10K hours on a 29 year old F-16

[Buzz]

freeradical wrote:
[quote=MrNoBody]
The old "Flying Brick" F-4 Phantom II is still in use by several countries including Iran. It entered US service 12/30/1960!

I hope the Warthog stays in service even longer!

I disagree. It's time to retire the A-10. The money we spend operating and maintaining this aircraft with its extremely expensive supply chain could be better spent on newer planes.

I do understand why congress critters won't let it die though. It is/was quite a "bang for the buck" military aircraft.

Nostalgia.

However, the A-10 is not flying mission profiles that make use of it's 30 mm cannon which was essentially designed as a counter measure to the reactive armor on Soviet tanks.

Instead, it's flying medium range stand off missions and employing weapons such as the Hellfire missile.

This is something that the F-35 could do, and do it much more safely with stealth if needed.

The AF leadership is correct IMHO. Get rid of the A-10.
Hey, easy does it. Our nephew is in the USAF maintaining the A-10's...

OTOH, they keep throwing training on other air frames at him, so he figures the 'hog's days may be numbered. Nephew extoll's the A-10's capabilities beyond the oversized BB gun, and his stories of cannibalizing stuff from old air frames to keep the survivors flying are pretty cool. The flight records of where all the parts have been, and what they've been thru is damn impressive.
==

[Will Collier]

There's always been a cross-current saying the A-10s ought to be turned over to the Army. Never went anywhere for a lot of reasons, among them the fixed wing in one Service, rotary wing in another "rule" (never mind that USAF has a small number of helicopters and the Army a small number of regular airplanes), USAF not wanting to give up a cadre of fighter pilots, the Army not sure what they'd do with that many people from a very different community, etc.

I personally love that jet, but with regret, I question whether it is survivable on a modern battlefield. That said, I still think shoehorning the very expensive F-35 (in any variant) into a Close Air Support platform is kinda nuts.

[Filliam H. Muffman]

I would need to see cost comparisons for every plane in various theaters to really say if the A-10 needs to be retired solely on that basis. It's just so good at making people dive down deep holes when they see that gun lining up on their position.

[AllGold]

The A-10 has a weapon nothing else has. The only reason to retire it would be if you never, ever had a use for that weapon and I don't see that being the case any time soon.

[RAMd®d]

The only reason to retire it would be if you never, ever had a use for that weapon

And the Air Force thought that on at least three occasions.

The A-10 may be expensive to maintain, but any way you look at it, it's cheaper than an F-35.

But it's easy to see why the Air Force wants the F-35 and the budget it demands.

[MrNoBody]

A-10's ground support role has no equal. Not even the Apache gun-ship can match it.
US learned a lot of lessons in CAS from Vietnam & the Soviet's Afghan adventures.

Any helicopter is a slow moving, low flying target for ground fire; rifle, AA gun,
RPG, and reportedly even a bow & arrow. Then there's the issue of engine & rotor
damage when flying 'low & slow' in desert environments.
AH-64:
top speed is 182 mph.
Service ceiling: 21,000 ft (6,400 m) minimum loaded
Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (12.7 m/s)

A-10:
top speed is 439 mph.
Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,700 m)
Rate of climb: 6,000 ft/min (30 m/s)

Additionally, an A-10 can be "on station" much faster than any helicopter and loiter for almost two hours.

[Racer X]

I forget which fighter they were talking about for close ground support maybe a decade ago, but it could only have sustained gunfire for 4 seconds, and the A-10 for over 16. Does the F-35 even have guns? Or would it just be a load of missiles?

[Will Collier]

Racer X wrote:
I forget which fighter they were talking about for close ground support maybe a decade ago, but it could only have sustained gunfire for 4 seconds, and the A-10 for over 16. Does the F-35 even have guns? Or would it just be a load of missiles?

F-35 does have a gun. Whether it should or not is another matter.

Most fighters have very limited cannon fire duration. It's less than a second for F-15 and F-16 IIRC, they only carry about 500 rounds. The M61 is a 6,000 round per second minute cannon (thanks Joe), so you do the math.

[JoeH]

Will Collier wrote:
[quote=Racer X]
I forget which fighter they were talking about for close ground support maybe a decade ago, but it could only have sustained gunfire for 4 seconds, and the A-10 for over 16. Does the F-35 even have guns? Or would it just be a load of missiles?

F-35 does have a gun. Whether it should or not is another matter.

Most fighters have very limited cannon fire duration. It's less than a second for F-15 and F-16 IIRC, they only carry about 500 rounds. The M61 is a 6,000 round per second cannon, so you do the math.
Try 6,000 or 6,600 rounds per minute, not second. That is the actual rate of fire for the main variants of the M61. Some installations limited the rate of fire to a lower amount or had a lower rate selectable.

[Will Collier]

JoeH wrote:
[quote=Will Collier]
[quote=Racer X]
I forget which fighter they were talking about for close ground support maybe a decade ago, but it could only have sustained gunfire for 4 seconds, and the A-10 for over 16. Does the F-35 even have guns? Or would it just be a load of missiles?

F-35 does have a gun. Whether it should or not is another matter.

Most fighters have very limited cannon fire duration. It's less than a second for F-15 and F-16 IIRC, they only carry about 500 rounds. The M61 is a 6,000 round per second cannon, so you do the math.
Try 6,000 or 6,600 rounds per minute, not second. That is the actual rate of fire for the main variants of the M61. Some installations limited the rate of fire to a lower amount or had a lower rate selectable.
Duh on me, thank you. It's a pretty quick burst, though. When I was doing Combat Archer guys were fortunate if they got more than one or two trigger pulls at the towed gun drone.