the same administration that wants to ditch the A-10 Warthog, so I'm not surprised.

An ancient aircraft with no real purpose anymore.

That's exactly what they said before the Gulf War, yet history proved them wrong. For the cost of operating the A-10 it makes sense to keep some around especially considering that idiots like Putin have started showing ambitions towards eastern Europe and his ground forces are the implement he seems to favour.

$1:

The A-10 Thunderbolt is also known as the Warthog, the 'flying gun' and the Tankbuster. The aircraft was used extensively during Operation Desert Storm, in support of Nato operations in response to the Kosovo crisis, in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and in Operation Iraqi Freedom

It may be old but it still has a place on the battlefield. People seem to get to caught up with the newest and the best technology and forget about what works. So do they get rid of them no and if they're stupid enough to actually do that, Canada should buy a couple of squadrons and rent them out to the Americans for their next war.

$1:

A-10C – precision engagement upgrade programme

The precision engagement upgrade programme for the A-10 includes enhanced precision target engagement capabilities, which will allow the deployment of precision weapons such as JDAM (joint direct attack munition) and wind-corrected munitions dispenser (WCMD), as well as enabling an extension of the aircraft's service life to 2028.

Besides would the US Gov't have planned this upgrade for an obsolete Air Craft. In Barry's mind it would appear that if it isn't unmanned it isn't worth having which, is extremely short sighted on his administrations part.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/