A-10 Worthless POS

[Imissbush]

A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have

 

[hjmick]

Idiot.

 

[Camp]

Is that you Sec. Cheney?

 

[Mr. H.]

Talk to the pilots.

 

[Ringel05]

A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have

Yup folks, proof that even morons can use a computer..... Like we needed any more proof here on this board.......

 

[martybegan]

A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have

Yup folks, proof that even morons can use a computer..... Like we needed any more proof here on this board.......

How can someone hate an airplane that flings milk bottle sized shells out of a rotary cannon while making the sound of a wet fart?

 

[whitehall]

From what I heard the ground Troops loved the A-10 which they affectionately called "the warthog". The A-10 could come in low and slow and kick the doo-doo out of enemy troops. Hell, they used prop planes in Korea and Vietnam for the same reason. The times have changed and the fat asses in the Pentagon no longer want to fight or take responsibility for the deaths on both sides in a freaking battle. The A-10 is no longer useful because the fat asses set the rules so you couldn't use it. The US Troops in Afghanistan have to get permission practically from the Secretary of Defense to call in an artillery strike and Troops have to hold their fire and risk their lives rather than take a chance in a court martial if a rag head civilian is killed.

 

[Imissbush]

From what I heard the ground Troops loved the A-10 which they affectionately called "the warthog". The A-10 could come in low and slow and kick the doo-doo out of enemy troops. Hell, they used prop planes in Korea and Vietnam for the same reason. The times have changed and the fat asses in the Pentagon no longer want to fight or take responsibility for the deaths on both sides in a freaking battle. The A-10 is no longer useful because the fat asses set the rules so you couldn't use it. The US Troops in Afghanistan have to get permission practically from the Secretary of Defense to call in an artillery strike and Troops have to hold their fire and risk their lives rather than take a chance in a court martial if a rag head civilian is killed.

Jealous Air Force brass wanted a plane that could do what army helos could do. It NEVER did what it was suppose to do, cold war ended, and if it had tried it would have been pounded by Soviet AA fire. It was slow, vulenarable and not easily replaced. Junk, the only ones that like it are people that fight battles in their dreams

 

[SmedlyButler]

A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have

You DO NOT want to be in the sights of the driver of this flying tank.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rGcn2XGr48]A-10 Warthog: Attack Run - YouTube[/ame]

 

[MikeK]

A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have

What do you base that opinion on?

The only thing I know about the A-10 gunship is what I've seen in a tv documentary, which is it is used only in situations where there is minimal anti-aircraft potential but clear opportunity to render substantial assistance to ground troops. And what I saw in that documentary in terms of its capability was impressive.

Do you know of many, or any, examples of the A-10 being shot down or having failed in its primary mission?

I would think it isn't used in Afghanistan because our brass knows the Taliban guerillas have plenty of anti-aircraft missiles (I believe they are called Stingers) and they know how to use them. The brass know this because we gave those ground-to-air missiles to the Afghani guerillas when they were called Mujahideen and were fighting the Russians -- who were doing in Afghanistan what we are doing there now.

 

[westwall]

Idiot.

A reeeealy big idiot.

 

[rockledr]

I have a few trips to Afghanistan and I can tell you before the ROE was changed we used the A-10 a lot. I owe my life to some damn fine A-10s and pilots.

 

[westwall]

From what I heard the ground Troops loved the A-10 which they affectionately called "the warthog". The A-10 could come in low and slow and kick the doo-doo out of enemy troops. Hell, they used prop planes in Korea and Vietnam for the same reason. The times have changed and the fat asses in the Pentagon no longer want to fight or take responsibility for the deaths on both sides in a freaking battle. The A-10 is no longer useful because the fat asses set the rules so you couldn't use it. The US Troops in Afghanistan have to get permission practically from the Secretary of Defense to call in an artillery strike and Troops have to hold their fire and risk their lives rather than take a chance in a court martial if a rag head civilian is killed.

Jealous Air Force brass wanted a plane that could do what army helos could do. It NEVER did what it was suppose to do, cold war ended, and if it had tried it would have been pounded by Soviet AA fire. It was slow, vulenarable and not easily replaced. Junk, the only ones that like it are people that fight battles in their dreams

Yeah....right....

And on and on and on.... lots of pictures showing the destruction that the A-10's have wrought on enemy tanks.

You sir, are a moron..

 

[jon_berzerk]

A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have

What do you base that opinion on?

The only thing I know about the A-10 gunship is what I've seen in a tv documentary, which is it is used only in situations where there is minimal anti-aircraft potential but clear opportunity to render substantial assistance to ground troops. And what I saw in that documentary in terms of its capability was impressive.

Do you know of many, or any, examples of the A-10 being shot down or having failed in its primary mission?

I would think it isn't used in Afghanistan because our brass knows the Taliban guerillas have plenty of anti-aircraft missiles (I believe they are called Stingers) and they know how to use them. The brass know this because we gave those ground-to-air missiles to the Afghani guerillas when they were called Mujahideen and were fighting the Russians -- who were doing in Afghanistan what we are doing there now.

I would think it isn't used in Afghanistan because our brass knows the Taliban guerillas have plenty of anti-aircraft missiles

Bagram pilots save 60 Soldiers during convoy ambush
By Staff Sgt. Stephenie Wade, 455th Air Expeditionary Wing, Public Affairs / Published August 06, 2013

BAGRAM AIRFIELD, Afghanistan (AFNS) --
Two A-10 Thunderbolt II pilots assigned to the 74th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, provided close-air support to 60 U.S. Soldiers July 24.

The Soldiers were part of a routine clearance patrol that was ambushed after their lead vehicle in a convoy of 12 turned over during a patrol of an Afghanistan highway. The situation forced the Soldiers to establish an overnight base while they pulled the vehicle out of a ravine. As the sun rose, the unit began to receive heavy fire from a nearby tree line. The members were pinned behind their vehicles and three of the Soldiers suffered injuries. The unit was under fire and the wounded members needed a casualty evacuation so they called for close-air support.

However, there was one problem; the ground unit didn't have a way to confirm the enemy's position. The unit did have a joint fire observer who was able to communicate an estimated location to the A-10 pilots who arrived on scene shortly after receiving the call from a local base's joint terminal air controller responsible for coordinating aerial engagements.

"I flew over to provide a show of force while my wingman was looking for gunfire below," said the flight lead of the two-ship A-10 mission. "Our goal with the show of force was to break the contact and let the enemy know we were there, but they didn't stop. I think that day the enemy knew they were going to die, so they pushed even harder and began moving closer to our ground forces."

When the enemy combatants didn't flee after the show of force, the A-10 pilots decided to deliver air-to-surface munitions to protect the friendly ground forces.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDispl...ts-save-60-soldiers-during-convoy-ambush.aspx

 

[berilgonzalvis]

War only leads to mayhem and destruction.

 

[Mojo2]

A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have

You are woefully ignorant.

It is the very best fixed wing ground support aircraft in our military's arsenal.

That's why it's service life has been so extended.

Even though there are other close air support craft there is nothing that does the job of the A-10.

It has the loitering capacity and the big gun and a low and slow ability that even its critics, who are drooling at getting A-10 budget $'s diverted to the F-35 program which is a spectacular leap of technology, admit the F-35 can't do what the Warthog does in a theater like Afghaniistan.

Those critics assume we won't ever fight in such an arena again so they are willing to finally kill the A-10.

It wouldn't be the first time military analysts have been wrong about what planes and armaments the Air Force or Navy should have.

They said missiles would make guns obsolete. So the Phantom F-4 was built without guns.

So what happened?

In Viet Nam the lack of guns made pilots and missions dependent on unreliable missile technology.

Then someone in the field jury rigged a gun pod to sling along the linear axis of the F-4 fuselage and pilots were happier and used those guns to bring down Migs over S.E. Asia that might have killed them.

Hell, they've been trying to get rid of the Warthog for years! Unbeknownst to many, lots of pilots are hardwired liberal and really care about how sexy a plane looks, as opposed to how well it functions. So, based on their prejudiced eye they found all the reason they needed to justify killing it.

That is, until we turned back Iraqi invaders from Kuwait. Then everyone realized just how lucky we were that we hadn't retired the Thunderbolt (another A-10 nickname) earlier.

For the job of taking out fortified ground targets and close air support there is nothing that can beat it!

And that has remained true in Iraq under GWB and in Afghanistan to this day.

It has been saved at least through the 2014 calendar year.

Beyond that I don't know.

But if the plane IS scrapped I suspect sometime soon afterwards they'll be in a conflict and wish the A-10 was still around to get a particularly gnarly and nasty job done at low risk to the pilot.

I'm a BIG fan of that plane and until there is something that does what it does we will just have to hope we never again have to fight in a country like Afghanistan.

 

[Mojo2]

War only leads to mayhem and destruction.

Yeah.

So, what should we do when war is being waged ON us?

 

[Mojo2]

Bill Blocks Air Force from Retiring A-10 Warthog

by KRIS OSBORN on DECEMBER 13, 2013

The bipartisan defense budget that passed through the House Thursday includes strict language mandating the Air Force not execute any plans to retire the A-10 Warthog. The legislation specifically blocks the Air Force from spending any money to divest A-10s through calendar year 2014.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh has said the service needs to retired older, single mission aircraft like the A-10 in order to reserve funding for newer aircraft like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is slotted to take over the A-10’s close air support role.

In service since the 70’s, the twin-engine jet aircraft is designed to provide ground troops with close air support by using its armored fuselage for protection, flying low to the ground to track and hit enemies and firing deadly 30mm rotary cannons.

Lawmakers have pushed back against any talk of the A-10’s retirement. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., blocked the nomination of the Air Force secretary, citing her concerns about Air Force’s A-10 plans and Defense Department struggles to bring the Joint Strike Fighter online.

Air Force has not formally made a decision about whether to retire the aircraft. However, Lt. Gen. Charles Davis, Military Deputy for Air Force Acquisition, made clear that budget restrictions have forced the service to consider cutting entire programs to save money.

“Everything that we have is being effected by sequestration right now – satellites, missiles, air frames have already been cut 13 percent. Do you try to retire something so that you get rid of the entire logistics trail and the depot? You can save a lot of money. That is the discussion that is going on right now,” he said.

The potential budget deal that still needs to be approved by the Senate and signed by President Obama would reduce sequestration cuts and add $3 to $7 billion to the Air Force’s budget. However, Davis said the service would not prioritize saving the A-10 and instead listed funding more flying hours and the Joint Strike Fighter program has higher priorities.

Davis did say that technological advances such as sensors and laser-guided weaponry have made it possible for a number of aircraft, such as F-16 fighter jets, to successfully perform close air support. F-16s have regularly provided close air support in Afghanistan, service officials specified.

“F-16 does a wonderful close air support mission. You don’t need to fly slow with a lot of titanium armor with a 30-mm gun just to be able to do close air support. We’ve got B-52s and B-1s doing close air support. The weapons have changed the game,” Davis said.

Furthermore, Davis emphasized that close air support in potential future conflicts will likely require different technologies than are currently needed in Afghanistan today.

“Close air support is not hovering close with a gun anymore. That works great in a situation like Afghanistan — but if you assume that we are not going to fight that way all over the world you are going to do close air support much differently. Your ultimate close air support weapon would be something above the earth with a pinpoint accuracy laser that can pick off a person individually when they get too near our troops and do it repeatedly,” Davis added.

http://defensetech.org/2013/12/13/bill-blocks-air-force-from-retiring-a-10-warthog/

 

[longknife]

War only leads to mayhem and destruction.

Another memorized Leftey mantra.

 

[longknife]

Didn't they once claim that the B-52 was obsolete and should quickly be replaced?

At least 56 years ago.