Why does the Army need the A-10 Warthog?

[KMFJD]

The F35a - 90 million
F35b around 120
F35c around 135.

A lot has changed in the program and a lot of misinformation and outdated info is out there .

In comparison, the last f15e cost us 109 back 10 years ago. Rafale and eurofighter are running 170+.
The gripen, a plane that was supposed to be a bargain barely works and cost 130m. At least for the latest version.
Russian offerings are a whole ball of problems.
Block 60 f16 probably run around 60. Super hornets 80-90.

Price per plane on the F35 is pretty decent when you look at the capability it's bringing.

Where are you getting those numbers from ? They seem to be almost double what was quoted earlier this year in an article I read about alternatives to the f35 considered by Canada.

 

[pauldun170]

Where are you getting those numbers from ? They seem to be almost double what was quoted earlier this year in an article I read about alternatives to the f35 considered by Canada.

Don't take my word for it. Restrict your searches to recent articles. Anything older than 2014 is basically obsolete. Unfortunately, the F-35 has become a click bait revenue generator in the media so they'll push old outdated talking points to cater to certain demographics.

F-35 - Just entering production and prices will continue to drop
The DOD and Lockheed got their shit together a few years ago (2011-2012) and totally revamped the program.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/new-f-35-prices-a-95m-b-116m-c-102m/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...ent-shoots-down-f-35-to-look-at-alternatives/
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...03/25/f35-costs-cracks-development-/70392734/

Gripen
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...l-just-the-right-plane-and-at-the-right-price


Typhoon -
http://www.dw.com/en/kuwait-to-buy-eurofighter-typhoon-warplanes/a-18710353

Rafale -http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/Why-Rafale-is-a-Big-Mistake/2014/07/25/article2346825.ece

F-15E - 2007 Budget request to replace crashed plane. Remember that's for OUR F-15E with the shitty cockpit and older systems.

Super Hornet - All over the place. From 60-80mil. They've been trying hard to keep the line running so a lot of info is out there.

F-16 Block 60 - http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-uaes-f-16-block-60-desert-falcon-fleet-04538/
For Block 52 its cheaper but if you are buying a new F-16 you'd want the more recent upgrades that have been made available recently and that results ina 50-60mil fighter

 

[pauldun170]

Where are you getting those numbers from ? They seem to be almost double what was quoted earlier this year in an article I read about alternatives to the f35 considered by Canada.

I think I know what site you are referring to.
All I have to say is this...

According to the internet the F-35 cost anywhere from 80Million to 500million per plane and it's a debacle or wonder weapon and we should just buy "Insert favorite plane here" and wars will be fought with cyber laser puppies or we don't need warplanes to fight (insert racial term for arabs here). The average Blogger states that it is a controversy and links back his own site to prove that evidence its a controversy.

Imagine if the internet was around when the F-14\F-15 or when the F-16 was being developed. Those were simple aircraft and even back then people were throwing hissy fits. Now imagine any jerk with an website calling themselves an expert with thousands of readers.

 

[norseamd]

I need more links if you are going to proclaim that the Gripen is a piece of shit.

 

[norseamd]

Your very wrong there I'd say. Electronic warfare is how the US rolls.

Getting rid of the EA-6 that almost certainly does EA much more capably than the EA-18 or F-35? Why not just upgrade them. For the most part I think America has been ignorant and lazy thinking that our superior logistics, space intelligence and communications, and aircraft firepower were going to keep us the top dog for millennia. Now we are outranged by the Chinese in the Pacific, outcybered by both the Russians and Chinese, and the Chinese can shoot down every one of our space satellites.

 

[notposting]

I've all ready posted many links to things that would render the majority of your points moot, but obviously no one is reading them.

Why bother reading yours, if you haven't read anything I have linked earlier in the thread, or you would know all ready.

I'm a big fan of F-15's myself, I used to do a lot of work for support on those and BUFFS.

F-35's are stupidly overpriced, there have been what few aces these days in the Air Force have even said so.

So...you're just not reading things and instead trotting out your very self-biased personal favorites versus actual performance in the field and cost. Got it.

If anything were a candidate for dumb investment of funds, the F-35 manned platform is a glaring one. Still playing yesterday's games, coming up with a half-baked "F-22 at F-16 cost" wunderjet that will already be falling behind when it is finally out their holding down the line.

Investing heavily in advanced drones, with some current air platforms still fitting in where applicable (like the A-10, because the troops in that convoy linked above aren't calling for 15 strafing runs danger close from Clippy), or the B-52/B-2/B-1B for special deliveries, continuing to advance aerial sensor platforms, etc.

(Of course, the Pentagon and much of the redundancy - for the sake of appearances, not function - and generic wastefulness could be drastically reined in. Along with a pretty huge change of attitude, like dumping the "eh I bet these inferior platforms that can do some other things alright will be good enough at CAS. Good thing I'm never leaving North America" approach.)

 

[notposting]

By the way, this thread is way too serious and angry with occasional facts thrown in for OT. Should really be in P&N for the proper look at it, right?

:beer;

 

[Ventanni]

The Air Force wants to get rid of the A-10 Warthog for the same reason they'll want to get rid of the F-15 and F-16 the moment the F-35 comes battle ready...because they have a multitude of gear that all performs the same role?

 

[OverVolt]

The Air Force wants to get rid of the A-10 Warthog for the same reason they'll want to get rid of the F-15 and F-16 the moment the F-35 comes battle ready...because they have a multitude of gear that all performs the same role?

The F-35 will never be able to fly low and slow like the A-10...

Some variants can hover but that is a completely different flight characteristic.

 

[PingviN]

The F35a - 90 million
F35b around 120
F35c around 135.

A lot has changed in the program and a lot of misinformation and outdated info is out there .

In comparison, the last f15e cost us 109 back 10 years ago. Rafale and eurofighter are running 170+.
The gripen, a plane that was supposed to be a bargain barely works and cost 130m. At least for the latest version.
Russian offerings are a whole ball of problems.
Block 60 f16 probably run around 60. Super hornets 80-90.

Price per plane on the F35 is pretty decent when you look at the capability it's bringing.

The pricetag of Gripen airframes, in the case of Brazil, includes long term support. Can't really compare that to the initital purchase costs of F35s. Factor in the much, much lower flight hour cost* and your bleak picture gets a bit brighter. And I'm not even sure your airframe cost includes that of the engine, seeing how it comes from another company.

*$21.000/h (F35A) compared to roughly $6000 (Gripen E).

And any long-term projections made of the F35 will likely vary from actual outcome, seeing how it's a new, non-proven platform.

 

[pauldun170]

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/2...ce-b-1-bombers-being-used-in-ramadi-offensive

 

[pauldun170]

The pricetag of Gripen airframes, in the case of Brazil, includes long term support. Can't really compare that to the initital purchase costs of F35s. Factor in the much, much lower flight hour cost* and your bleak picture gets a bit brighter. And I'm not even sure your airframe cost includes that of the engine, seeing how it comes from another company.

*$21.000/h (F35A) compared to roughly $6000 (Gripen E).

And any long-term projections made of the F35 will likely vary from actual outcome, seeing how it's a new, non-proven platform.

My post was more of a general "modern combat planes aren't cheap" in response to the other post.

Your point has been noted

 

[norseamd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtAThLpxmxw

 

[norseamd]

My post was more of a general "modern combat planes aren't cheap" in response to the other post.

Still waiting for a link that proves your comment that the Gripen barely works at all.

 

[BUTCH1]

Warfare has changed a fair amount in the last 75 years. In WW2, precision guided munitions simply did not exist. Even when the A-10 was designed, they were still mainly on the drawing board.


That's not the only cost to consider. Each aircraft system carries a support cost as well - maintaining training, spare parts, maintenance, logistics, etc... that may not be accounted for in that cost per hour operations cost. For such a specialized mission that other aircraft can already do just as well, it seems pointless to keep dumping a few billion a year into an antiquated weapons system.

And are you really "risking" a B-1 or B-52 when you send it up? If you already have high-altitude air superiority, where is the danger to those platforms beyond mechanical failure or accident?

The closer you get to the ground the more risk you take, is a B1 or B-52 maneuverable enough to avoid a SAM attack of a RPG or a 50-cal machine gun or a 30mm cannon taking pot-shots at it?..

 

[Brainonska511]

The closer you get to the ground the more risk you take, is a B1 or B-52 maneuverable enough to avoid a SAM attack of a RPG or a 50-cal machine gun or a 30mm cannon taking pot-shots at it?..

Why would those aircraft need to fly in low and slow? They can fly high, out of range of some of those. We didn't spend millions of dollars developing laser guided and GPS guided bombs to do low and slow attacks.

 

[sao123]

Why would those aircraft need to fly in low and slow? They can fly high, out of range of some of those. We didn't spend millions of dollars developing laser guided and GPS guided bombs to do low and slow attacks.

The idiots at the helm who think our entire force should be F22s and F35s are lost on this fact:

Low and Slow A2G combat, as well as close in DogFighting A2A are necessary strategies in any offensive combat...

 

[Ventanni]

The F-35 will never be able to fly low and slow like the A-10...

Some variants can hover but that is a completely different flight characteristic.

Oh believe me, I'm a huge A-10 fan. I kinda just want them transferred to the Army so that the military keeps them around longer. The point I was trying to make though was that the Air Force does have a number of different planes that have overlapping roles.

-For some A2G roles, you need a plane to come in and drop a few bombs on a fixed or spotted position that the enemy is hiding or holding out in, or an armored target that can be spotted by either someone on the ground or from the sky. Any plane that can drop precision guidance ordinance can do that job very well, and the cheaper they can do it, the better.

-Some A2G roles have more fluid battle lines, and this is where the A-10 does a better job; it can fly low and slow to identify these targets while they're moving about and engage accordingly. They call these "Attack" planes for a reason, because they enter battlefields and attack accordingly without necessarily having ground spotters to give them targets.

-Then there are A2G roles like the B1B is doing in the Ramadi campaign where you have an entire army on the ground calling targets. They did that in the Kobani campaign too and it was devastating to ISIS. The US military will also sometimes keep a bomber air born and fly from target to target dropping their ordinance, but bombers are only cost efficient if there are lots of things to bomb. They did this in Afghanistan where they just kept a B1B flying at all times and it would fly from target to target dropping its ordinance.

-There are also A2G roles that require stealth. For instance, when entering a battlefield with known radar positions, the US military will go in with full electronic warfare and stealth bombers and wipe out an enemy's air defenses.

I think the idea for the F-35 is to bridge the gap between "Attack" roles and standard bomb trucks. While the F-35 cannot loiter and fly low like the A-10 can, it supposedly can do a very good job of identifying and tracking targets, even infantry, with its electronics package, allowing the plane to bomb with much greater clarity of what it's seeing on the ground (in a way we haven't seen with 4th generation fighters), and do so from a higher, safer altitude. Attack planes are extremely effective at what they do, but it's a very dangerous job. If you can do the job just as effectively, yet more safely with an F-35, then it becomes a harder thing to argue keeping the A-10's around, because these planes certainly do take battle damage when they're engaging targets.

We'll see how good it is once the trials go underway I guess.

 

[zinfamous]

That's coming soon enough
The 6th generation fighter will be getting "laser guns" in addition to it standard gun. F-35 will probably get a laser as well. Probably start seeing that stuff start to appear in the mid to late 20's.

I. CAN. NOT. WAIT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI6ygeZxUBA


pewpewpewpew

 

[Blackjack200]

The idiots at the helm who think our entire force should be F22s and F35s are lost on this fact:

Low and Slow A2G combat, as well as close in DogFighting A2A are necessary strategies in any offensive combat...

F-22s and F-35s are quite capable dogfighters. As for the low/slow:

 

[MongGrel]

The closer you get to the ground the more risk you take, is a B1 or B-52

A BUFF these days can do a lot of precision guided ordinance very far off from an area these days, even a lot more than it used to. I do not think they have even used them yet with some of the new upgrades actively.

B1B's are just fast and nasty and blow shit up, is what they do.

Oh believe me, I'm a huge A-10 fan. I kinda just want them transferred to the Army so that the military keeps them around longer. The point I was trying to make though was that the Air Force does have a number of different planes that have overlapping roles.

+1


F-35's cost a hell of a lot of money for what they are, and cannot carry a payload anywhere near what a F-15 can.

I haven't really seen a real need for dog fighters these days, but the F-15 has a pretty impeccable record in that category, and F-16's also.

F-22s and F-35s are quite capable dogfighters. As for the low/slow:

This.

Even more so when they put multiple lasers on one of those.

There are only so many of those around though, compared to the availability of the A-10's all ready flying.

 

[3DVagabond]

The A-10 got a reprieve because the Pentagon finally woke up to the fact that it is the cheapest, most rugged, most easily maintained aircraft for it's role.

This!

 

[Blackjack200]

F-35's cost a hell of a lot of money for what they are, and cannot carry a payload anywhere near what a F-15 can.

F-35 in bomb-truck mode has pretty good capacity.

That's the advantage of a 28,000 lb. dry thrust engine. The difference is that if you're ever in a situation where you need to actually carry out a mission in hostile and defended airspace, you can strip off the external ordinance, penetrate enemy airspace, outfight any airborne threats, deliver PGMs, and survive to return home. That's a capability no previous aircraft has ever had.

Remember that F-15s were getting shot down in Iraq 25 years ago.

 

[MongGrel]

I think two were shot down total, most have been lost in crashes over time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F-15_losses

That is a lot of dry thrust, I'd have to say.

Really wasn't aware it was that high on those.

 

[3DVagabond]

When we think CAS we think of what a KC130, Apache, A10 do. I've seen The type of CAS that the big strategic bombers do (only on TV mind you. I'm not trying to pretend I'm some kind of warrior.). Like when the Taliban were held up in some mountains and the CIA called in a bunker buster strike(from a B2 IIRC) on their asses. They leveled an entire hillside (literally lol).

These big planes aren't launched from a base in the same region on a moments notice to save some troops that are pinned down and getting ripped up. Helicopters and 130's aren't that survivable in real close in support. F-__ fighters are very expensive to build and maintain. The A10, in the current conflicts, serves a valuable purpose.