- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
USAF plans to retire more A-10 Warthogs; “crippling” close air support capabilities
Posted on 3/19/24 at 8:12 am
Posted on 3/19/24 at 8:12 am
Brrrrrrrtt…
Shame to see a legend moving into retirement. A portion of these should be reallocated to the Coast Guard for counter-trafficking operations.
LINK
Shame to see a legend moving into retirement. A portion of these should be reallocated to the Coast Guard for counter-trafficking operations.
quote:
The Air Force is hoping to retire more A-10 Warthogs in 2025, as the service continues to readjust its overall strategies and future aircraft based on China's growing threat in the Pacific. In their 2025 budget request, Air Force officials are hoping to retire 250 aircraft -- with 56 of those divestments being A-10s. If passed, it would mark the largest number of the close-air support stalwarts sent to the boneyard -- the final resting place for scrapped aircraft.
quote:
Rose Riley, a Department of the Air Force spokeswoman, told Military.com last year that the service plans to shrink the Tactical Air Control Party, or TACP, job field to about 2,130 positions -- a decrease of 44%, according to the service. The Air Force said the manning is now "roughly" 3,700 airmen.
quote:
Troops-In-Contact, an advocacy group led by A-10 and air support veterans, issued a statement after the cuts were revealed saying close-air support, or CAS, is crucial to the military.
"If successful, this plan would kill the CAS profession and cripple America's CAS capability," the group wrote on its website. "Ground troops would be supported, if at all, by CAS amateurs in a small, expensive fleet of fragile aircraft that are far less effective. In low-intensity conflict, that will cost lives."
LINK
33
Posted on 3/19/24 at 8:23 am to HenryParsons
I understand that the current fleet is very aged, but can we not build more of these? Why are we insisting on replacing these ultimate fighting machines with less reliable planes?
Like insisting on finding a better option for installing a nail than with a hammer. Sometimes you have to admit that you've already discovered the best option.
Like insisting on finding a better option for installing a nail than with a hammer. Sometimes you have to admit that you've already discovered the best option.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 8:27 am to Boudreaux35
My guess is that they’re not making enough money off of these planes.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 8:30 am to Boudreaux35
quote:
Like insisting on finding a better option for installing a nail than with a hammer. Sometimes you have to admit that you've already discovered the best option.
The optimist in me thinks that they were perfect, but warfare is constantly changing.
The pessimist in me wonders what the bump for Raytheon and Northrop Grumman will be.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 8:35 am to HenryParsons
These A-10's aren't going to be crushed and turned into beer cans or anything. They'll head to the yard and become spare parts for the rest of the fleet that still flies....which will help extend the lives of those aircraft.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 8:36 am to HenryParsons
I am a yuge warthog fan but the time is coming. These airframes are old and the mission set is not needed as much since we are now transitioning back to Great Power Competition. In a modern conflict with China or Russia the A-10 would not have good survivability odds.
That being said, we need a CAS option in reserve just in case. Nothing else in the fleet can do it.
That being said, we need a CAS option in reserve just in case. Nothing else in the fleet can do it.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 8:38 am to Boudreaux35
quote:
Why are we insisting on replacing these ultimate fighting machines with less reliable planes?
They could wipe out chinese human wave attacks, so potato head doesn't want that.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 8:38 am to HenryParsons
Are they going to donate them to the Taliban?
Posted on 3/19/24 at 8:44 am to HenryParsons
Let's be honest. USAF has wanted to shitcan these for a long, long time. Too cheap and effective and PAID FOR. No Generals getting Board positions and kickbacks for these. Need mo $100 million fighters!!!
Posted on 3/19/24 at 8:49 am to Boudreaux35
quote:
I understand that the current fleet is very aged, but can we not build more of these? Why are we insisting on replacing these ultimate fighting machines with less reliable planes
Just expect politicians to do the opposite of what makes sense and you won’t wrack your brain trying to figure it out.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 8:51 am to jcaz
quote:
These airframes are old and the mission set is not needed as much since we are now transitioning back to Great Power Competition. In a modern conflict with China or Russia the A-10 would not have good survivability odds.
I don't know if you've seen video of the Russia-Ukraine war, but they're trotting out Cold War-era equipment and in an all-out war both countries would send wave after wave of humanity to win a war of attrition.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 9:06 am to jbgleason
quote:
Too cheap and effective
The National Defense Strategy tells us our pacing threat is China. The services are supposed to request funds that build a force to execute said strategy. With that in mind, you figure out where you think A-10s would be based for a fight against China, then overlay where you think the tankers needed to get them into the fight will come from, then look at how you think the A-10 would survive the Chinese Integrated Air Defense System (IADS). After you understand all of that, you too would know why we should have already divested the entire A-10 fleet.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 9:08 am to HenryParsons
Idiots at the Pentagon have been trying to get rid of thus aircraft since it hit the flightline.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 9:09 am to HenryParsons
put them on govplanet auctions
Posted on 3/19/24 at 9:17 am to FlyingTiger06
So you are saying that you agree with the NDS that the A-10s should no longer be in the fleet?
2nd question: If so, wouldn't the A-10s be useful elsewhere if not in the Far East strategy?
Seems like we continue to weaken our defenses when we should be strengthening it. IMO, we are getting closer and closer each day. But, but the A-10s are expensive to maintain. It's much cheaper to fly the KIA (sorry, pun intended unfortunately) and this allows us to spend the money elsewhere like say, Ukraine?? Other military resources?? Our border defense??
2nd question: If so, wouldn't the A-10s be useful elsewhere if not in the Far East strategy?
Seems like we continue to weaken our defenses when we should be strengthening it. IMO, we are getting closer and closer each day. But, but the A-10s are expensive to maintain. It's much cheaper to fly the KIA (sorry, pun intended unfortunately) and this allows us to spend the money elsewhere like say, Ukraine?? Other military resources?? Our border defense??
Posted on 3/19/24 at 9:18 am to HenryParsons
The A-10 Warthog has always been my favorite plane in the AF inventory. While in the Air Force, I remember watching them take-off and you wondered if it was ever going to get off the ground...lol! Gonna miss this old warbird!
Posted on 3/19/24 at 9:19 am to HenryParsons
They told us for years that the F22 was going to be the most dominant thing ever. A few years into its career they said it's cancelled. And now they're saying it's going to get a block of upgrades. They've been trying to dump the A10 forever - probably so they can justify a new acquisitions program for the "next Close Air Support platform" and do it like the F35 - behind schedule and dramatically over budget. All of this is a scam.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 9:22 am to Le Tenia
quote:
So you are saying that you agree with the NDS that the A-10s should no longer be in the fleet?
Yes. They are useless in a high-end fight against a near-peer/peer competitor.
quote:
If so, wouldn't the A-10s be useful elsewhere if not in the Far East strategy?
We can't even afford the things we need to meet the #1 priority in the NDS. Why would we then fund something that is a lower priority?
quote:
It's much cheaper to fly
Doesn't matter. If it is useless in our priority mission, then every dollar spent on it is a waste.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 9:23 am to HenryParsons
The A-10 is cool as shite but it's time came and went a long time ago. Look at Ukraine, which is the exact fight the Warthog was built for, it wouldn't last five minutes in that airspace.
Posted on 3/19/24 at 9:37 am to HenryParsons
quote:
A portion of these should be reallocated to the Coast Guard for counter-trafficking operations.
They would look pretty slick in the white and orange livery.
quote:
"Ground troops would be supported, if at all, by CAS amateurs in a small, expensive fleet of fragile aircraft that are far less effective. In low-intensity conflict, that will cost lives."
Is this a direct shot at the F-35 or do they speak of other things?
And I suppose “they” “have” to do this so they can buy more F-35s.
This post was edited on 3/19/24 at 9:40 am
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News