If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Arizona Daily Independent)   Talk of retiring the A-10 Warthog spurs effort to save it. Still say it looks like a Puma   (arizonadailyindependent.com) divider line 55
    More: Sad, warthogs, Operation Desert Storm, boots on the ground, iraqi freedom, Raul Grijalva  
•       •       •

10149 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Aug 2013 at 10:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-20 10:05:04 AM  
15 votes:
Retiring anything in favor of the F-35 is a pretty stupid idea.
2013-08-20 10:14:45 AM  
7 votes:
They probably don't cost enough to maintain, the profit margin on them isn't high enough.
2013-08-20 10:47:25 AM  
6 votes:
The A-10 is the AK-47 of combat aviation.
2013-08-20 10:08:43 AM  
5 votes:
It's a flying tank. that flies. HOW CAN YOU RETIRE THAT??
2013-08-20 10:12:20 AM  
4 votes:

antidisestablishmentarianism: Retiring the bestest plane evar? What will replace it?


Nothing. Nothing can. The F35 is lightly armored, has low weapons load and is designed for combat at stand off ranges, and it's gun has a pidddling 1200 rounds.

During desert storm A-10's expended all their ordinance during missions. That's like 6 laser guided bombs, 4 2000 pound dumb bombs, and 3 maverick missiles. (in addition to being able to carry rockets, and cluster bombs).  And like 20,000 rounds of GAU-8 ammo. oh, and titanium armor for the pilot and critical systems.

The A-10 also has triple redundant flight system. dual hydraulic  systems, and cable controls.

The warthog brings home pilots in situations where there is really no logical reason why it would be capable of flying. A female A-10 pilot got hit over Iraq, lost almost all flight control and then proceeded to write the book on flying a wounded A-10 on differential thrust alone. She landed back at base safely.
2013-08-20 11:13:18 AM  
3 votes:

duffblue: A10 is the coolest plane ever. That is all.


Hrm. Coolest modern attack plane? Yes.

Coolest plane ever?

iliketowastemytime.com
Here it is. Looking at you.
2013-08-20 10:21:06 AM  
3 votes:
I remember playing an A-10 Flight Simulator as a kid. If you tried to do too much dogfighting, the in-game narration would chide you "You aren't an F-15!"

I'm no military aviation expert, but it just seems intuitive to me that a purpose-built war machine will do better at that purpose than a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none like the F-35. Indeed, many of the F-35's problems, from my limited perspective, seem to stem from the design compromises required for it to be all things to all air missions.
2013-08-20 10:08:41 AM  
3 votes:
Tried this before right before the Gulf War, saying the F-16 could handle the A-10s' duties. After the Gulf War, suddenly the USAF loved the A-10 again.
2013-08-20 10:05:02 AM  
3 votes:

slayer199: vygramul: In other news, the Air Force doesn't like the CAS mission and would just as soon not have it at all.

I'm sure the Army would be happy to take them off their hands if the USAF doesn't want them anymore.  The Army loves the Warthogs.


Seriously. Bring back the Army Air Corps and let them design and fly their own CAS planes.
2013-08-20 10:03:02 AM  
3 votes:
This is ridiculous.

The Pentagon needs to figure out whatever stupid rule prevents the Army from possessing these and revoke it. It's a proven, reliable, and deadly CAS airframe, with plenty of life left to it.
2013-08-20 09:54:43 AM  
3 votes:
Giving them to local police.
2013-08-20 03:50:42 PM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: Z-clipped: dittybopper: Z-clipped: Maybe I'm just being dumb here, because I don't really get much into the specs of these war toys, but I thought the enormous farking machine gun that the A-10 sports was what accounted for much of its CAS utility?

How many enemy tanks and armored assault vehicles can a drone destroy? I mean, if you're talking about cutting a safe path through enemy lines for ground troops, wouldn't you need a huge number of drones to equal the destructive power of just one A-10?

There is no reason why you can't built a drone around a GAU-8 (or something like it), and keep that same capability.

Again, pardon my ignorance, but I thought that the main benefit of drones was that they were small and cheap. Isn't a GAU-8 + ammo the size of multiple Volkswagons and heavy as fark (and also the most expensive part of the A-10)?

This exercise just sounds to me like the same argument as replacing the A-10 with the F-35: Design and build a new, far more complicated and expensive unproven solution to a problem we already have a fantastically well-engineered and battle proven solution for.

When you remove all the things that are necessary for pilot survival, you can make a much smaller aircraft while still retaining much of the same ordnance load, or, failing that, you can cut the ordnance load in half, and just use 2 drones instead of 1 manned aircraft.

Think of all the things that are inherent in the design of the A-10 to make it survivable to the pilot.  If you got rid of most of that stuff as unnecessary because you no longer have to worry about the pilot, you could do one of two things:

1. Make a drone that has essentially the same ordnance load, but is significantly smaller, lighter, and cheaper, *OR*

2. Make a drone that is essentially the same size airframe, but carries more ordnance than an A-10 carries now.

A third option would be to make a drone that carries roughly half the load-out of an A-10.  It would be a *MUCH* smaller aircraft, and you ...


They're working on all that, but we're a couple decades away, minimum from remotely-piloted attack aircraft that are anywhere near manned aircraft when it comes to capability. The F-35 may very well be the last piloted attack plane, and the F-22 the last piloted fighter, but we won't have effective enough "drones" before 2030.
2013-08-20 01:38:45 PM  
2 votes:
OH yay, this again.  Never understood just exactly why the Chair Force doesn't like this plane, but honestly they aren't gonna get rid of it.  They aren't going to be allowed. It's like replacing the M2HB or the 7.62x51, it just does the job being asked of it well enough that there's no gain in replacing it.
2013-08-20 12:09:13 PM  
2 votes:
You guys obviously don't get it.  You see, the military already has a bunch of A-10s.  Maintaining and continuing to use those existing aircraft doesn't help Lockheed Martin meet its projected revenues.
2013-08-20 11:30:05 AM  
2 votes:
As someone who used to play Soldier in a previous life, the A-10 is one of 2 aircraft that always gave me a warm fuzzy when it was overhead.

Give me a Warthog over me if I was in open terrain, and an AH-64 Apache if I was in the city, and I'd be a happy camper.
2013-08-20 11:00:05 AM  
2 votes:

Kentucky Fried Children: Just wanted to agree with the majority opinion here that retiring the A-10 for the boondoggle F-35 is sheer lunacy (and a nice money grab for Lockheed) - but I also wanted to point out some serious derp dribbling from that "article"

"Davis Monthan Air Force Base became an economic stalwart for the community of Tucson ever since a progressive congressman called for a boycott of his own state in protest of the state's immigration laws. Tucson, now the sixth poorest metropolitan area in the country, has come to rely on the A-10 as desperately as the warriors on the ground. The base has come under attack by progressives who prefer the very low skill, low paying tourism jobs that Grijalva's boycott wiped out."

lol, wut?  Where is the initial reference to Grijalva?  What the hell does this have to do with federal funding of a military base?

/Arizona newspapers appear to be the equivalent of some poor-mans Breibart blog


That part got me too... as a liberal progressive who supports the A-10 remaining in the fleet, I was confused by the injection of politics into what should be a tactical/strategy discussion... then I was even more confused that the "conservative" guy is attacking "progressives" for NOT using big government to prop up the Tucson economy.
2013-08-20 10:45:27 AM  
2 votes:
Also:

THIS:

upload.wikimedia.org

With two engines, 13 hard points carrying almost every weapon in the Air Force arsenal, and a 7 barrel Vulcan cannon spewing 1,174 rounds of depleted uranium, beats this:

upload.wikimedia.org

with one engine, only six hard points which can can carry a more limited number of air to ground weapons, and a wimpy internal four barrel gun with only 180 rounds (or the wimpy external gun pod with about 300 rounds shown).
2013-08-20 10:21:11 AM  
2 votes:
I must be missing something here the A-10 is a extremely effective aircraft and has proven it's worth about a thousand times over. The only possible drawback is the main gun is goddamned expensive to operate.  The thing is the only thing an F-35 can use in place of the A-10's main gun are JDAMs and JSOWs which cost a fortune. Each.
2013-08-20 10:16:38 AM  
2 votes:

belhade: It's a flying tank. that flies. HOW CAN YOU RETIRE THAT??


It's a gun with wings. and an engine.

The same man who looked at the GAU-8 and said "Make this gun fly", is the same guy who was carrying a howitzer in a C-130 and said to himself "Let's shoot at targets on the ground with this howitzer, by aiming it out the farking window!"
2013-08-20 10:03:02 AM  
2 votes:
Retiring the bestest plane evar? What will replace it?
2013-08-20 06:52:51 PM  
1 votes:

FriarReb98: the F-4 Phantom II.


That may be the single best-looking plane ever made.
2013-08-20 01:14:58 PM  
1 votes:
Would you P-51 vs. A-10 dogfight guys just stop?  The A-10 would simply ram the P-51 and fly through the other side.  Dogfight over.   The A-10 is, after all, the aircraft that has a titanium bathtub surrounding the pilot, to help ward off battle damage.  Back in the late 80's I swear I read an account of an A-10 flying through an apartment block in Germany, with the pilot surviving the crash without bailing out (can't find the story online now, though).  What other airplane not only flies through buildings but also lets the occupant (of the plane) survive?
2013-08-20 01:06:01 PM  
1 votes:
I've got a buddy that is a USMA graduate and an infantry officer.

During his "vacation" in A-Stan, he told me there was no sweeter sound than a couple Hogs overhead bringing the noise on an insurgent position.

"I'd rather fight with my radio than my M4."
2013-08-20 12:27:18 PM  
1 votes:
My fun A-10 story.

While working with my dad building a bridge in SC, we'd often get straffed by A-10's from the now closed Myrtle Beach AFB.  Usually between 9:30am - 10:30am, a pair of A-10's would sneak up on us flying a couple hundred feet above the marsh grass and if you were not paying attention, they'd scare the bejeebus out of you.

Knowing the A-10's were doing training using our bridge as target practice on their camera guns, I started anticipating and hiding behind stuff like "the crane" or "the bridge pilings" or "front end loader" and I'd see the planes approaching and a the last minute, raise a 2x4 or shovel to my shoulder and play like I was shooting at the planes.

All hell would break loose.  The pilots had themselves a live target and would bank, climb, swerve and do what ever they could to get a shot on me.

I'd love to have one of those camera photos locked away in the basement of the Pentagon of me getting shot to hell.

Good times.
2013-08-20 12:14:59 PM  
1 votes:
With a Warthog you never have to ask "Will it blend?"
2013-08-20 11:49:17 AM  
1 votes:

Shryke: duffblue: A10 is the coolest plane ever. That is all.

Hrm. Coolest modern attack plane? Yes.

Coolest plane ever?

[iliketowastemytime.com image 850x637]
Here it is. Looking at you.


FARKING THIS. NOTHING more badass. With NO weapons.
2013-08-20 11:28:17 AM  
1 votes:

xxmedium: No Time To Explain: //unless those and more improvements have been done over the years?

They have. Several times. Avionics mostly but they are old enough that structural components are starting to need replacing - pesky things that are seldom used... like wings, for example.


What I came to say.  I love that plane, it's a perfect example of form following function.  They started with a gun and an armored cockpit and built the rest around it.  But the airframes are suffering from major fatigue and even though they have been reinforced the wings are literally ready to fall off some of them.  Over the next few years they need to be replaced, the question is what they are replaced with.  The A-10 was designed as a single purpose tank killer to stop a Soviet invasion of Western Europe.  The military doesn't see a major use for a tank killer in currently projected conflicts.

It's sad to see them go and the F-35 is no replacement for low altitude low speed air support but one way or another they will be replaced.
2013-08-20 11:16:49 AM  
1 votes:
The Air Force wants out of the flying business, completely.
It's run by bean counters that prefer to spend money on base beautification projects and such so they can win awards,
thereby getting promoted into senior, decision making slots.
It really is a disgrace to wear the uniform nowadays.
2013-08-20 11:03:20 AM  
1 votes:

Click Click D'oh: ceebeecates4:  Maintaining an obsolete aircraft that has the RCS of a barn and the thermal signature of the sun worked really well for the Iranians, and that's why their F-14 fleet is the best in the world!  After all, we're still facing the dangers of columns of soviet T-72s about to push through the Fulda gap, and MANPADS are far too expensive for any potential enemy to afford.

You know, the A-10 has survived quite well in a couple wars with a high threat environment from MANPADS and AAA... And if you knew anything about the plane, you would know that it's design masks it's IR signature from the ground.


Only after vigorous suppression of enemy air defenses sorties from actually useful planes (F-16s et al).  The whole advantage of using a low observable plane is that you don't have to have such a huge support network to get a job done.  Additionally,  The A-10 is not theB-52.  The B-52 is highly unusual with its longevity; its not hard to simply a be a flying truck with 8 jet engines and a payload of 60,000lbs.  Everyone sees these videos of a-10s letting their big gun roar and b-52 dropping (or launching) a shiateton of ordinance.  Few people see (orappreciate) the actual work that is required when deploying indefensible aircraft.
2013-08-20 10:58:45 AM  
1 votes:

belhade: It's a flying tank. that flies. HOW CAN YOU RETIRE THAT??


There really is no better plane for CAS (though you could argue that helicopters can do the job).

Seriously, the A-10 is built around a ridiculous gun that can cut through tanks like butter....and has a great record for survivability.  I highly doubt that the F-35 or any other plan could survive as well as the A-10.
www.ww2aircraft.net
simhq.com
blogs.defensenews.com
2013-08-20 10:55:14 AM  
1 votes:

Egoy3k: I must be missing something here the A-10 is a extremely effective aircraft and has proven it's worth about a thousand times over. The only possible drawback is the main gun is goddamned expensive to operate.  The thing is the only thing an F-35 can use in place of the A-10's main gun are JDAMs and JSOWs which cost a fortune. Each.


True, In Afghanistan, outside the cities all houses are built like fortresses with thick rammed earth walls.  The locals have been at war with each other since before Alexander the Great came through the area. The A-10's 30mm is the only gun that reliably can punch through these walls.  So the F-16 must use a JDAM, or Paveway (JSOWs are usually only used against heavily anti-air defended targets).  It also takes a HELL of a lot more money to support a F-16 in theater than an A-10. The A-10 just needs gas and ammo.  (I'm not even going to talk about the F-35 as it is still just vaporware)

Click Click D'oh: The sad thing is, the A-10s days are truly numbered. Yes, they replaced all the inner gizmos and upgraded the whole fleet to A-10C status, but wing cracks from low altitude high G flying are not going away.. and there's only so many A-10 wings out there. It will have to be replaced eventually.


As for it's age.  It isn't much older than the F-16 and is a lot easier to repair (my brother works on the F-16).  A few years ago, I was talking to an A-10 flight line mechanic and was told that they can replace every part of the A-10... Including the wing spar.  The TF34 engines are the same used by most small airlines, CF-34.  So parts are available and now days they have better versions that get better gas mileage.  A while back they were having problems getting replacement gun parts but that problem seems to have been solved.  When it is all said and done the DM bone yard monkeys can keep the A-10 flying as long as they can still buy 6061-T6 aluminum, pop rivets and bubble gum.
2013-08-20 10:52:07 AM  
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: The A-10 is the AK-47 of combat aviation.


I've never heard that comparison before, but I agree with it 100%.
2013-08-20 10:51:49 AM  
1 votes:

Deep Contact: Giving them to local police.


Thread over.
2013-08-20 10:48:29 AM  
1 votes:
img18.imageshack.us

Sexist thing in the air
2013-08-20 10:47:34 AM  
1 votes:

ceebeecates4: With all these GEDs in military procurement and logistics management, we can keep the Thunderbolt II flying for 30 years!


Most airliners I've ever flown in have been older then me. I see no problem.
2013-08-20 10:46:59 AM  
1 votes:

No Time To Explain: I've always wondered how the warthog could be improved

/improve engine, tweak fuselage, update cockpit?
//unless those and more improvements have been done over the years?


Gauss cannon, fusion engines, and a gaggle of little baby A-10 drones to follow it around.

That plane has the nicest lines of any aircraft, IMHO. It's not ugly, it's purpose built!
2013-08-20 10:46:08 AM  
1 votes:

clkeagle: However, we could buy brand-new F-16E or F-16V aircraft for about $25-$30 million each and brand-new A-10 aircraft for around $20 million each. We already know how to fly and fix them. So why not scrap the F-35 contracts, buy twice as many new F-16s and A-10s, a crapload of MQ-9 drones, and have enough change leftover to upgrade/replace some tankers and transports? How the hell does the F-35 make sense compared to that? Plus,I'm sure the USN and USMC can make the same argument for their F-35 variants.


Because there is a Congressmen somewhere who has a factory in his district and there is an election coming up.
2013-08-20 10:46:06 AM  
1 votes:

ceebeecates4: With all these GEDs in military procurement and logistics management, we can keep the Thunderbolt II flying for 30 years!  After all, all one has to do is waltz down to Fairchild Republic and pick up a few spare parts!  Maintaining an obsolete aircraft that has the RCS of a barn and the thermal signature of the sun worked really well for the Iranians, and that's why their F-14 fleet is the best in the world!  After all, we're still facing the dangers of columns of soviet T-72s about to push through the Fulda gap, and MANPADS are far too expensive for any potential enemy to afford.

/Nostalgia has no place in weapon systems.


Want to know how I know you're a know-nothing idiot posting from your mom's basement?
2013-08-20 10:42:03 AM  
1 votes:

vygramul: Yaeger felt the P-51 was a terrible plane for CAS. He said in his book the P-47 was a far better plane for the mission, and it's hard to argue with him about it.


Take away an A-10's mavericks and rockets, make it a guns on guns fight.

DCS:World has both the A-10 and the P-51d as flyable aircraft. The P-51's spank the A-10's every single time with competent pilots. Of course, the A-10 will rip a p-51 in half with it's gun and you have to plink at the A-10 forever with the P-51's 50 cals, but it's actually very easy to stay on an A-10's tail in a P-51.

The problem with this is that standard A-10 procedure would be to fire a sidewinder of maverick missile at the P-51 from standoff range. Poof.
2013-08-20 10:37:08 AM  
1 votes:
Just wanted to agree with the majority opinion here that retiring the A-10 for the boondoggle F-35 is sheer lunacy (and a nice money grab for Lockheed) - but I also wanted to point out some serious derp dribbling from that "article"

"Davis Monthan Air Force Base became an economic stalwart for the community of Tucson ever since a progressive congressman called for a boycott of his own state in protest of the state's immigration laws. Tucson, now the sixth poorest metropolitan area in the country, has come to rely on the A-10 as desperately as the warriors on the ground. The base has come under attack by progressives who prefer the very low skill, low paying tourism jobs that Grijalva's boycott wiped out."

lol, wut?  Where is the initial reference to Grijalva?  What the hell does this have to do with federal funding of a military base?

/Arizona newspapers appear to be the equivalent of some poor-mans Breibart blog
2013-08-20 10:34:41 AM  
1 votes:

snocone: Serious question,,
Annual cost of ownership and hourly costs on one of these beauts?
Finally put those P51 guys in place.


Yaeger felt the P-51 was a terrible plane for CAS. He said in his book the P-47 was a far better plane for the mission, and it's hard to argue with him about it.
2013-08-20 10:34:35 AM  
1 votes:
Nostalgia is great, and it's undeniably a teriffic aircraft. It's also a 30+ year-old airframe which will eventually start to disintegrate, hopefully not in mid-air. I noticed that none of the shiatkickers quoted in the article mentioned that. They seemed more interested in the economic benefits of forcing the Air Force to retain a system it no longer wants.
2013-08-20 10:32:33 AM  
1 votes:
I grew up on an Air Force base near the Air Force Museum. The A-10 Thunderbolt ("Warthog") was always one of our favorite planes as kids, and I'll be sad to see it go.

But seriously... what role does it play in a military that's increasingly relying on UAVs?
2013-08-20 10:31:36 AM  
1 votes:
If you want to build more of 'em, please call the Mayor of Hagerstown MD.  The Farichild building is still out by the airport, and we'd love the jobs.
2013-08-20 10:30:51 AM  
1 votes:
This thread is relevant to my interests.
2013-08-20 10:28:27 AM  
1 votes:
The chairforce tries to retire the A-10 every couple of years because it's not sexy enough, doesn't have enough wizbang gizmos and doesn't cost as much as a small nations GDP.  It's embarrassing to them that the most effective piece of equipment in their inventory is one of the cheapest and lowest tech.  It's hard to justify F-22s, B-2s and F-35s with the A-10 around.

The sad thing is, the A-10s days are truly numbered.  Yes, they replaced all the inner gizmos and upgraded the whole fleet to A-10C status, but wing cracks from low altitude high G flying are not going away.. and there's only so many A-10 wings out there.  It will have to be replaced eventually.  Hopefully the chairforce replaces it with something worthy instead of another high tech travesty.
2013-08-20 10:21:30 AM  
1 votes:

xxmedium: Why the hell would you direct a petition at the Obama Administration when it's the Senate and the DoD procurement that are making these determinations?


Because the Democrats hold the Senate, and the president can lean on the senators of his party.  That doesn't guarantee anything, of course, but it does carry at least some weight.

BTW, I don't see the A-10 being replaced by the F-35, or any other manned aircraft for that matter.  Seems to me the most likely replacement would be a drone.  Cheaper in terms of material, fuel, and personnel costs, and you can make a relatively fast moving drone, especially if it's controlled from nearby.

For example, you could control several "fast mover" CAS drones in real time relatively locally with a stand-off aircraft manned by drone pilots.  A Boeing airliner refitted could cruise at 40,000 feet and it would have 'line of sight' communications to the drones out to nearly 300 miles.   Put the control aircraft far back from the action, and send the drones in.  Alternatively, if you have ground control pods, you can just put up a relay aircraft, and have the pilots nearly 600 miles away.  The relay aircraft, which can be a drone itself, retransmits the drone and control information back and forth.  Because the distance is much, much shorter than the path it would take to a geosynchronous satellite and back, you can make "fast mover" drones that can maneuver radically, in real time.

If the drones lose a lock on the signal, they would go into a "safe mode"  where they increase height and head back towards base,  until they either regain airborne lock, back-up satellite lock, or local control at the base.
2013-08-20 10:20:22 AM  
1 votes:
What's a Nato?
2013-08-20 10:19:30 AM  
1 votes:
The problem with the A-10 is it's kinda like using a sledge hammer to smash things.

The F-35 is better suited because it's like using some kind of complex advanced technolicical thingy that doesn't work because it'd too valuable to use to smash things.
2013-08-20 10:10:25 AM  
1 votes:

vygramul: In other news, the Air Force doesn't like the CAS mission and would just as soon not have it at all.


That's really dangerous stuff. You could put your life at risk doing that.

If I was going to do it, I'd want to do it in a Warthog.

Hack Patooey: T-Servo: antidisestablishmentarianism: Retiring the bestest plane evar? What will replace it?

Lockheed Martin has assured me that the F-35 will be able to handle all responsibilities of the A-10, and will do it with an invisibility cloak and loiter time of 20+ hours.

With rainbows shooting out its ass, no doubt.


Don't forget Unicorn Fart Micro-Thermobarics.

Unless that thing has Star Wars repulsors or some other physics defying lift surfaces, it'll be lucky to be as good at CAS as the F-104.
2013-08-20 10:07:58 AM  
1 votes:

vygramul: In other news, the Air Force doesn't like the CAS mission and would just as soon not have it at all.


...until the Army talks about having its own fixed-wing assets under direct control (again). Then, magically, CAS and Warthogs are an important component of Air Force forward projection.

>Flake responded that the A-10 would be retired but held out the promise of the F-35 as a viable substitute.

All those who believe that take one step forward.

>"Tell the Obama administration to reconsider the retirement of the A-10 attack aircraft. There is no available replacement currently in the Department of Defense. Lives will be lost overseas without this aircraft."

Why the hell would you direct a petition at the Obama Administration when it's the Senate and the DoD procurement that are making these determinations?
2013-08-20 10:06:38 AM  
1 votes:
I remember driving between Phoenix and Tucson one sunny day, in my bright red Pontiac. Off in the distance, two specs flying and getting closer and closer. A couple of seconds later, two A-10s screamed nearly overhead.

Nothing like being target practice.

/cool plane
//I'm a confirmed kill
2013-08-20 10:05:19 AM  
1 votes:

T-Servo: antidisestablishmentarianism: Retiring the bestest plane evar? What will replace it?

Lockheed Martin has assured me that the F-35 will be able to handle all responsibilities of the A-10, and will do it with an invisibility cloak and loiter time of 20+ hours.


With rainbows shooting out its ass, no doubt.
2013-08-20 10:02:31 AM  
1 votes:

vygramul: In other news, the Air Force doesn't like the CAS mission and would just as soon not have it at all.


I'm sure the Army would be happy to take them off their hands if the USAF doesn't want them anymore.  The Army loves the Warthogs.
2013-08-20 09:46:56 AM  
1 votes:
In other news, the Air Force doesn't like the CAS mission and would just as soon not have it at all.
 
Displayed 55 of 55 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report