I see that the military budget cuts include getting rid of the A10 'Warthog'.........

orchidman

.........Which, even though I have never been up close and personal with one, I understand the love affair the troops on the ground have with it. That much firepower flying overhead when you are in harms way must be reassuring and comforting.

Heres a link from Yahoo news.......... http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/21681986/budget-cuts-to-slash-u-s-army-to-smallest-since-before-world-war-two/

Buford

Take from the military to give to the entitlement leeches. I am so infuriated by our governments policy's and bull .

tennmike

And the budget for the Pentagon is being increased. Stupidity trying to balance the budget on the backs of the military. And troop levels are going to be reduced to pre-WWII levels.

roadking

Ain't the country I grew up in.

Matt

Big Chief

Dick Cheney responds:


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/25/former-vice-president-cheney-calls-hagel-proposed-army-cuts-absolutely/?intcmp=latestnews
"the U.S. faces threats from multiple areas of the world.

“That would lead me to think I need the strength of military capabilities, not cut it,” he said.

Cheney said he believes the cuts are a reflection of President Obama’s beliefs, and that the president has always wanted to cut the military.

“He said when he went to Cairo in that famous apology tour back in ’09 he believed, apologized for our overreaction to the events of 9/11,” he said, “and today he is fixing it in a way, in a fact where it will be almost impossible for future presidents to deal with that kind of situation.”

jbp-ohio

Big Chief wrote: »

Dick Cheney responds:


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/25/former-vice-president-cheney-calls-hagel-proposed-army-cuts-absolutely/?intcmp=latestnews
"the U.S. faces threats from multiple areas of the world.

“That would lead me to think I need the strength of military capabilities, not cut it,” he said.

Cheney said he believes the cuts are a reflection of President Obama’s beliefs, and that the president has always wanted to cut the military.

“He said when he went to Cairo in that famous apology tour back in ’09 he believed, apologized for our overreaction to the events of 9/11,” he said, “and today he is fixing it in a way, in a fact where it will be almost impossible for future presidents to deal with that kind of situation.”

Cheney is portrayed as a douche canoe by the MSM,and he may well be........ but you can't argue with that!

Big Al1

I can see how they can justify canceling the A-10 and U-2 since they are both really old airframes and are very specialized, although they do their specific job very well. But, the trend is multi-purpose aircraft. IF a ground war similar to the Iraqi war ever occurs again, I'm sure the close air support the A-10 provided will be missed, but what are the chances of that happening in the near future.

Teach

I see the divorced marriage counselor is offering relationship advice again! How can somebody with zero military experience offer counsel on how to run the military? Cancel that question- - - -he's just being a typical dummycrap!
:roll:
Jerry

orchidman

alphasigmookie wrote: »

As far as the A-10 goes, they're awesome, but also a 40 year old platform that does pretty much one thing and one thing only...take out columns of enemy tanks, not exactly something that we face on a frequent basis and not something that can't be done nearly as well by more versatile platforms like the Apache and F-18's/F35's. All that said, there have been a number of moves to block the retirement of the A-10 so we'll see if they keep it or not and for how long.

Sorry Alpha but I have to call you out on this one.

From what I have read, the A10 carries 2-3 times the amount of munitions other platforms can, it can stay in close support for periods measured in hours, not minutes compared with other 'platforms', it is heavily armoured and can take far more punishment than other 'platforms', it is far more manouverable and can make repeated passes in very short order ( literally seconds) when other 'platforms' require minutes.

It is not limited to columns of Tanks as you have suggested but is suitable for a far greater variety of targets using munitions that cost far les than more sophisticated aircraft. It may be 40 yrs old but the continual upgrading of its weapons systems etc still qualify it as near 'state of the art' weaponry.

Like you, I don't have any personal experience of its capabilities, but from what I have read it is the best tool for the job.

Maybe others on here with more experience can explain its value..............

tennmike

The A10 Warthog does now what the A-1 Skyraider did in the 50's up to the late 70's. Really long loiter time over the area, fly low and slow to see what's up, provide devastating close air support, and generally made the enemy poop their pants when they showed up. Multipurpose fighter/bomber jets are just fine, but they don't have that low 'n' slow thing, don't have the payload capability, and helicopters suffer from shorter time on station, less payload, and payload versatility.

The A-1 was king of the hill until it was retired and the A10 stepped up to the plate. And they both could take a beating and keep on flying and putting hurt on target.

Teach

The A-1 did for Viet Nam what the P-47 used to do in western Europe- - - - -pound the crap out of anything that moved on the ground, and do it from close range. Having a choice between getting hit by a warthog or a "multi-purpose" airplane is sort of like standing toe to toe with Joe Frazier or a bantamweight boxer. Both of 'em can put a hurtin' on you, but old "Smokin' Joe" could do it better, for a longer time, and make the punches sting a lot worse!
Jerry

Big Chief

B-52s have been serving us well since 1952 and plans are to keep them in service into the 2040s imagine that! Sure some upgrades and maybe more, but what else can take their place. Over 90 years total from cradle to grave with 62 years already!

breamfisher

alphasigmookie wrote: »

While we're considering alternatives I'll also through out reapers and soon to be avengers and the AC-130 as other air support options to go along with Apaches and f-15/f-18/F-35s, admittedly all with tradeoffs relative to the A-10.

Last I heard, they won't allow the AC-130 to fly by day, only doing night missions because of the AA capabilities that enemy forces have.

Antonio

Are they going to cannibalize them or just mothball & store them in the desert for potential future use? Sometimes is cheaper to make them "hibernate" than keep them readily available.

P-47s started the tradition indeed; apparently from 1944 onwards the German infantry was scared to death of the "Jabos" (That nickname apparently included the Hawker Typhoon).

Nomadac

IMO reduce the fraud and waste in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and use it for Defense. There are so many wasteful programs in other Departments, including the excessive money spent in the Executive Branch, that if Congress would examine all of the fraud and wasteful spending this would not be necessary.

Look at all of the wasteful spending by the Energy Dept. Every day you read or hear of more wasteful spending that continues. It is time the voters wake up and replace the current incompetent in Congress that cannot or will not do their job. Instead of cutting the Military how about cutting 10% of all government employees? I am sure this would save a lot of money. It is time the government learns to do more with less, like done in the private sector.

Jack Burton

alphasigmookie wrote: »

I love how to conservatives the military isn't the government. That's exactly what they're trying do do...more with less, that means some stuff has to be cut. You could pay for the entire DOE that's not related to managing nukes or their messy legacy (2/3 of the DOE budget) with change in the couch cushions at the Pentagon.

It's simple really, as conservatives we know there are things that get the job done, like our armed forces, and things that mostly get the job utterly wrong like the US government, and to associate the former with the latter seems like such a dishonor to anyone who has ever served as to be unthinkable to associate the two.

As we are collectively approaching $18 trillion in debt, sure, why not the A-10? Maybe China will take them in lieu of this months interest payments and we can spend the surplus (no such thing when you need $18 trillion just to have $0.00) studying shrimp on a treadmill or paying NASA scientists so they can make Islam feel good about itself.

horselips

It is a hallowed American tradition that we are never, ever prepared for the wars we enter. After the decimation of the DoD by President Clinton, it took 6 months of round-the-clock effort just to manufacture the materiel that would be needed to attack Afghanistan. What if, instead of Afghanistan, we had to help South Korea or Taiwan repel a determined attack by their communist neighbors? What if we had to help both of them at the same time? Today, our soldiers are busy clearing out mud-brick huts in Afghanistan, but who's to say what dangers tomorrow will bring? And from where in the world?

Congress forbids the U.S. Navy from scrapping or mothballing the Iowa class battleships, they are kept near-ready for action if necessary. Thank God. The A-10 Warthog (Thunderbolt) is the American Stuka, unsurpassed in its niche. And while the War on Terror offers few opportunities for tank busting and large scale ground support, suffice it to say that optimists can never predict the future, but pessimists have done the math. Might not a middle status be devised, somewhere between scrapping/mothballing and fully deployed, where a squadron or two of these very useful airplanes could be kept on duty for training pilots and ground crews, and for testing technological and ordnance upgrades, while semi-retiring the rest as we've done with our battleships? It is not wise to limit our choices to "all" or "nothing."

KSU Firefighter

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't most of the A-10 units Air National Guard?

NN

Can only fly an aircraft so much and bend it so much and it wears out and you need new.

Six-Gun

It's important to note that while the A-10 was indeed initially designed as a tank killer, its role has evolved into something dramatically different: close air support. In that regard, it has been extremely effective. The marines will surely attest to that fact. Scores of Taliban fighters have met their maker at the hands of the A-10. That gun can be loaded with high-explosive rounds in an anti-personnel role. In fact, the standard wartime loadout is referred to as "trail mix," a combination of armor piercing, high-explosive, etc. Add in precision guided munitions by way of both GPS guided and laser guided bombs via the LITENING pod (which I have personally operated and can tell you is pretty incredible for designating targets), plus extremely durability in he face of fire and you have one helluva tool for use against ground forces of all types. VERY few aircraft can sustain this kind of damage and come home.





The nice thing about it is that these jets are long ago paid off. Sure, you have to pay to sustain them, but the acquisition costs have long since been paid for.

sgtrock21

KSU Firefighter wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't most of the A-10 units Air National Guard?

National Guard aircraft are typically much better maintained than active duty aircraft. They are flown by aircrews who are either former active duty or long term (experienced) National Guard who are mentoring the new bees. They usually kick active duty Air Force a** In the William Tell exercise. I am not talking out of my a** like some posters. 30 years Army National Guard Aviation. Now (thankfully) retired. I have had a little time up close and personal with A-10s. They are beyond awesome in the ground attack role! They could probably perform the mission as well or better than anything else. As previously mentioned they are bought and paid for. What is the cost of the F-35 going to be? Half a billion or more? They are better at defending themselves air to air but that is what F-22 MIGCAP is for.

Bigslug

Anybody else notice the sticky relations with the Russians lately?

Anybody else remember what the A-10 was originally designed FOR?

Fisheadgib

In all actuality, cutting the A10 won't really save any money at all as that 3.7 billion and more would just be diverted to traiining and support for a much more expensive platform. Having crewed F-4's, F-15's, F-16's, and AC130A's, and having worked for General Dynamics and Lockheed on several other fighter aircraft programs, I've seen firsthand what it takes to maintain and operate various fighter aircraft. The more modern aircraft are much more fickle and expensive to maintain than the older workhorses. A classic example is the B-1 bomber. It was activated in 1986 at great expense and has never been fully mission capable while the most recent B-52 (#1040) will be 52 years old in October and it's still fully mission capable. The claim of saving a certain amount of money is just like a woman going shopping and claiming to have saved a certain amount of dollars. Unless she came home with the same amount of money that she left with, she didn't "save" anything.

BAMAAK

When I was stationed in NJ, there was a big airshow every year. Planes would start coming in a couple days early and they would often fly "locals" while hanging around a few days. I've never seen a plane that could turn in such a tight radius as the A10. I think if I was on the ground, I would rather have something low and slow protecting me for an hour then something that takes two counties to turn around for 15 minutes or a helicopter that can be shot down with a 50 year old RPG.

Jayhawker

Six-Gun wrote: »

It's important to note that while the A-10 was indeed initially designed as a tank killer, its role has evolved into something dramatically different: close air support. In that regard, it has been extremely effective. The marines will surely attest to that fact. Scores of Taliban fighters have met their maker at the hands of the A-10. That gun can be loaded with high-explosive rounds in an anti-personnel role. In fact, the standard wartime loadout is referred to as "trail mix," a combination of armor piercing, high-explosive, etc. Add in precision guided munitions by way of both GPS guided and laser guided bombs via the LITENING pod (which I have personally operated and can tell you is pretty incredible for designating targets), plus extremely durability in he face of fire and you have one helluva tool for use against ground forces of all types. VERY few aircraft can sustain this kind of damage and come home.





The nice thing about it is that these jets are long ago paid off. Sure, you have to pay to sustain them, but the acquisition costs have long since been paid for.

This...an F-35 isn't going to be nearly as "bullet proof" as an A-10....the ability to come in low and slow, mix it up with the bad guys and hang around for a spell is a godsend to the guys on the ground....in the end, both aircraft are useful, but not necessarily interchangeable...

Jayhawker

Bigslug wrote: »

Anybody else notice the sticky relations with the Russians lately?

Anybody else remember what the A-10 was originally designed FOR?

Yep...they were designed to shoot up Soviet armor pouring through the Fulda Gap....

PFD

alphasigmookie wrote: »

I don't know how many times I can post this, but when you add up DOD, DHS, VA, and all the other defense, security, and intelligence budgets along with the off budget war spending (not to mention the interest on all our collective, accumulated war debt), we spend more on defense that we collect in income taxes most years. Yes we spend a lot on preventing poor leaches from rioting in the streets too, but those are really the only two major budget items, everything else is sprinkles on the crap Sunday.

Regardless of whether this comes from an over-educated geek or a 5 star general, if it is true then it really has to make one think. I'm not sure exactly what, but it should make one think.

When it comes to financing the defense of "The American Way" (which I wholeheartedly support and understand that I am privileged to enjoy and only exists because of the sacrifices of our best and brightest) it appears that we are on a financial path that may not be sustainable.

And since Sam seems to be slacking lately, it would be a crap sundae. :tooth:

Teach

Six-Gun, the pics you posted remind me of some of the photos of B-17's coming hoime from Germany. Some of them were shot up so bad it was difficult to see what was holding the tail on! Some planes just soak up everything the other side throws at them and still keep flying. I remember a B-52 coming back to Kadena with a 3-foot hole in one wing where a turbine-driven hydraulic pump used to be. Thart wasn't battle damage, just a catastrophic failure of a mechanical part. The interesting part of that one was the fact that the auxiliary fuel tank on the damaged wing left the plane due to a wiring short, and the other side couldn't be jettisoned to equalize the weight. Thye had to fly it home with one wingtip 3,000 pounds heavy for a while until the fuel in the tank could be burned off!
Jerry

shotgunshooter3

From what I understand, the USAF has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for years as CAS is not seen as their primary mission. I have heard third hand that the Army was a signature away from taking over the A-10 fleet until the Secretary of the Army saw the maintenance and training costs.

Just IMO, but the Apache is not a 1:1 stand in for the A-10's capability.

Big Chief

Jayhawker wrote: »

Yep...they were designed to shoot up Soviet armor pouring through the Fulda Gap....

Funny you mentioned Fulda, a guy just called me a few minutes ago from NTC/ Fort Irwin CA and said he was looking at two pics of me on a unit photo board hanging in the 11th ACR area (now located at NTC) from when I was stationed in Fulda Germany with the 11th ACR.

jbp-ohio

Buford wrote: »

Take from the military to give to the entitlement leeches. I am so infuriated by our governments policy's and bull .

alphasigmookie wrote: »

I don't know how many times I can post this, but when you add up DOD, DHS, VA, and all the other defense, security, and intelligence budgets along with the off budget war spending (not to mention the interest on all our collective, accumulated war debt), we spend more on defense that we collect in income taxes most years. Yes we spend a lot on preventing poor leaches from rioting in the streets too, but those are really the only two major budget items, everything else is sprinkles on the crap Sunday.

I am fine with the $4000 I paid in Federal Taxes paying for an ICBM, a tank, a plane, a VA hospital, or a pay increase for the military. I am not OK with my niece paying a couple hundred dollars in tax from working a couple months at a telemarketer (knew the exact day she could quit), then getting $5000 back for (un)earned income because she bred an illegitimate kid......