Jump to content

Airforce gives up on A-10 retirement


Recommended Posts

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.

I wish ARC would allow sound tracks to be included in posts. Yours would have gone much better with the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in the background.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is your a** jealous of the amount of s**t that just came out of your mouth?

Its funny because people are using a lot of those lies here in this very thread to support the A-10. Lets watchLOL 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. LOL based on what??you mean the "damn liars"??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 Is that why we sent all those other platforms there?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 yoursMany truths have been stated about the A-10, and folks like you simply ignore them and double down in the propoganda. 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. http://thehill.com/policy/defense/264211-coalition-air-force-b-1-bombers-being-used-in-ramadi-offensiveSuch 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.

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.

I promised it, you delivered it.... here's the parade float

Caption_contest_tractor_dc1.jpg

Ya'll take way too many steps to frame your views in such a way that makes sense, but to avoid creating a tangled web of my own, I just stick to the truth surrounding the situation. Your arguments seemed marginally better back when you used fake accounts to make pro-A-10 statements in order to shoot them down without having anybody to contest you.

NEWS ALERT!! If you need to make fake accounts in order to prove your point, you probably don't even know what you're even talking about.

Here we have people that direct actual A-10s on the battlefield and you Einsteins want to tell him he will be just as well off using a solitary, overworked B-1 crew to take the place of 40 attack planes. Last I checked, it would be cheaper maintain a fleet of A-10s then it would a fleet of B-1s, if we're talking about CAS here. Not to mention the only poster in this thread to have current experience directing air strikes in close proximity to friendly troops has said that nothing the B-1 uses would be safe to call in virtually on top of his position.

*STREEEETCH* Your comments has put me in the mood for some live music

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish ARC would allow sound tracks to be included in posts. Yours would have gone much better with the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in the background.

Hah, we must have been thinking the same thing about music, so I added some above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we have people that direct actual A-10s on the battlefield and you Einsteins want to tell him he will be just as well off using a solitary, overworked B-1 crew to take the place of 40 attack planes.

Yes. And don't take Tadiian's word for it; but those of the 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment which saw 15 months of combat in Afghanistan.

"Our favorite asset at the company level was the B-1,” said one of the unit’s company commanders, Lou Frketic. “They had more ordnance and longer loiter times, and they delivered ordnance to the desired location without trying to second-guess us with their own optics.”

“What I loved about the B-1 was that it had such incredible payload capacity and such incredible time on station,” the battalion’s fire support officer, Jeffrey Pickler, agreed. “We dropped over a million pounds of Air Force bombs, and a lot of that was B-1s.” When insurgents attacked from rock formations high in the mountains, artillery and mortars would respond first, trying to get the enemy to take cover; then bombs from a B-1 or another airplane would smash the militants’ natural bunkers before attack helicopters arrived to pick off survivors.

On one of the worst of many bad nights in the battalion’s deployment — Oct. 25, 2007, when a sharp firefight in the Korengal valley left two paratroopers dead and earned one wounded soldier the first Medal of Honor awarded to living recipient since Vietnam — it was a B-1 whose bombs shook the battle-scarred ridge, pounding the escaping insurgents."

Cited article: The B-1 bomber: The underappreciated workhorse of America’s air wars; W. Morgan, Washington Post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is "Einsteins" resume for those wondering:

David A. Deptula is the Dean of the Mitchell Institute of Aerospace Power Studies.[1] He is a decorated military leader who transitioned from the U.S. Air Force in 2010 after more than 34 years of service. General Deptula was commissioned in 1974 as a distinguished graduate from The University of Virginia Air Force ROTC program. He is a world-recognized leader and pioneer in conceptualizing, planning, and executing security operations from humanitarian relief to major combat. He has accomplished historic achievements and several "firsts" in the command of joint forces, planning and execution of aerospace power, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), and improved international relationships.[2] He was a principal author of the seminal Air Force White Paper "Global Reach—Global Power,",[3][4][5] and is considered the "father" of "effects-based operations" for his application of that concept in building the attack plans for operation Desert Storm.[6][7][8] "Deptula fostered the most significant change in the conduct of aerial warfare since Billy Mitchell...Deptula’s framework influenced the successful air campaigns in Operations Allied Force, Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom. Today, joint targeting cells and Air Force doctrine reflect Deptula's theory of airpower and the changing nature of warfare."[9] He has taken part in operations, planning, and joint warfighting at unit, major command, service headquarters and combatant command levels, and also served on two congressional commissions[10][11] outlining America’s future defense posture.[12][13]

Contents [hide]

Leadership in Combat and Contingency Operations

Deptula has significant experience in combat and leadership in several major joint contingency operations. He was the principal attack planner for the Desert Storm coalition air campaign in 1991.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] He has twice been a Combined/Joint Task Force Commander – in 1998/1999 for Operation Northern Watch[21] where he flew 82 combat missions as a general officer, and for Operation Deep Freeze in Antarctica.[22] In 2001, he served as Director of the Combined Air Operations Center for Operation Enduring Freedom where he orchestrated air operations over Afghanistan in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001.[23] In 2005, he was the Joint Force Air Component Commander (JFACC) for Operation Unified Assistance, the South Asia tsunami relief effort,[24] and in 2006 he was the standing JFACC for Pacific Command.[25][26] He has piloted more than 3,000 flying hours (400 in combat) to include multiple fighter aircraft command assignments in the F-15.[2] Early in his career he was an F-15 aerial demonstration pilot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember guys, you are denying all the truth surrounding modern, daily use of the A-10s in battle zones. We're talking about peoples' experiences in the field, the results of numerous study groups, and an aircraft's proven record. The A-10 is cheaper to maintain and provides better CAS than anything you can think of. No aircraft can deliver the exact level of service as the A-10, but that doesn't mean other aircraft don't have their place. It means those other aircraft rightfully aren't replacing a platform they can't match. Replacements are supposed to match existing capabilities, or at least the most important ones, before they succeed an existing weapon system.

You guys have it completely wrong and you sure are sore. I'm sure some folks in the north east could use some of your hot air right about now. Keep on cherry picking your articles and blowing up, but you armchair generals aren't convincing anybody but yourselves. Perhaps you could try some more fake accounts to press your agenda. Or if you want to settle this, you could start offering just the facts and less of the fiction you're so passionate about, but hell hasn't frozen over yet so I'm not too hopeful.

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly my point. You've posted plenty of comments with no inkling of truth, only snarky remarks. If you relied on the facts instead of your usual weaselly style then you'd have a post count barely a quarter of what you now have. Your fall has been everything except graceful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember guys, you are denying all the truth surrounding modern, daily use of the A-10s in battle zones. We're talking about peoples' experiences in the field, the results of numerous study groups, and an aircraft's proven record. The A-10 is cheaper to maintain and provides better CAS than anything you can think of. No aircraft can deliver the exact level of service as the A-10, but that doesn't mean other aircraft don't have their place. It means those other aircraft rightfully aren't replacing a platform they can't match. Replacements are supposed to match existing capabilities, or at least the most important ones, before they succeed an existing weapon system.

You guys have it completely wrong and you sure are sore. I'm sure some folks in the north east could use some of your hot air right about now. Keep on cherry picking your articles and blowing up, but you armchair generals aren't convincing anybody but yourselves. Perhaps you could try some more fake accounts to press your agenda. Or if you want to settle this, you could start offering just the facts and less of the fiction you're so passionate about, but hell hasn't frozen over yet so I'm not too hopeful.

And here you go again, basically you're telling a serving USAF pilot, who actually has carried out the precise mission you describe, that he knows nothing. You don't want to hear facts, or at least you don't want to hear the ones that contradict your deeply held views. You've made that abundantly clear over the past howevermany months you've been going on about this.

I'm sure that individuals like Waco, Nsprietler, Murph, Fulcrum among others could sit down and actually hash out an position that they could all agree on: we're talking a real-world event that they are all involved in. While there will likely always be areas of substantive disagreement, I suspect that many of our differing views are based on the limitations of a forum based communication method. However you clearly don't have the knowledge or temperament to engage in this discussion. You're basically the issue here, and as I said before, and frankly most of the people here who actually have experience have already dismissed anything that comes out of your mouth out of hand. You're bringing nothing new to the table in terms of actual information, rather you're just guilty of spin. I'm surprised that this thread has continued as long as it has, for no other reason than you've polluted it, yet again, with your subjective screed.

Please, just leave the discussion to the adults, because you've done nothing to advance it, and more to derail it with your "truth."

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Are you paying exhausted to be your press guy or is he just white knighting you for free?

You could use better representation

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

And here you go again, basically you're telling a serving USAF pilot, who actually has carried out the precise mission you describe, that he knows nothing. You don't want to hear facts, or at least you don't want to hear the ones that contradict your deeply held views. You've made that abundantly clear over the past howevermany months you've been going on about this.

I'm sure that individuals like Waco, Nsprietler, Murph, Fulcrum among others could sit down and actually hash out an position that they could all agree on: we're talking a real-world event that they are all involved in. While there will likely always be areas of substantive disagreement, I suspect that many of our differing views are based on the limitations of a forum based communication method. However you clearly don't have the knowledge or temperament to engage in this discussion. You're basically the issue here, and as I said before, and frankly most of the people here who actually have experience have already dismissed anything that comes out of your mouth out of hand. You're bringing nothing new to the table in terms of actual information, rather you're just guilty of spin. I'm surprised that this thread has continued as long as it has, for no other reason than you've polluted it, yet again, with your subjective screed.

Please, just leave the discussion to the adults, because you've done nothing to advance it, and more to derail it with your "truth."

Where/how do you come up with this stuff?

I don't know if you realize this but the Air Force is making the decisions with the A-10, not the forum members. The A-10 is sticking around because none of its more expensive replacements can fill its shoes, despite how some of the other posters are making it out to be. We have had the facts for a while now and the USAF's position is based on them. This is the position of the original poster, the article he referenced, and now the Air Force, yet you side with people who have proven themselves to have no interest in the subject whatsoever except to condemn the A-10. I haven't seen anybody on this board yet who has actually benefited from an A-10 run complaining though, only those that have not. Then the names you brought up, plus TT, come in and snipe at their real life experiences to call them liars.

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites

The A-10 is sticking around because none of its more expensive replacements can fill its shoes, despite how some of the other posters are making it out to be. We have had the facts for a while now and the USAF's position is based on them. This is the position of the original poster, the article he referenced, and now the Air Force, yet you side with people who have proven themselves to have no interest in the subject whatsoever except to condemn the A-10. I haven't seen anybody on this board yet who has actually benefited from an A-10 run complaining though, only those that have not. Then the names you brought up, plus TT, come in and snipe at their real life experiences to call them liars. the USAF spent a few billion back in 2011 to re-wing the fleet to keep them around until 2030 or so, only to turn around and face a massive budget cut in 2013 (thanks to Washington politics between two political parties and branches of government) and when certain legislators (who had A-10 squadrons in their home states) realized that their districts would lose jobs, figured out a way to free up the funds to keep operations up and running for a few more years because they wanted to keep those jobs in their districts and the only reason the AF made the announcement (which led to another pointless A-10 thread) was to shut up the constant b***ing from people in the public sector who don't know what the [censored] they're talking about.

FTFY

I side with whoever knows what they're talking about.

...as long as you agree with it.

Edited by Trigger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where/how do you come up with this stuff?

I don't know if you realize this but the Air Force is making the decisions with the A-10, not the forum members. The A-10 is sticking around because none of its more expensive replacements can fill its shoes, despite how some of the other posters are making it out to be. We have had the facts for a while now and the USAF's position is based on them. This is the position of the original poster, the article he referenced, and now the Air Force, yet you side with people who have proven themselves to have no interest in the subject whatsoever except to condemn the A-10. I haven't seen anybody on this board yet who has actually benefited from an A-10 run complaining though, only those that have not. Then the names you brought up, plus TT, come in and snipe at their real life experiences to call them liars.

Ive reported this post. At no point did I ever accuse anyone of lying.

Disagreeing with someone is not the same as declaring them of speaking untruths.

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

Just don't propose a group build he doesn't agree with! Yikes.

Water under the bridge, but I suppose all tigger's hot air probably feels real good up there in Canada :rofl:

Ive reported this post. At no point did I ever accuse anyone of lying.

Disagreeing with someone is not the same as declaring them of speaking untruths.

Look, you could debate the definition of 'calling someone a liar' all you want, but you've been slaying Nsprietler's posts since he brought his experiences to the postboard.

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...