Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Now the U.S. Air Force Wants to Replace A-10s With F-16s
War is Boring ^ | March 19, 2015 | Joseph Trevithick

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 ...


TOPICS: Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: aerospace; air; force; warisboring
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last
To: Old Retired Army Guy
The A-10 is and always has been the Infantrymans best friend. I do not understand the Air Force thinking on this.

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.

21 posted on 03/20/2015 7:38:01 AM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Has anyone seen my tagline? It was here yesterday. I seem to have misplaced it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

“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.


22 posted on 03/20/2015 7:38:16 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Second that. Give the A-10s to the Army.


23 posted on 03/20/2015 7:38:17 AM PDT by cll (Serviam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
What are the AF officers at the Pentagon smoking? Total disregard for the lives of US soldiers.


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.

24 posted on 03/20/2015 7:40:00 AM PDT by rdcbn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS
AC-130

What do our Russian counterparts have that does the same duty?

25 posted on 03/20/2015 7:42:32 AM PDT by stboz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
That's from a person that knows NOTHING about the A-10 or the F-16.
Going from an aircraft DESIGNED FOR A SPECIFIC TASK, a TWO ENGINE and HEAVILY ARMORED AIRCRAFT, to a single engine aircraft that can't do the job, is typical of an office know-nothing.
< sarc>Maybe when the F-16's single engine flames out, the pilot can crash it into the enemy's tank.< /sarc>
26 posted on 03/20/2015 7:42:53 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

The Army has said they do not want the hogs.


27 posted on 03/20/2015 7:45:17 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
...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...

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.

28 posted on 03/20/2015 7:45:44 AM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
He ended up human BBQ while Obama and Jarret smiled.

Valerie seemed particularly pleased.

Valerie very please pilot burned alive photo Burned pilot Valerie is very pleased_zpsgwiltgv7.jpg

29 posted on 03/20/2015 7:46:16 AM PDT by null and void (Liberal logic: 18 1/2 minutes of blank tape is a big deal but 30,000 missing emails is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Yes she did.


30 posted on 03/20/2015 7:46:55 AM PDT by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Those two need to be in that fuel soaked cage!


31 posted on 03/20/2015 7:47:24 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
The Army has said they do not want the hogs.

I bet the Marines do!

32 posted on 03/20/2015 7:49:49 AM PDT by null and void (Liberal logic: 18 1/2 minutes of blank tape is a big deal but 30,000 missing emails is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS

“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.


33 posted on 03/20/2015 7:50:03 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

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.


34 posted on 03/20/2015 7:50:42 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

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.


35 posted on 03/20/2015 7:51:43 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: null and void

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.


36 posted on 03/20/2015 7:57:43 AM PDT by Old Retired Army Guy (frequently.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Two different aircrafts built for different purposes.

But they knew that.

So. WTF W H Y??!!??!


37 posted on 03/20/2015 7:59:41 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

“slow-flying A-10.......”

When you’re the toughest SOB on the block you don’t have to run.


38 posted on 03/20/2015 7:59:52 AM PDT by CrazyIvan (I lost my phased plasma rifle in a tragic hovercraft accident.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
“The A-10 is designed to survive hits, the F-16 is designed to avoid them.”

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?

39 posted on 03/20/2015 8:00:57 AM PDT by GBA (Just a hick in paradise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

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?


40 posted on 03/20/2015 8:01:33 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson