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.

(Defense News)   "A-10..." "You sank my warthog fleet"   (defensenews.com) divider line 316
    More: Unlikely, U.S. Air Force, Boeing F-15C Eagle, McDonnell Douglas, aerial refueling, Ground warfare, Air Force Reserves, Teal Group, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter  
•       •       •

18512 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2013 at 9:08 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



316 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-17 08:27:49 AM
Also on the chopping block are F-15C fighter jets and a planned $6.8 billion purchase of new combat search-and-rescue helicopters, these sources say.



I hear Switzerland has a great deal on St Bernards with keg collars.
 
2013-09-17 08:52:26 AM
Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.
 
2013-09-17 08:59:45 AM

Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.


Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10.  They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it.  And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.  Problem is, it's absolutely a vital function, and because of the various agreements, the Army can't have it's own fixed-wing attack aircraft.  So the Air Force gets stuck doing a job it doesn't really want, with aircraft it doesn't really want, but it can't relinquish that role to the actual military because if it does, it loses influence.
 
DAR
2013-09-17 09:00:42 AM
Not going happen, farking Chair Force zoomies have tried to kill that air frame a number of times in the past.  Mostly because it's not very sexy and its mission helps out another service.

The Army Generals @ the Joint Forces level get it funded every time because its really does the job it built for and any ground pounder who has watched it take out a enemy held hill for them will tell you that bird saves lives......k/dar
 
2013-09-17 09:12:04 AM

dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10.  They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it.  And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.  Problem is, it's absolutely a vital function, and because of the various agreements, the Army can't have it's own fixed-wing attack aircraft.  So the Air Force gets stuck doing a job it doesn't really want, with aircraft it doesn't really want, but it can't relinquish that role to the actual military because if it does, it loses influence.


Really dude? I like mocking the chair force as much as the next guy, but come on.
 
2013-09-17 09:15:53 AM
Triple redundancy motherfer
 
2013-09-17 09:18:45 AM
All I know is when I call in the Warthog, it only takes three passes at the map.  It gets a good amount of kills, but come on people, you need take more than three runs at the map to turn the tide.  I'm on a team of morons!
 
2013-09-17 09:18:50 AM
Scrapping the KC-10? Well that's a farking hilariously terrible idea. Nothing like overworking the -135's for another 50 years.
 
2013-09-17 09:20:21 AM

Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.


FTFA: "Sources say the Army is interested in obtaining A-10s should the Air Force decide to retire the twin-engine jets, which have been flying since the 1970s."

Looks like the Army is saying we're sick of this shiat.
 
2013-09-17 09:20:53 AM

dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10.  They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it.  And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.  Problem is, it's absolutely a vital function, and because of the various agreements, the Army can't have it's own fixed-wing attack aircraft.  So the Air Force gets stuck doing a job it doesn't really want, with aircraft it doesn't really want, but it can't relinquish that role to the actual military because if it does, it loses influence.


Came here to say this and you beat me to it.
 
2013-09-17 09:21:18 AM
Who else is picturing World Cop with a really small penis head peeking out from a busted zipper?

You can't run an empire with hand puppets, 'Murica.
 
2013-09-17 09:21:26 AM
I think close support planes would remain useful far longer than most.

Air superiority?  That's a given anyway.  No one's going to dogfight us.
 
2013-09-17 09:21:39 AM

dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10.  They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it.  And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.  Problem is, it's absolutely a vital function, and because of the various agreements, the Army can't have it's own fixed-wing attack aircraft.  So the Air Force gets stuck doing a job it doesn't really want, with aircraft it doesn't really want, but it can't relinquish that role to the actual military because if it does, it loses influence.


It's political posturing.  Hello?  POM cycle?
 
2013-09-17 09:21:56 AM

Carousel Beast: dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10.  They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it.  And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.  Problem is, it's absolutely a vital function, and because of the various agreements, the Army can't have it's own fixed-wing attack aircraft.  So the Air Force gets stuck doing a job it doesn't really want, with aircraft it doesn't really want, but it can't relinquish that role to the actual military because if it does, it loses influence.

Really dude? I like mocking the chair force as much as the next guy, but come on.

I'm sure it's the cool thing to do, bashing on the Air Force.
Surprising we were right next to the "real" milita in Iraq/Afgan doing the same thing.

 
2013-09-17 09:23:41 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
defense-update.com
 
2013-09-17 09:23:54 AM
Lets face it,  the military isn't going to start on any new conflicts for a couple years.   We're too broke as a country to take on any new action.

We will slowly wrap up our commitments and withdraw from current engagements.

The Army will shrink in the next 3 years
The Navy will shrink in the next 3 years
The Marines will shrink in the next 3 years
The Air Force will shrink in the next 3 years

The nations credit cards are maxed out.    We are no longer able to commit to all the programs we would like.  Cuts are going to happen (although this websource for this article is not a very good one).

This is the direction we have been headed in for several years,  it's not new.    People should have warmed up to it by now.

The peace dividend.... spend it wisely on immigration reform,  alternative energy and paying off several stimulus bills.
 
2013-09-17 09:24:03 AM
One Nation, One Plane, All Missions: The F-35
 
2013-09-17 09:24:07 AM
I admit, I'm an armchair general, but shouldn't these decisions be made, in part, by the soldiers, marines, etc on the ground (cue: laughter)? They're incredibly durable, powerful, and a great close air-support option for ground forces. I hate that a constant bureaucratic pissing match puts our guys' lives at risk.
 
2013-09-17 09:24:18 AM

Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]


You're kidding, right?
 
2013-09-17 09:24:31 AM

netcentric: Lets face it,  the military isn't going to start on any new conflicts for a couple years.   We're too broke as a country to take on any new action.

We will slowly wrap up our commitments and withdraw from current engagements.

The Army will shrink in the next 3 years
The Navy will shrink in the next 3 years
The Marines will shrink in the next 3 years
The Air Force will shrink in the next 3 years

The nations credit cards are maxed out.    We are no longer able to commit to all the programs we would like.  Cuts are going to happen (although this websource for this article is not a very good one).

This is the direction we have been headed in for several years,  it's not new.    People should have warmed up to it by now.

The peace dividend.... spend it wisely on immigration reform,  alternative energy and paying off several stimulus bills.


You're an idiot.
 
2013-09-17 09:25:10 AM

Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]


That's cute. Worthless as an A-10 stand in, but cute.
 
2013-09-17 09:25:14 AM

dittybopper: Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10. They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it. And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.


It's also dirty and dangerous.  The damage those birds take is both frightening and impressive at the same time.  Most pilots would freak if they saw half a wing ripped off.

I know most pilots would prefer to just press a button to launch a missile with a five-mile range (well, who the fark wouldn't), but war is shiat and you can't clean up a dog turd with leaf blower.
 
2013-09-17 09:25:59 AM

sprawl15: Scrapping the KC-10? Well that's a farking hilariously terrible idea. Nothing like overworking the -135's for another 50 years.


FTFA: "Faced with steep budget cuts and the desire to keep existing procurement initiatives on track, the US Air Force is considering scrapping its entire fleet of KC-10 tankers and A-10 attack jets, according to multiple military and defense sources."

Why not fly the bottom out of them when you can keep spending your brains out on the F-35? The contractors who were paid for the old platforms are paid off. You can't get any more special favors out of them or look good for approving manufacturing spending in congressional districts. The only way to do that is to get rid of the old and build new stuff.
 
2013-09-17 09:26:29 AM

kitsuneymg: Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]

That's cute. Worthless as an A-10 stand in, but cute.


I'm trying to figure out if he's making a "Pentagon Wars" reference...
 
2013-09-17 09:27:10 AM

dittybopper: low and slow ground attack isn't sexy


Never quite understood this. If I were to have joined the Air Force, this probably would have been the first job I requested.

Also, we already had this thread about a month ago. Maybe we should talk about the KC-10s this time? I'll admit I don't know much about them. How do they compare/contrast with the KC-135?
 
2013-09-17 09:27:25 AM

Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]

You're kidding, right?


THIS.

You can't do this, with THAT.


www.fotodisk.cz
 
2013-09-17 09:27:56 AM

dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10.  They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it.  And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.  Problem is, it's absolutely a vital function, and because of the various agreements, the Army can't have it's own fixed-wing attack aircraft.  So the Air Force gets stuck doing a job it doesn't really want, with aircraft it doesn't really want, but it can't relinquish that role to the actual military because if it does, it loses influence.


Meh, the Army already has within its arsenal more than enough weapons to compensate for the loss of the A-10.
 
2013-09-17 09:28:34 AM

Valiente: You can't run an empire with hand puppets, 'Murica.


Don't make us come up there and liberate your asses, beaver humper.
 
2013-09-17 09:28:37 AM

Carousel Beast: Really dude? I like mocking the chair force as much as the next guy, but come on.


They still believe they won WWII with bombers.
 
2013-09-17 09:28:49 AM

MadMattressMack: sprawl15: Scrapping the KC-10? Well that's a farking hilariously terrible idea. Nothing like overworking the -135's for another 50 years.

FTFA: "Faced with steep budget cuts and the desire to keep existing procurement initiatives on track, the US Air Force is considering scrapping its entire fleet of KC-10 tankers and A-10 attack jets, according to multiple military and defense sources."

Why not fly the bottom out of them when you can keep spending your brains out on the F-35? The contractors who were paid for the old platforms are paid off. You can't get any more special favors out of them or look good for approving manufacturing spending in congressional districts. The only way to do that is to get rid of the old and build new stuff.


The KC-X procurement program is setup such that Boeing covers any cost overruns. There aren't going to be any additional expenses (for the government at least) beyond what was already budgeted and signed up to, unless it just totally collapses and Boeing defaults.

And the F-35 makes a poor strategic tanker.
 
2013-09-17 09:29:03 AM

Mock26: dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10.  They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it.  And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.  Problem is, it's absolutely a vital function, and because of the various agreements, the Army can't have it's own fixed-wing attack aircraft.  So the Air Force gets stuck doing a job it doesn't really want, with aircraft it doesn't really want, but it can't relinquish that role to the actual military because if it does, it loses influence.

Meh, the Army already has within its arsenal more than enough weapons to compensate for the loss of the A-10.


<citation needed>
 
2013-09-17 09:29:54 AM

Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]

You're kidding, right?


Nope.

Yes, it doesn't have GAU-8. Luckly, missiles can kill tanks, and the reaper can carry those.
Plus, it can loiter far longer than a A-10
Plus you don't have to worry about the pilot. If he gets shot down, he'll get out of his seat, and go get a coffee, not start trying to remeber his SERE training.

Tell me one thing the A-10 can do that a Reaper can't, other than take a beating?
 
2013-09-17 09:30:37 AM
So, basically... because the A-10 is not sexy, they want a replacement?
 
2013-09-17 09:33:25 AM
Couldn't this serve in place of the A-10?

community.warplanes.com
 
2013-09-17 09:33:30 AM

sprawl15: Scrapping the KC-10? Well that's a farking hilariously terrible idea. Nothing like overworking the -135's for another 50 years.


The KC-46 is supposed to come on line in 2016.
 
2013-09-17 09:33:56 AM
The Air Force just invested in upgrading the A-10 to last another 30 years.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/u-s-air-force-orders-more-boei n g-a--wings/article_9d2ad134-3baa-56c8-8c04-0afa7c81513c.html



The U.S. Air Force has ordered 56 additional wings from Boeing for the A-10 Thunderbolt twin-engine ground-attack jet.

The order brings the Air Force's total order for A-10 replacement wings to 173. Boeing has a contract to build up to 242 wings, which are produced at a Boeing facility in Macon, Ga.

The replacement wings will help the Air Force save an estimated $1.3 billion in maintenance costs over the next 30 yeas, Chicago-based Boeing said in a statement.

Boeing's Defense, Space and Security unit is based in Hazelwood.
 
2013-09-17 09:35:02 AM

ChipNASA: Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]

You're kidding, right?

THIS.

You can't do this, with THAT.

img.photobucket.com


This, too, can take out a tank from the air:
img.photobucket.com

And, it can be mounted on a drone!
 
2013-09-17 09:35:39 AM

Publikwerks: Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]

You're kidding, right?

Nope.

Yes, it doesn't have GAU-8. Luckly, missiles can kill tanks, and the reaper can carry those.
Plus, it can loiter far longer than a A-10
Plus you don't have to worry about the pilot. If he gets shot down, he'll get out of his seat, and go get a coffee, not start trying to remeber his SERE training.

Tell me one thing the A-10 can do that a Reaper can't, other than take a beating?


Kill more.
 
2013-09-17 09:36:42 AM

Smoky Dragon Dish: Mock26: dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10.  They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it.  And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.  Problem is, it's absolutely a vital function, and because of the various agreements, the Army can't have it's own fixed-wing attack aircraft.  So the Air Force gets stuck doing a job it doesn't really want, with aircraft it doesn't really want, but it can't relinquish that role to the actual military because if it does, it loses influence.

Meh, the Army already has within its arsenal more than enough weapons to compensate for the loss of the A-10.

<citation needed>


Anti tank missiles.
Artillery.
Tanks.
Mines.
 
2013-09-17 09:37:11 AM
BTW -I don't think the A-10 should be retired. I think it should be moved to the ANG. I think it's the perfect ANG plane.

That way, if we do get into a land war like WWII or a Cold War type scenario, we can put em to work. But I don't see the United States fighting a traditional land war in the future.
 
2013-09-17 09:37:22 AM

2wolves: Carousel Beast: Really dude? I like mocking the chair force as much as the next guy, but come on.

They still believe they won WWII with bombers.


WW2 was decided on intelligence operations and air superiority in both theaters.
 
2013-09-17 09:37:52 AM

Infernalist: netcentric: Lets face it,  the military isn't going to start on any new conflicts for a couple years.   We're too broke as a country to take on any new action.

We will slowly wrap up our commitments and withdraw from current engagements.

The Army will shrink in the next 3 years
The Navy will shrink in the next 3 years
The Marines will shrink in the next 3 years
The Air Force will shrink in the next 3 years

The nations credit cards are maxed out.    We are no longer able to commit to all the programs we would like.  Cuts are going to happen (although this websource for this article is not a very good one).

This is the direction we have been headed in for several years,  it's not new.    People should have warmed up to it by now.

The peace dividend.... spend it wisely on immigration reform,  alternative energy and paying off several stimulus bills.

You're an idiot.



Really?    I think I am right.    You have no reason to think cuts are not coming this year and next, and then next.

Tell us why the budget cuts will not affect programs.         ???    Tell us why America is pushing for more US interventions abroad....  maybe you could list a few that America is wanting to spend more money on  ???
 
2013-09-17 09:38:02 AM

Publikwerks: Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]

You're kidding, right?

Nope.

Yes, it doesn't have GAU-8. Luckly, missiles can kill tanks, and the reaper can carry those.
Plus, it can loiter far longer than a A-10
Plus you don't have to worry about the pilot. If he gets shot down, he'll get out of his seat, and go get a coffee, not start trying to remeber his SERE training.

Tell me one thing the A-10 can do that a Reaper can't, other than take a beating?


Ever seen the vids of the A-10 dog fighting during the gulf war?
 
2013-09-17 09:40:50 AM

Mock26: ChipNASA: Smoky Dragon Dish: Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]

You're kidding, right?

THIS.

You can't do this, with THAT.

[img.photobucket.com image 850x543]

This, too, can take out a tank from the air:
[img.photobucket.com image 850x629]

And, it can be mounted on a drone!


The overall firepower the GAU delivers cannot be replaced with a missile. It is also more flexible, and the A-10 carries them as well.
 
2013-09-17 09:40:55 AM

quantum_csc: Couldn't this serve in place of the A-10?

[community.warplanes.com image 850x637]


Nope, see the gulf war. Helicopters have limited operating conditions compared to aircraft.
 
2013-09-17 09:41:59 AM

Mock26: Smoky Dragon Dish: Mock26: dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10.  They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it.  And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.  Problem is, it's absolutely a vital function, and because of the various agreements, the Army can't have it's own fixed-wing attack aircraft.  So the Air Force gets stuck doing a job it doesn't really want, with aircraft it doesn't really want, but it can't relinquish that role to the actual military because if it does, it loses influence.

Meh, the Army already has within its arsenal more than enough weapons to compensate for the loss of the A-10.

<citation needed>

Anti tank missiles.
Artillery.
Tanks.
Mines.


You do realize that mines are no longer part of the DoD arsenal, right?
The whole point of the A-10 is to save tanks from engaging tanks.
Artillery?  Ok, if you want to hit one tank at a time from 20km away... assuming you can hit it.  With Excalibur, OK, you can do this pretty well..... with a non-moving target.
Anti-tank missiles.  Launched from what?  An even slower heli?
 
2013-09-17 09:42:12 AM

Mock26: [img.photobucket.com image 850x629]

And, it can be mounted on a drone!


A drone has two hardpoints and 1,500 lb payload
An A-10 has 11 hardpoints and 16,000 payload (which doesn't include the cannon)
 
2013-09-17 09:42:18 AM

netcentric: Infernalist: netcentric: Lets face it,  the military isn't going to start on any new conflicts for a couple years.   We're too broke as a country to take on any new action.

We will slowly wrap up our commitments and withdraw from current engagements.

The Army will shrink in the next 3 years
The Navy will shrink in the next 3 years
The Marines will shrink in the next 3 years
The Air Force will shrink in the next 3 years

The nations credit cards are maxed out.    We are no longer able to commit to all the programs we would like.  Cuts are going to happen (although this websource for this article is not a very good one).

This is the direction we have been headed in for several years,  it's not new.    People should have warmed up to it by now.

The peace dividend.... spend it wisely on immigration reform,  alternative energy and paying off several stimulus bills.

You're an idiot.


Really?    I think I am right.    You have no reason to think cuts are not coming this year and next, and then next.

Tell us why the budget cuts will not affect programs.         ???    Tell us why America is pushing for more US interventions abroad....  maybe you could list a few that America is wanting to spend more money on  ???


No, I mean you're an idiot for making mention of 'credit cards' and treating national economics as if it's the same thing as a family budget.

If you can equate these two things in your mind, then you're beyond hope.  Try not to breed, Frito.
 
2013-09-17 09:43:09 AM
I love watching the A-10's fly in the MD ANG.

A new long range bomber seems like the program to scrap
 
2013-09-17 09:43:28 AM

Publikwerks: Ladies and gentlemen, the A-10 replacement:
[defense-update.com image 480x268]


Yeah, right. Call me when they hang a GAU-8 under the nose. But at least they wouldn't be wasting pilots.
 
Displayed 50 of 316 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report