Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The U.S. Air Force, not feeling a similar obligation to protect U.S. Army soldiers on the ground and arguing that the F-35A can perform close air support as well as the A-10 Warthog can do, is now claiming it cannot afford the A-10s because it needs the money to support the forthcoming F-35A. With a mentality reminiscent of Vietnam thinking — “We had to destroy the village to protect it!” — the Air Force is dismantling some of its stored A-10s. The U.S. Air Force paid Fairchild Republic to build 716 Warthogs and 291 of them were still in service as of June 2016. ...

Is it time for the U.S. Army/ U.S. Marines to operate the older fleet of A-10's?
I would feel better if Soldiers/ Marines were providing Close Air ground support (CAS) to other Soldiers/ Marines.

I think there's room for both the F35 and A-10. The Warthog is an awesome (but slow) piece of machinery that still has relevance as CAS on the battlefield. The F35 is FINALLY operationally able to take on some of the CAS role as well as more of a fighter/bomber.

From what I have heard from my Marine buddies, they love the A-10. Because it is so feared by the enemy as much as it is effective. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Haven't the bean counters in the back room been trying to kill the A-10 for 20 years..?
This is entirely driven by generating new funding in new channels
you can't grow free money streams with 40 year old A-10's

and in the end
its the grunt on the ground that gets f*cked

Actually the most significant part of this thread is that it obviates that klean is either a plagiarist or he has a ghost writer

CID1990 wrote:Actually the most significant part of this thread is that it obviates that klean is either a plagiarist or he has a ghost writer

from here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3456351/posts

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Actually the most significant part of this thread is that it obviates that klean is either a plagiarist or he has a ghost writer

from here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3456351/posts

Yeah I figured he cut and pasted without attribution.


There was too much of the King's English in it

mrklean wrote:The U.S. Air Force, not feeling a similar obligation to protect U.S. Army soldiers on the ground and arguing that the F-35A can perform close air support as well as the A-10 Warthog can do, is now claiming it cannot afford the A-10s because it needs the money to support the forthcoming F-35A. With a mentality reminiscent of Vietnam thinking — “We had to destroy the village to protect it!” — the Air Force is dismantling some of its stored A-10s. The U.S. Air Force paid Fairchild Republic to build 716 Warthogs and 291 of them were still in service as of June 2016. ...

Is it time for the U.S. Army/ U.S. Marines to operate the older fleet of A-10's?
I would feel better if Soldiers/ Marines were providing Close Air ground support (CAS) to other Soldiers/ Marines.

The Army and Marines are prohibited by law from operating fixed-wing aircraft, with a very few exceptions for small transport aircraft, mostly for use by generals.

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote: from here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3456351/posts

Yeah I figured he cut and pasted without attribution.

Probation offices often do such things...then they say they are as qualified as real writers.

CitadelGrad wrote:

mrklean wrote:The U.S. Air Force, not feeling a similar obligation to protect U.S. Army soldiers on the ground and arguing that the F-35A can perform close air support as well as the A-10 Warthog can do, is now claiming it cannot afford the A-10s because it needs the money to support the forthcoming F-35A. With a mentality reminiscent of Vietnam thinking — “We had to destroy the village to protect it!” — the Air Force is dismantling some of its stored A-10s. The U.S. Air Force paid Fairchild Republic to build 716 Warthogs and 291 of them were still in service as of June 2016. ...

Is it time for the U.S. Army/ U.S. Marines to operate the older fleet of A-10's?
I would feel better if Soldiers/ Marines were providing Close Air ground support (CAS) to other Soldiers/ Marines.

The Army and Marines are prohibited by law from operating fixed-wing aircraft, with a very few exceptions for small transport aircraft, mostly for use by generals.

huh?

CID1990 wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
The Army and Marines are prohibited by law from operating fixed-wing aircraft, with a very few exceptions for small transport aircraft, mostly for use by generals.

huh?

I guess all those thousands of hours I spent controlling F/A-18's and AV-8B's was all a bad acid trip.

Hey, maybe it was.

CID1990 wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
The Army and Marines are prohibited by law from operating fixed-wing aircraft, with a very few exceptions for small transport aircraft, mostly for use by generals.

huh?

That's just what they tell Citadel grads, so as not to hurt their feelings.

Oh, wait...

bandl wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
huh?

That's just what they tell Citadel grads, so as not to hurt their feelings.

Oh, wait...

Don't know why I typed Marines. It is just the Army. After the National Security Act of 1947 was passed, the Army and new Air Force had a debate about fixed-wing combat aircraft. Eventually the Air Force won the debate by getting Congress to prohibit the Army from having those aircraft.

CitadelGrad wrote:Don't know why I typed Marines. It is just the Army. After the National Security Act of 1947 was passed, the Army and new Air Force had a debate about fixed-wing combat aircraft. Eventually the Air Force won the debate by getting Congress to prohibit the Army from having those aircraft.

The 1947 National Security act was passed with a understanding that the Chair Force would provide Close Air Ground Support for the U.S. Army. Now if they (Chair Force) no longer what to provide this service, it is only fair to let the Army protect the Army.

mrklean wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:Don't know why I typed Marines. It is just the Army. After the National Security Act of 1947 was passed, the Army and new Air Force had a debate about fixed-wing combat aircraft. Eventually the Air Force won the debate by getting Congress to prohibit the Army from having those aircraft.

The 1947 National Security act was passed with a understanding that the Chair Force would provide Close Air Ground Support for the U.S. Army. Now if they (Chair Force) no longer what to provide this service, it is only fair to let the Army protect the Army.

Army still provides its own rotary CAS of course.

Back to the A-10 for a moment, they are phenomenal for blowing up armor and such, but in my limited dealings with a few sections of A-10 during CAX's at MCAGCC, the pilots are too timid to be any good for danger-close 9 lines. They just don't have the cojones that Marine pilots do for walking their shots close in to the front line.

Didn't we just upgrade the wings on the A-10s?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

SeattleGriz wrote:Didn't we just upgrade the wings on the A-10s?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Yep, to "C" models...center wing box, new wiring, and a bunch of other things...

93henfan wrote:

mrklean wrote:

The 1947 National Security act was passed with a understanding that the Chair Force would provide Close Air Ground Support for the U.S. Army. Now if they (Chair Force) no longer what to provide this service, it is only fair to let the Army protect the Army.

Army still provides its own rotary CAS of course.

Back to the A-10 for a moment, they are phenomenal for blowing up armor and such, but in my limited dealings with a few sections of A-10 during CAX's at MCAGCC, the pilots are too timid to be any good for danger-close 9 lines. They just don't have the cojones that Marine pilots do for walking their shots close in to the front line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement

The Keywest Agreement is the actual agreement you are looking for...

Col Hogan wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:Didn't we just upgrade the wings on the A-10s?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Yep, to "C" models...center wing box, new wiring, and a bunch of other things...

So...
It appears you can generate new revenue streams from a 40 year old project
Well done - well done

93henfan wrote:

mrklean wrote:

The 1947 National Security act was passed with a understanding that the Chair Force would provide Close Air Ground Support for the U.S. Army. Now if they (Chair Force) no longer what to provide this service, it is only fair to let the Army protect the Army.

Army still provides its own rotary CAS of course.

Back to the A-10 for a moment, they are phenomenal for blowing up armor and such, but in my limited dealings with a few sections of A-10 during CAX's at MCAGCC, the pilots are too timid to be any good for danger-close 9 lines. They just don't have the cojones that Marine pilots do for walking their shots close in to the front line.

Let the A-10 pilots tell it, they are the baddest shit kickers in the Air Force.