If the A-10 is too slow for the Air Force, then why not just give it to the Army?
>>30303041
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/02/25/army-not-interested-in-taking-a10-warthogs-from-air-force.html
>>30303041
Army can't have fixed wing aviation by law.
All the Army's fixed wing got split off into the air force at the end of WW2.
>>30303041
Because it's a totally different airframe with different requirements than the
>>30303091
Then just change the law to allow the Army to run A-10's. Simple. It doesn't make sense to retire the A-10 completely since they just got upgraded and re-winged. They should be given to the Army, or at least the National Guard. Hell, it could serve as a replacement for the older Apache's retired from the National Guard.
>>30303074
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/02/25/police-interested-in-taking-a10-warthogs-from-air-force.html
say goodnight jaywalkers and parking ticket holders
>>30303041
The army would find a way to fuck up an A-10.
>>30303234
I think it would be best to keep hoping that the A-10 doesn't retire yet. It's survived this long, I think it's one heck of a lucky plane.
>>30305713
Police car chases of the future are going to be amazing.
>>30303041
Because it would require the army to develop an entirely new support infrastructure for fixed wing aircraft, not to mention needing contracts for maintenance and armament. And of course you can't just transfer the pilots from the airforce, so you need army pilots, which means a flight school, which means more infrastructure. Then you need mechanics, armament techs, and all of the 20+ people needed to keep a modern jet attack craft combat ready, and and again, they would have to be trained by the army, which means yet more infrastructure. Even discounting the fact that the army DOES NOT operate fixed wing aircraft you are looking at an infrastructure investment at the very least in the realm of 50 Billion dollars (conservatively).
>>30305910
>>30303234
>>30303091
Army operates some fixed wing assets even today. The fact is the Air Force is the organization tasked to carry out close air support with fixed wing assets however. The air force isn't surrendering that mission, so thus they won't be handing off the A-10 to anyone.
You all are missing the point that the A-10 is a very old airframe. They may have new wings, but the rest of their airframes are still old. They don't have that much life in them and they are only getting more expensive to maintain. Nobody is going to be able to fly them soon.
>>30305910
>>30306012
holy crap people who actually know things.
Because A-10s are outdated, low and slow CAS isn't done anymore and drones are cheaper for bombing insurgents while fighters are more survivable.
>>30303041
The A-10 is a one of those vehicles with a strangely powerful undeserved reputation. What has the A-10 ever actually done to deserve the praise it is constantly given? Basically its an interesting design and it was used briefly in the gulf wars. I think it just looks the part of a flying tank so well that people assume that it must be highly effective.
In the Gulf War A-10s flight profiles took them into the WEZ of SAMS and even old style point and shoot AAA. Yes they have armor, but its not possible to make an Aircraft armored enough to shrug off missile explosions or even AAA fire. As a result, the A-10 had a very high loss rate.
The winning strategy in Aircraft is to never be shot at all and hopefully never be engaged at all. That is why laser bombs and GPS bombs from high altitude are the way things are going. MANPADS have always been scary. New Generation MANPADS are very very scary to aircraft.
F-16 and F-15Es don't have that rugged flying tank look, but are much more effective.
>>30303041
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
>>30306186
???
The a-10 has NO ARMOR AT ALL
The PILOT has a titanium bathtub, same as all planes, but thats IT
>ITT
People not realizing the cost of maintaining an airframe rendered obsolete by air defense and dem drones
>It will still always be my good solid tank
