Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I doubt itIs the A-10 something the U.S. Army wants?
I believe it is the US Army that keeps the A-10 alive through pressure on Congress.Is the A-10 something the U.S. Army wants?
Not sure how I got here! I have never "threaded" before. I was interested to find if anyone is still playing "Mustangs and Messerschmitts" besides me? I used to play it weekly in Salt Lake City before I moved to Montana. No one here plays. I have a cabinet with about 450 planes (1/72) made exclusively for this game. Anyone care to discuss the game?I've seen no evidence, at least in official channels that the Army currently wants or needs the A-10 to stick around. If anything could see some folks wanting to get their hands on the money allocated for this modification.
I've seen nothing in any aviation media, official or otherwise to support this insinuation, though after years of reading of procurement issues in the USA I'm not prepared to argue against it. Going back to the abortive attempts the USF have made to modify F-16s with GPU-5 cannon in an attempt to rid themselves of the A-10, I struggle to believe that it would have survived in the face of the USAFs antipathy to it without some powerful allies in the halls of power, most likely the US Army,If anything could see some folks wanting to get their hands on the money allocated for this modification.
The fanaticism for the A-10 is mind-numbing. I wish someone would do a video of it to the song "Let it go"."The Air Force wants the Warthog dropped from inventory, saying the 50-year-old design won't survive a fight with modern adversaries in a contested environment. It wants F-35s to fill the close air support role. But Congress has overruled the generals and authorized the new wings in a bid to keep the flying machine gun in action for another 20 years."
Agree 100%The fanaticism for the A-10 is mind-numbing. I wish someone would do a video of it to the song "Let it go".
I did this image years ago to sum up the situation:
And I would also say that people all too often mistakenly think that the Close in CAS means the platform delivering weapons has to be close to the action - e.g. gun runs. In reality, the Close is in reference to how close the enemy are to the friendly forces. Thus with appropriate precision weapons and targeting data, CAS can be handled by multiple systems including artillery, strategic bombers etc.
Yeah, it performed extremely well in GW 1 and subsequent, but look at the jump in technology since GW 1, let alone when the aircraft first entered service. Between UAVs and aircraft that can integrate with other weapon systems, I think the day of this type of aircraft is numbered, especially if it was forced to operate in contested airspace. Don't forget the use of helicopters that can perform CAS as well and can be operated in forward areas with no runways.re why the A-10 Warthog is still in service "Best WW2 plane for Ukraine today?"
As PFVA63 said earlier - "the Army," specifically who?I agree with the sentiment that IF only one type of aircraft can be purchased then it should be the F-35. I think the Army general who said what is in quotes in my post would agree also.
I also agree that technology has changed significantly to where it would probably make the A-10 a very effective (but also very short lived) CAS platform in a modern high intensity war.
But I would also have to say that the Army is well aware of this, and yet they still insist on keeping the A-10 if possible. Part of it, I think, is the ability of the A-10 to be updated with the same stand-off weapons as the F-35. Part of it is that the Army is planning for the majority of wars they figure they will be fighting in the near future.
Incidentally, the Army made a serious offer to take responsibility for A-10 operations, and/or funding for the SLEP. I do not know how the details of reasoning that followed this offer worked out.