New Legistlation to Block Retirement of the A-10

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Interesting to see law makers countermining what the Air Force wants to do......again. Only this time it is to save the venerable A-10's:



The bipartisan defense budget that passed through the House Thursday includes strict language mandating the Air Force not execute any plans to retire the A-10 Warthog. The legislation specifically blocks the Air Force from spending any money to divest A-10s through calendar year 2014.




Lawmakers have pushed back against any talk of the A-10’s retirement. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., blocked the nomination of the Air Force secretary, citing her concerns about Air Force’s A-10 plans and Defense Department struggles to bring the Joint Strike Fighter online.


What I found of particular interest is Lt. Gen. Charles Davis's quote:



“Close air support is not hovering close with a gun anymore. That works great in a situation like Afghanistan — but if you assume that we are not going to fight that way all over the world you are going to do close air support much differently. Your ultimate close air support weapon would be something above the earth with a pinpoint accuracy laser that can pick off a person individually when they get too near our troops and do it repeatedly,”


When he says "Above the Earth" is he referring to aircraft or space based assets with lasers to kill individual combatants?

Source------>




posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 



OP quote: "What I found of particular interest is Lt. Gen. Charles Davis's quote: "

“Close air support is not hovering close with a gun anymore. That works great in a situation like Afghanistan — but if you assume that we are not going to fight that way all over the world you are going to do close air support much differently. Your ultimate close air support weapon would be something above the earth with a pinpoint accuracy laser that can pick off a person individually when they get too near our troops and do it repeatedly,”

What is at the bottom of this--or at the top, is space weapon platforms, supposedly banned by the international space treaty. Those "platforms" may not be exactly orbiting in place and therefore, may exist outside the boundaries of the treaty. View them as moveable platforms, a space battleship is a decent depiction, capable of moving variously over space under their own power and armed to the teeth with various weapons from kinetic and nuclear bombs, to energy weapons such as rail guns and lasers. These space battleships are probably what the English hacker Gary McKinnon discovered hidden on Pentagon computers. More than likely, they are the mysterious black triangles that are often reported to move with ease in the skies over the US and UK. With them patrolling the world, you don't need A-10s.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Personally, I agree with this one. The Air Force itself, as the rest of Government, is getting too fixated on gizmos and high tech to the exclusion of the workhorses of military offense or defense.

They seem to be arrogant enough to believe we can achieve the 'uber-weapons' status others have sought, to make war a quick slam dunk, even if fought in defense mode.

Well, that's cool as long as it lasts. History shows no one ..ever..ever..has been as good as they thought they were. Our high tech will get chunked by a chink in the armor at some point. Something someone missed or another nation had a clever brainstorm and thought up or invented.

When..not If..that day comes, we'll need things like the A-10 to do the real fighting that comes when an easy end doesn't happen .. and, when has it ever happened, despite being intended to everything back to 1945?



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   


Personally, I agree with this one. The Air Force itself, as the rest of Government, is getting too fixated on gizmos and high tech to the exclusion of the workhorses of military offense or defense.


I second that, two of my favorite aircraft, the A-10 and the B-52. Long in the tooth....maybe, tough as nails.....definitely! They were built for a singular purpose and have been adapted to fulfill other roles, not foreseen by the original designers with extreme success. To forget this and sweep them under the rug in place of shiny new toys would be a shame and counter productive. It seems like I've heard this before from the Air Force..."this will never be needed or utilized in war again" just before the Air Force realizes they need it again.
edit on 13-12-2013 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


Only weapons of mass destruction are banned from being launched from space. Lasers and kenetic kill weapons (rods from god) aren't included in that ban......yet.



Development of orbital weaponry was largely halted after the entry into force of the Outer Space Treaty and the SALT II treaty. These agreements prohibit weapons of mass destruction from being placed in space. As other weapons exist, notably those using kinetic bombardment, that would not violate these treaties, some private groups and government officials have proposed a Space Preservation Treaty which would ban the placement of any weaponry in outer space.


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 13-12-2013 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
What the government is now relying that wars can be fought in the future without personnel directly, the government is going to bet tax payers money on unnamed technology.

The only technology know right now is only space tracking missile defense in case of an attack to the US.

And we all know that is not a big secret.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
The bill was signed on 26 DEC. They'll continue to retire two a month for those that had been approved for retirement earlier. They'll have 283 at the end of 2014 when the next round of wrangling begins.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000
Personally, I agree with this one. The Air Force itself, as the rest of Government, is getting too fixated on gizmos and high tech to the exclusion of the workhorses of military offense or defense.

They seem to be arrogant enough to believe we can achieve the 'uber-weapons' status others have sought, to make war a quick slam dunk, even if fought in defense mode.

Well, that's cool as long as it lasts. History shows no one ..ever..ever..has been as good as they thought they were. Our high tech will get chunked by a chink in the armor at some point. Something someone missed or another nation had a clever brainstorm and thought up or invented.

When..not If..that day comes, we'll need things like the A-10 to do the real fighting that comes when an easy end doesn't happen .. and, when has it ever happened, despite being intended to everything back to 1945?


This. Remember when the "wiz kids" of the government said that dogfighting was obsolete in modern fighter jets with high tech missiles and thus took guns off all fighter jets. Then Vietnam comes along, fighters are doing old fashioned turn and burn dogfights, and they retrofit them all with...you guessed it...guns and started the Top Gun fighter school.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


I think what old Gary stumbled across was a honey pot.

I was thinking this could possibly be a lighter than air craft, have that hovering over the battlefield with a laser.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
The A-10 is, literally, a gattling gun with an airplane wrapped around it so it will fly. You can fill it full of holes and it will STILL fly. Witness the story of Killer Chick and the condition of her A-10 when she brought it back. But you say "Boo" to a drone and down it comes. An A-10 costs $12 million, a fraction of anything with more gizmos on it. That they want to get rid of this thing is just insane.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Remember a while back, the USAF stated that all of its F-35 fleet would have to take on the air to air mission as their primary role? yeah I do too... so whats going to replace all the mud movers?



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Anyone wanting to retire the A10, should get the boot themselves. It does a job ... It does it well.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


I think if I recall correctly that the A-10 is already 23 + years past it's original retirement date. Which was right after Gulf War-I The thing is a Beast both good and bad. It can take one hell of a beating and keep giving it back in spades. The problem is that on radar the thing sticks out like a soar thumb.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

SLAYER69
reply to post by schuyler
 


I think if I recall correctly that the A-10 is already 23 + years past it's original retirement date. Which was right after Gulf War-I The thing is a Beast both good and bad. It can take one hell of a beating and keep giving it back in spades. The problem is that on radar the thing sticks out like a soar thumb.




When the B-52 stops flying itll be near 100 years old. Think about that. A-10 looks like a teenager next to it.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Well this is also one of those good old army airforce battles that you never hear about. You know the old adage if it ain't broke don't fix it. Well if you are a grunt on the ground or in your Stryker and your pinned down or threatened by anything but especially armor you want support from an A10 or apache. But they don't call her tank killer for nothing.

She is quite and can maneuver and fly at low altitude and speed. Grunts best friend. Honestly when she comes in low and unleashes hell fire it is awesome. It is also freaky in that it is almost floating, like you could hit her with a rock.

It is really freaky. It is one of those aircraft the army would gladly fly themselves.

The Bot



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


The A-10 serves it's purpose in places where the USA already has air superiority, like Iraq and Afganistan.

It's a scary machine, like the C-130 gunships. You wouldn't want to be the enemy with one of those above you.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   

English hacker Gary McKinnon discovered hidden on Pentagon computers.


He's Scottish mate.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dlbott
 

...and as soon as their GAU-8/A Avenger makes its presents known by it distinctive explosive rounds impacting followed closely by the Brrrrrap, I'll bet all enemy combatants within ear shot start looking for an exit route or a hole to hide in and there is no substitute for the physiological effect that has that an F-35 could never inflict.
edit on 7-1-2014 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Stealthbomber
 


That could be a very advantageous platform for all kind of hardware deployment. A stealth platform that can achieve 110k feet, far above most common AA capabilities both aircraft and missile, launch munitions, shoot lasers and fill ISR in one package.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
If the air force does not want it give the A-10 to the marines.

The marines always liked(trusted) fellow marine pilots serving up there close air support.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum