| The Gray Ghost | 26 Feb 2014 3:24 p.m. PST |
|
 Saber6   | 26 Feb 2014 3:40 p.m. PST |
|
| Dark Knights And Bloody Dawns | 26 Feb 2014 3:46 p.m. PST |
Must be that time of year again… |
 Legion 4 | 26 Feb 2014 3:59 p.m. PST |
Yeah … it was even mentioned by name on the news … |
| Patrick R | 26 Feb 2014 4:17 p.m. PST |
The US army could use them if they had the budgets for it and if there wasn't an agreement that the army couldn't have planes (helos being the exception) |
| 14Bore | 26 Feb 2014 4:21 p.m. PST |
It's a shame, but the next hot war someone will say boy we could sure use some serious air cover instead of all the stupid drones that we have plenty of. |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 26 Feb 2014 4:35 p.m. PST |
I say keep the A-10's and cancel the F-35 program, but it's not up to me. |
 FingerandToeGlenn  | 26 Feb 2014 5:19 p.m. PST |
Unfortunately, the blue brass has never liked them, even after the fighter mafia took over. They were entering the inventory when I was a lieutenant. The guys who flew them were in love, the ones who didn't thought they were bathtubs with wings. A close support fighter has very specific needs…gee…maybe Hagel could borrow some F104s from Germany for CAS. |
| 11th ACR | 26 Feb 2014 5:53 p.m. PST |
From a "Scout that has called for and received CAS from them"
A VERY BAD IDEA! Screw the Blue Brass, sign them over to the people that need and use them most, the U.S. Army. Give the air Crews a choice transfer to the Army or stay in the Air Force and most likely get reclassified. The Army will get 10 or 20 more years out of them. |
| Ron W DuBray | 26 Feb 2014 6:09 p.m. PST |
yea if the airforce does not want to do the job take the money and the aircraft away from them and give them to the army. |
| jsmcc91 | 26 Feb 2014 6:37 p.m. PST |
They scrapped all 26 at Selfridge AFB here in MI. Pretty sad. |
| Happy Little Trees | 26 Feb 2014 6:52 p.m. PST |
If the retire the A-10, can they buy a couple fewer F-35s and give the Army a fleet of Super Tocanoes? They need something that can get down into the weeds and I'm sure the F-35 program would be far too fearful of penguin strikes. |
| Mako11 | 26 Feb 2014 8:26 p.m. PST |
Makes no logical sense, so therefore it will be done. We're living in Wonderland. |
| darthfozzywig | 26 Feb 2014 9:01 p.m. PST |
You guys don't understand the clear need for a fifth generation Mach 5 stealth CAS platform. It can loiter for up to 30 seconds before needing to refuel and carry four types of ordnance (yet to be adopted). It's a game-changing bargain at $225 USD million each. But don't get one shot down: we can only build 10 of them. Speaking of, can I interest you in our sixth generation platform? |
| Uesugi Kenshin | 26 Feb 2014 9:10 p.m. PST |
|
| zardoz1957 | 26 Feb 2014 10:39 p.m. PST |
Stupid. It would be relatively cheap to keep them going. They would be useful in future conflicts. It's been worth it keeping B-52s around. |
| thatotherguy | 26 Feb 2014 11:54 p.m. PST |
I left active duty USAF in 1991, at that time, the zoomies were announcing the 'prospective' demise of the A-10 at that time as a 'cost cutting measure'. History has continued to demonstrate the importance of CAS. I was originally trained as infantry (US Army); while I appreciate that air superiority potentially kept the  ers off of our backs, the prospect of A-10 CAS made OUR tankers nervous during wargames. If the USAF is so blinded to the needs of the (combined) service, I would have to endorse the move of the A-10 to Army Aviation. |
| 11th ACR | 27 Feb 2014 12:01 a.m. PST |
"It's been worth it keeping B-52s around."
I'm surprised that that's not on the chopping block.
Let's see what happens in the next few years as the gut the U.S. military. For the greater good!
YouTube link |
| GeoffQRF | 27 Feb 2014 12:44 a.m. PST |
I'm surprised the B-52 is still around but the, A-10 is on the block. Warfare in more recent years has tended to rely on high intensity localised CAS, rather than large scale strategic bombing. Is the F-35 supposed to be able to cover the gap, same way the MRCA Tornado was intended to be an expert in all roles (so much so they had to build both ADV and IDS variants…,) |
| Jemima Fawr | 27 Feb 2014 3:20 a.m. PST |
How many active A10 and F35 discussions does this forum need to have, ffs? They're rapidly becoming the new Bricoles. |
| kabrank | 27 Feb 2014 3:48 a.m. PST |
Discussions on other sites revolve around the situation that today most CAS carried out with Missiles or Guided bombs from other fast movers and that the A10 30mm gun advantage is much less useful in a modernish war. Basically still good for low tech insurgency but very exposed in a higher threat environment. General conclusion on many groups is that a UAV with Hellfire etc or fast mover with Brimstone or GPS bombs does most of the role with lower pilot exposure. Note that B52 and B1 can carry a lot of GPS bombs and cover a very large operational area as B1 have done in Afgan. |
| Chatticus Finch | 27 Feb 2014 4:37 a.m. PST |
As a Air Force bloke (Aussie, but still), I can understand WHY the A-10 is being considered (old airframe, "not as effective in 'modern' nation vs nation war *which is what everyone always prepares for no matter what war they're actually in*, old systems etc etc). However, I do not agree with the removal of the entire fleet. A-10's fill a very specific niche requirement, particularly their gun – the fear that thing strikes into enemies is amazing. However, if you do want bang-for-your-buck, a B-52/ B-1B or B-2 loaded with JDAMs, or an F-15E bombtruck carrying something like 30 of the Small Diametre Bomb (SDB), striking a few dozen GPS-targets with one aircraft at once is much more cost efficient. It's all about the dollar for the western world, or, as I like to (half sarcastically, half expecting it to be true) say at the office: "Department of Defence, proudly sponsored by…" |
| doug redshirt | 27 Feb 2014 6:24 a.m. PST |
They have gotten it to the point that the B-1 is now cheaper to operate then the B-52. So it is only a matter of time before they retire more B-52s, since the B-1 is faster and can cover a wider area. |
| chaos0xomega | 27 Feb 2014 7:24 a.m. PST |
1. The Air Force isn't cutting the A-10, the Department of Defense is. Newsflash, the country is broke, and there is such thing as a budget, this one being the first non-wartime budget in a decade or so. The Army doesn't have the money for A-10s. The Navy doesn't have money for A-10s. The Marine Corps doesn't have money for A-10s. NOBODY has money for A-10s… well they would, but apparently the F-35 is too big a priority and nobody likes the idea of reducing the orders for the next 5 years to equate to the 3.5 billion dollar savings that would be had by cutting the A-10 fleet… but I digress, point is "Give them to the Army" is a non-solution, because the Army can't afford them either. 2. This is not another case of "The Air Force doesn't like CAS". The current Chief of Staff flew A-10s before transitioning to F-16s, and a lot of Hog-drivers have risen up the ranks and are wearing eagles or stars these days. |
| Chuckaroobob | 27 Feb 2014 7:37 a.m. PST |
OMG! We have a budget now? I guess that's a refreshing change. |
| Landorl | 27 Feb 2014 7:46 a.m. PST |
The army is cutting back soldiers to the lowest point since before WWII (Proposing to at least). I don't think they can afford A-10s if they can't even afford foot soldiers. It's a sad day if it goes through though, because the A-10 was an awesome plane! |
| 11th ACR | 27 Feb 2014 10:31 a.m. PST |
"The Air Force isn't cutting the A-10, the Department of Defense is." But the Air Force has never like it and I'm sure except for the Air and Ground crews they are not complaing. The A-10 Air and Ground crews will just have to be reclassified, and that will cost a few, "$$$"
That is if the Air Force even keeps them, "Reduction in Force" Just elimination of MOS's There's not that many left in the U.S. inventory.
"The USAF operated 345 A-10 and OA-10 aircraft (191 in active duty, 106 in ANG, and 48 in AFRC, all variants) as of September 2011." from link |
| GROSSMAN | 27 Feb 2014 10:49 a.m. PST |
I would say cut as many $159 USD million F-35s it would take to pay to keep the A-10 |
| 11th ACR | 27 Feb 2014 11:28 a.m. PST |
The hole damn' government is full of Bull S__t like this. If you send the abusers to the big house for few years it may change things. Maybe? These are of interest.
The first one is from 1996 but I'm sure its the same if not worse.
link Military Spending Waste.
link Most Outrageous Government Waste.
link 7 absurd ways the military wastes taxpayer dollars.
link It's A Mistake!
YouTube link |
| Tango01 | 27 Feb 2014 10:12 p.m. PST |
|
| Cadian 7th | 28 Feb 2014 7:41 a.m. PST |
I have heard the most wonderful sound, which was an A-10 pasting a ridge that had a spg9 three burps and off we went.
It's a shame it's on the chopping block.
Its a greater shame that it isn't kept as ANG or maintained by reserve AirForce.
I suppose it is better to fully invest in new and unproven equipment. After all, mulitirole airframes are more efficient than dedicated airframes! What's the worst thing that could happen!
It's perfectly OK to have a troop that has been trained for recon to have taken classes for CAS, but it's better to have an airman with you! ;) |
