The Army wants to keep them. F-35s can’t do the A-10’s job properly, and the A-10 has a reputation. However, they are old with no replacement even in the works because the Air Force only wants bombers or fighters.
The Army wants to keep them. F-35s can’t do the A-10’s job properly, and the A-10 has a reputation. However, they are old with no replacement even in the works because the Air Force only wants bombers or fighters.
Which job is that? Killing hiluxes and insurgents with no air defense capabilities? Because against everybody else the A-10 throws stand-off munitions from medium altitude, when it’s not banned from entering hostile airspace.
It’s no coincidence nobody wants to operate it. Not any foreign air force, not USAF that is stuck with it and not the US army that was offered it(they are fine with USAF paying for it).
F-16s can do anything useful the A-10 can and much more.
Well it all depends on what you’re doing. The A-10s can carry more ordinance, longer loiter times, more heavily armored than something like the f35.once you establish air superiority you need trucks to dump munitions as fast and cheaply as possible.
That’s not the F-35’s role, that’s the F-16’s role for the USAF (and most western air forces) and carries as much ordinance, has better range since it’s not hampered by armor.
It also actually has performed low-level attacks against AAA, something the A-10 was banned from doing in Desert Storm, despite having armor for that specific task.
Which is the issue, the A-10’s core concept is flawed. Armor does not provide suitability to aircraft, not even against AAA, never mind SAMs. Compromising performance (speed, range), forgoing capabilities (A2A radar) makes the plane practically useless.
You seem to forget that the A-10 is only about 50 years old. The armor, redundant controls, and flight capabilities (such as being designed to fly while missing half a wing, half the entire tail, and an engine) are there to keep the pilot safe. They have landed after being hit more than once, and entirely due to it’s design.
The A-10 isn’t an air superiority fighter; it’s an attack craft and does that job well enough than any grunt on the ground is disappointed when a request for air support is answered by anything BUT an A-10.
It needs an update, sure, but it is far from useless.
The Army wants to keep them. F-35s can’t do the A-10’s job properly, and the A-10 has a reputation. However, they are old with no replacement even in the works because the Air Force only wants bombers or fighters.
Which job is that? Killing hiluxes and insurgents with no air defense capabilities? Because against everybody else the A-10 throws stand-off munitions from medium altitude, when it’s not banned from entering hostile airspace.
It’s no coincidence nobody wants to operate it. Not any foreign air force, not USAF that is stuck with it and not the US army that was offered it(they are fine with USAF paying for it).
F-16s can do anything useful the A-10 can and much more.
Well it all depends on what you’re doing. The A-10s can carry more ordinance, longer loiter times, more heavily armored than something like the f35.once you establish air superiority you need trucks to dump munitions as fast and cheaply as possible.
That’s not the F-35’s role, that’s the F-16’s role for the USAF (and most western air forces) and carries as much ordinance, has better range since it’s not hampered by armor.
It also actually has performed low-level attacks against AAA, something the A-10 was banned from doing in Desert Storm, despite having armor for that specific task.
Which is the issue, the A-10’s core concept is flawed. Armor does not provide suitability to aircraft, not even against AAA, never mind SAMs. Compromising performance (speed, range), forgoing capabilities (A2A radar) makes the plane practically useless.
You seem to forget that the A-10 is only about 50 years old. The armor, redundant controls, and flight capabilities (such as being designed to fly while missing half a wing, half the entire tail, and an engine) are there to keep the pilot safe. They have landed after being hit more than once, and entirely due to it’s design.
The A-10 isn’t an air superiority fighter; it’s an attack craft and does that job well enough than any grunt on the ground is disappointed when a request for air support is answered by anything BUT an A-10.
It needs an update, sure, but it is far from useless.
Maybe I am cynical, and I am by no way a military expert of any kind, but I would figure that an A-10 is more expendable than a F-35.
I am in the ‘A-10s are cool’ camp, but I do not think that they are particularly useful anymore on a modern battlefield.