Only "speed freaks" don't appreciate the sheer amount of whoop-ass that the Warthog can deliver.
If war is the process of killing people and breaking things, the A-10 is the instrument that does the killing.
I think that may be why McCain doesn’t like the plane...
Somehow I don’t see “any war” with NK as being a tank-killing and anti-materiel type of exercise but I am not an expert in these things.
Yes, there are lots of artillery tubes clustered around the border but they are probably well hidden.
I would imagine that NK has good numbers of older AA guns and those could chew up A-10s pretty well.
If the Air Farce doesn’t want them, give them to the Marine Corps or the Army.
If the Air Force can’t be bothered with it, the Marines would love to have the A-10.
Give them to the Army if the Air Force won’t fly them.
Korea is steep hills, scrub foliage, limited square miles and a super dense metropolis just miles from the DMZ. The A-10, without dispute, is the perfect CAS platform, but it would have limits in that terrain.
Granted all I’ve ever seen of the A-10 is from watching TV programs about it, but all I’ve ever seen about it was that it was built to be extremely practical and tough. It can run on one engine if the other gets blown off, it has manual control of flaps and ailerons in case electronic control gets severed. It’s ugly, and it does what it’s designed to do, air-to-ground combat, extremely well. That’s what they’ve all said.
It also looks like it would be one of the cheapest planes to maintain and fix because of that practical design. It seems like it would be a relative bargain to keep those planes ready to go, regardless of the nature of current perceived threats. Meanwhile, how many countless billions and billions of dollars have been spent trying to create the next generation of super-stealth fighter jet and how much does one of those cost? Probably one of them costs more than all the repairs on the 100 A-10s mentioned combined.
I don’t know if it’s a key component in the attack against North Korea or not, but it sure doesn’t seem like something worth scrapping even if it doesn’t get used.
I was on active duty just before the A-10 was introduced. It was the answer to our prayers. The pilots, men or women, have iron balls. I want them at our troops’ back.
I hope to hell Trump puts out an ultimatum, upgrade and build more....or else to anyone capable of doing so.
Obama is the one that tried to kill it because it was a very efficient platform, and in most cases it indeed made the enemy lose its will to fight.
...that’s why Odungo wanted it gone...it serves us well...
My sons and I watched some Afghan firefight footage and when the Hogs show up with that electric 30mm gatling gun
The boys on the ground on our side look pretty elated
Whereas the other guys across the way in the tree line or proto Adobe huts don’t look so happy to be honest
It’s prairie dog dancing for them
I would hope we have drones now that can do the same job without risking brave pilot’s getting shot down inside North Korea.
The A-10 is best suited for close air support of ground troops. I don’t see that as being the plan for NoKo.
There was an Air Force general who used to joke that the A-10 was designed around the nose cannon, the F-15 around the radar and the F-16 around the ejection seat.
I hope they can keep the A-10 flying for a long time but I also hope we keep troops out of NoKo.
The Air Force doesn’t like the idea of close support aircraft to protect troops on the ground compared to the glory of air to air combat.
IMHO the air to air fighter jockeys may soon be obsoleted by drones. But that is another argument.
There is no substantial amount of AF brass who want the messy work of close air support. They believe they can handle it from 20 thousand feet with guided bombs. Guided bombs are great for static targets, but a close support mini cannon with a pilot strapped onto it is a truly fearsome thing to enemy troops.