[haole]

remember the A-16 "tank-killer"? the fast jet jocks just don't like this airplane. Give them an F-16 and fly at 15,000ft, and they'll be happy.

[cookcounty]

Are they nuts? Killing the A-10? I'm gonna tell my son in the Army to NOT re-up!!!

[Reagan Man]

>>>If the Air Force succeeds in killing the A-10...

A good time to start-up the Army Air Corp, again.

[CommandoFrank]

Don't kill the program. Threaten to give it to the Army and watch the AF weinies change there mind.

Being a retired USAF guy, I've seen plenty of yahoo's in the AF who just don't understand the big picture and would rather create their own little empire.

[zarf]

It's an effective aircraft, versatile, relatively cheap, loved by it's pilots and feared by the enemy.

Cancelling it makes sense. </ Government think>

[toddst]

. . . the fast jet jocks just don't like this airplane.

10-4. We've been through this before. They tried the same tactic prior to GW 1 and discovered (amazing) the A-10 could carry out missions those fast-movers couldn't. The projected decommission was extended out well past 2004.

Let's start writing our Congresscritters. This is important!

[cake_crumb]

It won't be the same without the warthog. Who has that tornado of fire graphic (apologies + disregard if it's already posted)

[cavtrooper21]

Stupid AF ping

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Had an A-10 do a flyby at the Jersey shore a few years ago.
Definitely put a little more fear of Jesus into me than the Blackhawks that a did a close inspection of my parents pool a few years before that.
The A-10 should be redesigned and brought up to snuff. It's a killer and should be recognized as such.
Just my $0.02.

[nightdriver]

"......generals steered clear of the project, and designers, free from meddling senior officers, created the ultimate ground-support airplane."

This is a good formula for success in any project, military or otherwise. Keep the gubmint out of the designer's hair and let them come up with something that works.

The F111 was the best example of how NOT to build a military airplane. Ol' never-made-a-mistake-in-his-life Robert McNamara just wouldn't leave the project alone, so the result was an airplane which was originally supposed to do everything that couldn't do anything really well. The last use I saw them being put to was back in the late 60s where they had volleyball nets attached to their vertical stabilizers in 'Nam.

The way they fly the A-10 reminds me of my crop-dusting days. Much the same techniques are used. I hope the Army takes them over or acquires a second generation of them. They can do so much better than a helicopter which is so limited in speed.

[ZOOKER]

Anyone want to guess who builds the A-10, and WHERE?

The A-10 is awesome, but it's time to take the pilots out of low-level duty. We need capable UAV's for close air support (IMHO).

[steplock]

The airforce does NOT believe in the truth of combat -- close in and DESTROY your enemy.

After reading an Airforce journal article last year that stated that the purpose of war was, like the rest of the left-wing extremists believe, NOT to destroy your enemy, but to be "mr nice guy" and convince them to join in and sing "Cumbaya" around the fire.

The Marine Corps methods were crude and offensive to the fine sensibilities in the airforce and clinton whitehouse.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

The Air Force tried to pull this after Gulf War I. It won't work this time around either.

[Sparta]

Screw the Air Force. Give the A-10s to the Army and reestablish the Army Air Corps.

[AlaskaErik]

As a former Marine, I have always wondered why the Corps never got the A-10. Marine aviation is much more understanding of close air support. Maybe now is the time.

[tom h]

OK -- I'll post the photos. She's ugly but she sure is fun to ride:

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Ongoing discussion: grunts

[pointsal]

Better stick with the proven tech of the A-10

[aculeus]

Already posted!



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918314/posts?q=1&&page=101

[Rodsomnia]

They got bigger projects to blow money on like the "Osprey" aka "flying flaming coffin" The A10 is just too cheap and effecient to justify it's existance it has no pork appeal inspite of it's name.

[SJSAMPLE]

The A-10 is an incredible and reliable aircraft. However, after 15 years in the Artillery and FO fields, I have to admit: The A-10 relies inordinately upon the good graces of other aircraft and services to survive. Before the A-10 begins its interdiction role (the majority of its work, not CAS), there is a very high level of assurance that all threats have been eliminated. ADA and SAM units are extensively targeted before the A-10 makes it's first flight. That's just the nature of a slow and highly targetable aircraft like the A-10.

There will come a day when we need to target armor in theaters where there hasn't been a visible presence. As in the past, F-16 and F-18 aircraft will perform that role. They get their faster and they don't have the dangerous limitations of the A-10.

In GWI, it was Apache's that cleared the ADA/SAM path for attacking coalition aircraft. The A-10 did not routinely operate in areas of active SAM/ADA. In addition, the lack of targeting equipment (FLIR, Radar) kept the A-10 in the interdiction role more than Close Air Support. The A-10 has to fly low (and slow) to properly identify and engage targets, and this is where it's most vulnerable.

I'm not calling for a retirement of the A-10, RIGHT NOW. But there is definitely a need for an attack aircraft with greater performance and electronics. Hopefully, the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) will possess the required capabilities.