U.S. House panel defeats bid to save A-10 'Warthog' aircraft

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by vashstampede, Jun 13, 2014.

  1. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    The infamous A-10 warthog (also known as tank buster) won't be in service for much longer.
    Many people might have seen it in various movies, including the new Superman Man of Steel movie (three A-10 were used to attack the aliens from Superman's home planet), and the Terminator Salvation (multiple A-10 were seen to attack a Skynet base, and later two A-10 were shot down over a valley by a HK drone after they downed a drone first), and the first Transformer movie (where two A-10 attacked a scroption shaped decepticon in the desert).

    In reality,
    A-10 is the best close air support for ground troops with its 30mm Gatling guns and over a dozen anti-tank missiles it can carry under its wings. It is a slow jet, which makes it ideal for dealing with ground targets, and its armor can take many hits without being affected. The ground troops love it. Yet the air force wants to ditch it in favor of F-35.

    Make no mistake, A-10 is old technology with three decades of history behind it. It is still the best close air support today. It has proven track of records on the battlefields. Why would the government want to replace it with F-35 which isn't even meant for this close support role? Just a few days ago in Afghanistan a F-16 dropped two bombs and caused friendly casualty. It just to show how unreliable it is to use super sonic jets for close air support.

    You can see the source news here:
    http://news.yahoo.com/u-house-panel-defeats-bid-save-10-warthog-165333506--finance.html
     
    jrj1701 likes this.
  2. aghart

    aghart Former Tank Commander Moderator

    I too mourn the loss of the A10. A superb aircraft. Getting rid of the Warthog is a mistake. As the link says, cost cutting is the main reason, but the A10 was designed to attack formations of Soviet armour, and the scenario of a major battle between mechanised forces appears to the powers that be, something that is not going to happen. That is all the accountants need to get their way.
     
    jrj1701 likes this.
  3. Interrogator#6

    Interrogator#6 Active Member

    Yes, the A-10 is slow, but sometimes "slow" is better. I had the priviledge of watching a pair fly aerobatics back in the 80s, and I was emotionally moved.

    I think the AF wants to kill the A-10 programme because they can not control it. It is GROUND support platform, as has been pointed out, not an Air-combat platform.
     
    jrj1701 likes this.
  4. jrj1701

    jrj1701 Member

    When bean counters make decisions for the military it always ends up being a mistake. Some of those older birds have served our interest well, like the B-52, yet choosing the F-35 over the A-10 is a classic case of not allowing the military to be flexible, or being realistic about the various roles that need to be fulfilled during war.
     
  5. ami4041

    ami4041 New Member

    Isn't the F35 an air superiority fighter? Isn't it slightly nonsensical to remove something tried and tested for something unsuited to the role? And unless I am mistaken, isn't the F35 pricier than the A-10?
     
    jrj1701 likes this.
  6. jrj1701

    jrj1701 Member

    Yes to all three questions.
     
  7. ami4041

    ami4041 New Member

    That is sad, really sad. I am sure it will only backfire in the long run.
     
    jrj1701 likes this.
  8. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member


    Sometimes ago I have heard that the army wanted to take the A-10 under their command as the air force wanted to ditch them. The proposal was denied because somehow it was against the rule of ground troops not allowed to have fixed wing aircraft... If what I heard was true, it's beyond lame lol.

    F-35 is an air superior super sonic stealth jet. It won't be good for close air support for the ground troops as it is
    1. too fast
    2. too soft
    3. can't carry many missiles or it will compromise its "stealth" capability

    In my first post, I forgot to mention another more recent movie with A-10 in it. In World War Z, up to eight A-10 were seen in the sky of Philadelphia when the zombies were about to overrun the city. No movie had that many A-10 in one scene.
     
    jrj1701 likes this.
  9. aghart

    aghart Former Tank Commander Moderator


    We have something similar in the UK. The army has more helicopters than the RAF, but the RAF insisted on ownership of the larger transport helicopters such as Puma, Merlin and Chinook, even though their main role is "army support"
     
    jrj1701 likes this.
  10. Interrogator#6

    Interrogator#6 Active Member

    I think I now recall why Congress can-ed the A-10: the other plane will create more profit in key congressional districts. Manufacturer's profits equals campaign bribes, err, contributions.
     
    jrj1701 likes this.
  11. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    It makes sense... any new large project will create more loopholes for "contribution".

    The whole official excuse for going for F-35 was due to "F-22 is too expensive". Now with the price tag of F-35 keeps climbing on the top of the R&D money, they could have built thousands F-22 already with the same amount of money. It just doesn't make sense from both economical reasons and military sense either.
     
    jrj1701 likes this.
  12. Rockhem

    Rockhem Member

    I hope that a proper replacement for the a-10 warthog is made, a flying close support aircraft that is heavily armored is a very nice thing to have. I doubt that that will happen though, because all the money will be funneled into the f-35, and it is a sad day now that the warthog has been retired.
     
    jrj1701 likes this.
  13. jrj1701

    jrj1701 Member

    The only way I see this happening is if the Army proposes to take over the A-10 project and place it under their command. It only makes sense that ground support aircraft be in the command structure of the folks that are utilizing it, rather than under the command of different command structure.
     
  14. Rockhem

    Rockhem Member

    Yeah, that would make much more sense, having a nice close support aircraft to support ground forces is a good thing, but that kind of thing might be being replaced by helicopters like the Apache and others.
     
    jrj1701 likes this.
  15. jrj1701

    jrj1701 Member

    The only problem with rotary wing aircraft (helicopters) is that they still give themselves away due to the sound, they can only be silenced so much, yet the warthogs design makes it more silent and I have experienced this, when you hear it, it is too late, especially if it was coming at you with intent to unload its ordinance.
     
  16. Rockhem

    Rockhem Member

    That is something I have never thought of with aircraft. I didn't know that the helicopters were louder than the a-10 warthog. The warthog is so big, and uses multiple jet engines, you would never think that a a-10 is much quieter than a helicopter.
     
    jrj1701 likes this.

Share This Page