Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Yo Air Force: Don’t You Dare Kill Off Our Toughest Warplane
THE AIR FORCE wants to kill off the A-10 Thunderbolt II. You can see why: The plane was designed to fight Russians in the Cold War. It’s old. It’s slow. It’s expensive to maintain. It’s about as sophisticated as a hammer, and it’s the weapon we’ve sent to battle ISIS in Syria and Iraq. (www.wired.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
"[A]ccording to one report this week, the trillion dollar superplane gets its ass kicked in dogfights with much older aircraft." - That should tell the brass something. It's time to cut bait and go back to the drawing board. Or not - why not use what's already been proven to be devastatingly effective?
I do not understand why the USAF would not want to build a new fleet of this A-10 aircraft. I bet the cost would be low "copy exact". Why does the Pentagon want to waste so much money on the F35? This A10 serves a great purpose.
The vast majority of us sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and the National Command Authority will do so to our last breath. However, the internecine battles over pork and ideas of legislators and administrations who haven't been "on the ground" sickens many of us.
A pilot with the guts and ability to fly at 100' and take as many G's as the airframe will accommodate garners a lot more respect than the kid flying, who knows how high, or sitting at a console thousands of miles away, each, playing video games with the lives of troopers who actually earn their combat pay.
We are back to my postulation that any elected official who has a child or grandchild of military age should have that offspring in a combat unit actually engaged, and that such engagement would alter such official's outlook on military spending.
John L.
A pilot with the guts and ability to fly at 100' and take as many G's as the airframe will accommodate garners a lot more respect than the kid flying, who knows how high, or sitting at a console thousands of miles away, each, playing video games with the lives of troopers who actually earn their combat pay.
We are back to my postulation that any elected official who has a child or grandchild of military age should have that offspring in a combat unit actually engaged, and that such engagement would alter such official's outlook on military spending.
John L.
At least in this case, you do have a couple in Congress and on the oversight committee that have been there, done that, or married to one that did. It is sad that the suits that are procuring probably wouldn't know what one of these birds would look like if they were staring at it.
No matter how much lobbying the ground troops do in favor of the Warthog, it will sadly go the way of the Army's OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter. We'd heard the rumors for years and brushed them off thinking that there's no way the Army can get rid of its most rugged rotary wing asset. Sure, it's not as sexy as the Apache, but anyone who's around Army aviation knows, the Apache has more than its fair share of grounding issues. The Kiowa is incredibly cheap to maintain and flight hours cost the least. No other aircraft during deployments could fly the hours we did and the ground pounders asked for us every time (most times they didn't even need to because we were already in the air). But alas, the Army and congress decided the Kiowa was too "old and expensive to maintain and upgrade" and decided to give it the boot.
We know this is a purely political decision as we've had everyone lobbying for our little old war birds but unfortunately, these were not the right lobbyists. Now, what was supposed to happen over a period of several years has been hastily planned and poorly executed. About 80% of the Kiowa pilots are not being given the opportunity to transition to another airframe and are being told by the Army that they'll let our careers just fizzle out (and that's if they don't decide to do a cut board to get rid of us more quickly). I'm left, as many of my peers, holding the bag and getting out of the Army, unwillingly, at approximately 17 years of service. I've stayed this long and endured countless year-long plus deployments to able able to retire, and am now told that I'll be out with nothing. No benefits. Nothing to show for my career because didn't do my full 20 (through no choice of my own).
I digress, didn't mean to throw myself a pity party. I only write this because the A-10's demise is inevitable. There are many of us who would love nothing more than to fly the old Warthog but the services, lobbyists, and congress will see to it that this program fails, just as it did to the Kiowa.
We know this is a purely political decision as we've had everyone lobbying for our little old war birds but unfortunately, these were not the right lobbyists. Now, what was supposed to happen over a period of several years has been hastily planned and poorly executed. About 80% of the Kiowa pilots are not being given the opportunity to transition to another airframe and are being told by the Army that they'll let our careers just fizzle out (and that's if they don't decide to do a cut board to get rid of us more quickly). I'm left, as many of my peers, holding the bag and getting out of the Army, unwillingly, at approximately 17 years of service. I've stayed this long and endured countless year-long plus deployments to able able to retire, and am now told that I'll be out with nothing. No benefits. Nothing to show for my career because didn't do my full 20 (through no choice of my own).
I digress, didn't mean to throw myself a pity party. I only write this because the A-10's demise is inevitable. There are many of us who would love nothing more than to fly the old Warthog but the services, lobbyists, and congress will see to it that this program fails, just as it did to the Kiowa.
From reports the enemy fear the A-10.
You won't get your BANG for your buck with a refitted F-16 or an unproven F-35.