Tango01 | 18 May 2015 9:41 p.m. PST |
".S. lawmakers are maneuvering to block the Air Force's latest push to retire the A-10 attack aircraft. The Air Force has proposed retiring its fleet of almost 300 Warthogs by 2019 to save an estimated $4.2 USD billion a year and free up maintainers for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a stealthy multi-role fighter jet and the Pentagon's most expensive acquisition program. Yet the aging Warthog is still flying missions, from attacking Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria to participating in show-of-force exercises against Russia in Eastern Europe…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Mako11 | 18 May 2015 9:44 p.m. PST |
Let's hope so. So, that's like what, three fully loaded, F-35 Coots, at future cost-overrun pricing? |
DontFearDareaper | 19 May 2015 8:57 a.m. PST |
F-35 – 10% of the ground support capability at 10,000% of the price. Give the A-10's to the army (who should have had them all along). Their the ones who need them, appreciate them, and want them in the first place. |
Charlie 12 | 19 May 2015 12:28 p.m. PST |
For the last time…. The Army doesn't WANT the A-10s. They can't afford them and they don't fit their command structure. They want the MISSION, but the not the hardware. Every time I hear that 'give them to the Army' crap, it makes me wonder if anyone bothers to do any research on the subject. |
Zyphyr | 19 May 2015 1:37 p.m. PST |
If you give the A10 to the Army, you are inherently giving them the mission as well. Once they have that, they can start fighting for a modern replacement to take over the mission. If you give them the mission without the hardware, the Air Force WILL be able to dump the A10 right away. That will put the Army in the position of having the job without the equipment. How many years will it take for them to get a proper replacement and have nothing to use? |
Charlie 12 | 19 May 2015 1:50 p.m. PST |
The Army wants the MISSION PERFORMED, ie, have the USAF do the job. That's a whole lot different than taking over a crap load of expensive hardware that doesn't fit their overall mission and command structure. |
Zyphyr | 19 May 2015 3:23 p.m. PST |
Sorry, I was responding to what you wrote and not what you intended. With that clarification, I retract my comments. |
ScoutJock | 19 May 2015 3:53 p.m. PST |
Having flown helos in the Army for my entire career, I can say unequivocally that the Army is not, and does not want to be, in the flying business, even though they have more aircraft than the Air Force. |
Lion in the Stars | 19 May 2015 8:16 p.m. PST |
The A10s have already gotten new wings on almost every bird, it was part of the A10C upgrade. I find it rather sad that the Marines know and understand that CAS needs to be organic to the deployed units, but the Army doesn't. Though I wonder if the Apache-replacement gunship in the Future Vertical Lift program will be closer to an A10 in capability than an Apache… It'd need a 6- or 8-pylon stub wing, plus wingtip pylons, though! |
Charlie 12 | 19 May 2015 8:55 p.m. PST |
I find it rather sad that the Marines know and understand that CAS needs to be organic to the deployed units, but the Army doesn't. Different mission. The Marines are formed around an all arms expeditionary force. The Army is not. Compare the Army and the Marines during the Cold War for an example. |
DontFearDareaper | 19 May 2015 11:00 p.m. PST |
The USAF doesn't want the ground support mission. Never has, never will. They like shiny zoom-zooms that cost 20 times what they should, have multi-purpose capabilities and that always ends up being an aircraft that doesn't do anything well. The USAF was originally the USAAF, maybe we should think about going back to that command structure. |
Jemima Fawr | 20 May 2015 7:14 a.m. PST |
DFD, It's rather inconvenient for your 'argument' that the top man in the USAF is a career A10 pilot… |