strikeeagle801 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Title says it all pretty much. I know it was a hot topic, and that it was supposed to be decided on soon, but I've not seen anything "official" yet on it. Aaron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Check Six Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 From Wiki: During debates on the fiscal 2014 defense authorization bill in November 2013, an amendment from the Senate addressed the issue of early A-10 retirement. The Senate bill would keep the Air Force from retiring or storing the Thunderbolt II at least until the F-35A becomes fully operational, which is expected in 2021. The bill is a rare sign of bipartisan commitment which is from mutual support of the aircraft. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dean spirkoff Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) what is the difference between the two air force @ navy Edited December 5, 2013 by dean spirkoff Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Everybody loves the A-10, except the Air Force and our enemies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CorsairMan Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I'll buy a slightly used one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wolfgun33 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 They're actually going to do another upgrade to the A-10C's. A-10 Upgrade Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) Everybody loves the A-10, except the Air Force and our enemies. Anytime some smartass who thinks he is clever asks "Why the Navy's Army needs its own air force" I say "Ask the Army" During debates on the fiscal 2014 defense authorization bill in November 2013, an amendment from the Senate addressed the issue of early A-10 retirement. The Senate bill would keep the Air Force from retiring or storing the Thunderbolt II at least until the F-35A becomes fully operational, which is expected in 2021. The bill is a rare sign of bipartisan commitment which is from mutual support of the aircraft. Senate: we are cutting the hell out of your funding because we can't get along USAF: Ok fine we need to cut aircraft then Senate: We have come together to stop you from the cuts you need to make. Still no funding though USAF: Thanks... Edited December 5, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Check Six Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Anytime some smartass who thinks he is clever asks "Why the Navy's Army needs its own air force" I say "Ask the Army" Excellent point. I read that when it was debated whether to retire the A-10's now, the Army spoke up and said it would buy the A-10's from the AF if it was decided to retire the A-10's. IMHO; That's the way is should have been to begin with. Just like the Marine Corps having it's own air support. No one carries more about providing close air support for the Marines than a Marine Corps pilot. Ooorah!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Johnopfor Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 Title says it all pretty much. I know it was a hot topic, and that it was supposed to be decided on soon, but I've not seen anything "official" yet on it. Aaron This is the response that I received from Senator Deb Fischer this afternoon...... Dear John,Thank you for contacting me about this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter. You expressed support for a number of amendments in this year’s bill but, unfortunately, the Majority Leader has refused to allow open consideration of amendments. I believe a robust amendment process is important so that changes to the bill, including those you mentioned, can be considered. It is especially important to allow amendments, because new security challenges have emerged since the Committee adopted the original text of the legislation in May. For this reason, on November 21, 2013, I voted against a procedural motion filed by the Majority Leader that would have cut off debate on the bill—a motion he made after the Senate had only debated and voted on merely two amendments out of the hundreds filed. While the motion failed to garner the support necessary, and the bill remains pending before the Senate, it is still unlikely that the amendments will be considered when the Senate’s session resumes. Thank you again for contacting me about this most important bill. Please know however, that I will keep your support for these amendments in mind if votes are allowed as the consideration of the NDAA continues. In other words.......the can has been kicked down the road....... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 >>> Article <<< -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Check Six Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 >>> Article <<< -Gregg Thanks for the link. IMHO, this is a classic example of 'letting a seamstress rebuild a transmission'. Meaning the Air Farce general fails to see the fact that the A-10 is a purpose-build a/c that does it's job superbly. There is no other a/c in the U.S. military inventory that is designed like the A-10. In fact; Since 1945 there have been only two specifically designed a/c that have been built for the purpose of close air support: A-1 Skyraider and the A-10. Having the A-10 be replaced by the F-35 would be taking a huge step backwards, to say the least. The A-10's design is as relevant and capable today as it was 20 years ago. Thirty years ago. IMHO; The USAF wants their new toy, the F-35. Rather than admit to the qualities only the A-10 has in regards to close air support, the general uses cliches to make his point: "It's time to let it go." He also uses a stupid metaphor by comparing cutting the A-10s to cuts of other beloved aircraft such as the P-51 Mustang or F-86 Sabre when they became out of date but flying them was "still cool." That was downright insulting. It is the stupidity like what the general has shown that I'm of the opinion that no one cares more for the well-being of the Army soldier than an Army pilot. Those A-10's belong in the Army flown by Army pilots. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pierre Sacha Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 Oh man, I still need to build one. My collection collectively demands it. :wub: Pierre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Quailane Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 Well the USAF has never been really gung-ho about close air support and it isn't the first time the A-10 has been threatened with retirement. Put up an aircraft like the A-10 against any fighter program and the A-10 doesn't stand a chance in the eyes of the Air Force. Oh man, I still need to build one. My collection collectively demands it. Pierre Didn't you read the article? The A-10 isn't cool anymore. It is time to let it go... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 IMHO, this is a classic example of 'letting a seamstress rebuild a transmission'. Meaning the Air Farce general fails to see the fact that the A-10 is a purpose-build a/c that does it's job superbly. There is no other a/c in the U.S. military inventory that is designed like the A-10. In fact; Since 1945 there have been only two specifically designed a/c that have been built for the purpose of close air support: A-1 Skyraider and the A-10. Having the A-10 be replaced by the F-35 would be taking a huge step backwards, to say the least. The A-10's design is as relevant and capable today as it was 20 years ago. Thirty years ago. IMHO; The USAF wants their new toy, the F-35. Rather than admit to the qualities only the A-10 has in regards to close air support, the general uses cliches to make his point: "It's time to let it go." He also uses a stupid metaphor by comparing cutting the A-10s to cuts of other beloved aircraft such as the P-51 Mustang or F-86 Sabre when they became out of date but flying them was "still cool." That was downright insulting. It is the stupidity like what the general has shown that I'm of the opinion that no one cares more for the well-being of the Army soldier than an Army pilot. Those A-10's belong in the Army flown by Army pilots. Although Moseley works for LM the A-10 has been discussed here before and I suggest you read up here to take a look at some of the reasons why the A-10 is becoming irrelevant: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=267719&st=0 Note: This topic is about an article the first page, gets a little messy on pages 2 and 3, and then gets VERY in depth on pages 4 and 5. Read the whole thing though. Again Moseley did not leave the USAF on good terms, however the current USAF Chief of Staff who was talking about retiring the A-10 in the first place (this time around) is a former A-10 driver... So he understands the limitations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
strikeeagle801 Posted December 6, 2013 Author Share Posted December 6, 2013 So in other words...It is still up in the air... Aaron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 (edited) Rather than admit to the qualities only the A-10 has in regards to close air support, the general uses cliches to make his point: "It's time to let it go." I have one word for that General: Stratofortress... Edited December 6, 2013 by habu2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GEH737 Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 ...and after B-52 you could also add KC-135, C-130, T-38, C-5 and F-15 It's not that the A-10 isn't still useful, it's the fact that it was never wanted by the Air Force in the first place. It isn't in production now, and with ever increasing demand of social spending, military spending is going to decrease. The choices are only going to get harder for the foreseeable future. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Check Six Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Although Moseley works for LM the A-10 has been discussed here before and I suggest you read up here to take a look at some of the reasons why the A-10 is becoming irrelevant: http://www.arcforums...pic=267719&st=0 Note: This topic is about an article the first page, gets a little messy on pages 2 and 3, and then gets VERY in depth on pages 4 and 5. Read the whole thing though. Again Moseley did not leave the USAF on good terms, however the current USAF Chief of Staff who was talking about retiring the A-10 in the first place (this time around) is a former A-10 driver... So he understands the limitations. Thanks for sharing the link. I will indeed read it cover to cover. FWIW; I am of the opinion that officers from all branch of service are nothing more than military politicians above the rank of O-6. The current CSAF is a former A-10. But shadows that is the fact that he's an O-10 working at the Pentagon dealing with members on congress and members of the presidents cabinet. A politician in a military uniform. Now off to read the thread. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 So in other words...It is still up in the air... Aaron Yup, but if I were a betting man, I'd say it ain't going anywhere. It has too many friends on the hill. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Well the USAF has never been really gung-ho about close air support... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 (edited) Well the USAF has never been really gung-ho about close air support... There were so many types, I had to split them up into two posts because the forum only lets you post so many pictures! And coming soon, the AC-130J... It's not that the A-10 isn't still useful, it's the fact that it was never wanted by the Air Force in the first place. So the whole A-X program opened up in '67, the RFPs sent out in 1970 and the fly-off between '72 and '73. That was a Navy program that was shoved down the AF's throat? Edited December 7, 2013 by Tony Stark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Mr. Stark, only two of those planes were designed with CAS in mind by the AF. The other two were Navy programs with one having to be forced upon by the Army and secdef. The two bombers never had CAS in mind and the two fast movers suck at CAS, but will work in a pinch if on station and they have enough play time when boots on ground get in a tic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 (edited) Mr. Stark, only two of those planes were designed with CAS in mind by the AF. The other two were Navy programs with one having to be forced upon by the Army and secdef. The two bombers never had CAS in mind and the two fast movers suck at CAS, but will work in a pinch if on station and they have enough play time when boots on ground get in a tic. http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=267719&st=60 and the two fast movers suck at CAS, but will work in a pinch if on station and they have enough play time when boots on ground get in a tic. You never hear about it, but probably one of the best CAS platforms early in the war was the F-14. So again...doesn't that validate the decision to retire the A-10? Edited December 7, 2013 by Tony Stark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 I love me some AC-130, but the restrictions placed on that angel of death makes it a pipe dream even within sof these days. Conventional forces in a tic? Name one time in the last five its been used. Even the stingers are getting rolled up in the same mission set the spectres are being used for. Might as well put the gun in a cop because the only howitzers firing are those with the excal rounds on the ground. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 So again...doesn't that validate the decision to retire the A-10? NO! '02 was the wild west with different sets of roe allowing the FACs to conduct business different than they do now. Patrols and an Air Assault with known objectives are night and day. Also, the CAS provided by the F-14 in OIF is a different beast that I don't think has been declass yet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.