5th. Generation Fighter Planes.....

Yea we spend $150million per F-22 which is a good aircraft, but I'd rather pay the 11.5million for the A-10 that is low and slow and strikes more fear into the enemy. Don't know why they are downsizing the A-10 fleet, oh yeah cause the gooberment wants to save more money to spend on useless crap like $10million dollar toiletseats.

simp5782 said:

the gooberment wants to save more money to spend on useless crap like $10million dollar toiletseats.

Click to expand...

If it wasn't for the 10 million dollar toilet seats how could the government afford to pay for the places that don't exist?

simp5782 said:

Yea we spend $150million per F-22 which is a good aircraft, but I'd rather pay the 11.5million for the A-10 that is low and slow and strikes more fear into the enemy. Don't know why they are downsizing the A-10 fleet, oh yeah cause the gooberment wants to save more money to spend on useless crap like $10million dollar toiletseats.

Click to expand...

No doudt the A-10 was a great aircraft, but show up in one on today's or tomorrow's battelfield would be like comin to a gun fight with a knife.

The only way to stay on top is to show up with the biggest weapons and the best trained folks operating them.

Blame the goberment all you want but it's the military buying all those toilet seats. How come I never see those on GL?

Srjeeper said:

No doudt the A-10 was a great aircraft, but show up in one on today's or tomorrow's battelfield would be like comin to a gun fight with a knife.

The only way to stay on top is to show up with the biggest weapons and the best trained folks operating them.

Click to expand...

Thats not 100% accurate. The Taliban and Al Q? have nothing that would match the A-10. If only the current ROE would allow us to use it to its full potential.

However I fully believe in "Peace, through superior firepower"

Granted the A-10 was made to blast the massive russian tank invasion in Europe. We dont have much tank warfare anymore but troops still need close air support. I am sorry but the Harrier isnt close air support neither is a predator with a operator 30,000miles away. Low and Slow baby! and let the cannon crank up!

Today's a10 is nothing like the a10's that were designed as just tank busters. When they were built they had analog copies but now they have digital copies. The bird is simply a flying tank.

If you want to discount the a10 then what about the b52? It is a dinosaur compared to the a10

I don't discount the abilities of the A-10, but like said here by another, it's a flying tank. The OP is about fighter planes and compairing A-10's & B+52's to a fighter plane and it's intended us, misses the point.

The Mustang, Corsair, HellCat, Saber and countless others were all tough planes too, but have no place on the battelfield of tomorrow.

The A-10 is a brute, but up against a modern fighter from any country with an airforce, it'll get it's hat handed to it.

Srjeeper said:

The A-10 is a brute, but up against a modern fighter from any country with an airforce, it'll get it's hat handed to it.

Click to expand...

That isn't the point. The A-10 isn't going to be put up against modern fighters, unless something goes bad. (If I had to go air-to-air at that point I would take an old A-4 Skyhawk or an F-5 over an A-10.)

The A-10 is used for ground support, not air-to-air combat. You can take an area with air power but you can't hold it without ground troops. Once you have gained either air superiority or air supremacy then the troops go in with A-10 cover.

You wouldn't send an A-10 against a Suhkoi 27 or a Mig-29 unless they were sitting on the tarmac.

In all fairness, I believe that is actually what SRJeeper said!

As regards the expensive toilet seats and screwdrivers etc., remember that most of those items were a way of making masked payments to Lockheed when they were developing/producing the F-117 program. "The Other Guys" can figure out a lot about the status of a 'black' program by how much is being spent on it. It worked too, folks got mad about the cost of toilet seats for C-5s and the F-117 was a complete surprise to most when it was announced. It had actually been in service for years while most in the aviation community thought it was still a research project.

Cheers

I'd rather have an A10 serving as FAC-A or CAS any day. I wouldnt see the modern air-to-air much of a threat since they (A10's) fly 500 and below when trolling for targets.
From my stand point, I'd rather have an aircraft like the A-10 over an F-22, F-35 or F-18E/F. More reliable and eaiser to maintain....

You guys have launched into an apples and oranges debate. The F-22 and F-35 are awesome aircraft, but first and foremost, there will never be ENOUGH of them. Second, where is the CAS/A-10 replacement? It does not exist. We are losing that capability, just as we have lost an effective CSAR platform with the last of the Pave Low helicopters being retired. Compromised. And we will pay a price.

No replacement for the A-10 AND they two (I think two) squadrons of them with the administration's new military budget.

Nice.......

The last time I saw things this bad was right before Reagan was elected.