Skip to comments.
Unloved Warthog lives to fight another day
Washington Examiner ^
| 12/8/2014
| Charles Hoskinson
Posted on 12/09/2014 9:00:06 AM PST by bkopto
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-76 next last
To: Blood of Tyrants
And enemies fear it that alone makes worth the keep.
21
posted on
12/09/2014 9:30:42 AM PST
by
Vaduz
To: puppypusher
22
posted on
12/09/2014 9:31:13 AM PST
by
hattend
(Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
To: bkopto
The A-10 gets lots of love, but not from the people who like to steal money from the taxpayer.
23
posted on
12/09/2014 9:34:51 AM PST
by
Moonman62
(The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
To: bkopto
Unloved? Unloved? Ever talk to a Warthog driver? I have several times...never met one yet who wasn't deeply in love with their little plane with the calendar based airspeed indicator.
Unloved. Right. By pukes with ties on.
24
posted on
12/09/2014 9:35:51 AM PST
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are not inclined to commit crimes.)
To: hattend
That is only applicable to the Marine Corp variant.The “B”model.It has something to do with the fuel overheating.
25
posted on
12/09/2014 9:36:44 AM PST
by
puppypusher
( The World is going to the dogs.)
To: taxcontrol
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.
26
posted on
12/09/2014 9:37:14 AM PST
by
Freeport
(The proper application of high explosives will remove all obstacles.)
To: tanknetter
Instinctively, I suspect the A-10 is relatively cheap to maintain, when compared to the modern super-duper fighter jets.
Just depends on how the bean counting gets done.
27
posted on
12/09/2014 9:38:19 AM PST
by
lacrew
To: hattend
Oink-Flap-oink-flap, bang! Opps... That was an F-35 being shot down with a .22...
28
posted on
12/09/2014 9:38:43 AM PST
by
Freeport
(The proper application of high explosives will remove all obstacles.)
To: bkopto
I love the Warthog.
Unconditionally.
<3 <3 <3
29
posted on
12/09/2014 9:43:25 AM PST
by
Slings and Arrows
("I Only Love You When I'm Drunk" - http://youtu.be/uT-tCbvfDUg)
To: Da Coyote; Blood of Tyrants; Sequoyah101
Now listen here, the USAF can simply not be seen in an ugly clunker that flies on the wrong side of 500knts max, works at under 5,000 feet, costs less than $300 Million a copy, and is subjected to insulting ground-fire. It's like asking a hot-rock fighter jock to drive a '97 Plymouth Mini-Van.
At the same time, The USAF is a signatory of the 1948 Treaty of Key West, which means the Army gets no, that's NO, fixed wing combat aircraft. If those chaps crawling through the dirt need support, they can call armed helicopters, (Would you believe, many flown by non-commissioned officers? Disgusting.) Furthermore The USAF is quite capable of occasionally swooping down low to support our troops at 600 knts. True, we occasionally hit our own guys, or orphanages, but hey, that's war.
30
posted on
12/09/2014 9:45:49 AM PST
by
Kenny Bunk
(The fate of the Republic rests in the hands of the '15 -16 Congress. God help us.)
To: SkyPilot
Join the US Military fight to protect the UN powers, join your local Militia and be the first and last line of defense for the USA.
To: bkopto
You'd think that with fewer and fewer aircrew seats projected for the air force of the future, the blue suit mafia would be eager to keep a plane that (for now at least) does a job a drone can't do.
But noooooooooooooo.............
To: bkopto
I saw an A-10 in flight over Toledo Express Airport a few years back, but it didn't expend any ordnance... ;)
33
posted on
12/09/2014 9:52:18 AM PST
by
W.
(If government could truly create jobs communism would have worked the first time it was implemented.)
To: Ghost of SVR4
The amount of damage an A-10 can take and STILL make it back home is nothing short of amazing.Yep. Try and imagine a squadron commander putting his precious F-35s into the kind of close support situation which produces that damage. Not gonna happen!
To: servantboy777
“...Coming back in to base with holes riddled throughout, seeing the pilot home safely, leaving behind scores of enemy armor smoldering in a heap of ruin....”
Interesting comment... B-17 crews from WWII said the same thing about that amazing aircraft. Look up some of the photos of damaged B-17s - tail sections shot away, two or three engines out of commission, holes galore... and bringing their people home al lthe same. (I don’t think the B-24 Liberators had the same track record, but I may be wrong).
And P-47 Thunderbolt pilots from WWII (original namesake of the A-10) also made similar comments about their aircraft. That developed into a fine ground attack platform, but was originally designed as a “Pursuit” (fighter) aircraft.
We know how to build ‘em, for sure.
35
posted on
12/09/2014 9:57:27 AM PST
by
NFHale
(The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
To: Bloody Sam Roberts
We have a lake home in northern Indiana. The Warthogs, which are based out of Grissom Field, just north of Kokomo, historically fly formation over the lake on 4th of July. It’s an impressive sight. I love those things!
To: SkyPilot
They have their entitlement checks and EBT - and they don't want those cut. Think the military budget is in a vice now?
Wait until ObamaCare really kicks in!
ObamaCare is the Blob that will consume all.
37
posted on
12/09/2014 10:01:19 AM PST
by
Pontiac
(The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
To: IndyPatriot
I do to...from the very first time I saw a Fairchild-Republic Thunderbolt, I was in love.
There's a wing stationed at Bradley Int'l in Connecticut. A short'ish drive from where I am. It makes a nice day trip during the Summer. There's a great air museum down there too.
38
posted on
12/09/2014 10:08:40 AM PST
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are not inclined to commit crimes.)
To: taxcontrol
The Marines, MAYBE, but they’re still optimized for flying fixed-wing assets off a carrier.
The Army. . . no. Only because there’d be the need to stand up entirely new maintenance capabilities for the Army that it hasn’t had since World War II, but the USAF does routinely.
39
posted on
12/09/2014 10:11:14 AM PST
by
Salgak
(Peace through Superior Firepower. . . .)
To: bkopto
If the USAF doesn't want them, there are lots of people in the Army who would
LOVE to add the A-10 to the stable of "too slow but somehow useful nonetheless" aircraft.
Mr. niteowl77
40
posted on
12/09/2014 10:17:14 AM PST
by
niteowl77
(The five stages of Progressive persuasion: lecture, nudge, shove, arrest, liquidate.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-76 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson