backtop


Print 72 comment(s) - last by JediJeb.. on Apr 23 at 6:19 PM

"The Taliban hates the A-10. That’s good enough for me." -- Senator Lindsey Graham

In February of 2012, a report surfaced that said the U.S. military was looking to retire single-purpose aircraft in favor of multirole aircraft in large part due to budget cuts. One of the aircraft that was among those to be killed off was the A-10 Warthog. However, it looks as though some lawmakers want the venerable Warthog to fly for many more years.
 
The A-10 is a dedicated ground attack jet that has been providing close air support for decades. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R) has announced that she will push for amendments to be made to legislation that would retire the A-10 fleet.
 
The USAF has proposed the removal of the A-10 from its fleet by 2019 in part due to a 2011 deficit-reduction law. There are lawmakers on both sides of the isle that want to keep the A-10 flying, but they will have to find cuts in the budget elsewhere to make that happen.

 
The USAF maintains that by cutting the A-10 from the fleet it will save $3.5 billion over several years.
 
Senator Lindsey Graham (R) says that he has "been in theater enough to know what the troops say about the A-10." Graham added, "The Taliban hates the A-10. That’s good enough for me."
 
According to reports, many senior Army leaders, special operations troops, and soldiers in the field oppose the retirement of the fleet. Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Oiderno recently stated, "Obviously, we prefer the A-10. [Soldiers] can see it, they can hear it, they have confidence in it."

Source: Defense News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By GulWestfale on 4/14/2014 10:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
i think the issue here is the changing battlefield just as much as the new generation of multi-purpose planes and drones.
decades ago, a tank killer was a necessity as the warsaw pact countries had (and some still do have) large tank armies; but the taliban do not possess hundreds of soviet tanks. they fight using trucks, cars and other unarmored vehicles, often in small groups. an A10 is far less useful in such scenarios than it was during the invasion of iraq, when it had to go up against saddam's armored corps.
so, although i am an airplane enthusiast i would have to say that if a more effective way of fighting on teh current battlefield can be found, and at the same time costs can be reduced, then there is no need anymore for the A10.


By NellyFromMA on 4/14/2014 11:17:30 AM , Rating: 5
IDK, Russia sounds pretty aggressive as of late. And lets not forget China, who watches the Ukrainian conflict / response carefully to see what types of responses it can anticipate as it mulls over asserting force in its southern seas.

Of course, the USA is trying everything it can to avoid conflict, but Russia looks to almost purposefully be seeing what the US will tolerate in bad behavior.

The EU and US look unwilling and hence unable to issue crippling sanctions against Russia, so it will be interesting as an outside party to see how those events unfold. (With that said, deepest condolences to those affected by the latest events).

I think its too easy after a decade+ of fighting "terrorists" to say the battlefield has changed to a point where we do not need the equipment we once did for traditional foes.

The prospect of "traditional" war hasn't disappeared in my opinion. Yes, asymmetrical traits had dictated a necessity for different approaches to warfare. But, I'd be willing to bet certain enemies states of the "western world" are just fine watching the US shift gears into this "new battlefield" only to then launch more typical attacks at US-allies.

We have gotten very good at engaging in asymmetrical warfare with the enemy; that does not mean we do not need to maintain military preparedness against more tradition foes, however , IMO.


By GulWestfale on 4/14/2014 11:21:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course, the USA is trying everything it can to avoid conflict


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2fYcHLouXY

"After three visits to Ukraine in five weeks, Victoria Nuland explains that in the past two decades, the United States has spent five Billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) to subvert Ukraine, and assures her listeners that there are prominent businessmen and government officials who support the US project to tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with Russia and into the US sphere of interest (via "Europe").

Victoria Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, leader of the younger generation of "neo-cons". After serving as Hillary Clinton's spokesperson, she is now undersecretary of state for Europe and Eurasia."

http://intellihub.com/us-presidential-candidate-de...

yes, the US is totally trying to avoid a crisis. totally.


RE: Great plane but less useful today than in the past
By TSS on 4/14/2014 2:21:29 PM , Rating: 2
I think he ment open conflict, not proxy wars.

In which he'd be right. It's also the reason why Russia has seemingly little problem anymore with directly opposing the US.

It's because the US is weak right now and on the verge of collapse. If open war with Russia does happen, China's going to take russia's side immediantly. If they both dump their treasuries, considering the weak economic state of the US and their allies such as europe and japan, the US would go bankrupt overnight. You cannot fight a war while bankrupt, it'd be an automatic win for Russia.

Just read the article. The only reason the A-10 is being retired is because of "Budget cuts". Not because they're getting old or there's a newer better fighter on the horizon. Why are they trying to replace it with multirole fighters? Because it's cheaper (in theory, atleast).

That, and i figure Russia's not going to let the US have it's way in it's back yard. First Georgia, then Syria and now Ukraine, it'd be like russia trying to turn canada and mexico communist as well as stationing missiles on cuba again. Think the US would let that slide?

But a proxy war is one thing. Russia knows it'd be open war if it'd do the same to EU members like lithuania, so that's why it's not. Same reason why it'll threaten to cut off the gas but it will ensure europe still gets theirs (it also helps this is all unfolding in spring, it'd be a different story if this happened mid-autumn). What worries me, is the open talk of using nuclear weapons from all sides. Palin on the US side, the russian news cast saying they're the only real nuclear threat to the US on their side, and the new ukrainian prime minister saying russians in ukraine should be killed with nuclear weapons.

That's playing with fire nobody wants to play with.


By NellyFromMA on 4/15/2014 1:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, specifically I meant USA wishes to avoid direct engagement with the "enemy", whomever that may be. USA gov is content to allow a crisis and/or incite one.

I don't really want to pick who is less bad, each party involved has a whole litany of abuses on their hands. But, I live in USA so I know where my interests lie. That's the world for ya.


By bug77 on 4/14/2014 3:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, she did not say "subvert" so I'm not sure what are you trying to insinuate here.


By NellyFromMA on 4/15/2014 1:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
I said avoid a CONFLICT, not a CRISIS. Perhaps I should have specified that they will do anything to avoid directly being involved in a war. That is what I really meant.

On that note, USA gov will seemingly allow a crisis off our soil if it suits their "chess match". That's conjucture based on observation, but I think its reasonable.

I think you are under the impression that I think the USA gov is innocent in all of its actions; I certainly don't. I wouldn't even try arguing that because it's just not true. However, I do live on American soil nd believe America is the greatest nation to its citizens because, if its citizens got off their lazy asses in appreciable numbers, we COULD make a NON-VIOLENT difference. We're just too apathetic as a whole. Still, I'd rather be here than anywhere else. That's nationalism for ya.


By Jeffk464 on 4/14/2014 4:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Russia sounds pretty aggressive as of late


My understanding is Russia is nervous about the eastern movement of NATO. We keep including countries closer and closer to Russia. Having the Ukraine join NATO is supposedly absolutely unacceptable to Russia.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2014 6:02:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Of course, the USA is trying everything it can to avoid conflict, but Russia looks to almost purposefully be seeing what the US will tolerate in bad behavior.


Which is what happens EVERY TIME we put a pussy Democrat President in the White House.

Maybe Obama should try literally bowing to Putin, cause you know, that worked so well last time he tried appeasing someone by groveling and being a pussy.


By Bad-Karma on 4/14/2014 12:11:11 PM , Rating: 5
The same thing was said after WWII; "The nuclear bomb has rendered large ground forces obsolete."

When the F-4 phantom was originally developed, it was designed without a gun because planners thought that; "Missiles and high speed have rendered the dog fight obsolete."

Richard Gatling designed his new auto repeating weapon to be so terrible that it would reduce the size of armies and so reduce the number of deaths by combat and disease, and "to show how futile war is."

So I find your statement a bit ignorant of the realities surrounding the issue(s).


By MrBlastman on 4/14/2014 1:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
Hilarious.

You can bomb a country into submission. You can hold the skies with superiority.

... but you still need infantry to occupy and control it.

There will ALWAYS be a place for large armies and infantry, no matter if it is on this world or countless others around the galaxy.

The armies might not stand line abreast with Napoleonic-era regimented tactics. They will, however, continue in the tradition of Francis Marion. Guerilla warfare is here to stay. Or have you not learned anything from Afghanistan?

Even if we turned that country to a puddle of glass the rats would still figure out a way to live through all of it--and we'd need manpower to oppose them.

Aircraft are really useful softening them up and taking out key targets, though. :)


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki