Cutting the A-10 Attack Jet Will Get Americans Killed

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/cuttin ... f67e232ba4


"When storm clouds gathered over a battlefield in eastern Afghanistan, a coalition commando on the ground began say his goodbyes. His unit was outnumbered, many of his comrades were wounded and the enemy’s gunfire was intensifying.

Thunderclouds loomed as low as 1,000 feet. The U.S. Air Force AC-130, B-1 and MC-12 warplanes flying overhead had to return to base, depriving the 90-man team of potentially life-saving close air support.

Or maybe not. Two A-10C Warthog attack jets were threading their way between the mountains and lightning strikes to reach the battle.
Shrugging off heavy enemy fire, the twin-engine A-10s maneuvered so low below the storm clouds their pilots could look down and see the allied soldiers under attack on the ridge line.

Flying close enough to distinguish friend from foe—and with radio help from the commando—the heavily-armored jets laid down 30-millimeter cannon fire within meters of the friendly forces over the course of what would be a 13-hour engagement.

“You saved a lot of lives,” one of men on the ground told the A-10 pilots the next day. No other Air Force aircraft—fighter, bomber or drone—could have done what the A-10 did. Get below the weather, distinguish good guys from bad … and save American lives.

For their actions in June of 2012, the Air Force awarded the Warthog pilots Distinguished Flying Crosses with Valor, one of the flying branch’s highest awards. The Air Force, however, has a much different plan for the A-10s.
The air service recently announced it will “divest” the A-10—this despite the Army’s chief of staff calling the ungainly plane America’s “best close air support aircraft.”...

Maybe we can throw some of those non-existent WMD's at 'em?

Originally built back in the 1970's by Fairchild, the A-10 is ugly and slow but there isn't another airframe in the US's inventory that can sustain as much damage as the Warthog.

[youtube:1wc827ia][/youtube:1wc827ia]

The A-10 is the right tool for the close air support job because it was designed specifically for the role. Yes the airframes are old and yes by modern standards it's an antique but, it's still doing a very important job and doing it very well. It seems like we're reliving the days of the F-4 when that airframe was going to do it all for every branch of the DoD.

Don't fix it if it ain't broke?

What does an A-10 cost these days? If it's cheaper than the new-fangled high-falutin expensive jets, and is still useful, then why not stick with it?

Conan wrote: Don't fix it if it ain't broke?

What does an A-10 cost these days? If it's cheaper than the new-fangled high-falutin expensive jets, and is still useful, then why not stick with it?

Because Lockhead and Boeing have lucrative contracts and many, many employees that depend
upon those contracts for jobs...you know innovation, invention, inroads into the FUTURE...besides
THAT would be too logical and the government does NOT do things logically. JMO

Love the Warthog! Much less of a boondoggle than the F-35.

But in Obama's America, there is no need for the Warthog, we are just not going to get involved in ground operations overseas unless we really have to. (Source: Obama's West Point Speech"
The Obama Doctrine says the US will turtle up.

Gee, and here I thought it was the MILITARY that was telling Congress that it needed to drop obsolete aircraft, and reduce the number of carriers in the fleet by one; keep producing armored vehicles that it doesn't want; and keep the salary increase to 1%, in order to cut the military budget.... And Congress, (because of the pork priorities in the various states and districts) was saying "No, we're going to appropriate it whether you like it or not."

Imagine my surprise... The military is having more money thrown at it, and while it is saying 'No', Congress would rather spend it on warfare than infrastructure and programs to help the American people...

My bad...

Both statements can be true.
But the A-10 debacle has been going on for decades. Fighter jocks run the Air Force, they want cool, new fighters, they don't want close air support bombers that require air superiority. If the Army was allowed to have fixed wing aircraft, they would find money in the budget for the A-10.

FredHayek wrote: Both statements can be true.
But the A-10 debacle has been going on for decades. Fighter jocks run the Air Force, they want cool, new fighters, they don't want close air support bombers that require air superiority. If the Army was allowed to have fixed wing aircraft, they would find money in the budget for the A-10.

:YeahThat:

General Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff, told a panel in the House of Representatives that eliminating the 283 tank-killer jets would save $3.7 billion over the next five years plus another $500 million in planned aircraft upgrades.

The money saved would in turn be used to bolster current Air Force readiness, which has slipped in recent years because of budget cuts, and to focus on priorities for the future, such as the radar-evading F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a new aerial refueling tanker and a new long-range bomber.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... VR20140314

We're cutting back on expenditures, remember?