Started By
Message

re: House votes to save A-10 fleet

Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:27 pm to
Posted by son of arlo
State of Innocence
Member since Sep 2013
4577 posts
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:27 pm to
quote:

Maybe the most durable close-support airframe in the history of aviation. Can't believe they ever wanted to scrap it.


They wear out. It's not like they're a '57 Chevy you can restore with a new coat of paint.
Posted by Backinthe615
Member since Nov 2011
6871 posts
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:30 pm to
B-52s don't seem to be falling out of the sky.
Posted by wickowick
Head of Island
Member since Dec 2006
45848 posts
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:32 pm to
quote:

They wear out. It's not like they're a '57 Chevy you can restore with a new coat of paint.



quote:

The A-10 is receiving a service life extension program (SLEP) upgrade with many receiving new wings.[28] The service life of the re-winged aircraft is extended to 2040. A contract to build as many as 242 new A-10 wing sets was awarded to Boeing in June 2007.[29] Two A-10s flew in November 2011 with the new wing installed. On 4 September 2013, the Air Force awarded Boeing a follow-on contract of $212 million for 56 replacement wings to increase the order total to 173 wing sets. The wings will improve mission readiness, decrease maintenance costs, and keep the type operational into 2035.[30] As part of plans to retire the A-10, the Air Force is considering stopping work on the wing replacement program, which would save an additional $500 million along with the total saving of retiring the fleet.[31] If the Air Force kept the 42 A-10s that already underwent wing replacement and retired the rest of the fleet, the savings would be $1 billion compared to $4.2 billion saved for retiring the whole fleet.[32]
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89801 posts
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:34 pm to
They should build a new, improved platform around that gun.

But, no - they wanted to get a cheap version of the F-22 for ground support (which it will be terrible at - except, maybe, delivering JDAMs) AND be a dogfighter (which it will be terrible at), it was supposed to be universal, sell to NATO, etc., etc., and has been a costly boondoggle.

Rather than field a real combat platform to fight real wars the way we've really been fighting them for 20 years, they want all this gee whiz, pie-in-the-sky, prohibitively expensive $hit. As it is, they made the F-22 so expensive they could only take delivery on less than 200 instead of the full order of 300.

It won't be long before the Army requests ground support and USAF says, "Sorry - we just don't have the platforms."

Close them down then - or limit them solely to Air/Space Superiority - it's all they care about anyway. Let the Army fly transports and ground support planes. We're like the Dirty Harry of the armed services, "Every dirty job that comes along..."

first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram