viper730 Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 ....Just got a news flash from Popular Mechanics. That the A-10 "ain't going nowhere fore the time being". The Airforce has decided that the platform is to valuable in the war on terrorism. and they came to the realization that the F-35 is a "pig" that just can't do the same things a "HOG" can do.... http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a18985/a-10-warthog-retirement-plans-stalled/?mag=pop&list=nl_pnl_news&src=nl&date=011516 Link to post Share on other sites
nicely11b Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 It's ridiculous that it took them this long to come to this conclusion. Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 It's ridiculous that it took them this long to come to this conclusion. Why? Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) The Airforce has decided that the platform is to valuable in the war on terrorism. and they came to the realization that the F-35 is a "pig" that just can't do the same things a "HOG" can do.... http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a18985/a-10-warthog-retirement-plans-stalled/?mag=pop&list=nl_pnl_news&src=nl&date=011516 Nice editorial addition there. Edited January 16, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat Link to post Share on other sites
nicely11b Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Why? There is no aircraft in the US military that can compare to what the A-10 can do. They want to dump the A-10, F-16s, and legacy Hornets for a single jet that they won't fly into real CAS situations. What's going to happen to the military when the entire F-35 fleet is grounded due to an issue like the oxygen problems on the F-22? Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Hey, when does the A-10 get it's own forum? -Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Hey, when does the A-10 get it's own forum? Honestly, and I thought the Tomcat retirement debates back in the day were something.... Where's that popcorn eating smiley when you need him... :D Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 What's going to happen to the military when the entire F-35 fleet is grounded due to an issue like the oxygen problems on the F-22? Guess they'll have to conduct CAS with Superhornets, F-15E's, B-1's, B-52's, AC-130's, UAV's, Helo's or Minuteman III's until they get that O2 problem sorted out. Link to post Share on other sites
spejic Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 The A-10 is designed to survive the most threat-filled environments the world has to offer. The office rooms of Washington DC. Link to post Share on other sites
vvac201 Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 I need some peanut butter and maple syrup! Link to post Share on other sites
Jinxter13 Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) The A-10 is designed to survive the most threat-filled environments the world has to offer. The office rooms of Washington DC. :rofl: :rofl: seriously though, never launch a winder over D.C. ; it would have problems deciding which target to prosecute...with all that hot air in the area Edited January 16, 2016 by #1 Greywolf Link to post Share on other sites
phantomdriver Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 :lol: :lol: Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Honestly, and I thought the Tomcat retirement debates back in the day were something.... OMG...Tomcat Sunset had more dignity when that happened 10 years ago. And remember, that was an ACTUAL retirement. NAS Oceana had a show and everything. There were about six threads about it at the time with grown men bemoaning the end of days. I remember one post claiming that the F-14 single handedly won the Cold War. Here we are ten years later; the A-10's retirement was a budget item that came up almost three years ago because Congress and the White House couldn't agree on a budget, and people still getting their panties in a wad over it. This is the third thread on the subject in the past month alone. I present the "Official A-10 Retirement Topic" gif: Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) There is no aircraft in the US military that can compare to what the A-10 can do. Of course you can compare them. Its not a theological discussion. And believe it or not there are many aircraft that do not only compare to the A-10, but also outclass it in several areas (Yes, even CAS!!) They want to dump the A-10, F-16s, and legacy Hornets for a single jet Its not a "want" its happening. a single jet that they won't fly into real CAS situations. So the Marines want it for skywriting purposes? Or is it a "single Rifleman vertical delivery vehicle"?? Curious why the most dedicated to the Rifleman CAS service would replace every fixed wing aircraft with the F-35 that can't do CAS. The Marines are so wacky! Remember when the Navy turned A fleet interceptor into a CAS platform? What's going to happen to the military when the entire F-35 fleet is grounded due to an issue like the oxygen problems on the F-22? Send the A-10, its not going anywhere. Hopefully the Airliners slow down enough for it to make an interception. Hey, when does the A-10 get it's own forum? When this bucket is overflowing with tears, we can ask again. You know the rules. Besides this thread title is wrong the air force will NEVER stop trying to retire BRRRRRTTTT. Ever. Edited January 16, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat Link to post Share on other sites
Moose135 Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 What's going to happen to the military when the entire F-35 fleet is grounded due to an issue like the oxygen problems on the F-22? They have a secret plan to bring back the Tweet...they will just scare the enemy into submission. Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 ....Just got a news flash from Popular Mechanics. That the A-10 "ain't going nowhere fore the time being". The Airforce has decided that the platform is to valuable in the war on terrorism. and they came to the realization that the F-35 is a "pig" that just can't do the same things a "HOG" can do.... Unintentionally apt, because at this point the A-10 defines the term "pork". Take away those 80 jets from D-M and the "esteemed" Senator from Arizona will suddenly wake up long enough to hate it like every other Air Force program he comes in contact with. Take away all those A-10s from the Guard/Reserves and those Congresspeople (who, with extremely few exceptions, have no experience with the military) suddenly have no idea what aircraft can provide CAS. Of course, they've already proven they don't know what CAS is. This is basically the Air Force throwing up its hands and bowing to political pressure. The cost for this diversion of resources will be paid in blood somewhere down the line, but hey Congress kept the jobs intact and the fanboiz are happy. Regards, Murph Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) Unintentionally apt, because at this point the A-10 defines the term "pork". Take away those 80 jets from D-M and the "esteemed" Senator from Arizona will suddenly wake up long enough to hate it like every other Air Force program he comes in contact with. Take away all those A-10s from the Guard/Reserves and those Congresspeople (who, with extremely few exceptions, have no experience with the military) suddenly have no idea what aircraft can provide CAS. Of course, they've already proven they don't know what CAS is. This is basically the Air Force throwing up its hands and bowing to political pressure. The cost for this diversion of resources will be paid in blood somewhere down the line, but hey Congress kept the jobs intact and the fanboiz are happy. Regards, Murph As long as it aint grunt blood. Our blood is just, more pure and important you know? I don't care if you loose the whole theater, as long as the Grunts are OK. This has nothing to do with me being an 03 BTW anywho. Can't wait to see the passing of the torch when other platforms besides A-10s are used to provide CAS anyway because its too risky to the A-10. ... Wait thats already happened. This is a real victory though. I'm hoping ISIS can keep us and the A-10 active in the middle east for the next 10 to 15 years. Such progress!! Edited January 16, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 This is a real victory though. I'm hoping ISIS can keep us and the A-10 active in the middle east for the next 10 to 15 years. Impossible! All I've heard since ISIS came to be was how much they're afraid of the A-10 and how the A-10 will end them! Such progress!! Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Can't wait to see the passing of the torch when other platforms besides A-10s are used to provide CAS anyway because its too risky to the A-10. When the F-35 replaces those Guard/Reserve A-10s the change in tune from Congress will be hilarious. Suddenly the F-35 will be the bestest CAS platform EVAH! Link to post Share on other sites
nspreitler Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Impossible! All I've heard since ISIS came to be was how much they're afraid of the A-10 and how the A-10 will end them! I've seen a bunch that have been ended by A-10s, and a lot that have been ended by other platforms. Like I have said before there is still nothing better in danger close engagements. There are times you just can't drop a JDAM due to proximity, and in those situations the gun does come in really handy plus the cost benefit of 30mm vs a $25,000 JDAM or a $100,000 Hellfire. There are certainly other platforms that can do CAS, but in my opinion it makes sense to keep the A-10s for now. We are using them against ISIS, and they are ideal in that environment. They will be retired eventually, but they are still the lowest cost per hour manned platform in the inventory. They have plenty of service life left, and using them instead of platforms we intend to keep for the long term is avoiding a lot of wear and tear on newer aircraft. The Air Force can save some money in the base budget retiring it, but OCO funds would have to increase to cover the increased costs of using any other platform. Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 There are many things you can do with the truth surrounding the A-10, but no amount of lies, damn lies, or statistics (employing numbers to help you lie) can kill this beast. 283 truckloads of fool-whoopin' trumps a few tens of expensive pin pricking wonder-jets during these times of fighting insurgencies. Neither the F-16, nor F-15, nor AV-8, nor F/A-18, nor F-22, nor F-35, nor B-1, nor B-2, nor B-52 can offer exactly what the A-10 has had for decades. The A-10 is cheaper than its planned replacements, yet it yields a bigger punch when it is needed. The battle for the A-10 has been fairly fought by both sides of the argument and the jury is in: If the troops like and trust it, and have built a proven record for the A-10, then we already have a dollar-for-dollar cheaper aircraft that out-performs its contemporaries where it counts most. Past projects have failed to match the A-10's firepower and survivability, and the most modern projects still lag far behind existing platforms for dutifully carrying out support for troops in close contact with the enemy forces, which in many cases outnumber our own. You can do many things to the truth, but you can't kill it. The only thing anyone has ever had to do to defend the A-10 is state the truth and that alone has kept the opposition scrambling for a way to defeat it. Given the high amount of unwarranted passion for the subject, I believe this will be, for many of us, the first time we get to see a highly visible parade conducted by the losing side, in their full, inelegant pride. Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Is your a** jealous of the amount of s**t that just came out of your mouth? Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) There are many things you can do with the truth surrounding the A-10, but no amount of lies, damn lies, or statistics (employing numbers to help you lie) can kill this beast. Its funny because people are using a lot of those lies here in this very thread to support the A-10. Lets watch 283 truckloads of fool-whoopin' trumps a few tens of expensive pin pricking wonder-jets during these times of fighting insurgencies. LOL wow. single B-1 can drop as many bombs on Syrian and Iraqi targets as 40 attack jets flying off an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, noted retired Air Force general Deptula, making the bomber’s importance to the air campaign obvious. “The B-1 carries so much payload, and has so much endurance, its persistence can’t be matched by other platforms” like smaller attack jets and the B-52, he said. “It is both more effective and more efficient.” Basic look at some numbers would quickly dispel you "283 truck loads" BS, especially considering how there are all of 12 A-10s in the theater. TWELVE. Neither the F-16, nor F-15, nor AV-8, nor F/A-18, nor F-22, nor F-35, nor B-1, nor B-2, nor B-52 can offer exactly what the A-10 has had for decades. The A-10 is cheaper than its planned replacements, yet it yields a bigger punch when it is needed. LOL based on what?? The battle for the A-10 has been fairly fought by both sides of the argument you mean the "damn liars"?? and the jury is in: If the troops like and trust it, and have built a proven record for the A-10, then we already have a dollar-for-dollar cheaper aircraft that out-performs its contemporaries where it counts most. Past projects have failed to match the A-10's firepower and survivability, The troops like and trust lots of platforms. And this isn't even about the troops I think that's laughably niAve. This politics plain and simple and the "troops" are the ploy. But it worked on you so that's good. Decisions based on the welfare of the troops and with troop input would see a very different force structure. Moreover many troops heap accolades on the same aircraft you are throwing under thr bus as inferior and the most modern projects still lag far behind existing platforms for dutifully carrying out support for troops in close contact with the enemy forces, which in many cases outnumber our own. Is that why we sent all those other platforms there? You can do many things to the truth, but you can't kill it. Declaring your side "the truth" and dismissing all relevant evidence that contradicts that really cuts to the heart of your delusion. There are other truths beyond just yours The only thing anyone has ever had to do to defend the A-10 is state the truth and that alone has kept the opposition scrambling for a way to defeat it. Many truths have been stated about the A-10, and folks like you simply ignore them and double down in the propoganda. Given the high amount of unwarranted passion for the subject, I believe this will be, for many of us, the first time we get to see a highly visible parade conducted by the losing side, in their full, inelegant pride. is ISIS the losing side? or the USAF? The Taxpayers? the American people caught up in an endless war that is perpetuated by "truthful winners" such as yourself? I thought we were leaving the middle east and ending the GWoT, not doubling down. keeping the A-10 to continue the same conflict that is failing to achieve objectives is truly a victory. If that makes me a "loser" for not going along with this anymore, I am happy to be one. I'm glad the war is keeping your favorite pork project in business. Congrats. In the mean time, More serious threats are happy to see us wasting blood, sweat, and treasure and keeping the A-10 around. BTW You are laying it on really thick lately. The pot in Austin must be superb. The U.S. military will use B-1 bombers — not A-10s — to provide Iraqi security forces with close air support as they make their final push into Ramadi from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a military spokesman said Thursday. "We've got B-1s in this fight, and when we find obstacles that we know we can hit, we'll strike them from the air as well to try and disable them," Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren said on CNN's "New Day" on Thursday. He said they were being used due to its long loiter time, its ability to hold lots of munitions and "extraordinary precision." The B-1 is able to hold 84 500lb general-purpose bombs, and loiter up to 10 hours without a single refueling. "B-1s are evolving into a very effective close air support platform," he said. In addition, he said they are "much less" vulnerable than the A-10 attack jets, which were employed in Iraq and Afghanistan to support ground troops in battle. A-10s are not being used in the offensive at the moment, he said, but it's not clear why. One reason may be that some believe that B-1s are more precise than A-10s. The Obama administration has been concerned with inflicting civilian casualties throughout the yearlong war against ISIS, insisting that the rules of engagement are more restrictive than what is required under the law of war. On Thursday, CNN reported that "national security officials are having initial, internal discussions about whether changes are needed" to the rules of engagement for airstrikes over Iraq and Syria. "There are no formal proposals, and no immediate decisions expected," an official told CNN. "We have to find this right balance between achieving military effects, and how much collateral damage we're willing to accept," Warren said. "This is a continuous discussion. ... It's a daily thing." On Wednesday near Ramadi, five coalition airstrikes struck two ISIS tactical units; destroyed a fighting position; five command and control nodes; a tactical vehicle; a "bed-down" location; an artillery site; cratered five ISIS-used roads' and denied ISIS access to terrain, according to U.S. Central Command. http://thehill.com/policy/defense/264211-coalition-air-force-b-1-bombers-being-used-in-ramadi-offensive Such Truth!!! I'm all for keeping the A-10, but not at the cost of other capabilities for wars of dubious value in the middle east. And all the chicken hawks have lined up for this one. We need the A-10 so we can continue to fight in wars with no end or objective in sight at the cost of billions of dollars, loss of life, and unrecoverable missed opportunities domestically and militarily. I think its grimly hilarious that we are happy with the GWoT keeping the A-10 going because things are getting worse not better. Thanks to the JV team, for keeping the HOG employed. Edited January 17, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) I've seen a bunch that have been ended by A-10s, and a lot that have been ended by other platforms. Like I have said before there is still nothing better in danger close engagements. There are times you just can't drop a JDAM due to proximity, and in those situations the gun does come in really handy plus the cost benefit of 30mm vs a $25,000 JDAM or a $100,000 Hellfire. of all the arguments for the A-10 I feel like the "saving money" part is utterly hollow. We spend billions of dollars on the wars people say we need the A-10 for, please don't talk about "savings" --thats like knocking a dollar off the cost of a Lamborghini and declaring it "economical" (Other cup holders would cost more) There are certainly other platforms that can do CAS, but in my opinion it makes sense to keep the A-10s for now. We are using them against ISIS, and they are ideal in that environment. They will be retired eventually, but they are still the lowest cost per hour manned platform in the inventory. CPFH is far from the total cost of having them around which is why they were selected for early retirement. They have plenty of service life left After rewinging, yes. [ and using them instead of platforms we intend to keep for the long term is avoiding a lot of wear and tear on newer aircraft. The Air Force can save some money in the base budget retiring it, but OCO funds would have to increase to cover the increased costs of using any other platform. Poppycock. please tell me how withdrawing 12 A-10s and sending 12 of something else would have any noticeable cost increase. OCO was 65.8 billion dollars, and of course the other platforms (Like F-16s, Super Hornets, Tankers) are being sent anyway. I do like the idea of fighting this war on the cheap though. I think the best thing we could do is withdraw all other US assets, and just use A-10s exclusively. Its all we really need according to the fanboys anyway. Don't know why we bother sending the Navy or Marines, or any other USAF or hell even US Army rotary Assets when the Hog has this thing sealed up baby Edited January 17, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts