Get your shit together USAF

>>31809201
>The US Air Force wants to retire the A-10
You mean the contractors that the Air Force hires to build jets wants the A-10 gone so they can shove the F-35 down our throats

>A-10 being refurbished
REEEEEEEEEEEE

Retire the piece of shit already

>>31809245
Need a functional replacement that doesn't affect other mission availability first.

>>31809346
Except everything else already does its job better, and the original mission it was designed for is obsolete. The USAF isn't replacing it with the F-35 - they're dropping its role entirely.

>>31809346
The only thing the A-10 does better is gun-runs and thats not effective for most CAS missions. The ammunition is too small to provide any explosive power against light targets and the AP cant even pen a T-62.

All other munitions can be carried by other aircraft with the same effect.

File: 90rred.jpg (74KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1600x900px

>>31809622
I'd respond by pointing out that with the upgraded weapons systems it can out haul most other airframes.

>>31810432
No, it cannot, especially when it uses up valuable hardpoints to carry a FLIR pod and ECM. Don't forget that the primary strike aircraft during the Gulf War was the F-15E.

>>31810479
And the primary CAS aircraft in Afghanistan was the B-1B...

>>31810490
That too. Point is the A-10 is outclassed by other aircraft in US service in the CAS role.

>>31810490
That statement is somewhat misleading. For a long time, the B-1B didn't have the capability for laser guided strikes until it had the sniper pod. The point still stands that the B-1 is more capable than the A-10 simply cause it's a larger airframe and the addition of the sniper pod doesn't significantly affect the size of its payload. There's also the side note that modernizing the B-1 is a simpler task than with the A-10 because you're not cramming so many cables through a single hole in the titanium bathtub that magnetic interference has to be a consideration.

>>31810479
Anyone able to find information on planned avionics upgrades? I'm guessing targeting equipment is probably high on the list, dating back to the N/AW

>>31809219
No, this time they are trying to convince the airforce to buy into a whole new project to develop another plane to replace the A-10.