"Congress Saves A-10 Warthog Again?" Topic
9 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleHow to use my 15mm figures for one ruleset without gluing them down to a set base size?
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Editor in Chief Bill | 29 Apr 2015 3:56 p.m. PST |
The House Armed Services Committee inserted $683 USD million into the 2016 defense bill to stop the Air Force from retiring the A-10 Warthog.However, Air Force leaders said the service will have to mothball F-16s and delay the deployment of the F-35 in response to the move by the committee. Service leaders have said for years the Air Force can no longer afford the A-10. The service said it needs to dedicate resources and manning toward the F-35. Congress has since pushed back saying the service must keep the close-air-support aircraft… link |
Mako11 | 29 Apr 2015 4:02 p.m. PST |
The F-35 won't be fully ready until 2022, if not beyond, especially with the latest problems with their very poor engine performance, so that's not a real loss. The USN just purchased more "Super Hornets" to help them cope with all of the delays in the F-35 Coot program. |
zoneofcontrol | 29 Apr 2015 7:06 p.m. PST |
When finally ready for servic, the F-35 version# anx4rfcrtgh will probably be a possible good bi-plane. |
EJNashIII | 29 Apr 2015 9:06 p.m. PST |
I think I would take a real bi-plane. Probably safer to fly and more reliable. It might be getting to the point of a department of justice look into the officers so strongly supporting the F-35. |
raylev3 | 29 Apr 2015 10:05 p.m. PST |
$683 USDM is going to delay the deployment of the F35????? Really???? The AF just needs to admit it doesn't like the Close Air Support mission, transfer the planes, and pilots, and money to the Army, and let them do it. Of course, congress would first need to change the law to allow the Army to fly armed, fixed wing aircraft…but it could be done. The A10 is one of the most successful planes around given its mission and it's relatively cheap, too. And there is still a requirement for it. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 30 Apr 2015 3:04 a.m. PST |
'$683.00 USDM is going to delay the deployment of the F35????? Really????' 'The Air Force has been considering plans to move some maintenance professionals from the A-10 program to the F-35' Takes time to train or recruit people. Though I don't see why this should mean losing some F-16s unless they transfer people from there instead. |
Lion in the Stars | 30 Apr 2015 10:40 a.m. PST |
I'm starting to wonder if the Army is trying to figure out how to mount that 30mm Avenger cannon into some variety of helicopter so that when the USAF trashes the program, the Army will be able to absorb almost all the specialized equipment and take over without having to deal with the Key West Agreement (which prohibits the Army from flying armed fixed-wing aircraft, declaring that they are the USAF's specific mission/type. |
Garand | 30 Apr 2015 10:47 a.m. PST |
I would argue that the true value of the A-10 is not the 30mm cannon, but its 11 hardpoints and ability to haul bombs efficiently with good loiter time. Damon. |
Hans von Z | 30 Apr 2015 11:51 a.m. PST |
the true value of the A-10 is that when the pilot can wave at the troops on the ground , the troops know their asses are covered and everybody is happy . except the bad guys . |
|