The U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II, also known as “Warthog," demonstrates its capabilities at the New York Air Show at Orange County Airport, N.Y., on June 24, 2023. (Petr Svab/The Epoch Times)
Zero Hedge/Epoch Times: Air Force Wants To Replace Highly Effective Modern A-10 With 'Flying Tinderbox'
“By scrapping the A-10, the Air Force is guaranteeing more Gold Star families will be created,” according to Charlie Keebaugh, president of the largest group of tactical-air-control party airmen.
The 2024 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (pdf) allows the Air Force to retire 42 A-10 Thunderbolt 2s in 2024, with the remaining 220 or so to be retired with prejudice by 2029. This retiring of the A-10 “Warthog” is predicated on the fantastical disproven idea that the A-10, which to this day is the most cost-effective plane in the Air Force’s inventory, can be replaced by the F-35.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The ab ove article explains clearly why the F-35 cannot replace the A-10 in conducting close air support, but the mainstream media narrative continues to claim the F-35 will be a success story .... Lockheed Martin’s $1.7 trillion F-35 fighter jet is 10 years late and 80% over budget—and it could be one of the Pentagon’s biggest success stories (Fortune).
7 comments:
A-10 can take hits. F-35 can't. A-10 carrys more, F-35 can't, List is endless.
I agree with everything Dave writes, but here comes the "but"
I think most aircraft do not survive nowadays in the Forward Edge of the Battle Area. Ukrainian helos use unguided rocket volleys. they fly as low to the ground as possibly to not be picked up by Russian air defense, which is good. Russian Alligators and MI-28s have to pop up and guide their ATGMs to target. While they hover they are exposed and they are taking the casualties to show it.
I think the A-10s would not be anymore survivable than a MI-28 or KA-52. I could be wrong.
I do not trust the Air Force brass. Maybe they decided rightly or wrongly that the A-10 is not survivable. Maybe they decided the above, but also see cost saving that they can put into R&D or other programs. They would not necessarily be wrong.
A-10s could be very useful and cost effective in low intensity conflicts. There are going to be or are a lot brush fires other than this war in Ukraine. People in the low intensity conflicts or brush wars are going to have some sophisticated equipment and tactics, but they won't have everything. The A-10 might fill the ticket there perfectly.
Background
The airforce has been wanting to get rid of the A-10 for over 40 years. Army has always wanted it to stay.
Proven airframe.
F35 not so much
Dave is spot on.
I guess the Airforce is finally getting its way.
Wow way to say nothing!
Sad shit. A-10 is good. Should be making more--
1046
You got something to say , say it. Don't just sit there slavering
pretty much military SOP the last 30 years, get rid of proven 'old' tech, even if it still works just fine & replace with new more expensive much more complicated largely untested tech. ratio of older tech units retired to newer tech units is probably about 2:1, ignoring the fact that the number of maybe less capable units IS ITSELF a strategic consideration.
Post a Comment