Good.

If the USAF needs more funding to maintain the current fleet of A-10's then I would suggest cutting all foreign aid to countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and diverting those funds to the USAF.

Whew.

The time of the A-10 hasn't passed yet; we still need it.

When will we ever not need it (or something similar)? It has such a critical niche job in combat and nothing else even comes close unless we start buying modified Frogfoots (Frogfeet?)

How much CAS is done with cannon today, as opposed to bombs/missiles?

Not a lot. But there is something to be said about having an aircraft that can:


1 - Get low and slow and shoot.
2 - Costs less to operate than any other fighter / bomber
3 - Can take a few hits and bring the pilot home
4 - Can loiter in the target area for quite a while
5 - Can also employ PGM's when called for


I think it is time we start developing a real replacement CAS aircraft. Base it on the A-10 to save R&D, but build it with any new technology that would make it cheaper to build and/or operate, easier to maintain, increase range/payload etc. But don't do anything that makes it more costly. Being cheaper to fly and maintain may be teh A-10's biggest advantage over the F-16, F-15, B-1 etc.

I was going to post a link to an article about CAS, B-1s vs. A-10s, etc., but then I remembered the old adage: "Never discuss politics, religion, or the A-10 in polite company."

The armor doesn't seems to help much aside from small arms. They seem to go down from AA fire and SAMs at a similar rate to F-16s. And I think other aircraft will get hit less from small arms due to speed/altitude.

To make a valid comparison one would also need to know the rate at which F-16's are used in the same manner as A-10's. If the A-10 is making 2x, 5x or 10x times as many attacks against a certain type target then it may suffer hist proportionally.

Military R&D and development leading to procurement.

I saw this posted on another forum and got a chuckle out of it:

The A-10 is designed to survive the most threat-filled environments the world has to offer.

The office rooms of Washington DC.

From the article:


In other words: "We believed our own rhetoric".

They need to re-negotiate the Key West Agreement.

The USAF has sole domain over strategic air power (including long range missiles) and will support ground forces as it is able.

The Army is fully free to obtain and maintain those air assets required to support tactical needs.

That lets the Army have the A-10 and the USAF to go full stealth retard.

Nostalgia aside, the A-10 is of limited use. With UAVs, AC-130s and helicopters the COIN role has a lot of options.

During daylight operations, which have been the norm in Afghanistan and Iraq, you'd only be left with UAVs. Helicopters got massacred during Anaconda (all of the Apaches got hit). AC-130's have to depart an area of operations at BMNT.

There is a reason why pretty much everyone dependent on CAS wants to keep the A-10 around.

Well, there's the B-1...
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/264211...amadi-offensive

From the article:

"We've got B-1s in this fight, and when we find obstacles that we know we can hit, we'll strike them from the air as well to try and disable them," Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren said on CNN's "New Day" on Thursday.

He said they were being used due to its long loiter time, its ability to hold lots of munitions and "extraordinary precision." The B-1 is able to hold 84 500lb general-purpose bombs, and loiter up to 10 hours without a single refueling.

"B-1s are evolving into a very effective close air support platform," he said.

In addition, he said they are "much less" vulnerable than the A-10 attack jets, which were employed in Iraq and Afghanistan to support ground troops in battle.

Better hope the bad guys are more than 250m away, otherwise those 500lb bombs are highly likely to frag friendlies along with the enemy.

You can't do CAS from 30,000 feet up, dropping PGMs and hoping it's all good on the ground. That's a strike mission, not CAS.

Now if you need a cheap COIN aircraft to replace the A-10, the A-29 would be a viable alternative. No R&D cost, production is open, single turboprop, long loiter time, two seats, and a wide range of ordnance. It may not have the presence of an A-10, but I'd bet it'd be just as effective for CAS.

The B-1 can do CAS using PGM's from 25k, they've already proven as much in Iraq/Afghanistan, but much more costly to operate than the A-10.

And yes there is that rare, but not unknown of, occasion when the best weapon for the job at had is a big gun.