Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

I have noticed that the people who say let the A-10 "GO" are the same people who say we have enough F-22's for air superiority. SO! if we have air superiority the A-10 is safe to do it's Job! RIGHT? or is it truly the other way that we really don't have enough F-22's and need to build MORE!. it really cant be both ways! Question

F-16.net Sponsor

It's not about their performance, it's about $$. It's the 'do more with less' mentality.

Retiring A-10s saves money (short term), not buying more F-22s saves money (short term)

Now when the remaining aircraft have to fly 2x or 4x the normal amount to perform the same work as the previous generation/numbers; it will cost us more money (long term) and put our military in more danger.

Example: 24 - A-10C and 24 - F-15C is being replaced by 4 - F-35A and 4 - F-22A; remove 10% of your fleet for 'scheduled maintenance', and reduce that number to 75% due to normal 'wear/tear - unscheduled' issues. Now you have 2 or 3 aircraft doing CAS, and 2 or 3 aircraft performing AS to cover the CAS jets and troops on the ground from the enemy CAS. Place this example into a small AOR (area of responsibility) Typically where 2 squadrons (of 12ea jets) would be sufficient to cover the tactical situation 24x7. How much are you flying the lower number of jets? How much more often do they break flying at that rate? What happens to your mission if the bad guys take 1 or 2 out? (Esp given the lines are closed to save $$) How does needing to deploy of 30% or 40% of your ENTIRE FLEET affect planned maintenance or training?

See how 'less is cheaper' is not cheaper?

My Two Cents

TEG

And why should USAF do the same amount of sorties/missions with fewer units?
Just do fewer sorties, US homeland would not be in any danger eighter way..
If you cut units, u basicly cut on operational capability too.

Okay, the 'do less with less' - just tell 'the bad guys' that we can only fly a hundred or so F-22s M-F from 9 to 4 during any conflict.

Ground operations requiring CAS can only be accomplished during the same hours.

That sounds like deterrent to me...

"Do less with less" in my book is "defend less (or defend to a lesser extent) with less"; nobody will scream 'FOUL' until something goes horribly wrong and the finger pointing begins when someone says "I thought we had the best Air Force in the world?" The answer will likely be "well we did sir, until you (Mr Government official or Joe Public)didn't want to pay for it any longer"

Notice how the QDR is rewritten each time our leaders slash funding; nobody wants to come out and tell their elected boss; BTW if you cut our programs that far national defense will suffer. Nope, they just rewrite the national defense 'plan' so that it fits the budget!?!

Shall we cite historical accounts of the USAAC between WWI and WWII? How far we were behind in not only technology but raw numbers. You think the modern USAF can spool up 3x as many men and aircraft in 1 year? How fast can the F-22 line be restarted in a major conflict, or the re-establishment of a full line to produce 10 F-16s a month?

And don't say 'it will never happen'... it doesn't appear it would happen today; but: What about an economic crisis of scale we haven't seen? Severe drought over an entire continent? (you know wrath of nature stuff) What if some 'bad guys' somewhere of stragetic importance (IE middle east) decide to develop a neukeuar device and set it off somewhere important, like your back yard? or your mother's back yard? If cool heads prevail, not-good but okay we'll deal with it. If hot heads prevail, limited exchange WWIII here we come.

I'm feel more than secure knowing the USAF (mainly ANG) is flying our ACA missions with 20-30 year old Vipers and Eagles, all across the US for 'homeland defense'; I wish the US Gov would use the NG and ANG to completely secure our southern border. (Where said bad guys would likely try to sneak across)

What I don't want is a serious conflict to arise where our USAF suffers because of deploying 40-50 year old fighters with the ANG, or when Active Duty units deploy with 8 aircraft where there would have been 24.

You can't expect 2 or 4 jets to defend/attack the same space as 12 or 24 jets even if they are 'more capable' If that were the case we'd only need 1/12 the number of cops because they have 'better communications, advanced computers, faster cars, and better/more accurate guns'. Defense/security doesn't scale like that. There is a time/space/numbers formula that won't work out with the proper numbers.

I know you can't 'take ground' with an air force; but it allows our brothers and sisters on the ground to take it and keep it without as many losses. Furthermore, I don't want to see my brothers and sisters in the AF being killed by old equipment that isn't properly funded, or lack of new equipment or training sorties that jeopardize combat readiness.

Just to be safe!

Doh

TEG

Last edited by haavarla on May 26, 2012 - 08:26 PM; edited 1 time in total

Eeeh.. What happend to the term 'Smart Defence'? It is do less with less;)

And pls, keep your hat on, and sleep safe at night. Unless you mean 3rd WW is around the corner. US can and will fight any cave men with the increasing amount of drones, for any micro/small operation like we see in Jemen, and Pakistan.

Your whole arument about we cant reduce our forces are as shortsighted as they are paranoid. US are in no better shape economicaly, than many of its NATO allies.
Your eco cannot be held up With your sun hot credit cards spending.
Its Time to slash and axe on spending, sorry there are no nice way to break the news..

Eh, no. TEG, you took the words right out of my mouth. The best solution is to buy as many of the things as we possibly can, even if it involves inflating requirements to shield national security from borderline criminal behavior by 'elected' officials. The worst case is that we wind up with 80-odd Raptors mothballed in Tucson, ready to be re-activated just in case, or used as parts sources to extend the service life of the active birds.

As for funding, the world, economically and otherwise, is on the edge of the cliff. The 'money' that would be required to ensure adequate defense (I use quotations because it simply doesn't exist any more) would be a drop in the bucket compared to the finances wasted on politically-motivated 'welfare' programs. In the rather possible case of a socioeconomic meltdown, which would you rather have: 200 more of the world's only combat-ready stealth fighter, or a reduction in total debt (in a declining currency no less) of less that one half of one percent??

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.", - Alexis de Tocqueville
And there lies the rub.

It's just an extension of "Corporate America", cut to the bone - then cut more.

If families suffer/people die no biggie. The big shots in the corner office are lauded for "cutting expenses", and they'll get a big fat bonus too. Not many Congressmen have kids that serve, anyway. Their kid isn't going to die, so who cares?

This is the mentality/reality of America today: Grab as much green as you can, disregard your fellow man. It's all about the greenbacks/getting out with as many toys as you can...

Can anyone tell me how many A-10's we lost in kosovo? I didn't here of any at the time. I do know we lost a F-16 or 2 and A (F-117) Shocked

According to this the A-10 was 0 for one with the " " stealth aircraft in kosovo. WOW bett the F-35 and F-22 would not last five min below 2,000 ft!!!!!!!!!! Shocked

http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/do ... 12-043.pdf SO MUCH FOR (CAS)!!!

The engineers who designed the A-10 was told to mount the biggest gun they could find, put it on an aircraft that could withstand about 40% of its structure and control surfaces to be shot up and still return back to base, and to carry as much air-to-ground munition it could carry. I haven't seen another aircraft that can carry a 30mm cannon on its nose and scare the living crap out of anybody it cluster bombs.
Best attack plane Ever!!!

flighthawk128 wrote:

The engineers who designed the A-10 was told to mount the biggest gun they could find, put it on an aircraft that could withstand about 40% of its structure and control surfaces to be shot up and still return back to base, and to carry as much air-to-ground munition it could carry. I haven't seen another aircraft that can carry a 30mm cannon on its nose and scare the living crap out of anybody it cluster bombs.
Best attack plane Ever!!!

Well, they were actually given the exact gun that they were to mount, but pretty much.
You also forgot the part about making as many parts left-right interchangeable as possible, so that it could be quickly repaired in the field.

medicdwpa wrote:

According to this the A-10 was 0 for one with the " " stealth aircraft in kosovo. WOW bett the F-35 and F-22 would not last five min below 2,000 ft!!!!!!!!!! Shocked

http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/do ... 12-043.pdf SO MUCH FOR (CAS)!!!

Why would a F-22 F-35 be below 2k in a MANPADS/AAA environment?

I was pointing out that Stealth is not the end all beat all of Aircraft design! The A-10 can take more damage than any other aircraft out their! It has shown that in more than 4 Wars.

FYI The point of my post is the Joint Chiefs and others dont have there story strait. The question is DO WE HAVE ENOUGH F-22's or NOT????? And the A-10 can hold it's own and is the only plain that can stay DOWN AT GOD'S FEET AND SURVIVE!!!!!!!!

medicdwpa wrote:

I was pointing out that Stealth is not the end all beat all of Aircraft design! The A-10 can take more damage than any other aircraft out their! It has shown that in more than 4 Wars.

FYI The point of my post is the Joint Chiefs and others dont have there story strait. The question is DO WE HAVE ENOUGH F-22's or NOT????? And the A-10 can hold it's own and is the only plain that can stay DOWN AT GOD'S FEET AND SURVIVE!!!!!!!!

Capitalizing your sentences do not make your posts, which don't make any sense to start with, that much more convincing.

medicdwpa wrote:

I was pointing out that Stealth is not the end all beat all of Aircraft design! The A-10 can take more damage than any other aircraft out their! It has shown that in more than 4 Wars.

FYI The point of my post is the Joint Chiefs and others dont have there story strait. The question is DO WE HAVE ENOUGH F-22's or NOT????? And the A-10 can hold it's own and is the only plain that can stay DOWN AT GOD'S FEET AND SURVIVE!!!!!!!!

Your assumption is that the F-35/22 would be utilized in the same manner as the A-10. You use tactics that make sense for your capabilities. In a high intensity threat environment, the A-10 would be shot out of the sky.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

A-10 or F-22 witch one are they wrong about!