- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: House votes to save A-10 fleet
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:22 pm to GetCocky11
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:22 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
I am confused.
The Air Forces recommends to cut a plane. Congress says that they will not cut it.
That makes no sense, especially given the ever decreasing number of vets serving in Congress.
I wonder with Congressman's district produces the plane.
Because the Air Force has been a bunch of turds about this plane for about two decades and will not, cannot, absolutely refuse to give their platforms over to the Army.
This is less than a "military recommendation" and more of an "Air Force recommendation".
Despite what some of the Air Force four stars think, this kind of warfare isn't going away. Congress (and the Army and to a lesser extent USMC) is making the right move here.
0
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:26 pm to wickowick
quote:I stand corrected. Thanks.
The Army has zero A-10s, they are all Air Force.
So does anyone know what the Army or Marines think about the Warthog being scrapped?? Or, NOT scrapped now, I suppose....
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:27 pm to Backinthe615
quote:
Maybe the most durable close-support airframe in the history of aviation. Can't believe they ever wanted to scrap it.
They wear out. It's not like they're a '57 Chevy you can restore with a new coat of paint.
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:28 pm to LSURussian
LINK
quote:
The U.S. Army also expressed interest in obtaining A-10s.[101][102] The U.S. Air Force stated that retirement would save $3.7 billion from 2015 to 2019. Guided munitions allow more aircraft to perform the CAS mission, reducing the requirement for a specialized aircraft; since 2001, multirole aircraft and bombers performed 80 percent of CAS missions. The A-10 is also more vulnerable to anti-aircraft defenses like man-portable air-defense systems. The Army stated that the A-10 is invaluable for its versatile weapons loads, psychological impact, and reduced logistics needs on ground support systems.[103]
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:30 pm to son of arlo
B-52s don't seem to be falling out of the sky.
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:32 pm to Backinthe615
quote:
B-52s
Ain't regularly pulling 6 Gs either.
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:32 pm to son of arlo
quote:
They wear out. It's not like they're a '57 Chevy you can restore with a new coat of paint.
quote:
The A-10 is receiving a service life extension program (SLEP) upgrade with many receiving new wings.[28] The service life of the re-winged aircraft is extended to 2040. A contract to build as many as 242 new A-10 wing sets was awarded to Boeing in June 2007.[29] Two A-10s flew in November 2011 with the new wing installed. On 4 September 2013, the Air Force awarded Boeing a follow-on contract of $212 million for 56 replacement wings to increase the order total to 173 wing sets. The wings will improve mission readiness, decrease maintenance costs, and keep the type operational into 2035.[30] As part of plans to retire the A-10, the Air Force is considering stopping work on the wing replacement program, which would save an additional $500 million along with the total saving of retiring the fleet.[31] If the Air Force kept the 42 A-10s that already underwent wing replacement and retired the rest of the fleet, the savings would be $1 billion compared to $4.2 billion saved for retiring the whole fleet.[32]
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:34 pm to son of arlo
They should build a new, improved platform around that gun.
But, no - they wanted to get a cheap version of the F-22 for ground support (which it will be terrible at - except, maybe, delivering JDAMs) AND be a dogfighter (which it will be terrible at), it was supposed to be universal, sell to NATO, etc., etc., and has been a costly boondoggle.
Rather than field a real combat platform to fight real wars the way we've really been fighting them for 20 years, they want all this gee whiz, pie-in-the-sky, prohibitively expensive $hit. As it is, they made the F-22 so expensive they could only take delivery on less than 200 instead of the full order of 300.
It won't be long before the Army requests ground support and USAF says, "Sorry - we just don't have the platforms."
Close them down then - or limit them solely to Air/Space Superiority - it's all they care about anyway. Let the Army fly transports and ground support planes. We're like the Dirty Harry of the armed services, "Every dirty job that comes along..."
But, no - they wanted to get a cheap version of the F-22 for ground support (which it will be terrible at - except, maybe, delivering JDAMs) AND be a dogfighter (which it will be terrible at), it was supposed to be universal, sell to NATO, etc., etc., and has been a costly boondoggle.
Rather than field a real combat platform to fight real wars the way we've really been fighting them for 20 years, they want all this gee whiz, pie-in-the-sky, prohibitively expensive $hit. As it is, they made the F-22 so expensive they could only take delivery on less than 200 instead of the full order of 300.
It won't be long before the Army requests ground support and USAF says, "Sorry - we just don't have the platforms."
Close them down then - or limit them solely to Air/Space Superiority - it's all they care about anyway. Let the Army fly transports and ground support planes. We're like the Dirty Harry of the armed services, "Every dirty job that comes along..."
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:37 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Ace Midnight
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:45 pm to wickowick
quote:
The wings will improve mission readiness, decrease maintenance costs, and keep the type operational into 2035.
That sounds like a paste and cut from Tongue and Quille.
Like I said, the A-10s are worn out. If the powers that be want to keep it on like they did with the Phantom, then so be it. The big selling point for the warthog was a big gun and loiter time. If we can do that with rotary wing cheaper, let's go that way.
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:49 pm to son of arlo
quote:
Like I said, the A-10s are worn out. If the powers that be want to keep it on like they did with the Phantom, then so be it. The big selling point for the warthog was a big gun and loiter time. If we can do that with rotary wing cheaper, let's go that way.
There's about 20 acres of shrink-wrapped A-10's sitting in the heart of Tucson right now.
This post was edited on 12/2/14 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 12/2/14 at 3:54 pm to upgrayedd
The A-10 is probably THE close support aircraft of choice right now. The Army would cheerfully throw billions to acquire the aircraft and for good reason. It is the best airframe in the sky for the job it is asked to do.
Posted on 12/2/14 at 4:01 pm to wickowick
I understand that machines get old and wear out but if we had to replace these,
could the Super Tucano fill this role?
could the Super Tucano fill this role?
This post was edited on 12/2/14 at 4:33 pm
Posted on 12/2/14 at 4:06 pm to Ace Midnight
I get pissed at the very mention of the F-35 and I'm just a military hardware/tech enthusiast
Posted on 12/2/14 at 4:10 pm to son of arlo
why not just give them to police forces for riot patrol serving subpoenas via missles etc
Posted on 12/2/14 at 4:10 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
understand that machines get old and wear out but if we had to replace these, could the Super Tucano fill this role
Didn't Blackwater buy some of these?
Posted on 12/2/14 at 4:12 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
They should build a new, improved platform around that gun.
Instead of flying worn out A-10s? I agree!
quote:
But, no - they wanted to get a cheap version of the F-22 for ground support (which it will be terrible at - except, maybe, delivering JDAMs)
You know that's from the lips of congresscritters. A fast mover won't ever be effective CAS. Anyone with any sense knows better. It's another "Grubering."
quote:
Rather than field a real combat platform to fight real wars the way we've really been fighting them for 20 years, they want all this gee whiz, pie-in-the-sky, prohibitively expensive $hit.
No love for Apaches? IMHO, much better for real time CAS.
quote:
It won't be long before the Army requests ground support and USAF says, "Sorry - we just don't have the platforms."
Close them down then - or limit them solely to Air/Space Superiority
We are shutting them down already.
Posted on 12/2/14 at 4:16 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
I wonder with Congressman's district produces the plane.
Actually the A-10 hasn't been produced in decades.
But probably someone has influential spare parts and/or maintenance contracts.
ETA: Wickowick just answered the question:
quote:
The A-10 is receiving a service life extension program (SLEP) upgrade with many receiving new wings.[28] The service life of the re-winged aircraft is extended to 2040. A contract to build as many as 242 new A-10 wing sets was awarded to Boeing in June 2007.[29] Two A-10s flew in November 2011 with the new wing installed. On 4 September 2013, the Air Force awarded Boeing a follow-on contract of $212 million for 56 replacement wings to increase the order total to 173 wing sets. The wings will improve mission readiness, decrease maintenance costs, and keep the type operational into 2035.[30] As part of plans to retire the A-10, the Air Force is considering stopping work on the wing replacement program, which would save an additional $500 million along with the total saving of retiring the fleet.[31] If the Air Force kept the 42 A-10s that already underwent wing replacement and retired the rest of the fleet, the savings would be $1 billion compared to $4.2 billion saved for retiring the whole fleet.[32]
This post was edited on 12/2/14 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 12/2/14 at 4:21 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
There's about 20 acres of shrink-wrapped A-10's sitting in the heart of Tucson right now.
How many acres of shrink-wrapped Phantoms at DM? I wonder why we keep them. I'm sure we could put the titanium to better use. We'll never resurrect a F-4C and put F-100 engines in them. It's all a waste of tax payer money.
Posted on 12/2/14 at 4:24 pm to son of arlo
quote:
How many acres of shrink-wrapped Phantoms at DM? I wonder why we keep them. I'm sure we could put the titanium to better use. We'll never resurrect a F-4C and put F-100 engines in them. It's all a waste of tax payer money.
You said A-10's are worn out. Why couldn't they part out all the A-10's we currently have in storage?
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News