House Panel Votes to Scrap the A-10 Warthog

House Panel Votes to Scrap the A-10 Warthog

A U.S. House of Representatives committee on Tuesday voted to scrap the Air Force’s A-10 Warthog gunship, becoming the first congressional panel to do so.

The House Appropriations Committee, headed by Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Kentucky, voted 23–13 against an amendment to the annual defense spending bill that would have preserved funding for the Cold War-era aircraft in fiscal 2015, which begins Oct. 1.

“Respectfully, let me stipulate at the onset that the A-10 Thunderbolt is a tremendous aircraft,” Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-New Jersey, who chairs the panel’s defense subcommittee, said before the vote. “It is, though, 30 to 40 years old … [and] close-air support is not the only mission the Air Force must be able to perform.”


The Air Force proposed retiring the 283 A-10s remaining in the fleet by 2019 to save an estimated $4.2 billion over five years. The proposal was developed in response to congressionally mandated automatic budget cuts known as sequestration.

Lawmakers on both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees disagreed with the service’s plan and voted to restore funding to keep the planes flying for at least another year. But the House appropriators’ vote against transferring $339 million from the Pentagon’s operations and maintenance account to sustain the A-10 means the aircraft could still be sent to the bone yard.

The amendment to save the gunship, known unofficially as the Warthog, was introduced by Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Georgia, and several of his colleagues spoke in support of the proposal, including Sanford Bishop, Jr., D-Georgia; Ed Pastor, D-Arizona; and Chris Stewart, R-Utah, who served in the military as an Air Force pilot.

“We flew operational and training missions with the A-10 all the time,” Stewart said. “Close-air support is a very, very delicate mission. It’s best done at 350 knots and 50 feet — not at 40,000 feet and 600 knots. When you have troops that are in close contact with the enemy on the ground, it’s a very, very precise mission.

“It’s also a very unforgiving mission,” he added. “If you go out and you hit the wrong bridge, people are going to forgive you for that. But if you go out and frag your own troops — in the first place, you’ll never forgive yourself and in the second place, you’re going to end up in the newspaper. It’s just something that’s very difficult to do at the speed and altitudes that some of these other aircraft do it at.”

Five U.S. troops were killed on Monday in an apparent friendly fire strike in southern Afghanistan, according to the Defense Department. They had reportedly requested close-air support from a B-1 bomber.

In defending the decision to retire the A-10, Frelinghuysen said the F-16 fighter jet and the B-1 bomber can do what the A-10 does, but the reverse isn’t true.

The measure will save “billions, not millions” of dollars, he said. “This money could be plowed back into the procurement of modern, multi-mission aircraft and research and development of a new generation of unmanned systems [and] a new long-range strike bomber.”

Tags: , ,

Join the Conversation

Not true, the F-16 and the B-1 cannot drop bombs and do a CAS mission like the A-10. I hope and pray that the people who voted against this aircraft one day have their own in harms way. Because you know sometime soon this aircraft will be badly needed by soilders or Marines and it wont be there. What a shame. Thanks obummer your hope and change has been all for the worse, not the better.

However, if you recall the preambles to Gulf War II, the only member of congress in either the House OR Senate that had a son (or daughter) serving was then-Senator Joe Biden. It would seem that having some more vets serving might not be a bad idea: they aren’t a likely to get peoples kids committed to battle for the weakest reasons in US history (when it comes to invading Iraq).

W/r/t this POTUS, where he is hardly without flaws, the responsibility for funding the DoD is solely on the shoulders of the clown-posse known as congress — where most of the leadership of whom (on the GOP side) spent this nation into the economic toilet during 2001–2008, and helped cause the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. These worthless cowards have yet to accept *any* responsibility for their actions.

These same foul excuses for “leadership” are the ones responsible for “managing” the worst/least productive HoR in US history, and have a popularity rating lower than EBOLA. Even according to GOP polls, a majority of their own voters: don’t trust them to spend taxpayers money wisely; don’t trust them to come up with an equitable solution to fixing the nations economic woes; don’t trust them to bargain in good faith; and finally, considers them too stogy/stuck-in-the-past and are therefore incapable of moving forward.

Go figure…

Shweeet.
I see the tears of unfathomable sadness have started flowing as well. The F-35 and assts other than the Warthog now flying can do CAS as well or better, they just go about doing it differently. I suggest so.e people should work on their coping skills. Broaden the toolset to include something other than ‘denial’.

The GOP needs to be voted out

What aircraft has a comparable gun system in caliber or number of rounds? Ans: NONE.
What aircraft has the capability to survive enemy fire as well as the A10? Ans: None
The A10 carries an exponentially larger bobmb load than an F16 and the F35 gives up its stealth to match the bomb load. The A10 can drop virtually all the ordnance other aircraft can and it’s exponentially cheaper to operate per hour.

So much for other aircraft doing as well or better…

Mothball them and save them for the next Republican White House … we won’t be invading any countries until then.

It is ironic reading this on a day when 5 brave Americans were killed by a B-1 bomb proving CAS to them. The A-10 flys low and slow and their pilots have great visibality on the battlefield. Maybe the House should rethink their decision.

Mac you must not be in Maintenance. My Marine Son In Law was in Iraq under attack when an A-10 came in down and dirty and took out the attackers in two passes. Now your going to tell me that they are going to risk an F-35 to come down below 10,000ft to do a CAS mission, afraid not

Maybe they should give the A-10 to the Army and Marines, they would love to have then so they could do their own CAS with a PROVEN Weapon System

I think it fell victim because thous House panel wanted to again over pay our troops and rather do that than save our only CAS air platform. Again the Senate passed its bill budget to save the Hog.… So the real battle is when both chambers reconcile for a final bill.

Depends on context. In the early 2000’s we lost a number of troops to GPS guided bombs inadvertently dropped on their position. Once in Afghanistan when protecting a VIP named Karzai (ugh), and another time when operating with the Kurds in northern Iraq.

It’s hard to say if the B-1B incident was by dropping the bomb too close, or on top of their own positions. It also worth mentioning that if a controller cleared a strike on positions they did not know were friendly (which happened with an A-10 in Nasiriyah in 2003, ending with the loss of 9 Marines) then that is another type of error.

We will see what the investigation says. But on paper, if the bomber or the gunship are cleared to fire on a target falsely designated as enemy, it doesn’t matter of it’s a JDAM or a 30mm gun run. In the case of the B-1B they are unlikely to drop bombs without clearance from a controller since they have no idea what to drop their weapons on; this artificially limits their fratricide rate. An A-10 pilot with flexible rules of engagement will probably be in a position to make a mistake at least once, thus raising their fratricide rate.

Your constraint is having controllers accurately polling the battlespace to give good calls on when, where and on who to destroy.

Edit: I conclude the best way to support troops on the ground is with armored turboprop aviation or helicopter gunships. Reasonably fast, can stay on station and drop lots of weapons. Unfortunately these things won’t last long against MANPADS. On the plus side if we went that route it would free up A-10s for the penetrator mission or to support attacks deep inside enemy territory…which amusingly is a mission that /can/ be done by stealthy F-35’s. Perhaps not as well as A-10’s, but the A-10 flying low and heavily armored will get picked up by GMTI and get attacked by modern aircraft from above.

I outlined the merits many times on various conversations, written to the CecDef, and SecAF plus the chair and vice chair of the House Armed Forces committee and you folks know the arguments as well as I do and probably have expressed yourselves also. Unfortunately to no avail. I have aslo suggested that prerequisites for POTUS, VP, SecDef and membership on the various committees that have an impact upon the defense and veterans of this nation have served honorably in an ‘active’ branch of the armed forces.

I am appalled that the ‘leadership’ of this nation places money above the interest in the survival of our troops and Marines that THEY put in harms way. Shame on every d*** one of them. In hell may they all serve in close contact with the devil. There is no CAS there I assure you!

That’s SecDef not CecDef.

James.…AMEN! The A-10 is also the best AFAC aircraft we have and provides an excellent On-Scene-Commander for SAR, I used to fly on-board ABCCC which would have solved a lot of problems during OEF. We lost that in 2001 due to cuts and claims of advancing technologies. With all these advances, we are still losing our forces to frat. When will we ever learn?

Congratulations Tony, you are probably the first but almost certainly not the last to attempt a crass exploitation of the deaths of brave Americans in a fey attempt to promote the outdated A-10. For the record, I was aware of the tragedy before I posted, and also note now that the last time this happened it was fortunately without casualties, and the fast mover put the egg right where the ground pounder TOLD him to put it. I’ll wait until our honored dead are interred before smacking thee down.

They are just doing what the joint chiefs want. I guess that they don’t listen to the troops on the ground, or the pilots that fly the warthog. Time for all of the current joint chiefs to retire, and take up their highly paid positions in the F-35 and LCS community! Let’s hope the next group of them will care more for the troops!

I was a JTAC in Iraq and Bosnia. Let me tell you that when an F-16 checked in for CAS, I cringed. Can it do CAS? Sure it can. For 5 minutes and if it has bombs. The A-10 can destroy heavy armor with the bombs AND its 30mm. An F-16 isn’t going to fire its guns at anything and a B-1 has no guns. It checks in with plenty of play time. True, CAS is not the only mission on the battlefield, but ask the Army what they want to check in on station and keep them safe. They say the Warthog is 30–40 years old and needs to go. The B-52 is older than that and is still a workhorse!

Don’t replace it with something less capable. It’s a sad sad day!

The Air Force never wanted the CAS role, but they won’t give,it to t he Army or anyone else! The USMC runs it’s own Air Force and originated CAS to great effect. fast movers are just that! Ask anyone in theGulf War if they could have,done without the A-10! It is not glamorous as a Mach 3 fighter but a Mach 3 fighter cannot fly low and slow like an A-10. If we are going to smaller wars, who needs the F-35 when no one has a corresponding plane! You need both to have a complete ready for war anywhere!

A huge capability of the A-10 weapon-wise is that it has a range of munitions that can be delivered in a danger close environment. The F-35 has nothing between it’s paltry limited rds from a relatively small gun; something like 182 rds — gone in a NY second. The next available munition that it can deliver is a 500 lb bomb (or equivalent) which couldn’t be delivered in less than perhaps a half mile which is still probably way too close, which is hardly danger close, without risking blue-on-blue casualties.

‘Old 391,’ I guarantee that your son would wave off the CAS mission if it was to be delivered by an F-35 or one of our strategic ‘close air support’ bombers. I’d take my chances of fighting my way out.

That has been suggested many times.

Search up “Debunking Close Air Support Myths”. It’s up to 8 parts right now, but I’m pondering another couple of editions to bring the timeline up through the A-7F and A-16.
I’m an old 31671L, 31671P, 41199 btw (IYAAYAS!)

How can you blame the President for this? He didn’t request the retirement of the A-10, DoD and Congress did.

easy, he is the Commander and Chief and uses his executive orders like playing golf, all the time. Understand?

Over paid troops? Really??

“This money could be plowed back into the procurement of modern, multi-mission aircraft and research and development of a new generation of unmanned systems [and] a new long-range strike bomber.”

Wait, what?

Killing off the Hog is going to save, per the article, $4.2B.

There is no possible way that all of these things on this wish list can be bought for that little money. Not even close.

The A-10 was developed in response to the Soviet tank threat in Europe.….…It proved its value in Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom and the post operations since.….. As with the B-52, it is an ageless aircraft.….

Dumb move.……best CAS plane there is.Built like a tank, PAID FOR ALREADY, flies fast enough to get to you quick,and slow enough to find the bad guys.….….us guys on the ground love to hear that big fart noise when the A-10 lights ‘em up.….….….maybe flying slower gives a little less in the way of ‘friendly fire’????

Yeah, I want to depend on a plane flying 1500+mph trying to define good and bad guys positions from 20,000 feet.….….AF guys just don’t think it’s flashy enough for them.…..Give it to someone who knows the true value of them, The Army/Marines.……The F-35 is a plane designed by committee.….…As the camel is a horse designed by a committee..

Retire all congress older than the A 10

“Rogers has been widely criticized by both liberal and conservative pundits for his priorities when it comes to national security. National Review referred to Rogers as “a national disgrace“[20] and Rolling Stone named him one of America’s “Ten Worst Congressmen”, calling him “Bin Laden’s Best Friend” due to the fact that Rogers steered federal homeland security money away from large cities to his home district, which critics claim is one of the least likely terrorist targets in America because of its lack of any notable monuments or population centers.[21] In 2007, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Congressman Rogers to its list of the Most Corrupt Members of Congress.[22]

On May 14, 2006, the New York Times reported that Rogers had used his legislative position as chairman of the House subcommittee that controls the Homeland Security budget to create “jobs in his home district and profits for companies that are donors to his political causes.“[23] The Lexington Herald-Leader in 2005 called Rogers the “Prince of Pork”.[24] The Times article reported that Rogers had inserted language (“existing government card issuance centers”) into appropriations bills that effectively pushed the federal government into testing at a cost of $4 million older, inappropriate technology for a new fraud-resistant green card for permanent legal immigrants, at a production plant in Corbin, Kentucky, within Rogers’ district. The study concluded that the smart card approach was far superior. The Times found that about $100,000 in contributions had come to Mr. Rogers from parties with at least some ties to the identification card effort.[25]

In response to these critics, Rogers has stated, “It should surprise no one that this article from Rolling Stone regarding my activity in connection with the Transportation Worker Identity Card (TWIC) is grossly incorrect, and highly slanderous,” the congressman said. “A true and honest analysis would reveal that my sole interest in TWIC is simply to protect America’s seaports, airports, and other transportation facilities from terrorist penetration. To purport that my actions have compromised national security in an effort to bring jobs to Kentucky or for personal gain is an absolute lie.”[26]

After Iran objected to the interim deployment of an Afloat Forward Staging Base to counter their threats to close the Persian Gulf, Rogers cut the funding for the project.[27][28]”

Not True, John McCain had one son serving and another heading to the Naval Academy at that time.

Actually, the President did request it. The budget doesn’t actually come from DoD, it actually is issued by OMB (the Office of Management and Budget) which pulls together the budgets for all of the departments and issues them FOR THE PRESIDENT. The President is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, if they are doing something that he does not approve of, then he tells them to change it. In reality, he tells his appointee, Chuck hegel what he wants done.

No, I’m not saying that the president PERSONALLY wrote the budget but is is done in his name.

Marines have the CAS aircraft that they want already, they certainly don’t want the A-10.

—bull*****

I better not hear the USAF complaining about a tactical fighter shortfall after this to argue for more F-35As.

Oh, what the hell… that’s clearly what this is about.

Another sad day in DoD history.

Interesting perspective Mac. Ever been in need of CAS? Ever seen first hand what the A-10 offers for CAS? How about the B-1? F-35? I’m guessing “no” if you have to rely on articles rather than first-hand experiences. The A-10 is the best CAS a/c available and no other airframe, regardless of how “technologically superior” it’s claimed to be, can stand up to the real battlefield tests the A-10 has proved time and time again. I know from my tours in Kandahar just how great the A-10 is and how many lives were saved because of it.

Every Marine I have talked to has wanted some A-10’s. Hell many want the A-6 back.

..JUST GOES TO PROVE THE CONGRESS IS FULL OF ASSHOLES WHOM NEVER SERVED IN COMBAT AND DO NOT KNOW WHAT CAS IS!!

These ridiculous congresscritters need to be paying attention to what the infantry grunts say and do.

There was an observation from an officer who worked on air asset scheduling and deconfliction in the sandbox.

He said that he had many, many radio dialogues with troops in heavy contact requesting tacair, where he told them he could get them an F-16 overhead in five minutes, or an A-10 in ten minutes. Over and over again, those guys who _were being shot at as they spoke_ told him they would prefer to wait longer in order to get the A-10.

That speaks volumes.

I’ll second that motion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another pencil necked bureaucrat making life or death decisions for the troops at the pointy end of the spear. God save the troops from decisions made behind closed doors.

Yes, built like a tank. A titanium bathtub around the cockpit to protect the pilot, and redundant systems (i.e. hydraulics) to get the plane home. The only fighter built that can land on a unimproved airstrip without worrying about FOD in the engines. Like you said the GAU-8 is like none else that we have except the AC-130. The pilots love it; but that doesn’t mean anything to people in Washington. Congress people were fighting to keep them in their states; but were promised newer and faster jets for the guard outfits (F-16’s and F-15E’s), to replace A-10’s and so they have sold out the troops on the ground. Easy to do for them, because it is not their kids looking for CAS!

I wrote ‘differently’, and then you go off on how fast-movers don’t do CAS the same way an A-10 does it,…as well as an A-10 does it the way it does. ;-)
Classic.

Since the final weapon set for the F-35 isn’t written in stone, and only the capabilities through Block 3 are defined, your assertion falls flat…as an A-10 in an IADS environment. I can think of two weapons already in use (or their successors) that you can expect to be integrated on the F-35s: SDB FLMs and Guided 2.75 rockets. Tactics, weapons and results: CAS is a ‘mission’ NOT a platform.

Don’t look at the party affiliation. Ask yourself if your incumbent has done their city/district/state proud.

Then ask if they did the right thing by America. If the answer is no, do not vote for them. If the candidate from the first two parties are unsatisfactory, vote third party.

Sounds like someone has pilot envy. Best I can determine, you were a missile maintainer?

I was infantry. You were not. Infantrymen are qualified to determine what asset they want covering their @$$. Technicians are not.

Do us all a favor and go radio silent on this topic. You know NOTHING about CAS because you have never had to call for it.

That being said, thank you for your service. I am certain that at some point, American military lives were saved by weapons that you kept in prime operating condition. That is something that matters and something to be proud of.

“We will see what the investigation says. But on paper, if the bomber or the gunship are cleared to fire on a target falsely designated as enemy, it doesn’t matter of it’s a JDAM or a 30mm gun run.”

True, but an A-10 can at least do a verification pass. I imagine that task is more difficult at high altitude, even with the gee-whiz electro-optical sensors our strike aircraft carry…

Over pay? That’s a typo, right?

Very true. If a controller gives clearance to fire, how often will an A-10 pilot verify before firing, especially if troops on the ground are in urgent need of fire support?

Evidently more often than is advertised, especially when a lead a/c can spot ahead for a wingman in trail. I’ve even heard (never witnessed, so potentially a fish tale) of A-10s using smoke rockets to verify targets…

Like the A-10? You’re very welcome! I was the weapons NCOIC on the team that wrote the book on A-10 operations and tactics. Everything the A-10 was then or became was influenced by he TFWC development and the outcome of our six-month’s of flying over Ft Hunter Liggett with a red-blue battle going on below during TASVAL’79. There’s very little capability on the A-10C that isn’t a direct result of, or was first recommended by, our team. Whatever its questionable ability to survive in the Fulda Gap scenarios in the 80s, the A-10 is now most definitely ‘done’ for anything other than LICs. Anecdotes aside, and I would assert mine from the production/system test/ and flight test side of CAS are more relevant than those from a consumer of CAS, (you don’t tell your surgeon where and how to make the cut do you?) it is time to move beyond the one trick (low and slow) pony.

You didn’t just say “differently”. You said (and I quote you), “The F-35 and assts other than the Warthog now flying can do CAS as well or better,” even before you said “differently”. Did you forget?

What’s “classic” is trying to put a different “interpretation” on what you actually wrote. That’s why I warn people about visiting your version of history.

The SDB FLM still has the danger close of the 500lb bomb. This doesn’t address the enemy when they are within 200-300m of our troops where the overwhelming majority of small arms engagements happen.

2.75 rockets put the F35 well within range of MANPADS without the superior survivability that the A10 has.

And it’s a heck of lot more expensive. The Air Force isn’t going to put that asset at risk if there is any type of MANPADS threat.

Now there’s the ‘Myth of all CAS Myths’ right there in a nutshell. Demonstrably false, but it does what it is intended to do: sustain the ‘poor grunt’ pity party ad infinitum.

Avoid SGT Mac’s interpretation. Check the sources yourself.

Google:
Evolving Roles of Air Power by Johnson (Rand Corp)
Army USAF Relations CAS Issue by Goldberg & Smith (Rand Corp)
Interservice Rivalry and Airpower in the Vietnam War by Horwood Combat Studies Institute Press
The Warthog The Best Deal the Air Force Never Wanted by Dahl Nat’l War College Paper

Cut and paste the references. A previous post got deleted…

No, the A-10 was not “developed in response to the Soviet tank threat in Europe”. That’s a common myth repeated by even people who should know better. It was designed for permissive environments such that seen in SEA CAS engagements circa ~1966. Per “Air Force Center for Systems Engineering Case Study on the A-10″ pg.18 [brackets mine] :
“The A-X [A-10 ‘won’ the A-X flyoff] would be designed to provide close air support of ground units, escort of helicopters and low performance aircraft, protection of landing surface forces [air assault] and vehicle convoys, and armed reconnaissance.…“
.…

Yep, the guys that pay 75% of the bill in blood.

It says something that the JTAC community, the Air Force guys on the ground with the grunts champion the A10 but the maintenance crew in the rear “knows better”.

Just stupidity at work, thank you congress again.…..

So what will the USMC and/or the Army get rid of to fund the A-10?
Seems to me both services are taking their own hits under sequestration. Where will the money come for. To facilitate the transfer? Personnel must be trained, bases acquired or modified to accept the A-10, and logistical system transferred. Not so simple as just giving another service a fleet of acft they are not familiar with.

Oh Puleeze! Aren’t we quite the Danger Stud! You presume to oversimplify my background to the point you do violence to the phenomenon. I suppose part of is due to how ‘simple’ maintenance fields are these days accounts for part of it. Perhaps your limited experience accounts for the rest? Who knows?… and I don’t care. My background and experience is such that I now get paid quite well to know the best way to execute that which you only bleat emotionally about. Two decades into my second career (and two relevant degrees later), I’ve gotten to influence how we’ve bombed three of the last four countries we’ve gone after (the Libya fiasco is one I’m glad I’ve missed). Spare me the ‘can’t understand’ bit. That’s called a fallacious Circumstantial Ad Hominem in the first place, and in the second place knowing how to call in a CAS strike doesn’t qualify you for anything other than calling for a CAS strike.

This is the THIRD time we’ve engaged on this subject and you STILL don’t get it right.
’Danger Close’ isn’t a restriction but a tool: “Aircraft ordnance delivery inside 0.1% PI distances will be considered danger close. This is simply A WARNING and NOT A RESTRICTION to the maneuver commander and the FDC to TAKE PROPER PRECAUTIONS.” — FM 3–09.32.

Per FM 3–09.32 you still overstate (at least not grossly this time ) the DC distance criteria for a 500 lb precision weapon. For the GBU-12 LGB it is ‘worst case’ 170m, for the 500lb GBU-51 Low Collateral Damage (LCDB) LGB and GBU-38 LCDB JDAM it is ‘worst case’ 100m. At least this time you didn’t casually throw out ‘50m distance’ for employing the GAU-8, which is interesting because that is considered worst case ‘danger close’ at 65m.
For the GBU-39 contact 250lb SDB it is 139m, which means the GBU-39A/B FLM should be significantly less than 100m (As far as I can tell, its not in public documents yet.).

And 2.75″ guided rocket effective range is increased w/airspeed and MANPADs effective range is reduced by LO design. Ponder the implications.

Reading comprehension problems much?
My exact phrasing: “The F-35 and ass[e]ts other than the Warthog now flying can do CAS as well or better, they just go about doing it differently“
One sentence. Did the comma throw you off?
Anyhow, you came back with a litany of the ways the A-10 MUST perform CAS to do it well, and I pointed out (again) that the fast movers do it differently. That point stands on its own, as does the fact the fast movers can do CAS as good or better than the A-10 while doing it differently.
So. What? I call ‘caviling’.

My comprehension is fine. I suspect it’s your writing skills that are at fault or your selective memory.

The comma doesn’t negate the first part of the sentence which as I later addressed as inaccurate.

The A10 doesn’t “have to” do CAS the ways I listed. It just about employ all the munitions and approaches other aircraft use.

If smaller bomb loads, less aircraft ability to take damage and not having a gun means “just as good or better” in your book it’s more evidence folks should stay away from what your selling.

Which ones?

Not sure if an E-1 is overpaid, per se. The /benefits/ are probably a lot better than anything on the civilian market.

If you say the same about generals and their aides…

It will not cost the billions they say compared to the multi billions the “new” ground support aircraft will cost. They don’t have one that can do what the A-10 can do. It is for “ground support” and it is the best in the world. The cost of scraping this aircraft will be in loss of human lives. This doesn’t appear to bother the congressmen that want to scrap it. Maybe there is a political reason they want to scrap the A-10. Possibly to get government contracts for companies in their area to research or build new multi billion dollar aircraft.

I understand danger close. It’s a term most of the readership get vs. MSD, or CEP percentages. The point is you can’t drop big bombs near troops, shock and shrapnel effective distances aren’t mitigated by JDAM kits.

There are new bombs being designed all the time. The probability that the F35 or F16 will have these “niche” weapons on their airframe when called upon is unknown. The gun on the A10 is always there and still can get closer.

The guided 2.75″ rockets need to be laser guided. That means the grunts have to have a laser designator coded for the missile (MAYBE one per company) or an aircraft has to laze the target and maintain line of sight with the enemy and await their response. Even the old SA-7 has an almost 5km range.

Finally, the grunt is the one that pays the price for all your “sure we can do it” optimism that remains to be seen and the historic record isn’t too good for when the Air Force didn’t have a CAS specific aircraft..

I’d ask you to ponder the implications of all these points but since you’ve never done the job of the Infantryman or had the responsibility to write a letter to the next of kin I doubt it will have the gravitas it should.

AC-130 is better in permissive airspace, and that’s the only time you are going to get CAS anyway

Did anyone see the latest 5 Kill due to a B-1 Bomber being called in for Close Air Support. It dropped a 500lb bomb on friendly troops. I don’t give a Rats you know what about well they gave them the wrong location, BS, you have a bomber at a high altitude flying between 400 to 500 knots dropping bombs close to the troops, if it would have been an A-10 those men would be going home but not in body bags

Let see how they white wash this mistake

The A-10 warthog is the best ground support aircraft in place. leave it alone and keep it flying. I only wish we had
had them in Vietnam.

The travesty in all this isn’t the “We need to cut the A-10 to save money”,
but rather the “We need to cut the A-10 to save money so we can funnel it into the no-trick-pony F-35 program.”

Anyone here who DOESN’T think that’s where the money “saved” will end up being wasted instead?

Take money from Welfare, and the money spent on illegal aliens , it would save the A-10s!

Again it looks more and more like the only way to save the A10 is through Kickstarter.

And between the F-35 and the F-22, how many times have they been used in the last two wars? At what cost to the taxpayer? From your name your Air Force and not a Grunt on the ground. At least the A-10 has better chance of seeing who it is protecting not like your 35,000 feet expensive toys. Your a weapons NCO talking about what people on the ground need and you talk about Hunter Ligget battles as an example from the comfort of CA. I was in w. Germany facing the Soviets and yes i would take the A-10 any day. Go be an 11 series sometime and come back with these opinions.

As a prior Infantry Marine in OIF (03′) I think we should keep the A-10. The only benefit to the F-35A (from a CAS standpoint) is the time it takes to get on station. The A-10 can stay on station longer, carry more, has a lower flight envelope, is cheaper, and is a proven and effective platform that can take substancial damage to the airframe and still fly. The F-35A can NOT compare to the A-10 where CAS is concnerned. But then again, we live in a society where Senators are making decisions. These are the same men who have never been to combat and/or who’s life was saved by the A-10 in combate (like mine was) and who know what it is like out there to a grunt on the ground.

The A-10 and the F-35 are no where near the same in missions or design. The F-35 maybe a good airplane but it can’t get down low and slow and remain on station like the A-10. That is where close air support is needed. Not from someone sitting in a fairly safe plane 10,000 feet above the battlefield and dropping bombs on a point target that is 150 meters from friendly troops. The A-10 can do this as well as get in closer with the 30 mm chain gun for extremely close support.
It will be cheaper and much more effective to keep and maintain the A-10 than keep dumping millions into a airplane that can’t do the required mission. Yes the Air Force has more missions than ground support but I bet anything that the soldiers and Marines and even the Airmen would rather have the A-10 than the F-35 or B-2 or B-52 or F-16s when their lives are dependant on their fire power in close to their position. I know I would. I am a retired USMC grunt.

The HASC majority is made up by the GOP. They could have voted to preserve the A-10, but decided against it. They have to go

In this case, it was a money issue and went to Appropriations. Majority party in the house stacks the committees and holds the chair.

How much of an A-10’s support is within 50 meters using the gun? I imagine finding the statistics will be a challenge.

If it comes to plinking things 100 meters or more from friendlies, almost anything from a bomber to a UAV to an aircraft can do the job safely.

One could argue the helicopter is the superior platform for precision fires, though the helicopter is not as fast getting to an area as the A-10.

as an afghani vet with two tours. give the a-10 to the army or marines. not rebuilt ones! new ones. the design works and there is no equivalent. they saved our ass.

In all my years as a fist I never saw any fixed wing air force pilots flying below me on an OP during a cas other than the warthog drivers so they are looking at what your are looking at before they pull the trigger.

Sad that such a great plane has no use. Definite ground pounder! I fear the gap that will be left with it’s absence. Just like the line in “The Last Samurai” “.…. in the name of better mechanical amusements and commercial opportunities. … “.

how many of the panel were ever in combat? How many ever needed it for close air support? How many were paid off by the war toy makers?

Well the most publicized fights, the ones that had soldiers killed, the ones that involved desperate situations involved gun runs e.g. Roberts Ridge, Wanat and COP Keating.

It’ll be tough to find statistics though. looking at what ordnance/guns were used and it’ll be even tougher to find if the A10 is shown in a good light…

The A-10 saves and has saved many lives in the combat theater of operations and it is a disgrace that these congress idiots (most have never been shot at, let alone have there boots on the ground in a war zone) want to scrap a very viable C.A.S. plane. We need to vote these out of touch congress idiots out of office! SAVE THE A-10 !! SEMPER FI

“knowing how to call in a CAS strike doesn’t qualify you for anything other than calling for a CAS strike.”

Yeah, tell that to a JTAC, who to a man support keeping the A10. They also SEE the effects vs.read about them.

Whatever your position on the issue, it’s disturbing and shameful that Congressman Frelinghuysen can get away with saying something that is a patent untruth. There is not a chance in hell the B-1 and the F-16 can do what the A-10 can do. Absurd.

Will they be for sale on the open market?

Pretty up on yourself huh?

They only see what they want to see, They see is it still works best at up close and personnel. They say it’s old, so is the helicopters, C130s and B52s and are still effective. Look at all the savings is a joke compared to how many billions over that will be spent on aircraft to fill the void. They make numb and number look high intelligent.

CAS should be a Navy/ Marine mission. They are heavily trained in fixed wing CAS while the AF never was and actually caused many friendly-fire deaths in Nam. the Army also was involved in CAS but they lost their fixed wing ac to the AF during Nam and turned totally to observation, supply, and recon fixed wing and their helos for Transport and CAS. As to fighters, the A-10 is not and was not designed to be a fighter or pursuit plane. AF is for high air cover against other a/c and bombing. leave CAS and it type a/c to those who know what the hell they are doing. A-10 took the place of the venerable A-4 and the old but tried and true AD. Slower but more accurate for CAS and it should and does dispense more and stronger ordinance on the target with far less danger of friendly fire. One of the truest scenes in We Were Soldiers was the AF floating napalm in on our own troops by not knowing how to use it in CAS. One of the things that happened in Nam when troops were told AF F-4’s, F101’s, F100’s etc. were inbound, they hunkered down and tried to find cover while Navy/Marine A-4, AD, and even heavily trained F-4 pilots gave them far more effective fixed wing support

We won’t have to invade any countries.….….they will all have immigrated to the U.S.

I was a Marine during Vietnam and transfer to the Air Force afterwards. Trust me from the reports I have seen this aircraft (A10) has more than proven itself besides close air support from extreme cold to heat. I have seen pilots that did not want to fly them to fail in love with when they found out all in can do. Not only can it take care ground below it can take care of the air space around it.

While I love the A-10 and have been the beneficiary many times over of their abilities, the problem is the DoD cannot continue to fund a old weapons system. There comes a time when every asset is no longer sustainable. While there needs to be a systematic plan to phase them out over a period of time, the end is near and the budget is strained. How many of us buy a new car when our old one reaches the end of it’s useable life? How many people get a new cell phone after 4 or 5 years? We do it all the time.

We need to keep them flying while troops need them but there will come a time when we can no longer keep them flying because we can’t afford it.

it’s a pretty simple argument — ask the customer. The grunts on the ground LOVE the A-10, so much so that when McPeak (IDIOT) tried unsuccessfully to get rid of them the Army refused to fight them. Rather than see them go to Foreign Military sales, where the US might end up on the wrong end of that 30mm, the Army claimed them as their own, despite rules that do not allow the Army to fly fixed wing combat aircraft. Half the A-10 felt sat in the boneyard until recently, because the Army refused to allow them to be scrapped or to go to FMS.

Ask the Taliban — they’ll say scrap them. They hate the whne of the Warthog, it means an early and unscheduled trip to paradise for them. Asking an AF General is like asking a politician.…

Some idiot thought we could put a 30mm gun pod on the F-16. We tested the idea at Hill It had 1/2 the ammo and shook the aircraft violently when fired — so much so that it could not be kept boresighted. The barrels were shorter and it basically sprayed bullets — not good in close air support. And the 20mm carried by all other US fighters is not even a close comparison.

not enough money to keep a proven piece of eqpt that the military is happy to have, but plenty to spend on mrs obama to take vacations with her family.…she should be made to travel with her husband instead of going off wherever she likes using our money to satisfy her wants…

Scrap Congress, they all probably have big money invested with their lobbying buddies in the F35.

Once again the politicians in Washington are pulling the rug out from under the troops in the field. I’m sure that the majority of those making the decisions have never served in the military, yet they take proven tools out of the DOD inventory that have been successful over the years. The mission of the A-10 is truly specialized and to believe that an F-16 or B-1 bomber can duplicate the success of the A-10 just shows how delusional our politicians have become. All I can say is that I’m glad I did my 26 years during the time that appropriate equipment was available to cover my rear. I would love to see those self absorbed politicians get taken out to the battlefield for at least 1 day, then maybe they will see things a little different

keep the wart hog, think of the troops on the ground

As a retired senior Army officer and when crossing the LD on a combat mission, please give me a pair of A-10’s flying cover for me while on station. They mothballed it back in the1980’s and brought it back in service for Desert Storm and it kicked ass, Instead of scrapping it, build some more to replace the older ones.

The A-10s are mechanically simple and physically rugged aircraft designed for easy depot servicing. They’re not anywhere close to “the end of their useable life”. They could fly until the 2050 decade.

What everyone does not speak to is the fact that the A-10 is almost beyond the point of sustainment. No aircraft wings exist (they have all been scavenged to replace worn,cracked wings), look at the boneyard A-10’s all up on wooden blocks. The aircraft is becoming a structural nightmare to support. Meanwhile the engines are barely hanging on the wings due to parts costs/issues and decisions to “keep ‘em flying” despite a timeline to ground them years ago. The dollars per flight hour is staggering and the amount of training syllabus to develop a qualified A-10 pilot drive phenomenal aircraft utilization rates. Yes we need CAS. Yes we need to support our warriors. The solution cannot be the A-10 in the future

I can tell you flat out that the USMC will not be taking them. Categorically not going to happen.

Still, shit like this happens:
http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​x​u​Y​m​n​_​x​Y​B78

Generals have O-3s as aides and they are not overpaid.

I served USMC in 1990. I dearly love the warthog. May it always be available to the 03’s that need it

SMSgt Mac work on keeping up with current events and read what happened when they tried using a B1 for close air support.mI think you may have been too long in the system and are the rubber stamp we see of all the military “leadership”.

Lance, love that comment about over paying the troops. Obviously you never served in the military.

So congress wants to spend more on something (F35) that can do less (CAS) for our troops in need? Well, waddaya speck with a do nothing congress any way, sounds pretty relative to me. Someone’s making money behind the backs.

HERE WE GO WITH ANOTHER BUNCH OF IDIOTS MAKEING “STUPID” DECISIONS. EVIDENTLY THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN TO A COMBAT ZONE AND SEEN WHAT THIS BABY CAN DO. FRIGGIN’ MORONS

morons don’t have a brain cell to share between the bunch of them…

Tell your representatives to save the A-10! Here’s a great link, just click on your State and it will give you links to all those overpaid, overfed, self-seeking, self-centered, egotistical jerks who claim to be our “public servants”.
http://​www​.contactingthecongress​.org/

The message need be just three words; “Save the A-10!”

Do it men and women — it’s the only lever most of us have.

Dave

wrong answer.…F-16s. F-15’s, and the F-35 as well as Apaches (some were shot down in Iraq, if you recall near Karbala) are too vunerable to ground fire, and they are too fast to help troops in CLOSE contact…FACT. The A-10 is a flying tank..it can absorb a great deal of punishment and has redundant systems.…a show of force by A-10s usually sends the troglodytes running — if not, the 30mm will as well as the whole mix of weapons it can carry. The AC-130 drivers RARELY fly in the daytime, so the A-10 is the CAS platform of choice…we should be approriating money for an upgraded version of the A-10, not getting rid of it!

YES…right on target, James — pun intended.…LOL

yah, site manuals..that really makes a point…did you shine your boots before combat ops?.…hey Mac.…it is a PROVEN CAS asset.….PROVEN AND PAID FOR.…buy more of these instead of 05 F-35’s.….much better bang for the buck.…heck, transfer them to the Army or Marines.…and you are making this argument on the heels of the worst friendly fire incident since the beginning of OEF when a B-52 dropped a 2000lb’er on our guys.…

like APOLLO 13…“I don’t care what it was designed to do, Ic care what it CAN do”.…and FYI…we will be in LICs for the forseeable future.…just because deserter boy is back doesn’t mean the war is over, or were those 2 attacks on the Karachi airport just anomalies?? The Taliban have been emboldened, and we NEED the A-10.…

Feb. 15, 2012 — Hill Air Force Base and the Boeing Company commemorated completion of the first A-10 with a new enhanced wing assembly, designed to keep the aircraft flying until 2040. The A-10 Wing Replacement Program is planned to replace 233 A-10 wings that are nearing the end of their structural and economic service life. In 2007, Boeing was awarded a $1.1 billion contract to build replacement wings at its Macon, Ga., plant. Boeing has also contracted with Korean Aerospace Industries to build the outer wing sections. All wing sections, together with two support kits, are brought together at Hill AFB for installation. …Boeing to build new wings based on the original thick skin wing…several structural improvements to increase service life and ease maintenance…improvements target known fatigue locations with the current wing and create an improved wing that can fly for up to 10,000 hours without inspection.

Above excetpted from longer 2012 news story available at the following link. http://​www​.hill​.af​.mil/​n​e​w​s​/​s​t​o​r​y​.​a​s​p​?​i​d​=​1​2​3​2​9​134

you keep sighting your degrees and technical expertise, yet you haven’t sighted combat experience.…and your “knowledge” doesn’t qualify YOU for anything but being a wrench turner or acquisition weenie.…all real operators trust THE MAN ON THE GROUND.….not the guy in the rear with the gear.….

hey Obamaite.…get back to your Obama altar…your candles are going out.….

ST. LOUIS, Sept. 4, 2013 – Boeing will continue improving U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II mission readiness, and decreasing maintenance costs, through a follow-on order for 56 replacement wings for that aircraft. Boeing is on contract to build up to 242 wings, including these, at its plant in Macon, Ga. Refitting the fleet with new wings will improve the mission availability of A-10s by an estimated 4 percent and will help save the Air Force an estimated $1.3 billion in maintenance costs during the next 30 years. This latest order is valued at $212 million. Including this agreement, the Air Force has ordered 173 wings…

The above was excerpted from the press release available at the following link. http://​boeing​.mediaroom​.com/​B​o​e​i​n​g​-​t​o​-​B​u​i​l​d​-​5​6​-Ad

saving billions shouldn’t be the goal of our military budget, it should be the protection of US Soldiers. And unmanned planes are the most stupid invention. Great that they keep humans out of the plane, but an eye on the ground isn’t the same as the eyes in the sky, and the men who push machines to their limits to succeed. The A-10s removal will be a sad and devastating action. Russia’s not clearing her inventory of perfectly good but aging planes… Afgans still use ancient firearms and AKs from the 60s (obviously they are not in the same ball park but they are an example of reused equipment made better or still kept as is…) shouldn’t we just improve the A-10 from where it is now? that or show me a plane that can take the hits it does, and then still deliver accurate fire 99% of the time and put a real person in it who can think on the fly and ill be satisfied. oh and it should still look like a killer not a like a Toyota Camry with a gatlin gun.

“pen is mightier than the sword” soon our troops will fight with toy guns spray painted orange because they could look threatening and hurt somebody who might sue us… were starting to worry too much about diplomats and less about interests and lives. I want to join the marines in a year… every day i doubt my decision more and more…

As formally documented in MSIP ORD (2001), the A-10 has long been recognized as underpowered… As of 2006 the flat-rated TF34-GE-101 doubles the hot day thrust output over current engines, eliminating take-off gross weight limitations that preclude today’s A-10 from delivering its most powerful mission punch. Other –101 performance advantages include: A significant reduction in takeoff distances during hot day conditions. Improved high altitude performance. 30% more acceleration capability and a 2X turn rate for improved maneuverability. An approximate 3X time-to-climb improvement at full combat weight. CONUS to European deployment in one-third the time — without tying up tanker assets and valuable manpower. A positive “single engine rate of climb” safety margin at maximum gross takeoff weight.

By leveraging a $400-million GE investment for commercial engine development and a solid production base, the TF34-GE-101 can be procured on an affordable Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) basis. Maintenance costs (including spares, labor and overhaul) are projected to be less than one-fourth the cost of maintaining current engines. Coupled with a lower maximum thrust rating for robust, reliable operation, significant savings can be realized over the remaining life of the A-10 fleet. A true force multiplier, the A-10 with TF34-GE-101 engines can offload the F-16 Block 40/50 aircraft from close-air support missions and free these valuable assets to perform other critical tasks.

The above was excerpted from a much longer report at the following link. http://​www​.globalsecurity​.org/​m​i​l​i​t​a​r​y​/​s​y​s​t​e​m​s​/ai

Google …“Military officers fired and or retired so far by the Obama administration”. All that remains are
people hoping to make retirement, or instead, concerned about “CYA”…and of course, the “chapstick–
carrying” YES ” men.

I come to these for website with forum access so I can stay up to date on the several issues under discussion re our military, overseas wars and the battle to defeat growing radical Islamic groups world-wide. When I see or read some of the vitriol written here I get the feeling that many commentators aren’t playing with a full deck. I was a submariner so the discussions are often over my head re the use of acronyms. I grew up on the naval base China Lake so I have some idea about the use, history and future of combat aircraft in the military world-wide. Most posters here seem to have a good handle on the subject matter which I enjoy reading. However, there are far too many Blowhards who resort to attacks, slander and who like to post “facts” without quoting references. The worst of them SHOUT which is used when they cannot seem to get their point across. Just saying.

Please read my statement just below John Thompson. Thanks.

Stupid to retire the best close air support a/c. Inexpensive and works great. No wonder they seek to retire it.

Scrapping this platform is a waste of tax dollars. Give the platform to homeland security or the National Guard who would keep it around another 30–40 years. I saw M151 jeeps when I came into service and although they are all gone in service today you can still order one in a crate, take it out of the box, and it will do it’s same job it was designed to do. With the lack of R&D dollars I would bank more on proven platforms then the F35. We all know that eventually they want all automated platforms and white coats in AC running the show from somewhere else, but for the joes still out there in the dirt, to see this asset come in and grind the enemy is a comforting thing, at least until the drones take it and run with it.

This is utter political corruption at its finest. The F-16, and certainly the B-1, cannot do the CAS job the A-10 does. Even outdated (read that as it should be receiving funding for tech upgrades) the A-10 does a vastly superior job. This is merely the Air Force yet again wanting a new fighter at the expense of doing its job — supporting the ground war conducted by the Army and Marines. And also, I bet if you looked hard enough, it would so a clear line of collusion between Lockheed Martin (and other large govt. contractors), senior Air Force staff, and members of Congress. These three bodies have yet again shown they care little about the lives of the common ground soldier and more about profit and political status (ie power).

Because the Democrats will do a much better job at gutting our military?

Generals have O5s and O6 aides, Colonels have O4-O5 Aides.

It seems like it doesn’t matter which party they are, about being stupid, when it comes to doing what is best for those on the ground and in harms way. It is the almost the total disconnect between those serving and have served, with the penny loafer-khaki pants wearing, dream boys in the puzzle palaces known as Congress and the Pentagon, those people just don’t get it, never have and unfortunately probably never will. Those doing the fighting and dying have always paid for the stupidity of those controlling the purse strings in some far away office.
Gary D. Schlagel, BM3, US Navy 1966–1970 (USS Kennebec AO 36)

Your right, however it is a good place to vent. The down side to many people ignore this comments that could do some good for the reason you stated above. To bad some can’t sift through these comments and get the attention of the people that can do something about it. The A10 has proven itself over and over again. When ground support is needed the A10 is known for not creating casualties like fighter jets and bombers. Bob

Take the money being wasted on maintaining the B-1 (outdated and not useful in today’s environment) and invest it in modernizing the A-10. Common sense can not stand up to special interest.

Timing is everything. The rebels, Al Quaeda, Suni’s, in Iraq have captured two of the biggest cities, and the president of Iraq is calling for air support. He asked for drones, and Obama say no. The A-10 would be the perfect weapon. There are no US troops in the zone of attack. Columns of rebels in pick-up trucks would be easily destroyed, allowing the legitimate Iraqi forces to regain their balance.

Obama got us thrown out of Iraq, could not even leave a 9.000 man force on the ground, which would have included a squadron of A-10’s.

All those folks we had killed or maimed to save Iraq from Hussein have been declared wasted by our current administration.

the GOP could decide to cancel sequestration and we would have all the money needed for the A-10. They are playing to loose.

the democrats would allow cancellation of sequestration and therefore are less a threat to the military than the GOP

True. But denying SNAP benefits is the priority.

They are also too afraid to vote against the military.

Bear in mind the peace dividend was kicked off by Bush Senior along with his SecDef Cheney. Considering Clinton doubled down on nation-building (an exercise Bush Jr derided) it guaranteed the military a job and a role for the next ten years, versus the dismantlement we observed in Western Europe.

Sure, we lost Assault Breaker and the M-8 AGS, but who cares?

Would you stay in Iraq without a SOFA, or one not in favor of America? No thanks. After Vietnam’s constrained rules of engagement, if you can’t even fight, why stay?

Maybe we still have SOCOM and SAD there, but better not to think about it.

In defense of smart bombs, it was dropped where it was direct to by the controller on the ground, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Maybe one day when GPS systems get cheaper we can switch to even smaller bombs. Unfortunately, the most precise CAS is helicopters and the AC-130. Even the A-10 is to some degree a “fast-mover” compared to a helicopter.

Perhaps when aircraft with turrets return we can provide accurate CAS with bullets without having to fly directly at the target in a strafing line as with A-10’s.

Headbands, did you read the story? Take a reading comprehension course.for.God’s.same.

So sorry to see the Hogs go,just think of all the lives (ground Troops) save in the past conflicts by CAS near by
S A V E T H E H O G

It has come to my realization that no matter how much voice our opinions on any matter which involves politicians, nothing will be done to affect or reverse their decisions. Pretty sad when those who know better are left unheard and those with power that know no better get what they want.

In order to enlighten Congress, retire their desk and chair and give them a water pistol and send them to “IRAN”

This is an eyes on platform and would someday again be very useful in battle when our enemies develop new systems that can defeat laser target acquisition and have other sophisticated jamming countermeasures. Rethink it folks, keep the A10 around, train with it and be ready.

Send the Warthog to the Ukraine! The Russian tank troops that are now crossing the border into Ukraine will become very worried. I’m sure the Ukraine can show the world how valuable this aircraft really is!

Uh, Belesari, you are citing references in your above article but you don’t give credit to the writer/publisher nor do you provide the references. Please elaborate.

The idea of the F-16 being a CAS aircraft is a bad a joke as the idea of replacing the Warthog with the F-35.What kind of idiots aside from Hagel do we have in the Pentagon.

Not sure where it stands in today’s budget environment, but there has been some development and demonstration of capability of air dropping 81mm precision guided mortar munitions from tactical UAV. 81mm is roughly a 9–10 pound mortar munition (PGMM related mods add a little more weight), very much smaller than a 500 pound JDAM.

Air drop from 8,000 ft AGL with 75m lateral offset…Demonstrated 40m range and 80m cross-range correction — landing within 2m of target…
. http://​www​.dtic​.mil/​n​d​i​a​/​2​0​1​1​g​u​n​m​i​s​s​i​l​e​/​T​h​u​r​s​d​ay1
http://​www​.dtic​.mil/​n​d​i​a​/​2​0​1​2​a​r​m​a​m​e​n​t​s​/​W​e​d​n​e​s​d​ay1

Here we go again, Stupid, Leading Stupid, Why Do we have to Constantly Remake the Wheel.We have an Aircraft that was Designed to do a Job No real FastMover Can do as Accuritly and to be able to survive in that Enviorment.

We should keep a few squadrons on standby/alert. The A-10 has proven itself many times in combat positions. Ask the ground troops how thankful they were to see them with underfire conditions. Get your heads out of the sand, stop worrying about the money!!Worry about keeping your troops alive! You spend millions/billions on useless projects, ideas, etc. that go absolutely nowhere, and has not saved one life!! Too bad we don’t have a count for A-10 lives saved.

Congressman (D) John Murtha from Johnstown, PA, now deceased. He diverted billions to this tiny rust town dumping over 150 million defense dollars to his namesake airport, John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria Airport. 30 million for a concrete reinforced runway suitable for C-5 and C-17 heavies when the only military on the field flew helicopters. Sounds like these two congressman are related. Trouble is this is not the exception in congress, it’s the rule.

Sequestration was Obama’s ideaa in the first place. So why would Democrats allow its cancellation

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | , and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.