Cote dSoleil wrote:Vitaphone Racing wrote:And what difference does it make?
By concepts of scales and price comparisons, there's a point at which one version is more expensive than the alternative. All my point is that the A-10 is cheaper, and at some unknown scale, the A-10 will be cheaper.The problem is that your analysis is far too narrow. It's not as simple as some algebraic equation where Total cost = 500x + 600y like you're implying. In order to take those hours from the multirole and put them on the A-10, you first have to completely refurbish the A-10 fleet or replace it with new aircraft because these ones are getting old and that's why they're being retired now as opposed to ten years ago when they had some life left. You still have to run an extra branch of logistical and training support tailored to the A-10. You have to add more administration roles seeing as your creating more military units instead of tapping into ones that already exist. My first explanation was pretty clear about this, I thought. I'm not sure you what you didn't understand.
Yeah, because we all know multiroles aren't logistically intensive or anything. I can buy more multiroles at 40 million each that will last 5000 hours, or I can buy A-10s at 20 million each that will last 8000+. Obviously there's a crossover point at which one crosses over the other on the graph.
You like the flexibility of multirole aircraft and are willing to pay for it. Great. That doesn't mean that it's unfeasible for the cheaper aircraft to *gasp* be cheaper. Otherwise the Su-25 and A-10 would never have been invented to begin with.
Both aircraft were the product of the early 1970s Cold War tensions. At the time of development, MANPADS were not a thing. Common air defenses were mostly still AAA, backed up by simple SAMs like the S-125 and MIM-23. They were designed for high loiter times (i.e. low speed), and low altitude work. Facing modern air defenses, a multirole from the same era, like the F-16 is way more survivable thanks to it's improved top speed, acceleration, climb rate, etc. It also is capable of filling a lot more roles, like SEAD, air superiority, etc. Because the A-10 can't fill those roles, you might as well add a multirole aircraft for either SEAD or escort duties for every 3 or 4 A-10s you get in your calculation. And that skews the cost benefit analysis further away from the A-10.