Who needs tailhooks?..................
Posted on 03/03/2015 7:01:08 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants
The U.S. Army has no interest in taking over the Air Force’s fleet of A-10 attack planes, even if it would save the venerable Cold War-era aircraft from the bone yard.
The service’s top civilian, Army Secretary John McHugh, rejected the idea of accepting hand-me-down A-10 Warthogs from the Air Force.
“No chance,” he said during a breakfast meeting with reporters on Wednesday in Washington, D.C. “That’s not even been a topic of casual conversation.”
“With our own aircraft fleet we’re taking some pretty dramatic steps to reconfigure and become more affordable, and the A-10 mission is not something we considered. That’s an Air Force mission as it should be and I’m sure the Air Force feels the same way,” McHugh said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Give it to the Kurds.
And a new airframe built to handle the forces imposed by an aircraft carrier catapault assisted take off and landing with the wire arresting system.
That's why Navy and Marine carrier based aircraft are significantly heavier than their Air Force counterparts.
I wouldn’t be that “kind” with my description......................
I have interest in acquiring that fleet. How do I apply for the property transfer?
Who needs tailhooks?..................
In this case, A-10s are just like grandkids.
Call 'em in, play with 'em and then send them home to their parents for maintenance until you want to play again.
The Army is simply not yet up to fly A10s however the Navy (Marines) is. And I am not talking about carrier operations. No need to modify the A10 for carrier ops.
A bad decision by the Army Secretary - but why not? We have so many other bad decisions during this administration.
Why use an A10 when a much more expensive and less appropriate option is available?
Hell, I’m well past my prime but if the army needed A-10 pilots, I’m ready!
The army really does need its own CAS.
Thanks, for the link.
Good read. To bad the Obama “handmaidens” don’t read.
You are absolutely correct. Ask the soldiers with their buttons in the sand, not some DC budgeteer, and you will get a straight answer. Always about money first.
Not to mention, those A-10s are probably really close to, if not haven't already exceeded, the "high time" flight hours that their airframes were designed for.
The army doesn’t have the pilots, the runways, or the money to take over the A-10s. Even if they could under the Key West Agreement.
I end up watching that movie every time I see it on the schedule. Story is ok, but the hardware and set design are amazing. I love those drones and the little craft he uses.
They have been re-winging a few A-10s as well as updating their cockpits.
Consider the tremendous weight and cost savings on landing gear.
The reason this isn’t consideration is because it violates the Warpowers Act. This created, among other things, the Department of the USAF. It also forebids the US Army from using fixed wing aircraft.
Not to mention the fuel and payload savings!...............
Re: #3.
Didn’t RAF pilots fly Harriers from Brit carriers? I’m only suggesting a trade of “services” not a wholesale “Change of Service”.
Yeah, I know, that’s not going to happen either... A little too “joint” for comfort.
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.