Coyote 65's Link
I know the AF does not like the close air support role of the A-10 and have stated with precision munitions the A-10 is not needed. In the words of Sherman Potter, Horse Hockey!!!!
When in the National Guard I was an observer on a scout helicopter. One of our missions was to work with the Warthog on joint attacks on AAA, Tanks and other armor. We were training for the Soviet Union and 5000 tanks coming across the border.
Since that scenario never happened the Warthog has become the close air support platform of choice for the grunts in Iraq and Afganistan. If the Air Force wants to use its fast movers for close air support, which it does not want to do then they need to give the Warthog to the Army. Then like the Marines the Army will have its own close air support team and will not have to rely on the AF. Helicopter gunships make good close air support platforms but cannot carry the payload or have the speed or the loiter time that the Warthog has. Since we will probably be fighting in the sand box for the next couple of years we need this weapon system!!!
Terry
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/congress-just-saved-the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-and-that-could-be-bad-news-for-isis-cm423036
DL's Link
DL's Link
DL's Link
The Air Force Gives Up Its Plan To Retire the A-10
The Warthog isn't going anywhere.
The U.S. Air Force has decided to indefinitely postpone the retirement of the legendary A-10 Thunderbolt II ground attack plane. The venerable Warthog's increased role in the air campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria was the Pentagon's main reason for the postponement.
First developed in the 1970s, the A-10 was designed to kill Red Army tanks on European battlefields. Heavily armored and capable of flying low and slow, the A-10 was built to make devastating low-level attacks against Soviet armored columns with missiles, bombs, and its GAU-8/A Avenger 30-millimeter gun.
Although the old plane proved effective in Iraq and Afghanistan and stayed popular with troops on the ground—who loved nothing more than the site of a Warthog or two barreling into a combat zone—the Air Force had planned to replace the A-10 with the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Air Force contends that the A-10 can no longer survive on the modern battlefield against modern air defenses. It's been trying to put the A-10 out to pasture for years, claiming the funds used to keep the tank-killers flying are needed elsewhere—particularly in the F-35 program.
Meanwhile, the Warthog's supporters, including a bipartisan team of Congressional representatives, have been fighting to save it. Critics of the retirement plan charge that the fast, unarmored F-35 isn't a real replacement for the A-10, and the limitations of the F-35's gun—which is less powerful than the GAU-8/A and carries a meager 220 rounds—make it less useful in close air support situations. The F-35 will also only be able to carry 1,000 pound GPS-guided bombs and 500 pound laser-guided bombs.
While the F-35's stealth and electronic warfare capabilities may help it survive on the battlefield longer, the A-10's ability to bring a truckload of air-to-ground weapons to the fight against ISIS is more useful. Islamic State has access to various types of anti-air weapons, including shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, but it doesn't have a coordinated air defense. The terrorist organization has yet to shoot down a single Coalition plane.
At least two squadrons of 12 A-10s each are currently flying against ISIS, from bases in Turkey and elsewhere in the Middle East. Now we know those Warthogs will remain at war.
That said, as long as those in the AF aren't wanting to replace the A-10 because of political pressure, I trust their judgement a lot more than I trust the judgement of Congress or any of my friends on the CF.
Pat: I do my best!
