[simpits-tech] A-10 replacement

[Chris Crowley]

The real crime is going to be the cost. This is the worst value/performance
point ever. The A10 could take it is cheap to maintain. The JSF is going to
be very expensive and costly to maintain. Just look at the engine. A single
engine pushing 40K plus thrust with extremely high temps. Not as survivable
as the dual engine A10 either. Nor will the JSF have the punch of the A10.
Its sad and its all about politics.
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Brogley [mailto:mikebrogley at ieee.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 2:35 PM
To: Simulator Cockpit tech list
Subject: Re: [simpits-tech] A-10 replacement


That's exactly why - The Air Force is in the Gee Whiz business. There
are only two institutional constituencies in the USAF - strategic
bombers and fighters. There is no structural support for other missions
like recon or non-heavy mud-movers, and CAS is an even more specialized
form of moving mud, with the requirement to coordinate and be careful
where you drop things. The institution was about to obsolete the A-10
before the first Iraq war in 1991, but it did so well (and the F-16s
with the 30mm gun pod supposedly going to replace them did so poorly in
that role) that they were forced to keep (and -gasp- even spend budget
money upgrading) them.

Now they have a chance to argue that they need a common airframe for the
sake of economy of operations, plus they get to counter the
deployability issues with the STOVL (not VTOL) performance of the F-35
(and btw increase their airframe buy), with the plus that they can
finally get rid of that damn dedicated Army support airplane that
doesn't fit with their corporate culture.

What's laughable is that the real reaction to assigning the CAS mission
to something that can't loiter due to it's supersonic fuel consumption
(and the lack of tankers) will be moving CAS to long endurance armed
UAVs, so instead of having USAF pilots working from an A-10 cockpit,
they'll be working from a shipping container looking at a monitor
remotely flying a maverick-loaded predator _prop_plane_.

--
Mike

Steve Wilson wrote:

> Load 'er up with Mavericks and let loose.  Frankly, I wonder why,
> though.  The A-10 is only 1/10th as geewhiz as the F-35, and likely
> far better armored considering the VTOL version's need to stay light.
> We don't need another supersonic tank killer.  Like the DC-3, the
> C-130 and the B-52, with the Warthog they achieved near perfection for
> the role and created the best possible tank killer.
>
> Steve W.
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Justin Messenger <mailto:jjmessenger at yahoo.com>
>     *To:* Simpits-tech at simpits.org <mailto:Simpits-tech at simpits.org>
>     *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2004 10:53 AM
>     *Subject:* [simpits-tech] A-10 replacement
>
>     > The USAF has announced an intention to aquire
>     > a quanity of the VTOL version of the F35 JSF
>     > to replace the aging A10,  in the CAS role.
>     >
>     > Source;  Janes Defence.
>     > MC
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>     Do you Yahoo!?
>     Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard
>
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailtag_us/*http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools?tool=1>
>     - Read only the mail you want.
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>     _______________________________________________
>     Simpits-tech mailing list
>     Simpits-tech at simpits.org <mailto:Simpits-tech at simpits.org>
>     http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
>     To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the
>     above page.  Thanks!
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Simpits-tech mailing list
>Simpits-tech at simpits.org
>http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
>To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above
page.  Thanks!
>