Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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
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.......
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.
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?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
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
What do you base that opinion on?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
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.
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
War only leads to mayhem and destruction.
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.
War only leads to mayhem and destruction.