This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss
Back to Squawk list
  • 30

Congress adds amendment to keep the A-10

נשלח לפני
 
Congress thinks the A-10 is important enough to keep around (candicemiller.house.gov) עוד...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


CaptainFreedom
CaptainFreedom 4
What??? Choppers aren't going to replace this outdated piece of.....truth is, this is an outstanding airplane that has done an amazing job for deacades at protecting ground troops. I'm sure that the Marines and Army would have stepped in if they seriously considered mothballing the A-10.
preacher1
preacher1 4
DRONES replaced the wing at FSM
joelwiley
joel wiley 3
I have a couple 20mm shells picked up from the aerial gunnery ranges East of China Lake. I can well understand how welcome a Warthog would be popping over the hill and tossing a slew of these at the bad guys. The air force generals need to be reminded that the US Army is on the same side.
ldoord
David Lepard 1
Joel, what really matters is the type of round... HEI, AT/AP etc..... and what you are using it for.... Tanks are one thing, bad guys in the bush or open field is another.. using the wrong type of round is like 22LR verses 12 Ga Buck shot.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
22, double aught, neither are comforting when coming at you.
Beyond that .66 lb at 22fps and 35/second would make you appreciate that 22 round.
8-)

"sometimes, quantity has a quality of its own"
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
(2200 + fps)
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 1
The A-10 uses 30mm rounds, not 20mm rounds.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
True. What I picked up in the 70's were 20mm, perhaps from the F-104. 30mm > 50% worse news for the bad guys 8-)
preacher1
preacher1 4
It will be good if they keep the plane. I just wish they would have kept them in the 188th at KFSM, rather than making a drone yard out of it. Last year just before Easter, we did an Angel Flight to Dover and back. A flight picked us up over North Arkansas as escort, and as we lined up on approach, they came over the top in missing man formation. Nothing like it.
speedbird347
Derek Vaughn 6
There is no drone, or manned aircraft in the U.S. inventory that can do the A-10's job to its full capability. I can guarantee you if they try to replace the A-10, we will lose extra lives on the ground because of this decision. It's by far the dumbest thing the administration has proposed concerning military cuts. A drone can't handle this mission requirement and neither can the F-35. That leaves Apaches and Super Cobras and rotary wing aircraft are limited in range, speed, and are vulnerable to ground fire. The A-10 is the second most important aircraft in the Air Force inventory.
ToddBaldwin3
Todd Baldwin 3
This is being driven by sequestration. Remember that, it's still in effect. The USAF brass has to make some choices, and it looks like they decided to put that massively expensive, problem plagued F-35 in front of operational requirements. This is one instance where I agree with Congress.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I wasn't talking about drones replacing the A10 line. I was just talking about them being replaced at FSM by the drones. They sent them all somewhere, down in GA I think.
JCMIA
James Carlin 1
AC-130 "spooky" gunship?
MattHauke
Matt Hauke 1
A-10s are also the most vulnerable of all the CAS aircraft to enemy fire. So unless we keep fighting people who still use donkeys as their main source of transportation, the A-10 will become more and more dangerous to fly.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Any plane flying CAS is vulnerable to enemy fire but not many can stand up to this type punsishment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_campbell_damage_a10.jpg
and for the foreseeable future, those donkey riders will pose the biggest threat to anybody.
MattHauke
Matt Hauke 1
Yes, but the A-10 is more so due to its closeness to the ground and relatively slow speed compared to the F-16. The armored plating does offer more protection to small arms fire (which is pretty much what you are going to get from people that I described above) but offers none against SAMS. A F-16, or the future F-35 has a lot better chance to maneuver out of danger. A more formidable enemy would have blown our A-10s out of the sky by now. The Air Force needs to plan for the future, and with the U.S. pulling out of Afghanistan, the A-10 is becoming obsolete.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, this discussion could go on forever, BUT, I'll simply close my part by saying that the NEED for that closeness has been there; CAS stands for CLOSE air support. You are correct about a more formidable opponent, but on the other, we are not going to be completely out of Afghanistan for a good while and those donkey riders will still be shooting.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
So long as we put troops down in the mud somewhere, there will be a need for CAS. The A-10 is pretty much a single purpose tool, unlike the F-16 (the reality-tested capabilities of the F-35 remain to be seen). Sometimes a mulit-tool is better for the job, sometimes not. Would you rather take a swiss-army multi-tool or a K-Bar into a knife fight?
MattHauke
Matt Hauke 1
It really depends on where that mud is. If you think we are going to be in Afghanistan for the next 10 more years, I agree, we need to keep the A-10s. But if we are pulling out, and future conflicts will be against adversaries that don't live in caves and have access to better weaponry, the A-10 all of a sudden becomes a very vulnerable aircraft.

The attributes that make it great against an enemy holding only AK-47s, ie. the ability to operate close to the ground and at low speeds; make them very vulnerable against 2nd world adversaries. For example, they wouldn't last too long in Syria where there are a large amount of SAMs held by the many factions fighting there. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
LordLayton
Leighton Elliott 3
THEE wisest defense decision to date! YAY! The A-10 Warthog may be ugly but to the troops on the ground, it's the prettiest sight they ever saw. NO OTHER Platform no matter how expensive can do what this bargain design can do! Period! It is not a plane with a rotary cannon attached to it, It's a rotary cannon with a plane attached to it!
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Congress finally does something smart.. Wonder what happened.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Even a blind pig finds an occasional truffle.
There is no such thing as zero probability.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
You are right!
GadgetGuy
L. Nichols Cook 1
There is zero probability that there is a zero probability...wait a sec...ummm...
nasdisco
Chris B 2
Its so ugly, its beautiful. Its so effective, its scary.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Nothing scary about .66 lb slugs at 35/second.... as long as they're outgoing.
gecgaspa
Geoffrey Clark 2
The A-10 has ALWAYS been the aircraft the Air Force has loved to hate. Not sleek, not fast, not sexy and too close to the real action on the ground. No way a supersonic fighter can do its job. Regardless of the cost/hour, it's got to be cheaper than the amortized cost of the F-35 AND it's already paid for. When they finally wear out they should dig out the jigs and forms and make more!
preacher1
preacher1 1
You are correct, BUT, somebody down below here said the original jigs were destroyed, but, if they can fly the BUFF's as long as they have and plan to, they ought to be able to do these, of course, them are bombers and they need the A10 money to pay for the F35 fiasco.
FLGeographer
Joseph Brown 2
Unfortunately it is an example of the fighter/bomber mentality of the USAF. Goes back to at least WW2. Everybody talks about and celebrates the 8th AF, but no one in the general public remembers the 9th. Same theater, but the 8th was "Strategic Bombing" with B-17's and 24's and mixing it up with the Luftwaffe at altitude with P-51's. While the 9th, operating originally out of airfields mixed in with those of the 8th, was using P-47's, A-20's, and B-26's to provide close ground support and tactical bombing. Sad to say, but no Army unit, relying on the AF, will ever get the same close cohesion as a Marine unit does with its MAGTF (Marine Air Ground Task Force) structure. But the A-10 is a wonderful airplane, used to see them giving the folks traveling on I-15 between LA and Vegas a thrill.
PeteLanashire
Pete Lancaashire 2
http://www.rense.com/general38/a10.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/a-10-f-35-air-force-budget

Wonder how many other can survive something like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_campbell_damage_a10.jpg

Can't find a reference but one of the biggest crimes was the destruction of assembly jigs
spbking
Stuart Fountain 1
At least we'll get some return on the money spent to increase the A-10 service life thru' 2022. We miss them coming into Gosselies
dg1941
Damien Gehler 1
Something that we should all be able to admit to is that the A-10 is a massively expensive aircraft to operate. It is my personal opinion that the US government should explorer a MANNED low cost alternative, which only makes sense in a nation over $17 trillion in debt.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Cheaper to maintain than build a new one, i.e. the F35
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
How much is 'massively expensive' and compared with what? I believe I saw $10,000/ hr for C-130 in a discussion of transferring several from USCG to USFS for fire fighting. For seaborne F35 operational costs, do you add a pro-rated operation cost for the 'airfield'?
dg1941
Damien Gehler 1
Massively expensive in relation to other aircraft in it's category and required tasks. I.e. more expensive than comparable aircraft such as the AH-64 Longbow Apache, BAe Harrier II, even to an extent the militarised Air Tractor that was proposed. It also happens to be my personal opinion that the F-35 is an untested and hastily designed joke that could have obviously had a slight bit more effort placed in it.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
While I agree with some of what you say and respect your view, a couple things come to mind.

First, in the vein of 'lawyers are comfortable with straining at gnats and swallowing camels' war in general is a massively expensive endeavor and the maintenance of ordinance platforms is but a small part. The $10K I mentioned above seemed reasonable to us in Calif hen the ANG MAFFS-equiped birds were dropping retardant on the Rim Fire near Yosemite last year (an an aside, the A-10 had been suggested for that role as well at one time).

Second, the A-10 superior close support mission capabilities tends to reduce the massive expense associated with shipping troops home in flag-draped coffins with attendant reduced workload of the Graves Registration Service.

Third, as the mini-ball tend to trump the english longbow, the A-10 has demonstrated better survivability in a hostile environment where people violently object to being shot at. In my BCT days at Fort Ord, we were instructed on engaging aerial targets. The subject targets were the UH1 and F4A, as at the time there were no VCAF to use. The A-10 is just better at surviving small arms fire.

Regarding the F-35. It is a good thing the term boondoggle exists. Otherwise we would have to invent it.
tcmarks
Tim Marks 1
The A10 is a unique aircraft in history, there is no other like it that has been purpose built around a (big)gun platform for a singular purpose - a flying tank. The true nature of this aircraft has been demonstrated on the ground many times in middle eastern conflicts, when ground forces - tanks and artillary - scatter like cockroaches at the sight of a pair of A10s on the hunt. It is always a bad day to be on the opposite side from the US Military when A10s are involved in the fight.
preacher1
preacher1 1
cjhall
C. J. Hall 1
The A-10 is the ultimate, low cost, cheap to fly, survivable, armor killer.

We DO NOT need $1.5 Billion dollar each, all purpose, VTOL, carrier capable, stealth fighters. Can't afford them, when you can get a hundred Warthogs for the same price.

I remember Gulf war footage from a helicopter lining up on a tank for a missile shot, coming in flat out (150 kts?) at maybe 150 feet AGL when a Warthog doing probably TRIPLE that speed went UNDER the chopper, maybe 50-75 feet AGL, let go a one second burst from the 30mm gatling, obliterated the tank, and pitched up and out before the helicopter pilot even knew what the heck just happened.

Couple that with high bypass engines that can be blown clean off the pylon by a shoulder fired missile - and the aircraft flys home safely, a Titanium bathtub to protect the pilot from shrapnel and small arms, and a HUGE bomb load, and you've got just about the ultimate close air support killing machine.

If I ever went into combat (too old, can't), that's what I'd want to fly (or the much rumored Aurora - so nobody could even shoot high enough to get at me)
JCMIA
James Carlin 1
Everyone hates spending and wants to slash slash slash - but nobody wants to slash anything that benefits their district or state.
sgbelverta
sharon bias 1
Let's hear it for Warthogs. Sometimes you don't need a precision attack from 7000 miles away. You just need a big bomb or some gnarly bullets to keep your troops safe. I loved when they used to fly over my house in Sacramento. Their engines have such a unique sound.
preacher1
preacher1 2
One has to remember that plane was literally designed AROUND that gun. That is why the nosewheel is offset. It was designed with one purpose in mind. CLOSE AIR SUPPORT and to do that effectively, it has to have SURVIABILITY.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
I think the only CLOSE AIR SUPPORT the Air Force believes exists is the boom off a KC-10 or equivalent.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Give it to the Army. I bet they'll use it.
avihais
Martin Haisman 1
Is the Air force officially still a division of the army? (That's a question not a statement)
preacher1
preacher1 1
No, it was separated from the Army in September of 1947 and has been an independent branch since then.
ldoord
David Lepard 1
Are the A-10's deployed 24/7 365 ? And if not what aircraft fills the gap when they are not deployed. I can't think of a weapon the A-10 carries that an F-18 C/D/E or F doesn't have. A-10 30MM Gun F-18 20MM Gun, is this whole amendment about 10MM. USMC Aviation is touted as being all about CAS and I guess they do it just fine. Congress may save the A-10 for awhile but it going to cost the USAF the money from some other program. This not about the A-10 verses the F-35.... the A means Attack and the F means Fighter...

Check out the EMB-314
maxabrams
max abrams 1
Cheapest non-trainer aircraft to operate in our militaries arsenal.

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/
dg1941
Damien Gehler 1
First, that article is over a year old, and with parts and fuel prices going up I would imagine those prices are much higher. Second, the article never took into account that the pilots require extremely specialised training as there are not many aircraft with similar flight characteristics, and the USAF would likely rather commit extra training than lose an aircraft. This differs from most fighters as the T-38 and T-45 do a fairly good job teaching the pilots to fly on a similar platform to what they will actually go into combat with.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 1
The President believes that foreign enemies will lay down arms if we do on the force of his personality. The only time I recall that happening was on the force of personality of President Reagan. In that instance we had no need to lay down arms.

The President and his party seem to have little regard for military lives, and more interest in using federal money to attract voters to Democratic Party candidates.

Retaining the Warthog makes sense to anyone who values the principles of America, except those who have not recognized the value of history as the Community Organizer from Chicago.
preacher1
preacher1 3
yep, but now wait a minute, that's the truth and it might offend somebody. You know what> TS, I don't care.
preacher1
preacher1 4
It can also be added that Regan's personality was quite a bit different from that of his predasessor. Note the hostage release at the inauguration. Carter did not gain the release of the hostages; it was Regan's personality that got them released.
johnlear
John Lear 0
It can also be added that Regan's personality was quite a bit different from that of his predasessor. Note the hostage release at the inauguration. Carter did not gain the release of the hostages; it was Regan's personality that got them released.

Not so. It was VP candidates George Bushes promise to Tehran of unlimited guns and ammunition if Iran released the hostages during Reagans inauguration.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 1
Brilliant Speculation. Slightly incorrect. The promise of unlimited guns and ammunition was true from then former CIA chief Bush, but held in the hands Americans instructed to retrieve American citizens held over a year.

Bush's promise was not "if" they released the hostages, but "if" they didn't.
preacher1
preacher1 1
maybe so but if you look close, you will see that the release was done before Reagan was sworn in. Either way, it wasn't pussyfooting as had been done, it was getting down to business. Pussyfooting is what we are seeing today. We need leadership that will put on boots and not be afraid to stomp.
johnlear
John Lear 0
I see. So arming Iran illegally was "getting down to business?" So that is the kind of leadership you want?
ldoord
David Lepard 0
Last time I checked the A-10 deployments were not to every spot where CAS was needed. So other US, Marine and Navy aircraft a well as coalition aircraft filled in with few complaints form those on the ground. The A-10 in its day was bad to the bone, but at 18K per flight hour it's time to put the war bird to rest. Know for sure that senior USAF leadership all bought into the sundown of the A-10 and Congress should let those leaders decide and lead there Force. USMC Aviation exist for close air support .............. GoNavy Beat Army
preacher1
preacher1 1
Any future war will be fought in the middle East as a ground war as has been in Iran and Afghanistan. We need the A10 or something just like it, rather than a boondoggle like the F35.Since the cold war is over, relegate the USAF to bombing and a few missles, and give the warthog to the Army, where it's wanted.
speedbird347
Derek Vaughn 1
We need a replacement first. A-10's can linger over targets for a long time and sustain heavy damage that would send other birds packing, or worse. The seven barrel 30mm cannon is exclusive to the Warthog and is effective against any surface target. There is no known replacement aircraft that can cut, dive, sustain damage, and hit targets over and over, while delivering such a wide array of weaponry. Plus, the A-10 will be needed in the next ground war for CAS, until a suitable replacement is available.
hhinsdale
Howard Hinsdale 0
Why would one of the planet's premier defensive units remove one of the greatest ground support assets in history of their existence? Could it be the Muslim influence of their current leader????
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Not at all. It's just that the Army is sucking up budget monies that the Air Force believes would be better spent on Air Force pet projects. It is a disagreement that goes back to around 1948 or so.

כניסה לאתר

עדיין אין לך חשבון? הירשם כעת (ללא תשלום) כדי ליהנות מתכונות מותאמות-אישית, מהתראות טיסה ועוד!