Legendary A-10 'Warthog' sends ISIS fleeing even as it faces Pentagon cuts

[Oozlefinch]

Was the A10 even used in Vietnam? Wiki says it was first introduced in 76-78 and first used in combat in Iraq war 1.
Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow, this really goes to show how some people really have no idea what they are talking about and just make things up as they go along. Failing in the expectation that nobody will ever call them on it.

The Attack aircraft the Air Force used in Vietnam was the WWII era A-1 Skyraider (Spad), used all the way up to 1972 when the remaining A-1s were transferred to the Vietnam Air Force when the US pulled out of the war. The Navy and Marines used the A-6 Intruder throughout the war.

There is a reason I do not see anything that joke says other then through quotes by others. Nothing he says is of any importance and silly at best.

And the claims of number lost is really silly, since it's main mission when not destroying tanks is supporting the infantry. If we do not have the A-10 and instead rely upon much less capable drones what will the losses in Infantry be? 1 in every 5 missions? 1 in every 2 missions? 1 in every 5 missions? It would only take a single engagement with a platoon pinned down to make that loss 10 for every 1 mission.

This "acceptable death rate of A-10 pilots" really is a complete strawman and silly at the best. The goal of the A-10 is to prevent the loss of life of soldiers on the ground with a lot less protection then the pilot of the A-10 has.

And to give an idea how sturdy they really are compared to his nonsensical claims, here are some real numbers:

Number of A-10 missions: Over 45,000
Number of A-10s shot down: 6
Number seriously damaged (other then minor cosmetic): 15
Number to badly damaged to return to service: 5

This shows how far off his even best case estimates are. The actual number is well in excess of 5,000 missions for every aircraft shot down. Not 800, or 500, or even 300.

Shows how things are when somebody actually bothers to do a little basic research instead of pulling figures out of their ass.

 

[US Conservative]

Wow, this really goes to show how some people really have no idea what they are talking about and just make things up as they go along. Failing in the expectation that nobody will ever call them on it.

The Attack aircraft the Air Force used in Vietnam was the WWII era A-1 Skyraider (Spad), used all the way up to 1972 when the remaining A-1s were transferred to the Vietnam Air Force when the US pulled out of the war. The Navy and Marines used the A-6 Intruder throughout the war.

There is a reason I do not see anything that joke says other then through quotes by others. Nothing he says is of any importance and silly at best.

And the claims of number lost is really silly, since it's main mission when not destroying tanks is supporting the infantry. If we do not have the A-10 and instead rely upon much less capable drones what will the losses in Infantry be? 1 in every 5 missions? 1 in every 2 missions? 1 in every 5 missions? It would only take a single engagement with a platoon pinned down to make that loss 10 for every 1 mission.

This "acceptable death rate of A-10 pilots" really is a complete strawman and silly at the best. The goal of the A-10 is to prevent the loss of life of soldiers on the ground with a lot less protection then the pilot of the A-10 has.

And to give an idea how sturdy they really are compared to his nonsensical claims, here are some real numbers:

Number of A-10 missions: Over 45,000
Number of A-10s shot down: 6
Number seriously damaged (other then minor cosmetic): 15
Number to badly damaged to return to service: 5

This shows how far off his even best case estimates are. The actual number is well in excess of 5,000 missions for every aircraft shot down. Not 800, or 500, or even 300.

Shows how things are when somebody actually bothers to do a little basic research instead of pulling figures out of their ass.

I really wish Joko would try to gain at least some background knowledge before discussing such matters. Either that or he's willing to lie, neither is appropriate.

 

[joko104]

Was the A10 even used in Vietnam? Wiki says it was first introduced in 76-78 and first used in combat in Iraq war 1.
Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I stand corrected. Vietnam was what lead to it's development.

 

[joko104]

And the claims of number lost is really silly, since it's main mission when not destroying tanks is supporting the infantry. If we do not have the A-10 and instead rely upon much less capable drones what will the losses in Infantry be? 1 in every 5 missions? 1 in every 2 missions? 1 in every 5 missions? It would only take a single engagement with a platoon pinned down to make that loss 10 for every 1 mission.

This "acceptable death rate of A-10 pilots" really is a complete strawman and silly at the best. The goal of the A-10 is to prevent the loss of life of soldiers on the ground with a lot less protection then the pilot of the A-10 has.
.

With such a level of paranoia for infantry you definitely shouldn't be in it.

And who now is not telling the truth is you. No, drones are not the only support aircraft for infantry.

The infantry has AH-1s,AH-61, MH-6, Predators, Apaches, F16s, F18s, B1s, B2s, B52s plus C130s to bail them out with against a large superior force kicking their ass.

You just keep pretending those don't exist - and jumping back and forth on your reasonings too.

To argue the explosives from other aircraft are too powerful - while at the same time arguing the advantage of the A-10 is more powerful explosives than Predators. You argue in some messages the SLOW close-in nature of the A-10 is it's advantage - and then a few messages later claim it is superior to the A-10 is it is FASTER.

You diametrically change your claims back and forth, while denying the full arsenal of aircraft that supports infantry.

There is no military weapons technology you don't condemn, don't want developed and claim can't be developed.

Millions of soldiers have died because you those with your reasoning. Wars have been lost and countries defeated because of arm chair warriors who claim weapons of the past are good enough.

Your messages are the same as those who vehemently argued warships must have sails, that wooden warships are still best, that aircraft could never sink a battleship and that submarines are worthless gimmicks. That horses and mules are sufficient for which tank development is a waste of money. The list is endless.

The A-10 is a dinosaur of extremely limited even potential usage for the war situations we face. You keep envisioning battles that are those planned for and prepared for. You want to divert billions away what we are actually dealing with now and in the foreseeable future by pretending we are still massively invading Iraq. The battles the A-10 were used in aren't being fought.

Nor do you have ANY CLUE of the extreme degree we do NOT want ANY American combat personnel captured, particularly by such as ISIS. Unlike infantry, which is moved in such numbers deliberately to make capture all but impossible, a pilot is alone and over enemy territory. While pilots were a tiny percentage of personnel in Vietnam, they were a large share of the POWs. People to this day fly the POW flags.

The nuances and overall policy decisions are lost in your messages. You see NO difference between a Predator being shot down and an A-10 shot down, do you? A Predator shot down is next to nothing. An A-10 pilot captured, paraded on the Internet, demands or else he'll be beheaded or burned alive, could not only cost dozens, hundreds or thousands of American casualities, even a full scale ground war at a trillion dollars and many thousands killed and wounded.

But all you see is a cool decades old airplane with a gatlin gun because you like everything classic and old, like your battleship thread.

When you are ready to also propose that infantry always be sent out only as solo individuals deep into enemy controlled territory, then there is at least parity in discussion, because that is what a pilot of a solo aircraft is doing.

 

[joko104]

I do agree with the OPer that the Air Force should give the A-10s to the Army so its cost comes out of Army budget. It is only for Army functions anyway.

 

[joko104]

In the Air Force's FY 2015 budget, the service considered retiring the A-10 and other single-mission aircraft, prioritizing multi-mission aircraft; cutting a whole fleet and its infrastructure is seen as the only method for major savings. Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve members argued that allocating all A-10s to their control would achieve savings; half of the fleet is operated by the Air National Guard. The U.S. Army also expressed interest in obtaining A-10s.[SUP][104][/SUP][SUP][105][/SUP]

The U.S. Air Force stated that retirement would save $3.7 billion from 2015 to 2019. Guided munitions allow more aircraft to perform the CAS mission, reducing the requirement for a specialized aircraft; since 2001, multirole aircraft and bombers performed 80 percent of CAS missions. The A-10 is also more vulnerable to advanced anti-aircraft defenses.

The Army stated that the A-10 is invaluable for its versatile weapons loads, psychological impact, and reduced logistics needs on ground support systems.[SUP][106]
[/SUP]
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 prohibited the Air Force from spending money during FY 2014 on retiring the A-10; it did not change scheduled reductions of two aircraft per month, reducing the operational total to 283.[SUP][107][/SUP] On 27 January 2014, General Mike Hostage, head of Air Combat Command, stated that while other aircraft in the A-10's role may not be as good, they were more viable in environments where the A-10 was potentially useless and that retaining the A-10 would mean cuts being imposed on other areas.[SUP][108][/SUP] Equivalent cost saving measures include cutting the entire B-1 Lancer bomber fleet or 350 F-16s; the F-16 fleet would either be reduced by a third or perform most CAS missions until the F-35 becomes fully operational.[SUP][109][/SUP] On 24 February 2014, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel presented a budget plan that would retire the A-10 over five years to fund the F-35A.



Give the A-10s to the Army and cut the Army's budget on other items to cover the $3.7 BILLION costs.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I really wish Joko would try to gain at least some background knowledge before discussing such matters. Either that or he's willing to lie, neither is appropriate.

Don't expect that to ever happen. He always makes up his mind first off, primarily for political reasons. Then just says whatever comes to his mind after that, making it all up as he goes along.

This thread has pretty much become a dead equine flogging however. People making the same claims over and over again, not really knowing what they are talking about most of the time. And interestingly, most seem to be 180 degrees away from the opinion of those who have actually served in uniform. I find that most interesting to be honest.

 

[joko104]

Don't expect that to ever happen. He always makes up his mind first off, primarily for political reasons. Then just says whatever comes to his mind after that, making it all up as he goes along.

This thread has pretty much become a dead equine flogging however. People making the same claims over and over again, not really knowing what they are talking about most of the time. And interestingly, most seem to be 180 degrees away from the opinion of those who have actually served in uniform. I find that most interesting to be honest.

This thread is mostly low ranking ex-service members demonstrating their age and why they were low rankers and why they got out - too terrified they might get hurt. On and on they go that the whole military should exist solely for low ranking infantry. :roll:

 

[joko104]

While Russia is now developing it's Mach 4.3 nickle-steel MIG 41, also supersonic at low altitude, American politicians and old fools are throwing away billions on a 0.6 Mach 30 decade old aircraft that the military doesn't want.

 

[US Conservative]

While Russia is now developing it's Mach 4.3 nickle-steel MIG 41, also supersonic at low altitude, American politicians and old fools are throwing away billions on a 0.6 Mach 30 decade old aircraft that the military doesn't want.

The proposed Mig 41 is intended to intercept our proposed SR-72. Its a high flying interceptor.

A10 is on the extreme opposite end of the spectrum.

 

[joko104]

The proposed Mig 41 is intended to intercept our proposed SR-72. Its a high flying interceptor.

A10 is on the extreme opposite end of the spectrum.

What do we need the SR-72 when we have the A-10? Since the A-10 is essentially impossible to shoot down - as its supporters claim - use A-10s for surveillance, plus with it's gatlin gun no fighter aircraft dare take on an A-10.

OR the Air Force leadership is correct and funding needs to go towards future technology, not technology of the last century.