In aircraft years — how old is too old?

San Antonio Express News ^ | 16 April 2011 | Scott Mayerowitz

[newzjunkey]

And how ‘bout them Warthogs? A-10 Thunderbolt: 1972 - 2028 (and beyond?).

Don't count on it. Last week I read about a proposal to make a variant of the F-35 to replace the A-10. If it ever get to production, the F-35 will be a proverbial jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none.

[Robert A Cook PE]

So, how many 100,000.00 bombs are you going to drop on a 5,000.00 dollar truck convoy from a 1.2 billionn dollar long range bomber that you can’t base in Europe?

Some missions need a dump truck.

[Hulka]

Never said we don't need a dump-truck, and in fact, if you take the time to read my posts on this thread, I identify a platform for the type of mission you describe: F-15E.

Why would we want to base a long range strategic bomber in Europe? I see no reason for that. We did rotate B-52s through there but that was before we have other weapons and other platforms that could do the mission until the larger platforms could arrive.

The discussion is about future threats and future capabilities and whether we need advanced technology airframes and weapons.

Like I said in my posts on this thread, if you missed them, we need advanced technology to meet the evolving threat, a threat that will not go away.

I think you as an engineer should appreciate field testing a weapon/platform. This is especially true when we are talking about complicated platforms like the B-2 and weapons like the SDB.

As an engineer you should appreciate what may be learned from fielding such platforms and weapons, as “live-fire” missions off-range are valuable beyond what a a slide-ruler can calculate. Besides, we need to continually explore the employment envelop, to investigate other ways the weapon and weapon system may be applied and used. In fact, take SDB-I, for example.

The SDB was build to be a long range stand-off precision engagement weapon with a shaped warhead charge (low collateral). Great weapon. However, when field-tested, the troops in the field (the users) identified a capability gap that the requirement folks and engineers missed.

A fix was made, a capability added and the employment envelop expanded considerably. It has been used many times since and saved many lives. SDB costs more than a truck, for sure, but the end result is a weapon that is highly capable, flexible to most environmental conditions and effective.

Additionally, the crews that fly these advanced systems, they need “field-testing” too, and low threat/reduced threat environments add much to their knowledge base and season the crews for more challenging missions.

So while the “cost” of the bomb/missile/guided weapon is mildly interesting, it is hard to imagine when troops in contact are calling for air support and all we have are JDAM’s, well, we can't just say the weapon costs too much to go after the enemy truck that is bearing down on them, or a truck simply parked somewhere—a non-threat now does not mean a non-threat later.

[Hulka]

Oh, and wanted to ask, what $100,000.00 bomb are you talking about? I am unaware of such an operational conventional weapon. Perhaps you can find an example:

Ammunition (”bomb”) costing data: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100127-159.pdf

The SDB is here: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100128-067.pdf (adding the RDT&E costs for developing, testing, integrating and supporting the SDB-II brings the cost near 100K. But right now, it doesn’t come to 100K.