The A-10 in T2k - still the most flying?

[Tegyrius]

They would be going to 2028 if the current USAF budget didn't call for them to be grounded next year. Damn it all.

Much as I'm a huge Hog fan, I don't see it being that prolific in the post-2000 environment. With aviation fuel as scarce as it is (to say nothing of spare parts, ordnance, trained aviation maintenance personnel, and trained aviators), I would expect most forces to concentrate on aircraft that can support strategic goals. Think surveillance, secure courier duty, delivery of critical supplies (e.g., vaccine), and long-range deployment and recovery of small special operations teams or key technical personnel. For most of this work, you're not looking at combat aircraft at all. When no one else has eyes in the air, a Cessna 172 and a pair of binoculars are a measurable advantage.

- C.

[Olefin]

I would think the A-10 would definitely still be flying for several reasons but the biggest ones would be

doesnt need the long runways that the F-16 and F-15 need - in fact it can operate from very rough fields that would be unusable by those planes

are very easy to maintain compared to more higher tech planes

can operate with only a Mark 1 eyeball for is targeting system and can be very effective with just its cannon and dumb bombs which are probably all that is left by 2000 for ordinance

they can take one hell of a lot of punishment and remain operational - or get back to base - meaning there may be lots of airframes that were damaged but instead of an ejection they got back home to be cannibalized

considering the fuel situation you dont need fighters to kill bombers and other fighters - you need ground support aircraft - and that means you need A-10's to stay aloft - look at it from a USA 2000 issue -

You are a MilGov commander with two operational aircraft in Oklahoma andou get a message about a Mexican force with one tank and three APC's advancing on a garrison in North Texas that only has one anti-tank missile left. You can either fuel up your F-15 that is made to kill enemy fighters and hope its 20mm cannon can do some damage while exposing it to enemy ground fire that its extremely vulnerable to.

Or you go with your A-10 which is made for that mission.

Result - the A-10 goes out and rips a new butt out of the Mexican force it finds in the open, taking out their armor easily, shrugging off the hits it takes from a 12.7mm AA gun in the process and eliminating them as a threat to your garrison in north Texas completely, then comes back still operational - where your F-15, hit that many times, would be a smoking crater in the north Texas landscape.

I would think that by 2004-2005 the only modern non-transport aircraft the US may stilll have left that they havent mothballed to conserve them for a better day would be the A-10 just because its one of the few planes made for a post apocalyptic environment to still be able to do its mission.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

They would be going to 2028 if the current USAF budget didn't call for them to be grounded next year. Damn it all.

- C.

I'm not so worried; the A-10 has escaped a myriad chopping blocks in the past and is still here.

[mikeo80]

An idea occurred to me while I was reading this thread. For units in the USA fighting the Mexican Army in Texas/ Arizona and fighting the Russians in Alaska, maybe the powers that be would beg, borrow or steal every P-47 Thunderbolt. The WWII fighter/ground support aircraft was known for its' duarabilaty, able to use iron bombs or 2.75 " rockets. The plane does have short comings, mainly it needs a rather long runway due to the height of the fuselage and the span of the propeller.

My $0.02

Mike

[Schone23666]

Lots of good points here.

And being former U.S. Air Force myself, and having no bias in favor of the U.S. Army whatsoever I can say the Air Force's recent decision (though I'm hearing it MIGHT change, we shall see) to ground the A-10's amounts to a "head, meet desk" moment.

[mpipes]

The story goes that when USAF Gen Horner arrived in Saudi Arabia for Desert Shield in 1990 and briefed USA Gen Schwarzkopf on the deploying Air Force assets, he left off any mention of the A-10. After Gen Horner finished his briefing, Gen Schwarzkopf inquired as to "when are the A-10s arriving." Gen Horner replied there were none that what he briefed was what the Air Force was deploying for the air plan and that did not include A-10s. Gen Schwarzkopf then said "General, I don't think you heard me. WHEN ARE MY A-10S ARRIVING."

Needless to say, Gen Schwarzkopf got his A-10s.

IMHO the F-35 can't do that close support mission. Stealth won't do it any good in daylight trying to deliver ordnance on target. I don't think it can carry the weapons load to do the job either. Its also madness to send an almost $100,000,000 airplane down into the AAA arena to do the A-10s mission. If they do retire the A-10, eventually it will be discovered that the F-35 can't do the mission near as well.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by mpipes

IMHO the F-35 can't do that close support mission. Stealth won't do it any good in daylight trying to deliver ordnance on target. I don't think it can carry the weapons load to do the job either. Its also madness to send an almost $100,000,000 airplane down into the AAA arena to do the A-10s mission. If they do retire the A-10, eventually it will be discovered that the F-35 can't do the mission near as well.

I agree; my worry is that the A10s won't be "retired", they'll be sent to D-M and chopped into scrap just as quickly as the USAF can do so, so the Army can't try and acquire them and Congress/JCS can't make them fly them again.

See the F117-A Nighthawk is "Retired" but those birds are inside, in climate-controlled storage kept in flyable condition should the need arise. If the USAF is given even an inkling that they can ship all the Warthogs off to D-M they won't hesitate to bust them up. Watch.

[Panther Al]

All I got to say - other than the A10 needs to stay in service, or at least, replaced with a newer version that shares all the capabilities of the existing one without exception - is this:

HR 4739. Put before the US House back in 91' I believe.

In it, it directs the Air Force to transfer the A10 and all supporting elements to the US Army as soon as it is deemed practicable upon the retirement of the OV1 Mohawk.

The Army held up its end: it dumped the Mohawk. Still waiting on the Air Force to do the same. I think the issue might be the Senate, and I can not find anything that says they did or did not have put its stamp on it.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by mikeo80

An idea occurred to me while I was reading this thread. For units in the USA fighting the Mexican Army in Texas/ Arizona and fighting the Russians in Alaska, maybe the powers that be would beg, borrow or steal every P-47 Thunderbolt. The WWII fighter/ground support aircraft was known for its' duarabilaty, able to use iron bombs or 2.75 " rockets. The plane does have short comings, mainly it needs a rather long runway due to the height of the fuselage and the span of the propeller.

My $0.02

Mike

If they're going to go that route they need to just dust of A1 Skyraiders, then. The Spad can actually carry troops (trufax!), and takes it's own share of damage, carries 4 20mm cannon etc.