Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Cold War-era 'Warthog' plane targeted for retirement amid budget cuts [View all]JHB
(38,236 posts)37. Part Air Force culture, part overemphasis on "multirole"
From the Op article:
As good as the A-10 is in close-air support, the military classifies it as a single-role aircraft. That's the problem. Going forward, the Air Force has said it wants to rid itself of one-mission planes in favor of a fleet of multi-role aircraft. These jack-of-all-trades aircraft can blast apart enemies on the ground and in the sky.
The A-10 can't dogfight. It's not stealthy. It's not supersonic.
"The Air Force never wanted the A-10, and they've been trying to get rid of it for years," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a website for military policy research. "They are manly men and they want jets that shoot down other jets even though the last time they had an ace was Vietnam."
***
The idea is that <the A-10's replacement, the F-35 fighter> can take off and land on runways and aircraft carriers, as well as hover like a helicopter. No single fighter aircraft has had all those capabilities. And it is expensive. At $35,200, the F-35's cost per flying hour is twice as much as the A-10's, according to the Government Accountability Office. Though few believe the F-35 will ultimately be able to provide close-air support as well as the A-10, the F-35 certainly falls under the Air Force's definition of "multi-role."
Therein lies the dilemma, said Todd Harrison, a defense analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C. If budgets are going to be cut severely, where are the cuts going to come from: expensive new weapons that can carry out more missions, or aging, less-complex weapons?
The A-10 can't dogfight. It's not stealthy. It's not supersonic.
"The Air Force never wanted the A-10, and they've been trying to get rid of it for years," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a website for military policy research. "They are manly men and they want jets that shoot down other jets even though the last time they had an ace was Vietnam."
***
The idea is that <the A-10's replacement, the F-35 fighter> can take off and land on runways and aircraft carriers, as well as hover like a helicopter. No single fighter aircraft has had all those capabilities. And it is expensive. At $35,200, the F-35's cost per flying hour is twice as much as the A-10's, according to the Government Accountability Office. Though few believe the F-35 will ultimately be able to provide close-air support as well as the A-10, the F-35 certainly falls under the Air Force's definition of "multi-role."
Therein lies the dilemma, said Todd Harrison, a defense analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C. If budgets are going to be cut severely, where are the cuts going to come from: expensive new weapons that can carry out more missions, or aging, less-complex weapons?
Not to mention: can the F-35 really do the job, or is it so bloated and gold-plated from all the things it's supposed to be able to do that it's mediocre at the things it'll actually be doing?
But it's fresh money for contractors, not just a spare parts and update program.
Add that to the fact that it's an Air Force plane doing an Army job, and you see what it's up against.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
As a tanker, I have a certain affection and respect for the "tanker's friend", the Warthog.
Aristus
Nov 2013
#6
The Taliban would occasionally capture tanks from the Soviets during their war then.
Aristus
Nov 2013
#12
Wow, I didn't realize being in favor of retiring the A10 was tantamount to supporting the Taliban
NuclearDem
Nov 2013
#28
That and you need to knock out about half the aircraft before it feels uncomfortable
Posteritatis
Nov 2013
#54