I've said this on other websites but may as well repeat it here.
What the Army, Navy and USMC should do is draw up requirements for a fixed wing aircraft replacement too the A-10 and submit it to Congress. Make it able to launch and land via CATOBAR and EMALS.
Have a higher payload than the Super Hornet (8,050 kg) and maybe even comparable to the Rafale's. (9,500 kg)
That way the Air force won't be able to retire them with BS excuses.
The problem is that the A-10 is still a great aircraft, with a lifespan that should last through atleast a few more decades. I don't know if developing something entirely new has much merit when considering its sole benefit would simply be carrier capability, especially when considering the US has no problem with bases for hosting the A-10 the world over (also quite capable of in-air refuels, even though the Pentagon gave the KC-10s the chop). Bottom line is, they shouldn't even be considering retiring the A-10 anyway.
I've said this on other websites but may as well repeat it here.
What the Army, Navy and USMC should do is draw up requirements for a fixed wing aircraft replacement too the A-10 and submit it to Congress. Make it able to launch and land via CATOBAR and EMALS.
Have a higher payload than the Super Hornet (8,050 kg) and maybe even comparable to the Rafale's. (9,500 kg)
That way the Air force won't be able to retire them with BS excuses.
The problem is that the A-10 is still a great aircraft, with a lifespan that should last through atleast a few more decades. I don't know if developing something entirely new has much merit when considering its sole benefit would simply be carrier capability, especially when considering the US has no problem with bases for hosting the A-10 the world over (also quite capable of in-air refuels, even though the Pentagon gave the KC-10s the chop). Bottom line is, they shouldn't even be considering retiring the A-10 anyway.
38.media.tumblr.com
This comment is currently awaiting admin approval, join now to view.