Senators Restore Funding for A-10s, Growlers

Well this is good news for the foot soldiers and for a buddie of mine that flies one in the Massachusetts air National Guard.

The Senate Armed Services Committee agreed to preserve funding next year for the Air Force’s A-10 gunship, the Navy’s EA-18G Growler electronic attack jet and other equipment the Pentagon didn’t want to pay for.

The panel led by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, on Thursday voted 25–1 in passing its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which sets policy goals and spending targets for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

www.dodbuzz.com...

I read an extremely long article on this yesterday.

It was madness for them to even consider scrapping the A-10, glad to see they came to their senses. Scrapping one of the most cost and generally effective close air support platforms ever? It may be 30 years old but it costs less than half what it costs to keep an A-10 in the air than it does a pointy fast mover - not to mention the troops love it and the enemy's totally hate it.

It can be upgraded with all sorts of additional weapon systems like air to air missiles and EW.

You hear that buzz of that chain gun [as an enemy], you crap your pants and hide.

a reply to: Biigs

Every summer I attend a air show and they do a live run with real ammo on some junked cars ...AWESOME !

originally posted by: nighthawk1954
a reply to: Biigs

Every summer I attend a air show and they do a live run with real ammo on some junked cars ...AWESOME !

I would LOVE to see a warthog in action.... from a safe distance which they say is pretty much the closest weapon platforms its safe to be a blue near by for.

Even the spanky new f-35 isnt as accurate with guns or its magical guided armament (it cant get as low or as slow either for making sure they are actually shooting bad guys) EDIT: oh neither is it armored.

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Well good.

There was quite an uproar that they had planned to defund them. If they do not have an adequate backup to fill their slot and it is just a bureaucracy thing behind the defunding then retiring them is dumb. They should always find something to fill the roles of the projects they plan to defund before defunding them. Honestly though I think the A-10s should be in the Armys arsenal. But hey what do I know.

Really you should never replace anything until its replacement can handle everything that it could and i doubt much if anything in the US can take a beating and keep on going like one of those puppies, yeh create an a-11 which can take twice the damage and deliver 5x the raw pew pew and people will allow the old hog to retire

a reply to: Maxatoria

Also you can retrain the A-10 pilots on the new machines first too!

Its odd they say but but its 30 years old, yeah and how many other planes are much much older (KC-135 stratotanker anyone, pushing 60 years old, retired just a few years ago)

originally posted by: Biigs
(KC-135 stratotanker anyone, pushing 60 years old, retired just a few years ago)

That's news to the tanker crews, and the planes that have been moved with them.

originally posted by: Zaphod58

originally posted by: Biigs
(KC-135 stratotanker anyone, pushing 60 years old, retired just a few years ago)

That's news to the tanker crews, and the planes that have been moved with them.

Oh have they not?

I thought the newer KC-10s (still 30 years old lol), either way point still stands

Old doesnt mean useless!!!!!

a reply to: Biigs

There are only 59 KC-10s. There are over 300 KC-135s IIRC, and they STILL don't have enough tankers to do the job.

originally posted by: Biigs
I read an extremely long article on this yesterday.

It was madness for them to even consider scrapping the A-10, glad to see they came to their senses. Scrapping one of the most cost and generally effective close air support platforms ever? It may be 30 years old but it costs less than half what it costs to keep an A-10 in the air than it does a pointy fast mover - not to mention the troops love it and the enemy's totally hate it.

It can be upgraded with all sorts of additional weapon systems like air to air missiles and EW.

You hear that buzz of that chain gun [as an enemy], you crap your pants and hide.

So what I don't understand is this: the A-10 is arguably one of the most effective and feared air weapons we have. We know it works. Why haven't we made it work better?

Take technology learned from its cousins and create a SuperHog. It's not rocket science, well, it is sort of. But its doable.

Some pie-in-the-sky suggestions. VTOL or vectoring control to allow the aircraft to come down even closer to targets then take off again. Or how about stealth (I'm sure somebody's thought of this) or even composite construction making them lighter and faster. The list goes on. I know, I know. If it ain't broke don't fix it. But if its on the chopping block, what's broke is the confidence. Help this plane out. Take it to the gym. We have the technology.

The F-35 is a trillion dollar disaster and lots of flag officers are trying to save their careers.

I don't think the A-10 was ever really on the chopping block.

When you factor in loiter time, ordinance load and durability it would take at least 9 F-35's to the same ground support job a single A-10 can.

This was nothing more than an attempt to keep the F-35 funding going by getting extra money they can now say is for the A-10's.

a reply to: Biigs

try a b52 for long life, by the looks of it it'll get a telegram from the president (when you reach 100 in the UK you get a telegram from the queen to say grats) so really it shows its better to have well working simple stuff that can do the job than some highly complex bit of tech that if single board fails you need to ground it

a reply to: Zedski

They have. The replaced the wing box, the wing, and upgraded the electronics, including a permanently mounted IR/Targeting system.

As for the rest, as I said in another thread, putting RAM on older aircraft is like putting lipstick on a pig. All you get is a pretty pig. If you want to put composites in the internal structure you have to build an entirely new aircraft, which defeats the purpose of trying to save money.

a reply to: Hmmmmmmm

The F-35 is a necessary evil. There are portions of the aircraft that will be needed badly within 5-6 years, and you can't retrofit them onto an older aircraft. And building an entirely new airframe around them would take another 15 years.

Yeah the F-35 is going to be a tremendous fighter/bomber, its just not going to be able to compete when it comes to ground support in areas with blues close by.

For burning into zones for air to air and long range anti SAM, RADAR and other ground targets its going to be exceptional. Plus that lovely stealth side of things. I always liked the harrier for its VTOL, so I'm really looking forward to seeing what the Navy's F-35's will be like


But yes the troops love the warthog and its proven ability not to blue on blue as much as the missile toting fast movers, if it aint broke... dont fix it (and definitely dont scrap it).

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Zedski

They have. The replaced the wing box, the wing, and upgraded the electronics, including a permanently mounted IR/Targeting system.

As for the rest, as I said in another thread, putting RAM on older aircraft is like putting lipstick on a pig. All you get is a pretty pig. If you want to put composites in the internal structure you have to build an entirely new aircraft, which defeats the purpose of trying to save money.

Well, then. You answered my question. As a kid, I had a favorite blanket. I carried it around until it was the size of a hanky. I think this will be the fate of the A-10.

This is one of the shell games the Pentagon plays with Congress whenever the get funding cuts. They cut something public and popular knowing Congress will dig up the green to pay for it. Why does the Pentagon do this? Because Congress does not care about vitaly important but, non sexy things like logistics, command and control, EW etc. So keep funding those things the Pentagon will threaten a sexy weapons program for cuts because it gets headlines. And this is the way things are done.

A couple of these things flew directly over head while I was in a small Michigan town.They were low...and LOUD!I could only imagine how fearsome they'd be with their cannons blazing.

Broke country starting to spend more money on war machines
You guys gearing up for something

I get it, it keeps the economy turning over

Any idea how many they plan to order