(May 31, 2014 at 6:31 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(May 31, 2014 at 4:59 pm)Minimalist Wrote: If only al-Qaeda had tanks and armored vehicles perhaps a case could be made. Instead, we are to be saddled with this dinosaur for eternity because there is a base located in AZ.
Indeed. The A-10 made a fuckton of sense when the Army's most likely foe was the Soviet Union (who at the time had about a bazillion metric fucktons of tanks).
The A-10's primary intended role was to reduce T-72's to swiss cheese with the GAU-8/U primary cannon and AGM-65 air-to-surface missiles. It's other role is a close-air-support platform utilizing cluster bombs and rocket pods. It can also be used to deliver laser-guided bombs but IMHO it is not a good platform for that purpose.
IMHO, the only good argument for retaining the platform is that it's intended replacement is the F-35 joint strike fighter, which is an enormous money pit. The F-35 appears to me to be a platform in search of a mission.
I can think of many conflicts we could get into where an A-10 would be an effective system. However If the Army doesn't want them, then lets get rid of them.
We keep building M1 tanks that the Army doesn't want any more of for political reason. I'd like politics taken out of defense programs completely. Let the people charged with defending the country buy what they want, or keep what they want, with the money that we give them.
