Military Review

US Air Force plans to abandon A-10, KC-10 and F-15 aircraft

83
US Air Force plans to abandon A-10, KC-10 and F-15 aircraftIn terms of funding cuts, on the one hand, and the need to preserve current contracts, on the other, the United States Air Force plans to write off the entire fleet of KC-10 tankers and A-10 attack aircraft, sources close to the US Air Force report.


F-15 fighters may also be charged. In addition, the United States Air Force may refuse to purchase new combat search and rescue helicopters worth 6,8 billions of dollars.

These options are still being discussed, but now we can estimate the scale of the decisions that the Air Force commanders will have to take in anticipation of the planned funding cut over the next ten years.

“Only by disbanding the entire fleet, can you achieve any tangible savings,” commented the situation in the Air Force Times, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Mark Welsh. "You can write off the plane, but you can save a lot more if you abolish the entire infrastructure that runs on the Air Force."

Congress will undoubtedly scrutinize the proposals to reduce fleet, especially in the part of the cancellation of 340 A-10 attack aircraft, more than half of which are registered with the US Air Force National Guard. Last year, the Air Force’s proposal to eliminate five A-10 squadrons met stiff resistance from Congress and state governors.

As for tankers KS-10, designed on the basis of the passenger airliner McDonell Douglas DS-10, according to the USAF, their number now totals 59 pieces.

On the agenda is also a possible reduction of the fleet of Eagle F-15 fighters. The Air Force is armed with about 250 of these aircraft, which, together with the F-22 Raptor, form the basis of an arsenal for air combat.

“The Pentagon has repeatedly stated that it wants to get rid of weapons intended for combat only in airspace. Now strange and dangerous things are happening with the budget, so the Air Force can finally get what they want, ”said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst from the consulting company Teal Group, which is engaged in the analysis of the aerospace industry. He notes that A-10 is not particularly effective both for fighting rebel units and for fighting in the framework of the “Turning Point - Asia” tactic, which leaves these aircraft out of work. ” .

"To wage a land war is not very good news. But it seems, judging by the budget, the Pentagon has moved away from this strategy. This is a convenient opportunity for the Air Force to save money and declare victory in this confrontation, ”continues Aboulafia.

Writing off the F-15 will reduce the cost of repairs and upgrades. The released funds can be used to force the supply of the F-35 fighter-bomber.

Rebecca Grant, a former Air Force officer, president of IRIS Research, commented: “This is a desperate step, but risks are present in any of the scenarios. It is possible that it is better to write off the F-15 now than to get the weapons we need with a delay of several years. ”
Originator:
http://mixednews.ru/
83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 24 September 2013 11: 18 New
    +7
    US Air Force plans to abandon A-10, KC-10 and F-15 aircraft
    Here's what to think - it's time to refuse .... am
    1. T-100
      T-100 24 September 2013 11: 55 New
      +5
      Let them cut their entire defense industry and defense industry
      1. Algor73
        Algor73 24 September 2013 12: 47 New
        12
        They do not cut their military-industrial complex and defense industry, they purposefully go to the intended goal - to create modern air forces of a certain type, writing off obsolete equipment.
        1. alone
          alone 24 September 2013 20: 22 New
          +1
          Quote: Algor73
          They do not cut their military-industrial complex and defense industry, they purposefully go to the intended goal - to create modern air forces of a certain type, writing off obsolete equipment.


          something, but they don’t suffer from hatred. To the regret, of course.
      2. roial
        roial 24 September 2013 13: 06 New
        12
        Unlike us, they conserve their decommissioned equipment, rather than cut it. Their storage base This is really a storage base, not a cemetery like ours.
        1. Evgeny_Lev
          Evgeny_Lev 24 September 2013 13: 57 New
          +3
          We know, we know.
          And to you in an independent, generally high will soon, as the Latvians under the protection of the Germans will walk on the ground.
          1. Civil
            Civil 24 September 2013 14: 46 New
            0
            F-35s are already entering the army
        2. Lord of the Sith
          Lord of the Sith 24 September 2013 15: 19 New
          +2
          I put you a little +. Since the Americans have quite extensive air and tank cemeteries. In the search engine, I think you will find a lot of photos. And there are not gliders of the 30s lying there, but the equipment of the 60-70s.
        3. Geisenberg
          Geisenberg 24 September 2013 18: 46 New
          +1
          Quote: roial
          Unlike us, they conserve their decommissioned equipment, rather than cut it. Their storage base This is really a storage base, not a cemetery like ours.


          A desert in California where 364 days a year are sunny ??? Do not call the cemetery, it remains a cemetery. Usually, everything that gets there goes into parts, less often buy empty cases. In general, the news is good, A-10 will reduce the world will become cleaner - amers will stop using radioactive waste instead of armor-piercing shells.
          1. roial
            roial 24 September 2013 21: 46 New
            0
            Well, do not tell me, on the network you can find quite a bit of information about the fact that amers sold to someone a batch of aircraft taken from this storage base. That and the spare parts are the right thing, but look at what we are doing at the storage bases - sheer shabby, and theft
      3. Ustin
        Ustin 24 September 2013 16: 16 New
        +2
        They will not cut it, but as usual they will sell it, well, and the proceeds will be dumped into R&D. The scheme is verified ...
    2. AVV
      AVV 24 September 2013 15: 14 New
      0
      All US Air Force needs to be eliminated! It's easier! And we better !!!
      1. ElektriK123
        ElektriK123 24 September 2013 16: 30 New
        0
        Why is it better for us? Better let the Chinese saw, otherwise they seem to be preparing for a war with us.
  2. yanus
    yanus 24 September 2013 11: 20 New
    +3
    Hmm, sharp decisions. Especially in terms of A-10
    1. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 24 September 2013 15: 17 New
      +1
      On the A-10 since 2010, there has been talk.
  3. komsomolets
    komsomolets 24 September 2013 11: 24 New
    +5
    The day has begun well today, such good news. Just writing off will not be enough, they still need to be cut. I’m ready to borrow tools, I’m not sorry for anything good.
  4. alexng
    alexng 24 September 2013 11: 24 New
    +4
    Decommissioned workaholic and replace with a booty named clumsy ax. Class! good Something in the world got messed up for a long time and the reason for this is cheap loot.
  5. Samy
    Samy 24 September 2013 11: 27 New
    12
    Yes, they will not cut them. In Nevada, for storage, and all .... If necessary, they got it, and dust was blown off to third countries.
  6. Russ69
    Russ69 24 September 2013 11: 27 New
    +2
    Quote: yanus
    Hmm, sharp decisions. Especially in terms of A-10

    Just started to upgrade them, and to the scrap ...
    We need a couple more sequestration budget and US aviation, will be reduced by half, if not more.
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 24 September 2013 11: 49 New
      +2
      Quote: Russ69

      Just started to upgrade them, and to the scrap ...
      We need a couple more sequestration budget and US aviation, will be reduced by half, if not more.

      it was originally about 50% of the fleet A-10. In general, the more advanced the machines, the less they are in service.
  7. spirit
    spirit 24 September 2013 11: 28 New
    +6
    nonsense! and who will fight with them? f22 which they are afraid to once again send to a hot spot?
  8. Bigfoot_Sev
    Bigfoot_Sev 24 September 2013 11: 30 New
    +3
    weird. A-10 then why. good plane. he doesn’t seem to have a replacement yet.

    = ^ _ ^ =
    1. Gav-111
      Gav-111 24 September 2013 12: 04 New
      +4
      That is why we should welcome such intentions.
    2. No_more
      No_more 24 September 2013 13: 40 New
      +1
      Drones come out more profitable, for the execution of a poorly organized and poorly armed enemy, that’s replaced. And against a serious opponent who has a decent A-10 air defense (especially able to protect equipment on the march) are not effective.
      1. Lord of the Sith
        Lord of the Sith 24 September 2013 15: 26 New
        +1
        I add, the A-10 often participated in friendly fire on their own.
        1. Bigfoot_Sev
          Bigfoot_Sev 24 September 2013 18: 49 New
          0
          not a weapon kills. kills a man.
          it’s dishonest to write off it on a plane.

          = ^ _ ^ =
      2. Bigfoot_Sev
        Bigfoot_Sev 24 September 2013 18: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: No_more
        Drones come out more profitable, for the execution of a poorly organized and poorly armed enemy, that’s replaced. And against a serious opponent who has a decent A-10 air defense (especially able to protect equipment on the march) are not effective.


        Well, the devil knows him. maverick how much can you spit? wiki says. that on 28. well let it lie. I read about 12 miles somewhere on their forums. it's 20 kilometers. with activation in the target area - this, IMHO, is not bad.

        = ^ _ ^ =
  9. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 24 September 2013 11: 37 New
    +4
    The fact is that the transition of the US military infrastructure from BV and Europe to the Pacific Ocean is already clearly visible. T / e on the confrontation with China. It means maintaining the viability of obsolete equipment, which cannot be applied in the light of new threats, simply not nationally. It is clear, however, that in the event of a collision with China, there will be no talk of any landing, for military operations are possible only in the air and at sea.
    1. yanus
      yanus 24 September 2013 11: 46 New
      +5
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      It means maintaining the viability of obsolete equipment, which cannot be applied in the light of new threats, simply not nationally. It is clear, however, that in the event of a collision with China, there will be no talk of any landing, for military operations are possible only in the air and at sea.

      Since they will fight at sea, naturally refueling and fighter aircraft with a large radius need to be cut. They do not need nafig in collisions on the ocean))
      1. Scoun
        Scoun 24 September 2013 12: 34 New
        +1
        Quote: yanus
        Since they will fight at sea, naturally refueling and fighter aircraft with a large radius need to be cut. They do not need nafig in collisions on the ocean))

        I agree with Aron
        Do you think that flying a few hours with refueling across the ocean flying to the F-15 to gain air supremacy and then flying back .. is that reasonable?
        More than sure of the Americans in the first place the use of the Navy - Aircraft, missiles, UAVs and the use of missiles by DA bomber aircraft.
    2. Scoun
      Scoun 24 September 2013 12: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      The fact is that the transition of the US military infrastructure from BV and Europe to the Pacific Ocean is already clearly visible.

      If you look in this "way" it is very similar, especially since they have declared the Pacific region a priority.
    3. rolik
      rolik 24 September 2013 12: 23 New
      +4
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      for hostilities are possible only in the air and at sea.

      And when the Chinese landed on the coast of mattress, A-10 would be very useful. Although if the Chinese landed, then the A-10 will not help either.
      1. 0255
        0255 24 September 2013 13: 55 New
        0
        And when the Chinese landed on the coast of mattress, A-10 would be very useful. Although if the Chinese landed, then the A-10 will not help either.

        then the Americans will need tactical nuclear weapons))) how is the F-35 doing with nuclear weapons? Or will the US have to be content with the old B-52? smile
        1. yanus
          yanus 24 September 2013 14: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: 0255
          How is the F-35 doing with nuclear weapons?

          for tactical nuclear weapons carrier F-16
          1. 0255
            0255 24 September 2013 17: 32 New
            0
            for tactical nuclear weapons carrier F-16

            perhaps the Americans will have to use on their territory not only tactical, but also strategic nuclear weapons to defend against Chinese landing. wink The Chinese with MANPADS, RPGs and unlicensed copies of the AK-47 will take in numbers, even if the Americans collect all of their A-10, B-2, B-52, F-15E, F-16 and F-35 with Abrams tanks and helicopters "Apache" in addition.
        2. rolik
          rolik 24 September 2013 17: 17 New
          0
          Quote: 0255
          then the Americans will need tactical nuclear weapons)))

          God forbid from this, the Chinese will answer the same. As a result, the universal scribe.
          1. 0255
            0255 24 September 2013 17: 35 New
            +1
            God forbid from this, the Chinese will answer the same. As a result, the universal scribe.

            but the Chinese will magically solve the problem of overpopulation, regardless of whether they manage to conquer the United States laughing
            1. rolik
              rolik 24 September 2013 17: 54 New
              0
              Quote: 0255
              but the Chinese will magically solve the problem of overpopulation,

              Yes, God bless them and the Chinese, they feed on cockroaches)))) A complete and hopeless bummer (as they said in one film) will come to all normal people living on our planet. And it’s insulting to understand)))
        3. clidon
          clidon 24 September 2013 17: 25 New
          +1
          Of course, the F-35 will be the carrier of tactical ammunition. This will be the main machine of the US Air Force and NATO.
      2. clidon
        clidon 24 September 2013 17: 27 New
        0
        The Chinese will not land. They are not suicides. Such a landing requires a powerful ocean fleet, which the Celestial Empire does not yet possess and will not possess in the near future. So this is a good plot for a Hollywood action movie.
        1. rolik
          rolik 24 September 2013 17: 56 New
          0
          Quote: clidon
          . So this is a good plot for a Hollywood action movie.

          So .... urgently patent the plot))))
          1. 0255
            0255 24 September 2013 23: 26 New
            0
            The Chinese will not land. They are not suicides. Such a landing requires a powerful ocean fleet, which the Celestial Empire does not yet possess and will not possess in the near future. So this is a good plot for a Hollywood action movie.

            So .... urgently patent the plot))))

            Americans are attacked only by aliens, or Russia / USSR, sometimes North Korea winked So such a plot will not work
  10. Gur
    Gur 24 September 2013 11: 43 New
    +1
    Oh, it means they started to count money, apparently not everything is so cloudless
  11. komsomolets
    komsomolets 24 September 2013 11: 45 New
    +2
    But isn’t the KS-10 useful for fighting over the Pacific Ocean? And the F-15s are robust cars. Once the F-14s were also decommissioned, although there is no end to work.
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 24 September 2013 11: 47 New
      +3
      Quote: komsomolets
      But isn’t the KS-10 useful for fighting over the Pacific Ocean? And the F-15s are robust cars. Once the F-14s were also decommissioned, although there is no end to work.

      So this is a process. If a gradual write-off is announced, then this may stretch for 5-10 years.
      1. komsomolets
        komsomolets 24 September 2013 11: 55 New
        0
        But seriously, the Americans are far from fools to know something, if only Russia does not need to monkey-live its own mind, right Aaron?
    2. bif
      bif 24 September 2013 12: 36 New
      +4
      The assassination of F-15, now the only full-fledged workhorse along with the already buried F-14, reminds sepoku for the US Air Force.
      The main thing for what? - The released funds can be used to boost the supply of F-35 fighter-bomber... good luck.
      As the saying goes, "Cut Shura, cut, they are gold" !!!
    3. 0255
      0255 24 September 2013 17: 45 New
      0
      Once, the F-14 was also decommissioned, although there is no end to work for them.

      F-14 crashed due to engines, were too heavy for carrier-based. For the bombing of banana republics from which the United States is recapturing oil, the F / A-18 is enough.
      From the F-14 they tried to make a competitor to the F / A-18E and deck versions YF-22 and YF-23 (the Americans had such an idea, the program was called NATF - Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter). As a result, both the deck F-22 and the upgraded F-14 with engines from an ATF fighter were abandoned.
      1. bif
        bif 24 September 2013 20: 39 New
        0
        Quote: 0255
        From F-14 they tried to make a competitor to the F / A-18E and deck versions YF-22 and YF-23

        Either you made a DESCRIPTION, or your conclusions are not true in the root.
        of f-14 could not make a competitor DEFAULT, tk. it appeared earlier than all of the above and has been actively disposed of since the beginning of the 2000's.
        Another question is that after its removal from service (the last flight in 2006), they did not find a full replacement ...
        There were even interesting offers from senior officials and senior officers to buy Su-33 from the Russian Federation to replace the f-14, but politics and pride did not allow, therefore, from the f-18 Hornet modernization began to make the f-18E \ F (Super Hornet) ...
        1. clidon
          clidon 24 September 2013 21: 42 New
          +1
          There were even interesting proposals from senior officials and senior officers to buy from the Russian Federation the Su-33 to replace the f-14

          Unless in the form of a joke or is it just another bike. How could the Su-33 be seen as a replacement for the F-14? Especially in the 90s, when his fate was not yet determined, and the production was just what ended?
          F-14 ruined the disappearance of the main enemy, against whom he actually was created - the "hordes" of Soviet bombers with anti-ship missiles. And as a universal machine, it was too expensive to operate and redundant.
          1. bif
            bif 24 September 2013 21: 59 New
            0
            Quote: clidon
            Is it in the form of a joke or is it just another bike

            CAN DISCUSS)))
            Robert W. Kress and retired Admiral PaulGillicrist.
            An article from the February issue of FLIGHT magazine for 1999 year.
            "What could be more ironic ... Soviet fighters for the American Navy?" Bob Kress, former Lead Program Engineer Grumman and F-14 Program Chief Engineer and retired Rear Admiral, former naval fighter pilot Paul Gilikrist provide convincing arguments .... http: //suavia.info/page/ 22 /
            I recommend, the mood raises "at times"!
            1. clidon
              clidon 25 September 2013 05: 43 New
              0
              There is a group of retired trolls writing in a popular magazine, not “high officials" and "high officers". )) This is from the category of “but let's buy Russian ejected seats”, it doesn’t smell any formality.
              1. bif
                bif 26 September 2013 11: 42 New
                0
                and here it can’t be official, but I said that there was an OFFER ... and about pensioners-trolls, well, the troll student knows better, as the odd one says, an eccentric sees from afar.
                1. clidon
                  clidon 26 September 2013 17: 40 New
                  0
                  Judging by the boorish hitting you go out schoolboy? This was not an OFFER from officials (high officials, senior officers), but an ARTICLE which was placed by retirees in the popular MAGAZINE. If you do not see the difference, then I can only sympathize with you.
        2. 0255
          0255 24 September 2013 23: 14 New
          0
          of f-14 could not make a competitor DEFAULT, tk. it appeared earlier than all of the above and has been actively disposed of since the beginning of the 2000's.

          The following options have been developed or are being researched that were not built in series:
          "Tomcat" 21 is a multi-role fighter that was investigated by the company in 1988-1991 on an initiative basis and was offered as an alternative to the deck-based version of the NATF ATF ground-based fighter (F-22). In addition to the improvements planned for Quickstrike, it is planned to install new flaps, enlarged slats and root wing sag with additional fuel tanks placed in them;
          ASF-14 is another alternative to the deck-based version of the NATF ATF ground-based fighter (F-22). It is intended to use equipment and engines designed for the ATF aircraft.

          in early 1992, the U.S. Navy resumed research on new F-14 variants (F-14A ++ and F-14A / B +) as an alternative to the F / A-18E. The reason is the high development cost of the F / A-18E. There are also fears that the F / A-18E aircraft will not be effective enough as an interceptor: it was assumed that it would be armed with AAAM long-range air-to-air missiles, but in early 1992 the development of this missile was canceled. About 14 previously built F-14A aircraft can be modified in the F-250A ++ or F-14A / B + variant.

          source http://paralay.com/f14/f14.html, article from the book "Modern Fighters", M.A. Levin and V.E. Ilyin,
          1994 year.
          So I'm not mistaken drinks
          There were even interesting proposals from senior officials and senior officers to buy the Su-33 from the Russian Federation to replace the f-14, but politics and pride did not allow it, so the f-18E \ F (Super Hornet) was made from the f-18 Hornet by modernization. ..

          I know that. Not only the Chinese are copying it, our overseas “partners” would still have got it. So let them suffer with F-35
          1. bif
            bif 26 September 2013 11: 32 New
            0
            proposed researching new F-14 options it was supposed that he would
            those. an article about what COULD BE ... subject to the successful further modeonization of the f-14 ... It turns out that the competitors seemed to have been upgraded Tombcat, and not "standing in arms".
            Those. as they say, "if the grandmother had eggs, she would be a grandfather."
  12. Gur
    Gur 24 September 2013 11: 48 New
    +1
    On the one hand, they are beginning to save on the Air Force, and on the other, they are ready to start a new war in mine through the war, and they wanted to write off the extra money for the defense industry, which means that the price of peace in Syria is to write off planes
  13. brabbiseWess
    brabbiseWess 24 September 2013 11: 53 New
    +1
    I will not say that it is solid, but I’m not sure that this is true.
  14. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 24 September 2013 11: 56 New
    0
    They are lying! They write off (or rather they will sell it to their satellites ..) Amer never saves on armaments. Especially in the last decade .. The printing press, like military factories, is operating at high revs .. They are being prepared hard!
  15. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 24 September 2013 12: 06 New
    +4
    Cutting old planes means buying new ones. Decommissioned f-15, ks-10 is mkdonelDouglas, purchased f-22,35 lockheed. Lockheed tears competitors like a tusik hot-water bottle, I think decent means are paid to lobbyists. A sort of grin of capitalism, as they say, nothing personal, only business.
    1. 0255
      0255 24 September 2013 13: 57 New
      0
      Cutting old planes means buying new ones. Decommissioned f-15, ks-10 is mkdonelDouglas, purchased f-22,35 lockheed. Lockheed vomits competitors like an ace heating pad

      already Boeing, not McDonnell Douglas
  16. smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 24 September 2013 12: 34 New
    +3
    The first combat use of the A-10 attack aircraft occurred during the 1991 Gulf War. In total, 144 aircraft of this type were involved in the operation, performing approximately 8100 sorties with a loss of 7 aircraft (on average, one loss per 1350 sorties). In one departure, a pair of Thunderbolts destroyed 23 Iraqi tanks and damaged 10; while hunting for launchers of the Scud A-10 tactical missiles, 6 stationary, 3 temporary and 3 mobile launchers were destroyed in one night. During the fighting, attack aircraft shot down two Iraqi helicopters (Mi-8 and presumably MBB Bo 105).
    In Operation Desert Storm, the A-10 was also demonstrated for the first time. One of the Thunderbolts suffered severe wing damage; According to the ground technician, "No other plane would return to base."
    Severe damage to the tail of the A-10A as a result of non-contact detonation of the warhead of the Igla-1 MANPADS missile. The plane has been repaired. Gulf War, 1991.

    From airbases in Italy, the Thunderbolts took part in the NATO military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999. There were no losses, but Worthog’s high survivability was again confirmed when on May 2 this type of aircraft made an emergency landing at Skopje Airport (Macedonia) on one engine. The second engine was completely shot and later shown on Yugoslav television.

    A total of 2003 A-60 attack aircraft took part in Operation Freedom of Iraq in March – April 10. One plane was shot down on April 7 at the Baghdad International Airport. Another Thunderbolt suffered severe damage (one engine was damaged, hydraulic system failed, hundreds of holes in the wing, plumage and fuselage of the aircraft), but the pilot, Captain Kim Campbell, managed to land the aircraft successfully at the air base. After the completion of the main phase of hostilities and with the beginning of the partisan war, the A-10 continued to be used in Iraq.
    Damage sustained by Captain Kim Campbell’s plane over Iraq.
    1. rolik
      rolik 24 September 2013 12: 59 New
      0
      Quote: smiths xnumx
      The first combat use of the A-10 attack aircraft occurred during the Gulf War

      No one says that the plane is bad, a good car. And the beginning of the Thunderbolt line was laid by Russian inventors Alexander Cartvelli and Alexander Seversky. True, the first Thunderbolt (R-47) was created to accompany the flying Fortresses.
      1. V. Tarasyan
        V. Tarasyan 24 September 2013 14: 11 New
        0
        recourse Well, actually between the R-47 and A-10 the difference is significant. These are completely different machines, both in purpose and in design. What they have in common is that the name is the same and that both are low-winged. Although both cars turned out to be quite successful for their requirements.
        1. rolik
          rolik 24 September 2013 15: 29 New
          0
          Quote: V. Tarasyan
          Well, actually between the R-47 and A-10 the difference is significant.
          Well, actually everyone knows that the first Thunder is a fighter, the second is a ground attack aircraft. But, with the fighter, the history of the aircraft with the name Thunderbolt began.
          1. V. Tarasyan
            V. Tarasyan 25 September 2013 17: 01 New
            0
            To be honest, I just don’t understand how the story of an attack aircraft with the same name can begin with a fighter. So we can say that the story, for example, of the missile cruiser Varyag began with the very heroic cruiser that does not surrender to the enemy. There is nothing in common between them, not a single technical solution in the new ship came from the old one. The similarity between them is only one, that both are warships (I almost wrote that they were sailing on the sea, but the sailors would laugh at me for that, to put it mildly repeat) Inheritance implies some kind of continuity of technical solutions, but in this case I never see it once. Although, maybe, in this case, I am engaged in literary studies, but this, apparently, is an imprint of the profession.
    2. b-612
      b-612 24 September 2013 14: 04 New
      0
      ".. however, the pilot, Captain Kim Campbell managed to successfully land the plane at the air base." DID !!! oh how!)
    3. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 24 September 2013 17: 34 New
      0
      A-10 107 Including all losses (including combat) for the entire period of operation.

      http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/lamerica/poteri/poteri_usa.html
  17. Fastblast
    Fastblast 24 September 2013 12: 47 New
    +1
    good car a-10

    And what options in the future can come to replace, is there information?
    1. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 24 September 2013 17: 39 New
      0
      But they all unify and want only the F-22 and three variants of the F-35
    2. 0255
      0255 24 September 2013 17: 51 New
      +1
      good car a-10
      And what options in the future can come to replace, is there information?

      F-35V was supposed to replace the A-10, but this idea was abandoned. Although the Pentagon, in any case, will force the US Air Force to purchase a new flying iron. Yes, and the A-10 has probably already exhausted the resource, yet the planes are no longer new.
      1. Fastblast
        Fastblast 24 September 2013 18: 13 New
        +1
        Guys thanks!
        In general, I plan to replace multi-purpose ones.
        They certainly know better there, maybe it will be more rational.
  18. Vorkot cat
    Vorkot cat 24 September 2013 12: 52 New
    +1
    Americans will certainly not cut planes.
    It's not in their style, very dogmatic, but there are buyers, all of South America flies on decommissioned US planes, you don’t have to go far bully
  19. USNik
    USNik 24 September 2013 12: 54 New
    +2
    He notes that the A-10s are not particularly effective for combating rebel units ...
    lol Well, yes, of course, the F-35 will cope with slippers much faster, cheaper and more efficiently ...
  20. Bort radist
    Bort radist 24 September 2013 12: 55 New
    +6
    We went through this, your turn, gentlemen.
    And the news is not in the topic, but the winged ones will look here.
    The Lyulka Research and Development Bureau developed, manufactured and tested a prototype of a pulsating resonant detonation engine with a two-stage combustion of a kerosene-air mixture.In the future, on the basis of new technologies, engines can be created for space rocket systems and combined power plants of aircraft capable of flying in the atmosphere and beyond.
    According to the design bureau, the new engines will increase the thrust-weight ratio of aircraft by 1,5-2 times. In addition, when using such power plants, the flight range or the mass of aviation weapons can increase by 30-50 percent. In this case, the specific gravity of new engines will be 1,5-2 times less than that of conventional reactive power plants.
    ITAR-TASS.
    http://www.city-n.ru/view/329833.html
    1. Vorkot cat
      Vorkot cat 24 September 2013 12: 59 New
      +1
      These developments in the USSR have been conducted since the 60s, so there is nothing surprising.

      Science - Respect)
  21. New Russia
    New Russia 24 September 2013 13: 10 New
    +1
    "write off the entire fleet of KC-10 tankers and A-10 attack aircraft" An idiotic solution subsonic attack aircraft are always needed and will be needed for many decades to come
    1. aszzz888
      aszzz888 24 September 2013 13: 26 New
      -1
      Sorry, who will be needed?
      1. New Russia
        New Russia 24 September 2013 13: 30 New
        0
        To everyone who is going to fight)
  22. pinecone
    pinecone 24 September 2013 13: 18 New
    0
    The final decision has not yet been made. The machines are proven, “run-in”, so it is quite possible that some of them will remain in service.
    To the author. With regard to aviation technology, it is customary for us to say the park, and not the fleet.
  23. ka5280
    ka5280 24 September 2013 13: 38 New
    +1
    When 16 trillion of debt, then it's time to think about saving.
  24. January
    January 24 September 2013 13: 47 New
    +2
    Would close half of the military bases abroad - that would cut the budget by half
    1. New Russia
      New Russia 24 September 2013 14: 07 New
      +3
      Do you really believe that they are fighting because of stupidity or this is not part of a big plan?) Nobody is going to close us instead of stupid and thoughtless tantrums "the Americans are to blame for everything", we need to understand the obvious plan that Russia will be the next king with its millions of Wahhabi migrants and think that do with it
    2. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 24 September 2013 19: 00 New
      0
      By the way, there are about 800 of them.
  25. clidon
    clidon 24 September 2013 16: 28 New
    +1
    In a crisis, their programs are reduced by almost everything, except, perhaps, the Chinese. And even that is possible because they do not particularly advertise their plans.
    The write-off of the F-15C and KS-10 is not too surprising - the former have sequestered more than once, due to the obsolescence of the airframe, the latter are also quite a logical candidate. But the A-10, despite the age, is quite necessary for the Air Force and peppy horse. Which was very in demand in local conflicts.
    However, this is all just plans so far, who and how many really will be cut when they say that the lobbyist battles in Congress will rattle off about this.
    1. 0255
      0255 24 September 2013 17: 56 New
      -1
      and they probably have instead of the A-10 the Aurora bomber will fight, which supposedly flies at a speed of M = 6 ... 7 yes
      1. clidon
        clidon 24 September 2013 18: 39 New
        0
        This bike is probably 25 years old. )
        1. 0255
          0255 24 September 2013 23: 20 New
          0
          This bike is probably 25 years old. )

          I know that this is an ancient bike, I'm joking))) instead of A-10 they will use, most likely, F-35, maybe even UAVs
  26. darksidewarrior
    darksidewarrior 25 September 2013 03: 36 New
    0
    The budget allocated for disposal will be sawn.
    the budget allocated for the purchase of F-35 will be ..... sawn.
    they’ve been sawing their economy for a long time, and it’s more profitable for sawmills than ours.
  27. gameover65
    gameover65 25 September 2013 05: 16 New
    +1
    a campaign with people they have a specific crisis. they switch to UAVs from the fact that they cannot recruit people with a certain IQ in flight schools. pilots are retiring, and there is no one to replace. here and write off planes. they simply solve the issue of money - they turn on the machine. it's harder with people.
    1. 0255
      0255 25 September 2013 15: 06 New
      0
      a campaign with people they have a specific crisis. they switch to UAVs from the fact that they cannot recruit people with a certain IQ in flight schools. pilots are retiring, and there is no one to replace. here and write off planes. they simply solve the issue of money - they turn on the machine. it's harder with people.

      we can agree with this statement
    2. clidon
      clidon 25 September 2013 15: 44 New
      0
      What makes you think that there’s a crisis with people? UAV is the ability to conduct operations without losses, reduce the cost of a combat unit.