I'm skeptical you are who you claim, but if so you know you're being hyperbolic. Airframes have a limited lifetime; fatigue adds up. Despite the overwhelmingly positive performance to date, an aging fleet that's more expensive on margin to operate than alternatives doesn't make sense.
The AF just rewinged the A-10 fleet. Ranting about airframe fatigue in relation to the A-10 is nonsensical; the money has already been spent refreshing the airframes. Their current expected lifespan is until 2040.
Yup, at a cost of around $2billion to extend around 200 aircraft to 2040. It's exactly the problem I'm talking about: those wings cost ~10mm per aircraft, twice the base price for a brand new Texan.
I don't think that was prudent spending vs alternatives, but to be fair, it was a decision made a decade ago when the future was a bit more murky.
Operations Officer, 25th Fighter Squadron, Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea 2011-2012. Drop me an email and I send you pdfs of all the proof you need. 'nbsheeran' at the google one.
8-hour fix rates, repeat/recur rates, flying schedule effectiveness rates and MC rates are exactly what they are. No hyperbole required. They get briefed every week.
