Posted on 04/28/2016 12:03:53 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Congress to Air Force: You Can't Retire the A-10 Until the F-35 Proves It's Better
Legislators want proof the F-35 can take over the aging tank-killer's job
Congress threw down the gauntlet at the Air Force on Monday, introducing legislation to mandate keeping the A-10 Thunderbolt II—affectionately known as the Warthog—in service until the service can prove the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter can take over its job.
As reported by DefenseNews, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Mack Thornberry has introduced legislation to forbid the Air Force from retiring the plane. Thornberry's proposed law would prohibit the Air Force from using funds to retire the A-10, and would forbid the service from reducing manning levels for the aircraft. It would further mandate the Air Force keep a minimum of 171 A-10s in active service.
Thornberry's law would keep the A-10 in service until the results of a 2018 competition between the A-10 and F-35A are complete. The two planes will engage in a fly-off, performing various ground support duties, to see which is the most capable in supporting troops on the ground. ..................
(Excerpt) Read more at popularmechanics.com ...
Great plane. It’ll be useful in cleaning out the ISIS sewers
Like the bean counters would every let the Air Force risk a 100 million dollar plane to fly low and slow to take out tanks. I am thinking that the Warthog will be around longer than the F35 gold-plated brick.
Dang i love that thing!
the top stuka pilot in the luftwaffe was an advisor for that plane.
That plane is the Army combat soldier’s best friend. I guess that’s why the Air Force hates it so much.
Chances are the F-35 would be a smoking hole in the ground after a less than a hundred .22 longs hit it.
Talk about the plane that wouldn’t die....
;o)
There were weapons systems ( smaller, more powerful ) that could have got the F-35 closer to that goal, but they were all cancelled.
I bet they had also studied the Russian Stormovik.
Try,just try using the same gun to shoot quail and hunt elephants. Nearly impossible. Air superoirity fighter/bombers and close in ground attack.planes are fundamentally different. An F35 also costs many multiples of what an A 10 costs. All this makes me wonder if the real purpose of phasing out the A 10 is actually to weaken the military because the A 10 does its job so well.
Shame Congress does not 'give' A-10 to Army and/or Marines.
With those instrucions it’ll be around longer than the B-52, ehheheheheheheh..
Talk about the plane that wouldn’t die....
Army or Marine Corp need to be 'given control' over this most valuable assest.
And the winner is ... as if you expected different ... the F-35.
Amen to that. If they didn't want it, why not let us have it?
Thanks for that comment, made me scan the biography of Hans-Ulrich Rudel.
“I am thinking that the Warthog will be around longer than the F35 gold-plated brick.”
That STILL doesn’t work!
Given that at the highest levels, Generals ARE politicians, I would not be a bit surprised if word came down to pilots flying the A-10 in such tests, to ‘fix’ the test so the F-35 wins.
In Billy-boy’s Serbian adventure F-16’s were supposed to conduct ground support missions - from 15,000 feet.
Watch for the perfumed pencil-pushers of the USAF to try to rig the competition between the F-35 and the A-10 to put the Warthog at a severe disadvantage.
I recall years ago when F-15E pilots were squealing about the unfairness of going up against Warthogs in close air support competitions because they got their butts handed to them.
Close air support means low and slow. Air superiority means high and fast. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Bingo. My thoughts also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.