What's the proposed replacement for the A-10? 

First, I'm willing to bet the majority of the people in this thread are not old enough to be paying taxes. Second, why are Canadians complaining about an American project? I find it hilarious that Canadians are complaining about wasted tax dollars when they don't even pay taxes in the U.S.

 

Thank you, this is the problem I have with the military, you spend all this money on such expensive hardware and for what!? We do not need this, we're not going to war, (well we are but its a stupid war and a criminal one at that) but my point is this is why I say cut back on military, I don't care what people say, you can still protect the country without all this new fancy technology, doesn't our military have enough advancements as it is?

I'm not going to get into the statement you made about the war being criminal, that is too long of a conversation. Being in the military myself I can say that you would be surprised about the amount of old equipment we use. Most of the aircraft in the Air Forces' inventory is well over 30 years old.

 

Don't get me started on this. This is politics and bidding at their best.

Long story short, why replace the A-10????It's the the most ugly, beautiful aircraft we have. Nothing makes my balls tingle like hearing that 30mm gun hum her beautiful song. And now you're telling me the F-35's main gun won't actually be able to be used until another like 5 or 10 years later (didn't read the posted story, just going of other articles I read).

Somebody start a petition to keep the A-10! #SAVETHEWARTHOG

Because the A-10 is getting really old. It has nothing to do with how well the A-10 performs, it is just getting old. Just like the F-16 and F-15; they are both very good fighters but they are getting old. The A-10 entered service in 1977, that is almost 40 years ago and production ended on them almost 30 years ago meaning that there are no more new A-10 parts out there. Not to mention the mission the A-10 was built for is basically non-existent today and I'm willing to bet that if Russian tanks start storming across eastern Europe the Russians would have no problem shooting down a slow, low flying A-10 before it could do anything.

 

Oh come on, you can't honestly defend the F-22 as a product of the MIC. Designed well over 10 years, if not 20 years ago, never saw action until 2014 due to numerous Operational Issues including crashes and oxygen for the pilots, massive delays, price increases, ect. That's why they stopped production cap at 200 years ago.

The F-22 only entered service 10 years ago and the number of F-22s initially brought into service probably had something to do with why it didn't see combat until now. By the time the Air Force had all their F-22s the war in the middle east was drawing down. This doesn't mean it didn't go on deployments though, the F-22 did several deployments throughout the late 2000s.

Edited January 4, 201511 yr by l3ubba

Because the A-10 is getting really old. It has nothing to do with how well the A-10 performs, it is just getting old. Just like the F-16 and F-15; they are both very good fighters but they are getting old. The A-10 entered service in 1977, that is almost 40 years ago and production ended on them almost 30 years ago meaning that there are no more new A-10 parts out there. Not to mention the mission the A-10 was built for is basically non-existent today and I'm willing to bet that if Russian tanks start storming across eastern Europe the Russians would have no problem shooting down a slow, low flying A-10 before it could do anything.

 

 

 

While I see your point, I'm reminded of a similar project by the US military regarding new battle rifles. We've been trying to find a replacement for the "aging" AR platform (As the pentagon calls it), yet all we continue to do is make mini modifications to a platform that was designed before I was born. If it's a proven platform, don't try to replace it. Sure the A-10 is changing, but that doesn't mean that can't redesign it and "upgrade" it. The A-10 was designed for one thing and one thing only. The F-35 is trying to be the God-Mode of planes, and quite frankly, I don't see how it'll work.  It's trying to be the P.1000 Ratte of the modern era.

 

I don't see the A-10 being shot down, with simple enhancements being made to it, and making it a more "modern" jet. Since it was designed as more of a CAS jet, in coordination with infantry and the likes of an actual warzone, the survivability only goes up.

 

Although the one thing I'm more worried about is OpFor fighters. Against the Taliban and the like the A-10 flourishes. Against an actual country which has a functioning air force, the A-10 would need fighter escorts or be 100% sure the are was clear of AA.

 

"Low, slow, kill everything below" - The A-10 pilots' saying is the reason they achieve excellent results. 

Second, why are Canadians complaining about an American project? I find it hilarious that Canadians are complaining about wasted tax dollars when they don't even pay taxes in the U.S.

 

Because we are sucked into buying this pieces of crap that you call "a 5th gen aircaft"

While I see your point, I'm reminded of a similar project by the US military regarding new battle rifles. We've been trying to find a replacement for the "aging" AR platform (As the pentagon calls it), yet all we continue to do is make mini modifications to a platform that was designed before I was born. If it's a proven platform, don't try to replace it. Sure the A-10 is changing, but that doesn't mean that can't redesign it and "upgrade" it. The A-10 was designed for one thing and one thing only. The F-35 is trying to be the God-Mode of planes, and quite frankly, I don't see how it'll work.  It's trying to be the P.1000 Ratte of the modern era.

 

I don't see the A-10 being shot down, with simple enhancements being made to it, and making it a more "modern" jet. Since it was designed as more of a CAS jet, in coordination with infantry and the likes of an actual warzone, the survivability only goes up.

 

Although the one thing I'm more worried about is OpFor fighters. Against the Taliban and the like the A-10 flourishes. Against an actual country which has a functioning air force, the A-10 would need fighter escorts or be 100% sure the are was clear of AA.

 

"Low, slow, kill everything below" - The A-10 pilots' saying is the reason they achieve excellent results. 

The difference between the M16 and the A-10 is that the M16 is still being built therefor there are new rifles out there and new parts to replace broken ones. Imagine if they stopped producing M16s in the 1980s. They would be pretty bad right? The A-10 stopped production in 1984 so even the newest A-10 is turning 31 years old this year. The A-10 has gone through various upgrades but you can only upgrade so much, the physical airframe only lasts so long.

 

I didn't mean that the Taliban were going to shoot down our A-10s with RPKs or anything like that I was talking about what the A-10 is meant for, killing Russian tanks. If we go into combat against a military that has even basic SAM systems it won't be that hard to shoot down an A-10, they are not fast and they fly low to the ground, easy target. Your statement about the A-10 needing fighter escort makes a perfect case for the having an aircraft that can do everything or, as you put it, "god mode" (whatever that is). So an A-10 wants to go out and fly a mission but the other military has fighters that might intercept our A-10s or they have SAMs that might shoot it down that means we have to get more aircraft to escort the A-10 whether it be fighters to make sure OPFOR fighters don't intercept it and/or electronic warfare aircraft that can jam SAM systems from shooting down our aircraft. So now for one or two A-10s to go out on a CAS mission they need to have an escort of 2-4 other aircraft. On the other hand if we have a multi-role aircraft that can perform multiple missions from a single airframe we don't need to waste resources on escorting it and those extra aircraft can perform their missions somewhere else where they are needed.

 

Having an aircraft that is only good for one thing seems like the biggest waste of money to me. Don't get me wrong, I love the A-10. People say the A-10 is an ugly aircraft but I think quite the opposite and it is a badass aircraft with a sweet gun. However, it is an old aircraft, it can only perform one mission, and the only reason it is good at its job right now is because the people we are fighting have next to no anti-aircraft systems. With the advances we have in guided munitions we can just as easily have a few F-15s or a B-52 flying around at 30,000+ feet dropping guided bombs with crazy precision.

 

Because we are sucked into buying this pieces of crap that you call "a 5th gen aircaft"

Then complain about your government buying U.S. stuff, don't complain about paying taxes on a U.S. program (that you don't pay taxes on) that hasn't even made it to your country yet.

Edited January 4, 201511 yr by l3ubba

 

 

Then complain about your government buying U.S. stuff, don't complain about paying taxes on a U.S. program (that you don't pay taxes on) that hasn't even made it to your country yet.

 

But Canada has played a big part in funding the F-35 so its not just the U.S its many other countries. Including the UK. You seem to be blind if you haven't seen the F-35's prototypes with the flags of countries painted on the side meaning those countries contributed millions for the F-35.

Edited January 4, 201511 yr by Takao

But Canada has played a big part in funding the F-35 so its not just the U.S its many other countries. Including the UK. You seem to be blind if you haven't seen the F-35's prototypes with the flags of countries painted on the side meaning those countries contributed millions for the F-35.

Like I said in my first post, most of the users here aren't even old enough to pay taxes so when you start paying taxes then you can start complaining about where your tax money goes.

Everyone bitches about tax dollars and money wasted or mis-used till our national security is at risk. Then maybe then people will understand why things like this is just another plus for america. We are the strongest in the world for a reason, me personally would like it to stay that way. But that's just me. yes i pay taxes and i see no issue with this one bit. that is all.

Everyone bitches about tax dollars and money wasted or mis-used till our national security is at risk. Then maybe then people will understand why things like this is just another plus for america. We are the strongest in the world for a reason, me personally would like it to stay that way. But that's just me. yes i pay taxes and i see no issue with this one bit. that is all.

 

You do realize there was a time when the USSR was more powerful than the West right

Like I said in my first post, most of the users here aren't even old enough to pay taxes so when you start paying taxes then you can start complaining about where your tax money goes.

 

but i do pay my taxes

You do realize there was a time when the USSR was more powerful than the West right

 

but i do pay my taxes

you do realize what you just said? right? "was" as in past tense?

 

The US is the most powerful in the world, id like to keep it that way. And yes i pay my taxes.  

You do realize there was a time when the USSR was more powerful than the West right

That is a questionable statement. What evidence do you have to support that?

Regarding military waste, it was apparently cheaper to complete the construction of Abrams tanks, despite that the US Army did not want them. This fighter plane project could be the same.

 

Cheers.

I'm not going to get into the statement you made about the war being criminal, that is too long of a conversation. Being in the military myself I can say that you would be surprised about the amount of old equipment we use. Most of the aircraft in the Air Forces' inventory is well over 30 years old.

 

 

 

If you want to debate about the war on terror, there is already a topic on that, you're more than welcome to debate on that, i would love to hear your thoughts on that. Also even though i don't pay taxes yet, I'am still able to form a well balanced opinion on the subject. 

 

 

'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

Edited January 5, 201511 yr by Chester199

That is a questionable statement. What evidence do you have to support that?

http://www.shockpedia.com/29-most-powerful-armies-in-the-world/

 

there is one...i can go on if you would like...

 

LOL my bad i cant find anything saying the soviet union was at anytime more powerful than the us. i thought u were the creator of the thread and was saying what i said was questionable my bad

Edited January 7, 201511 yr by SKi