Or Pipers:
Posted on 08/04/2016 6:18:44 AM PDT by Mariner
The U.S. Marine Corps, tired of waiting for the continuously-delayed F-35B, has gone to the Arizona boneyard to retrieve some of its preserved, first-edition F-18 Hornets to fulfill its close air support obligation to protect Marines on the ground.
Mindful of the aphorism “willful waste makes woeful want,” the Marine Corps preserved its F-18s in the boneyard just in case it ever needed them again.
The U.S. Air Force, not feeling a similar obligation to protect U.S. Army soldiers on the ground and arguing that the F-35A can perform close air support as well as the A-10 Warthog can do, is now claiming it cannot afford the A-10s because it needs the money to support the forthcoming F-35A.
With a mentality reminiscent of Vietnam thinking — “We had to destroy the village to protect it!” — the Air Force is dismantling some of its stored A-10s.
Even the warning from the popular musical Hamilton — “Don’t throw away your shot!” — is not enough to get the Air Force to reflect on the possibility the thin-skinned F-35A might not be up to the job of getting down low and slow to save soldiers’ lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
That's why the Marines have always provided their own. Often with aircraft long past their use-by date.
The Army would do well to do the same.
Once air supremacy is established, CAS can be provided by Cessnas.
These days, the USAF is a social club 'led' by a bunch of sissified pantywaist Generals. Close Air Support has never been "cool" enough and besides it might conflict with Happy Hour at the 'O' Club.
(Before you flame - I'm an AF Vet, and not at all proud of what has happened to the AF.)
F-35 cannon only has the bullets (well, cannon shells) to fire about 4 seconds from its on-board Gatling gun. Then it has to return to base (if NOT hit by AA fire!) to reload.
A pod-mounted Gatling is available, but isn’t flying yet (deployed) and has only another few seconds of ammo. A pod slows the aircraft and removes much of the stealth needed against ground-to-air missiles and other high-end aircraft.
Too many low-level attack planes in Vietnam (also ran by Pentagon “analysis” by McNamara’s “team” of experts ) were lost to “dumb” ground fire. The USAF generals don’t promote ground attack pilots, and so don’t have ground attack pilots in the Pentagon to argument the gee-whiz experts playing computer games against computer opponents.
If only the AF would give the Marines the A-10!
Low and slow with hundreds and hundreds of piercing bullets from an armored carrier is not an F35. IMO, it is a silk pony.
As usual....FOLLOW the MONEY!!!
“Mindful of the aphorism ‘willful waste makes woeful want,’ the Marine Corps preserved its F-18s in the boneyard just in case it ever needed them again.”
Bravo Zulu, Marine Corps!
Maybe our country’s motto should be changed to “willful waste makes woeful want.”
The Corps spent a lot of time and money trying to modify the A10 to be carrier capable, but it was a bridge too far.
The Army needs to get the CAS mission and take over the A-10s.
Giving the A-10 to the Marines or the Army would make too much sense, but from what I understand, the Army did not want them.
F4Fs, P51s, P47s, Sandys......all CAS....not an F35.
I believe that the F-35 will eventually be a good platform (as the Abrams tank after years of scathing criticism) but it is going to take more time, effort, and money than they expect.
That said, destroying the A-10Cs sitting in the boneyard is CRIMINAL. Someone should be brought to task for that.
Of course. The dismantling of stored aircraft does nothing to free up funding for anything else - it's to ensure that once the change takes place it is permanent. No reconsidering and backtracking to the more capable CAS aircraft will be allowed, there's too much money tied up in the support of the F-35.
Huh? The most robust airframe on earth isn’t rigid enough?
Source please?
You’re talking common sense there, Nully. Seems like such a simple solution, doesn’t it? ‘t it will never happen.
Or Pipers:
“f only the AF would give the Marines the A-10!”
Exactly.
“The Marine Corps tried to use the A10, but it does not have a rigid airframe, so they cannot use it. A plane needs to have a rigid air frame to be able to takeoff and land from an aircraft carrier.
The Corps spent a lot of time and money trying to modify the A10 to be carrier capable, but it was a bridge too far.”
Really? An airframe that can withstand multipule 23mm impacts and still fly home can’t land on a carrier? Gonna have to prove that one to me...
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.