• ZombieChicken@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    24 days ago

    The Army wants to keep them. F-35s can’t do the A-10’s job properly, and the A-10 has a reputation. However, they are old with no replacement even in the works because the Air Force only wants bombers or fighters.

    • azuth@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      24 days ago

      The Army wants to keep them. F-35s can’t do the A-10’s job properly, and the A-10 has a reputation. However, they are old with no replacement even in the works because the Air Force only wants bombers or fighters.

      Which job is that? Killing hiluxes and insurgents with no air defense capabilities? Because against everybody else the A-10 throws stand-off munitions from medium altitude, when it’s not banned from entering hostile airspace.

      It’s no coincidence nobody wants to operate it. Not any foreign air force, not USAF that is stuck with it and not the US army that was offered it(they are fine with USAF paying for it).

      F-16s can do anything useful the A-10 can and much more.

    • kubok@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      24 days ago

      Maybe I am cynical, and I am by no way a military expert of any kind, but I would figure that an A-10 is more expendable than a F-35.

      I am in the ‘A-10s are cool’ camp, but I do not think that they are particularly useful anymore on a modern battlefield.

      • ZombieChicken@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        24 days ago

        The GAU-8 they built the A-10 around is a heckuva gun. It can also weather AA fire. An F-35 can only fire missiles (which, due to it’s internal weapons bays, are limited), and isn’t going to eat a flak around and still get home safely. It wasn’t designed for the same enviroment.