Valerie seemed particularly pleased.
Posted on 03/20/2015 7:12:27 AM PDT by C19fan
Eventually, the U.S. Air Force wants to replace the low and slow-flying A-10 Warthog with the fast-moving F-35 stealth fighter. But it’ll take years before the troubled jet fighters are ready for duty.
In the meantime, the Air Force still needs a plane for dedicated close air support missions — something the A-10 excels at. So what does the flying branch propose? Not keeping the Warthog.
Instead, the Air Force wants to replace the Warthog with a modified F-16 fighter jet — an old concept that failed to live up to expectations decades ago. The F-16s would fill in temporarily until the F-35s can take over.
(Excerpt) Read more at medium.com ...
You answered your own question. The Air Force doesn't have Infantrymen...
The current powers want the glamour planes, not the ugly warthog. Screw them. That hog is the best damned thing they have going for the types of fighting we're doing these days.
“What are the AF officers at the Pentagon smoking? Total disregard for the lives of US soldiers.”
No, they are simply being forced to bow to the decision by Congress to cut their funding to the point where whatever program is no longer funded is going to be something which is vital. This means single-purpose aircraft must take second place in priority to multi-purpose aircraft, no matter how superior the single purpose aircraft was for its mission. The only solution is to restore the funding for both the single-role Close Air Support (CAS) mission of the A-10 and the multi-role mission of the F-16 fighter-bomber.
Second that. Give the A-10s to the Army.
Nope, this is just the continuation of a 40 year old AF debate on the merits of using the A-10 for battlefield CAS of our troops at the battle front vs using fast moving strike aircraft like the F-16 in the deep interdiction mission to attack the enemy and destroy them and their supply chain deep behind the enemy lines with a goal of stopping them from ever reaching the battle front.
For some peculiar reason, many within the the AF see this an either - or/ one or the other solution making decision decision when the more logical answer is that wee need both to win a war.
Given that the Air Forces latest and greatest new airplane has the word “strike” as it's first descriptive name, it's easy to infer who has the inside track on the latest iteration in the Air Forces's ongoing CAS vs Deep Interdiction internal doctrine debate.
What do our Russian counterparts have that does the same duty?
The Army has said they do not want the hogs.
That's pretty much the reason Israelis didn't buy the A10. With the US military, we know the desire is to make it much smaller, and unlike the Israelis, the US is purposely degrading US military capability.
Valerie seemed particularly pleased.
Yes she did.
Those two need to be in that fuel soaked cage!
I bet the Marines do!
“The current powers want the glamour planes, not the ugly warthog. Screw them. That hog is the best damned thing they have going for the types of fighting we’re doing these days.”
The Air force is forced to choose between the lesser of two evils because of Democrats cutting the Air Force budgets. Given current appropriations of funding for the Air Force, they can deploy either (1) an air force with more superior single-role Close Air Support (CAS) aircraft and fewer air superiority multi-role aircraft to defend them or (2) an air force with no single single-role Close Air Support (CAS) aircraft and more multi-role air superiority aircraft capable of defending themselves while continuing a somewhat inferior Close Air Support role in addition to its essential multi-role air superiority missions. When Congress cuts the funding, it becomes a choice between the lesser of two evils. So, insist on restoral of funding for both aircraft, the A-10 and the F-16 aircraft.
Also the A-10 can take orders of magnitude more punishment than the F-16. A high caliber AA machine gun can take down a F-16. The jockey of an A-10 is protected by a tub made of titanium.
How about not spending the money thrown the toilet of buying bio fuel and other Green boondoogles that have no place in the military budget.
I believe the Army “doesn’t want the hogs” is based on budgets and training and support for the aircraft. They want it, but they don’t want to pay for it on their dime. This whole discussion brings to light the need for consolidation of the services which would include all procurement, training and budgeting. Wont happen in my lifetime though.
Two different aircrafts built for different purposes.
But they knew that.
So. WTF W H Y??!!??!
“slow-flying A-10.......”
When you’re the toughest SOB on the block you don’t have to run.
Yeah, sure. And I wonder what that Jordanian F-16 pilot who was burned alive would have said to that.
The F-16 is a pretty, but fragile, little jet, but it's no A-10.
How about improving(!) the A-10 instead of scrapping it for a lesser replacement?
Congress has cut the funding of the Air Force to the point where they can deploy aircraft maintenance crews for the A-10 squadrons or a comparable number of F-16 squadrons. The F-16 squadrons can fight for air superiority against Russian, Chinese, and comparable enemy air superiority fighters and perform a less capable CAS mission; whereas the A-10 is superior at performing the CAS mission but cannot fulfill the same air superiority role as the F-16. Do you really want to cut the number of air superiority squadrons below their already inadequate numbers? Wouldn’t it be better to fund enough combat air support squadrons to maintain deployments of the A-10 and F-16 squadrons at the same time?
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.