Posted on 06/13/2014 11:08:18 AM PDT by C19fan
On June 10, the House Appropriations Committee made clear the way many on Capitol Hill view national defense. By a raised-hands vote of 13 to 23, the Committee rejected an amendment from Congressman Jack Kingston—a Georgia Republican—to redirect $339 million from operation and maintenance funds, deemed excess, to retain 234 A-10 close air support aircraft in the U.S. Air Force inventory.
Even though the committee found $1.6 billion to increase the Obama Administration’s budget to buy hardware, it could not find a penny to retain one of the most extraordinarily effective weapons in the U.S. arsenal—and one of the cheapest to operate.
(Excerpt) Read more at medium.com ...
Obumblingidiot will waste no time sending these vital aircraft to the grinder. In a year, there won’t even be one in a museum.
“they’d be sitting ducks for a jihadi IR missile.”
The A-10 can take massive damage. I wouldn’t want to tick one off.
I’ve never met a non-beancounter who hated it.
I imagine the only ones who hate it are the territorial “just a job” jerks.
Have you ever seen one at an airshow?
The real secret to the A-10 is its engine. If a friendly country could get high quality engines, it could produce a whole bunch of A-10s for profitable sale, based on its reputation.
While they always tout its advanced electronics, the truth of the matter is that it is designed for a slug-fest, where high tech is sort of incidental. Most systems in the aircraft are redundant, which explains how they could have damage like none other and still return home. Even their pilots are sitting in a “titanium bathtub”, to protect them.
The reason for this is because much of the design inspiration came via the astounding Nazi pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel, who wrote a book called Stuka Pilot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel
Rudel flew 3,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, four armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat.
He knew what he was doing. His wish list was incorporated into the A-10, and then some. And then the aircraft was built around the 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling-type cannon, a very formidable weapon.
Yet, all told, if they could just get good engines, many countries could produce the A-10, and they could make a ton of money exporting them for sale.
The high bypass turbofans have a low heat signature. The plane is armored like a tank. It is the most survivable ground attack plane we have.
Replacements for the A-10 are smaller and more efficient smart weapons across all platforms and the F-35, neither of which are in the inventory yet and show no signs of getting there in the known future.
Well, can’t blame Obama...
P-47, then A1-E, then A-10. There’s always been a need for a dedicated CAS/Ground Attack platform since the advent of airpower. Big mistake to take the A-10 out of the inventory, unless you are a defense contractor with a similar platform ready to be pitched to take its place- then, it’s a financial boom.
If it leaves service now, it won’t be back.
The Air Force (SR-71) and Navy (F-14) learned a long time ago how to keep a retired but popular/effective aircraft from ever coming back: destroy the tooling, cut the wing spars (SRs) and grind them up into bits (Tomcats).
I know that legend has it that the USAF never liked the A-10 and that fighter pilots hate it.
In my nearly 30 years of service, I never found that to be the case...at least from O-5 and below.
At UPT, half the class starts out wanting to fly A-10s.
Well, we do have the B-1 fleet for the CAS mission. What’s a little collateral damage amongst friends? /MournfulSarc
You can say that again!
However, The USAF has really despised this low, slow workhorse from its first days as not fitting in with the Mach 2.5 air superiority fighter Top Gun image. They couldn't wait to transfer it to Guard units!
It is incredibly good at what it does. It is primarily a daylight operator, though, and it is 40 years old with no assembly line, so maintenance becomes increasingly crucial. What it needs is a replacement that specializes in the same job of anti-armor and close support of ground forces. Perhaps just a re-design. This is one fabulous airplane
The idea of using the B1-B ... which is also an ancient design ... for close support is simply ludicrous. Think WWII. The Tank Busters were the Bristol Beaufort and the Typhoon, not the B-17 or B-24!
I hate to see these aircraft go to the boneyard. They are simply one of the very best aircraft ever flown.
They should convert the thing to remote control. I get that the ship is a great CAS platform, but its still vulnerable to missiles. The days of flying low and slow with a manned platform over defended ground are over. The RUS have or will have something that will take these out and they aren’t shy about sharing with their friends as we have seen.
OK, I will say it again. I am not particularly knowledgeable about these things but I probably know more than you.
Lots of B-17s and P-47s suffered worse damage than that and made it home..
An Israeli F-15 lost a wing due to an air to air crash and made it home.
I have watched them fly many times tho it was quite a few years ago. It would always be two at a time. They were based at Eglin or Hurlburt. I know neither of those bases are home to A-10 squadrons.
They remind me a lot of crop dusters. They turn just like them.
I know they have a titanium shell encasing the engines and the pilot. I also know they have a lot of redundancy and were designed to absorb a lot of damage.
Despite that, a lot of them have been shot down. I recall watching them twist and turn, maneuver etc. but watching them it also struck me they would be pretty easy to have a missile lock on them.
That was already considered back around 1989. The Army has weight restrictions (regulations) on it's aircraft and the GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon the aircraft is built around makes the aircraft too heavy. If the Army got it's restrictions modified for it, it could absorb part of the AF besides the A-10.
Those weight restrictions are artificial and were put into place to keep the Army from having its own air force.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.