A-X all over again - USAF pushes for A-10 replacement

Josh_TN said:
I didn’t say CAS is outdated I said doing it with a gun run is outdated. And once you make the aircraft standoff at a safer distance, the A-10 brings nothing to the table except slightly lower per hour costs than an F-16.
Click to expand...
Gun is nothing more and nothing less than a launcher device, which allows us to propel warheads for a small(est) volume of cheap propellant - at the expense of significant firing overloads and stress. It allows the largest number of shots aboard.

GAU-8 is simply a 1970s solution from the same era as hydra pods...unless you can make a cheap guided 30mm shell, and come up with how to use this many precision shells onboard. This again points to the plane (built around this gun) simply being outdated.
Josh_TN said:
The A-10C has been upgraded to use the entire JDAM family on top of the original Maverick capability.
Click to expand...
JDAM requires either overflight at altitude or lobbing at a reasonable speed; both, per Ukrainian experience, are suicidal. More so for A-10, which neither has significant EW + it is simply slow.

What A-10 indeed has special is Sniper+APKWS combination, as it allows both target recognition/spotting from safe distances at low altitudes, and precision strikes against identified targets.
But APKWS is probably too weak for plane lobbing: speed/range of the rocket isn't sufficient. 5" weapon (Zuni?) is far more suitable.
With the standoff lobbing range of guided S-13/Zuni class weapon, multiple passes will be possible once again.
 
jsport said:
breakingdefense.com

In Ukraine fight, integrated air defense has made many aircraft 'worthless': US Air Force general - Breaking Defense

Highly adept Ukrainian and Russian air defenses have mutually denied air superiority, a problem particularly acute for close air support missions. “Both of their integrated air and missile defense, especially when you're talking about going against aircraft, have been very effective,” Gen. James...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
o_O
Russia’s inability to control the skies was an early surprise of the invasion that has generally persisted ever since. As such, both countries’ militaries have had to adapt their tactics for close air support missions
Click to expand...
 
Probably a better question is, what do we need out of a hypothetical A-10 replacement/s? And who should be in charge: USAF/Army? Can the F-35/FARA/UAV combo do the job? What holes are left? Do we need something like an AT-7, AT-6, Scorpion, Ares?
 
I am pretty sure the Army would choose to buy some F-35 if they are given the opportunity...
 
I always considered the Harrier more of an army plane, because it can operate like a helo.
 
Jeb said:
Forest Green said:
I always considered the Harrier more of an army plane, because it can operate like a helo.
Click to expand...
That's stretching it.
Click to expand...
Marines are "army". :)

The problem with the F-35 is that while it's stealthy on the way to and from the target when it comes to CAS it's operating at ranges from the targets where LO doesn't really matter anymore. And it neither has the ability to take punishment or to make multiple passes with internal only weapon loads.

What is really needed is something like a stealthy NGCAS; built for survivability so two engines, with a large internal bay between them to carry a lot of standoff CAS weapons and plenty of EW and expendables. Then add a gun for strafing, because sometimes you need to do that. Speed and LO will help get in and out, survivability will help them get back.

And while you're at it, make it STOL, so it can operate from unprepared strips. Then give them to the Army and Marines.

On the other hand, CAS is just another way to do fire support, and I think my opinion may be shifting to drones and guided artillery. The advantage CAS had over artillery was the ability to have line of sight for targeting. Armed drones can do CAS directly. Unarmed drones (and soldiers) can give line of sight for guided artillery. And artillery can react faster, cheaper, and more safely than aircraft can.

Now, if you focus on SEAD/DEAD to the point you can kill off the AD threat then CAS is again an option, but under those conditions the A-10 would be just fine.
 
It seems unlikely there is a future USAF requirement for permissive environment only CAS missions. What form CAS takes in a non permissive environment I do not know, though if I took a stab in the dark my guess is probably F-35s and UAVs.
 
Honestly the biggest of retirement for the A-10 is not the replacement.

The F35 is more then good enough.

It has far better sensors with more then enough weapons and lioter time to do it.

No its the lost of the pilots and their ground attack focused culture.

The biggest fear is that once the old A10 pilots either leave with the plane or retire a few years later. Is that the new pilots who only knew the F35 will focus on the fact its a F series fighter and basically gets roped into the rest of the Air Force Fighter focus mentality.

Cause now they can play Red Baron instead of slinging mud with the usual issues that cause.

And since no one expects the Air Force to keep that ground support culture alive to anywhere near the extant that the A10 did.

And as seen by the latest fuckary in Europe.

If you dont have the skills no amount of tech can save you.
 
TomcatViP said:
I am pretty sure the Army would choose to buy some F-35 if they are given the opportunity...
Click to expand...
Too much of an aircraft (and maintenance), less than the optimal mix of qualities, isn't optimized for boring, but typical CAS targets weapons-wise.
Yes, together with UCAVs it can do it, but then it's even more too much of an aircraft with wrong priorities.

p.s. since USAF will whine mad at any perspective of a jet, the answer is probably a fast rotary wing - F-35(or a new aircraft) are an obvious and outright no. Less than ideal from a combat point of view, but it isn't a problem where combat optimization is the priority. Politics of getting it are more important.
 
The Raider X for FARA is a fast rotary wing, something like an Ares could sneak in under the weight limits, perhaps the USAF could look the other way on something like an AT-6, but the Textron Scorpion might be too much aircraft. The Army was allowed to operate OV-1 Mohawks, perhaps a new OV-1 replacement with a mix of FARA and UAVs could be the answer.

Personally, I think a UCAV version of the Ares would be perfect with maybe a manned OA-10 style version.
 
apparition13 said:


The problem with the F-35 is that while it's stealthy on the way to and from the target when it comes to CAS it's operating at ranges from the targets where LO doesn't really matter anymore.
Click to expand...
How many times must people be told that the Close in Close Air Support (CAS) has nothing to do with how close the aircraft is to the action. It is all about how close the enemy is to the troops on the ground! Technically CAS can and has been done by strategic bombers using precision guided weapons.
 
I still think there is a time and place where direct air support with a big gun like the GAU-8, rockets, and dumb bombs can be useful. admittedly this would primarily in counterinsurgency and low-intensity conflicts. Going forward the ideal aircraft for this role would be strictly subsonic but maybe with the ability to go slightly faster than the A-10. It would have DIRCM gear and the ability to carry a modern ECM pod. And have a targetting system like EOTS built in giving it the ability to lob missiles (like a fully developed JAGM) from stand-off distances so it isn't entirely useless in a more conventional conflict. It would be well armored (for an aircraft) like the A-10. No need to try for stealth.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I still think there is a time and place where direct air support with a big gun like the GAU-8, rockets, and dumb bombs can be useful. admittedly this would primarily in counterinsurgency and low-intensity conflicts. Going forward the ideal aircraft for this role would be strictly subsonic but maybe with the ability to go slightly faster than the A-10. It would have DIRCM gear and the ability to carry a modern ECM pod. And have a targetting system like EOTS built in giving it the ability to lob missiles (like a fully developed JAGM) from stand-off distances so it isn't entirely useless in a more conventional conflict. It would be well armored (for an aircraft) like the A-10. No need to try for stealth.
Click to expand...
If we aim for conventional conflict - (1)cheap PGMs>>dumb munitions, (2)stealth(incl. IR) is a must.

Cheap PGM optimization leaves space for alternative load-outs, shall they become necessary, while the opposite isn't really true (dumb munition choices like GAU-8 far too often are just a dead weight - and a big one).
But overall modern cheap PGMs (simpler satellite- and laser-guided bombs, gliding bombs, and rockets) are just cheaper per achieved objective.
Stealth is equally important. While it's hard to be undetected near the FLOT - you have to reach it(and get away from it) first; the effectiveness of terrain following (as well as EW countermeasures) against look-down radar is directly tied to how small a reflection we're trying to mask.
The same is true for IR and DIRCM - cold signature with cold edges and without a visible plume simply wins more from the countermeasures.
GTX said:
How many times must people be told that the Close in Close Air Support (CAS) has nothing to do with how close the aircraft is to the action. It is all about how close the enemy is to the troops on the ground! Technically CAS can and has been done by strategic bombers using precision guided weapons.
Click to expand...
You're right. But as of 2020s, the mission still often requires operating close to the area of operations.
Factors such as enemy interference (altitude/loiter denial), overcast/weather, terrain, and bad coms - often force the supporting a/c to come closer.
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
It is all about how close the enemy is to the troops on the ground! Technically CAS can and has been done by strategic bombers using precision guided weapons.
Click to expand...

Yes, and those weapons cannot be used on the enemy if they are closer than X without significant risk of fratricide. Recent conflicts have shown the enemy is often much closer than X when troops are in contact and need CAS.

Weapons that can be used safely in close proximity to friendly forces are useful for CAS.
 
Desertfox said:
The Raider X for FARA is a fast rotary wing, something like an Ares could sneak in under the weight limits, perhaps the USAF could look the other way on something like an AT-6, but the Textron Scorpion might be too much aircraft. The Army was allowed to operate OV-1 Mohawks, perhaps a new OV-1 replacement with a mix of FARA and UAVs could be the answer.

Personally, I think a UCAV version of the Ares would be perfect with maybe a manned OA-10 style version.
Click to expand...
The Army was allowed to operate unarmed Mohawks. The AF got pissy when they tried to arm them.
 
Who else agrees that the US Military should have a look at what the US Army can and cannot do in terms of Close Air Support? If the USAF is so fed up with the A-10 then they should transfer the CAS roll to the army and let the army design and develop the replacement for the A-10. This whole situation gets me annoyed. :mad:
 
FighterJock said:
Who else agrees that the US Military should have a look at what the US Army can and cannot do in terms of Close Air Support? If the USAF is so fed up with the A-10 then they should transfer the CAS roll to the army and let the army design and develop the replacement for the A-10. This whole situation gets me annoyed. :mad:
Click to expand...

The Air Force is not dropping the role, it's divesting nearly 50-year-old aircraft that are increasingly not suitable to the job. Put A-10s doing traditional CAS in a non-permissive environment and they will die, a lot. (See Su-25s in Ukraine, on both sides). F-35 can deliver the necessary fires and have at least a decent chance of surviving.

Besides, the Army already has an extensive close air support capability -- it's called the AH-64. But they're increasingly concerned that even the Apaches are not survivable in a modern air defense environment.
 
FighterJock said:
Who else agrees that the US Military should have a look at what the US Army can and cannot do in terms of Close Air Support? If the USAF is so fed up with the A-10 then they should transfer the CAS roll to the army and let the army design and develop the replacement for the A-10. This whole situation gets me annoyed. :mad:
Click to expand...
Currently the USAF is planning to have the type in inventory through 2028-29, so it’s hardly a pressing problem. As someone else noted, perhaps the biggest advantage (I’d argue about the only advantage) of A-10 equipped units is that they can focus on CAS as their equipment isn’t suitable for anything else. That skill set might be lost if the community switches to multi role aircraft (or is simply broken up and reassigned, more likely). I don’t have a solution to that training problem but I’m not a fan of solving doctrinal problems with unique equipment, especially dated, unsurvivable equipment.
 
TomS said:
FighterJock said:
Who else agrees that the US Military should have a look at what the US Army can and cannot do in terms of Close Air Support? If the USAF is so fed up with the A-10 then they should transfer the CAS roll to the army and let the army design and develop the replacement for the A-10. This whole situation gets me annoyed. :mad:
Click to expand...

The Air Force is not dropping the role, it's divesting nearly 50-year-old aircraft that are increasingly not suitable to the job. Put A-10s doing traditional CAS in a non-permissive environment and they will die, a lot. (See Su-25s in Ukraine, on both sides). F-35 can deliver the necessary fires and have at least a decent chance of surviving.

Besides, the Army already has an extensive close air support capability -- it's called the AH-64. But they're increasingly concerned that even the Apaches are not survivable in a modern air defense environment.
Click to expand...
- I think the main problem is that there is a missing link between an "F/A-35" and the drone/attack helicopters. In my opinion, a lighter aircraft than the A-10 and with more sophisticated weapons. (BAe Hawk style or AV-8 style without V/STOL capability...)
- The role in which it would be important to design a replacement for the A-10 is that of COIN in a difficult environment.
If the USAF found itself operating in a base similar to Bagram in 2002, the F-35 would be totally unsuited, being too sophisticated for such austere conditions. The A-10 was very well suited to this.
- War is not a fun game where all the most sophisticated systems can march to perfection without a problem. The devices dedicated to CAS/COIN must be robust and easy to maintain, be able to have a high rate of exit and take a lot of damage in the neck !
In short, an environment where the F-35 is unsuitable and the helicopters too vulnerable.
 
Last edited:
F.L. said:
TomS said:
FighterJock said:
Who else agrees that the US Military should have a look at what the US Army can and cannot do in terms of Close Air Support? If the USAF is so fed up with the A-10 then they should transfer the CAS roll to the army and let the army design and develop the replacement for the A-10. This whole situation gets me annoyed. :mad:
Click to expand...

The Air Force is not dropping the role, it's divesting nearly 50-year-old aircraft that are increasingly not suitable to the job. Put A-10s doing traditional CAS in a non-permissive environment and they will die, a lot. (See Su-25s in Ukraine, on both sides). F-35 can deliver the necessary fires and have at least a decent chance of surviving.

Besides, the Army already has an extensive close air support capability -- it's called the AH-64. But they're increasingly concerned that even the Apaches are not survivable in a modern air defense environment.
Click to expand...
- I think the main problem is that there is a missing link between an "F/A-35" and the drone/attack helicopters. In my opinion, a lighter aircraft than the A-10 and with more sophisticated weapons. (BAe Hawk style or AV-8 style without V/STOL capability...)
- The role in which it would be important to design a replacement for the A-10 is that of COIN in a difficult environment.
If the USAF found itself operating in a base similar to Bagram in 2002, the F-35 would be totally unsuited, being too sophisticated for such austere conditions. The A-10 was very well suited to this.
- War is not a fun game where all the most sophisticated systems can march to perfection without a problem. The devices dedicated to CAS/COIN must be robust and easy to maintain, be able to have a high rate of exit and take a lot of damage in the neck !
In short, an environment where the F-35 is unsuitable and the helicopters too vulnerable.
Click to expand...
The most suitable A/C type for drone/attack rotary wing assets would be the AWACs type. Outside of contested airspace with the loitering capability/usability for the operators to actually do the job more easily this may be the direction we naturally move towrds.
 
TomS said:
FighterJock said:
Who else agrees that the US Military should have a look at what the US Army can and cannot do in terms of Close Air Support? If the USAF is so fed up with the A-10 then they should transfer the CAS roll to the army and let the army design and develop the replacement for the A-10. This whole situation gets me annoyed. :mad:
Click to expand...

The Air Force is not dropping the role, it's divesting nearly 50-year-old aircraft that are increasingly not suitable to the job. Put A-10s doing traditional CAS in a non-permissive environment and they will die, a lot. (See Su-25s in Ukraine, on both sides). F-35 can deliver the necessary fires and have at least a decent chance of surviving.

Besides, the Army already has an extensive close air support capability -- it's called the AH-64. But they're increasingly concerned that even the Apaches are not survivable in a modern air defense environment.
Click to expand...
the real story is that one service has lost the plot and it's way in not supporting the other service on a major strategic US warfighting precept. ie there is no replacement of the A-10 even on the minds of AF officers.
 
Last edited:
I am surprised guys that no one has yet mentioned Starship heavy. Given the amount of G force it can safely sustain at low alt (orbital wise), it might be the ultimate CAS platform.

Just add a 300mm gun at the front with an ecstatic volunteer behind to load shells.
 
Last edited:
F.L. said:
Excuse my ignorance @Foo Fighter, but what do you call an "A/C".
I have a hard time understanding how an AWAC could replace the A-10.
Click to expand...
I am talking of the replcaments being the drones and rotary wing assets and the AWACs being the control method. collating intel from those assets wouldhe handy for sustained combined ground unit defence/offence too.
 
Last edited:
jsport said:
the real story is that one service has lost the plot and it's way in not supporting the other service on a major strategic US warfighting precept. ie there is no replacement of the A-10 even on the minds of AF officers.
Click to expand...
Ease up a bit. The reality is that the USAF no longer wishes to support a platform that is of limited use (one might even say single use) that is some 50 odd years old and consuming resources better placed elsewhere. Do you really think the Chiefs of the USAF don't talk to their counterparts in Army, USMC? If this is such an issue for them then where are the comments/articles etc from Army or USMC about being abandoned? As TomS mentioned, the US Army has the AH-64 (and the USMC has their AH-1Zs) which provides organic aerial support and can arguably operate even closer to the troops than the likes of an A-10. In fact, the following article (albeit from 2015 - right in the middle of the US being involved in places like Iraq and Afghanistan) says the opposite:

www.military.com

Army Not Interested in Taking A-10 Warthogs from Air Force

The U.S. Army has no interest in taking over the Air Force's fleet of A-10 attack planes, even if it would save the venerable Cold War-era aircraft from the bone yard.
www.military.com www.military.com

I also find it telling that no other service has tried to get A-10s. It's not like the US is the only force ever facing the likes of CAS.

At the end of the day we all get it that the A-10 with its big gun is sexy and cool but that is hardly a reason to justify its continued service. To me it is no different than those still arguing for the USN to maintain Iowa class (or bigger) battleships.
 
GTX said:
jsport said:
the real story is that one service has lost the plot and it's way in not supporting the other service on a major strategic US warfighting precept. ie there is no replacement of the A-10 even on the minds of AF officers.
Click to expand...
Ease up a bit. The reality is that the USAF no longer wishes to support a platform that is of limited use (one might even say single use) that is some 50 odd years old and consuming resources better placed elsewhere. Do you really think the Chiefs of the USAF don't talk to their counterparts in Army, USMC? If this is such an issue for them then where are the comments/articles etc from Army or USMC about being abandoned? As TomS mentioned, the US Army has the AH-64 (and the USMC has their AH-1Zs) which provides organic aerial support and can arguably operate even closer to the troops than the likes of an A-10. In fact, the following article (albeit from 2015 - right in the middle of the US being involved in places like Iraq and Afghanistan) says the opposite:

www.military.com

Army Not Interested in Taking A-10 Warthogs from Air Force

The U.S. Army has no interest in taking over the Air Force's fleet of A-10 attack planes, even if it would save the venerable Cold War-era aircraft from the bone yard.
www.military.com www.military.com

I also find it telling that no other service has tried to get A-10s. It's not like the US is the only force ever facing the likes of CAS.

At the end of the day we all get it that the A-10 with its big gun is sexy and cool but that is hardly a reason to justify its continued service. To me it is no different than those still arguing for the USN to maintain Iowa class (or bigger) battleships.
Click to expand...
Every Army senior officer knows full well the Army is prohibited from operating armed 'fast movers' so the casual conversation would never have occured anyway.

"We do it with the greatest of reluctance. It's a budgetary matter,"
is a telling proclaimation.


wil exclaim again, until blue in the face, an F-35 flying slow enough w/ the sufficient load to afford danger close CAS necessary for a final halt of an adversary about to overun a US unit, will fall out of the sky because there is unsufficient lift. this is AF admission based on the now famous, but apparently ignored, A10 vs F35 flyoff. Replacement strategies, not replacements, do not afford the psychological effect of A-10.
Atk helios and drones fall short of any 'bombstop' capability which will still be necessary, and how Patton advanced ie w/ fighter bombers clearing the way.. This is not rocket science, we are suffering cultural bias.
 
Foo Fighter said:
F.L. said:
Excuse my ignorance @Foo Fighter, but what do you call an "A/C".
I have a hard time understanding how an AWAC could replace the A-10.
Click to expand...
I am talking of the replcaments being the drones and rotary wing assets and the AWACs being the control method. collating intel from those assets wouldhe handy for sustained combined ground unit defence/offence too.
Click to expand...
Foo Fighter said:
F.L. said:
TomS said:
FighterJock said:
Who else agrees that the US Military should have a look at what the US Army can and cannot do in terms of Close Air Support? If the USAF is so fed up with the A-10 then they should transfer the CAS roll to the army and let the army design and develop the replacement for the A-10. This whole situation gets me annoyed. :mad:
Click to expand...

The Air Force is not dropping the role, it's divesting nearly 50-year-old aircraft that are increasingly not suitable to the job. Put A-10s doing traditional CAS in a non-permissive environment and they will die, a lot. (See Su-25s in Ukraine, on both sides). F-35 can deliver the necessary fires and have at least a decent chance of surviving.

Besides, the Army already has an extensive close air support capability -- it's called the AH-64. But they're increasingly concerned that even the Apaches are not survivable in a modern air defense environment.
Click to expand...
- I think the main problem is that there is a missing link between an "F/A-35" and the drone/attack helicopters. In my opinion, a lighter aircraft than the A-10 and with more sophisticated weapons. (BAe Hawk style or AV-8 style without V/STOL capability...)
- The role in which it would be important to design a replacement for the A-10 is that of COIN in a difficult environment.
If the USAF found itself operating in a base similar to Bagram in 2002, the F-35 would be totally unsuited, being too sophisticated for such austere conditions. The A-10 was very well suited to this.
- War is not a fun game where all the most sophisticated systems can march to perfection without a problem. The devices dedicated to CAS/COIN must be robust and easy to maintain, be able to have a high rate of exit and take a lot of damage in the neck !
In short, an environment where the F-35 is unsuitable and the helicopters too vulnerable.
Click to expand...
The most suitable A/C type for drone/attack rotary wing assets would be the AWACs type. Outside of contested airspace with the loitering capability/usability for the operators to actually do the job more easily this may be the direction we naturally move towrds.
Click to expand...
And that’s before considering other possible compliments such as gunship-Hercules with their gun armament plus additional stand-off missiles, A-29s/ AT-6s and equivalents etc.

And perhaps UCAVs potentially more tailored to the troop support/ CAS role than current Reapers but for whom sensible trade-offs have been made re: cost, capability, survivability and “deposablility”.

These can all operate with lower logistic foot prints than F-35s. All are quite niche, we are not necessarily talking about really big numbers of each type but the right combination of these, plus the likes of F-35 that can actually survive more sophisticated defences, is going to be what is in place when the A-10 is eventually going out of service.

There is no real need or demand for a “stealthy” A-10 equivalent as a A-10 replacement. And talk of Hawk-a-likes and non-STOVL Harriers end up sounding a lot like Su-25s. Given the choice of better more modern equipment no one wants Frogfoots (or for that matter A10s) anymore. There are good arguments for trying to keep together existing cadres of role-focused pilots. After that much of the arguments pro Su-25s or A-10s and their continued use appears to ignore how or why they are still being used.

The vast majority of the time A-10s is just a slower less survivable and less well equipped medium altitude bomb truck, doing what the F-16 or F-35 does but just not as well. The A-10s principle strengths appear to be collective experience and expertise of its pilots plus its few advocates residual political/ lobbying clout after selling a role/ use for the type that doesn’t really exist in that form anymore.

Russian continued use of the Su-25 is due the absence from their inventory of anything capable of doing that role as well, given their lack of properly modern targeting pods (even the Su-34s internal targeting equipment isn’t up to scratch in this context), and lack of usable smaller precision weapons. The Su-25 pilots pay the price in their losses for this lack of capability; others on the ground pay their own price for the lack of equivalent accuracy as Western aircraft with the latest generation of targeting pods and role-suitable smaller precision weapons.
It’s not a Russian strength; it’s a symptom of an underlying weakness.
 
Last edited:
since we are last wording, a F-111 like varible geometry NGAD variation ie a standoff bombtruck carrying everything from JSOW to Very Small Munitions (VSMs) and eventually UAS/Missile/Munition variations could be a CAS mission craft. Either the above or the previously posted on this thread AIAA academic competitive proposal for a two seat High altitude gunship/bomber A-10 replacement.

Troops are beleived to get skitish around DARPA's unmanned A-10 operating so close w/ that 30mm.
Problem remains, the Pilot Pyramid Culture is not hearing it.
 
jsport said:
Every Army senior officer knows full well the Army is prohibited from operating armed 'fast movers' so the casual conversation would never have occured anyway.
Click to expand...
Heading into conspiracy theory territory here...
jsport said:
wil exclaim again, until blue in the face, an F-35 flying slow enough w/ the sufficient load to afford danger close CAS necessary for a final halt of an adversary about to overun a US unit, will fall out of the sky because there is unsufficient lift.
Click to expand...
Now you are just being ridiculous and showing a distinct lack of understanding of reality
 
GTX said:
jsport said:
Every Army senior officer knows full well the Army is prohibited from operating armed 'fast movers' so the casual conversation would never have occured anyway.
Click to expand...
Heading into conspiracy theory territory here...
jsport said:
wil exclaim again, until blue in the face, an F-35 flying slow enough w/ the sufficient load to afford danger close CAS necessary for a final halt of an adversary about to overun a US unit, will fall out of the sky because there is unsufficient lift.
Click to expand...
Now you are just being ridiculous and showing a distinct lack of understanding of reality
Click to expand...
not worth replying
unbiased arbitrators and contributors should remain separate.
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
www.military.com

Army Not Interested in Taking A-10 Warthogs from Air Force

The U.S. Army has no interest in taking over the Air Force's fleet of A-10 attack planes, even if it would save the venerable Cold War-era aircraft from the bone yard.
www.military.com www.military.com
Click to expand...
No army air corps?

300px-Dominic_2_-_Edited.png
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom