Was reading in Taiwan News, and this article pops up. Seems like some upper USAF folks see the Chinese are outpacing our fighter/bomber development.

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4365995

Well if it’s intimidation they’re looking for, then how about this….

Kendall is just another asshole that wants to get rid of the A10 because it just isn’t sexy enough.

BS!

Ironic how hard the effort to kill off the A-10 has been for nearly 40 years.

Yet every time the smoke clears the Hog is still there grinning.

The airplane everyone hates to love.

My guess is the rough draft of that speech had Russia, then they did a Replace-all with China.

quote:

it is supposed to be the world’s first stealth fighter that can hold two pilots.

What a breakthrough.

War with China will suck, mostly because we value life much more than they do. We will lament the death of each solder & civilian and look at it as a failure. They will look for a replacement pawn.

quote:

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall expressed doubt that antiquated aircraft like MQ-9 Reapers and the A-10 Warthog pose enough of a threat to the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Air Force.

Well no kidding, they aren’t designed to!

Exactly. The Chinese Communists will not care in the least.

For the last three decades the USAF has focused on Hi Tech and Stealth technology, squandering large percentages of their budget persuing it. To the detriment of maintenance, modernization and force multipliers.

They could have ordered larger numbers of F16s and F15s even F22S, all at once, rather than stretching out orders over decades - propping up manufacturers production lines - while driving costs up tremendously. But they didn't. They bet the farm on the "Penguin" F35. Which has gained weight, underperformed and costs a fortune. Hows that working out for them?

How many Chinese fighters are Hi Tech? How many are Stealth technology? How many are just low tech missle carriers with decent range, maneuverability and avionics? How many of those do they have in service currently? I rest my case. Regards 18DAI

quote:

Originally posted by 18DAI:
Which has gained weight, underperformed and costs a fortune. How's that working out for them?

I'd bet that the upper echelons are quite happy with their bank accounts once they retired and got various board positions with the same companies that they directed USAF dollars to.

The USAF just needs to allow the army to get back into the fixed wing game.

I think the biggest issue is how fully the ChiComs have penetrated us.

Perhaps, all that matters is the ability to "slip" a few missions in.

Its either be able to hit Beijing, etc or try to slaughter the endless waves of people Beijing would just as soon be without.

(AKA, Korea ver. 2.)

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:

quote:

Originally posted by 18DAI:
Which has gained weight, underperformed and costs a fortune. How's that working out for them?

I'd bet that the upper echelons are quite happy with their bank accounts once they retired and got various board positions with the same companies that they directed USAF dollars to. ..

exactly ... gotta keep those fat DOD budgets justified

but regarding technology -- the history of warfare has shown that quantity is just as important as quality if not more so... the M4 Sherman tank in WW2 is an example. the BEST tank in the war? no. but it was pretty good and we had a bazillion of them and could make and repair them quickly

there is probably an aviation equivalent out there ie having 500 updated F-16s / F-15s vs 100 of the newest / latest greatest... especially if you get into prolonged conflict

interestingly Gulf War 1 may be blueprint. Iraq had a massive force, decent tech aircraft and impressive radar / ADA capabilities. high tech stealth technology was crucial to knock those capabilities out. but once that was done -- the 'low-tech' A10 did a phenomenal job of the 'heavy lifting' accounting for a ridiculous percentage of destroyed enemy personnel and equipment.

-----------------------------------------

The A-10 is great if we have total air superiority. If not it's either toast or grounded.

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:
Kendall is just another asshole that wants to get rid of the A10 because it just isn’t sexy enough.

BS!

At the end of the day, if the Chinese decide to invade Taiwan, no amount of tactical aircraft based in Taiwan will make a dent. The idea that the Chinese could be held back, should they elect to take Taiwan by force, is laughable. Not even a serious thought.

Taiwan is a very small place in very close proximity to the Chinese mainland, and a place that the Chinese consider theirs, a part of China. After the saber-rattling, Taiwan exists at the pleasure of the mainland, much like Hong Kong did. Beijing already made clear its position on Hong Kong. It's been clear on Taiwan, too.

Much as we'd all love to beat our chests and promise to intervene, it's far too costly, and not sustainable. If the Chinese want it, it's theirs.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
At the end of the day, if the Chinese decide to invade Taiwan, no amount of tactical aircraft based in Taiwan will make a dent. The idea that the Chinese could be held back, should they elect to take Taiwan by force, is laughable. Not even a serious thought.

Taiwan is a very small place in very close proximity to the Chinese mainland, and a place that the Chinese consider theirs, a part of China. After the saber-rattling, Taiwan exists at the pleasure of the mainland, much like Hong Kong did. Beijing already made clear its position on Hong Kong. It's been clear on Taiwan, too.

Much as we'd all love to beat our chests and promise to intervene, it's far too costly, and not sustainable. If the Chinese want it, it's theirs.

i do not agree.

you are discounting not just the US but also the rest of Asia ie ROK and Japan, etc.

PRC is no push-over -- but the 'inevitability' you imply is incorrect. hopefully it doesn't play out.

think about the massive scale of D-Day. it would require that level of effort / planning / resourcing etc. today's missile tech, radar, aircraft capability is off the charts. in short -- the invading forces would be dealt extremely high casualties from the outset.

------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by 18DAI:
For the last three decades the USAF has focused on Hi Tech and Stealth technology, squandering large percentages of their budget persuing it. To the detriment of maintenance, modernization and force multipliers.

I think the F117 proved the concept during Desert Storm. In that same conflict the A10 was pulled from the front lines when they were met with slightly competent AA. That was 30 years ago, and they are even lamer turkeys now.

Why would the U.S. have sent A-10s to Taiwan in the first place? Were we expecting a tank battle in the streets Taipei?

BTW, the Hog will be around until at least 2028; Boeing got a contract to replace the wings. Additionally, the are receiving many other upgrades.

quote:

A-10A over Germany
(click to view full)
The Precision Engagement modification is the largest single upgrade effort ever undertaken for the USA’s unique A-10 “Warthog” close air support aircraft fleet. While existing A/OA-10 aircraft continue to outperform technology-packed rivals on the battlefield, this set of upgrades is expected to make them more flexible, and help keep the aircraft current until the fleet’s planned phase-out in 2028. When complete, A-10C PE will give USAF A-10s precision strike capability sooner than planned, combining multiple upgrades into 1 time and money-saving program, rather than executing them as standalone projects. Indeed, the USAF accelerated the PE program by 9 months as a result of its experiences in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

This is DID’s FOCUS Article for the PE program, and for other modifications to the A-10 fleet. It covers the A-10’s battlefield performance and advantages, the elements of the PE program, other planned modifications, related refurbishment efforts to keep the fleet in the air, and the contracts that have been issued each step of the way.

Defense Industry Daily

respectable results for a low-tech aircraft IMO:


Iraq Assets Destroyed by A-10's During the Gulf War 1

987 tanks destroyed
501 Armor Personnel Carriers (APC) destroyed
249 Command Posts (CP) destroyed
11 Frog missile launchers destroyed
281 Military structures destroyed
96 Radar installations destroyed
72 Bunkers destroyed
9 SAM sites destroyed
8 Fuel tanks destroyed
2,000 other military vehicles
1,306 trucks
53 SCUD missiles and launchers
10 aircraft on the ground destroyed
Suppressed enemy air defenses
Attacked early warning radars

https://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/statistics.htm

I'm not a crazy A-10 fan boy. I am former Army so I don't have a 'dog in the fight'. But I can appreciate the Air Force straddles several different imperatives: Strategic Air, Tactical Air, Missile Command, Satellite / Space, etc.... They don't 'embrace' the ground support role much and to some extent that's understandable given their other important missions.

But the former infantryman in me loves seeing tanks and bunkers getting obliterated.

(BTW-- i enjoy these types of threads i usually end up learning something)

---------------------------------------------------------

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Quote by Joseph Stalin: “Quantity has a quality all its own.” ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
After the saber-rattling, Taiwan exists at the pleasure of the mainland, much like Hong Kong did...Much as we'd all love to beat our chests and promise to intervene, it's far too costly, and not sustainable. If the Chinese want it, it's theirs.

If China could have taken it at any time, why would China not have done so? That would be infinitely more efficient than turning reefs into militarized cement reefs.

Once we simply accept that China taking Taiwan is inevitable, the Chinese win for free. Why on earth would we accept that China's taking Taiwan is inevitable when they haven't managed to do it yet and it is still very much an open question as to whether they can?

A surrender monkey attitude based on red Chinese propaganda is worse than useless; it's pointlessly self-defeating and invites everything from humiliation to self-destruction.

I think we're at a point where we need two very different militaries.

One, which can kill as cheaply as possible - we need to get it cheaper to kill a terrorist, than they can be produced. Ideally, in real dollar terms, but at least on relative GDP terms.

The other, is how to keep being the Referee in Asia. We bow out, and the Korean/Chinese/Japanese/Russian brawl will start up again.

Frankly, a bit surprised Beijing is pushing so hard on us, there. Unless, they're so far gone, they think they will have a cakewalk over Japan and Korea.