The F-16 dropped far more ordnance in Iraq than the A-10 did.
Duh, way more F-16’s. Right?
And dropped it closer and farther out.
Which service didn’t, well wouldn’t for a long time, up grade the A-10? It’s name escapes me.
Which aircraft had the lessor maintenance man hours and flight cost per sortie?( airframe/engin hours being equal and such )
I’m not saying the Air Force wasn’t dragging feet on the A-10.
I’m saying that constant reference to the A-10 are a non-starter, because it simply isn’t the most effective aircraft we have. Not by a long shot.
We use it in an explicit and limited role. Period.
It doesn’t go into unvetted and unattrited airspace.
It sure as hell doesn’t go alone if there’s enemy air or ADA.
Look at it for what it does and be happy, but also recognize its speed, range and deployment limitations.
Aircraft like the F-16 didn’t drop more ordnance simply because there were more of them. The did it because they got there FIRST, before A-10s were even allowed in the area and they got there faster and farther out. They also dropped their stuff A LOT more accurately. The deployment options for the F-16 and F/A-18 were simply much, much greater.
It’s a great thing that the A-10 “C” is finally getting a digital electronics and sensor suite. But all that stuff is still strapped to an aircraft that’s severely limited to its current role.