Foxtrot Alpha and the Warthog

‘At What Point Does The USAF’s War Against The A-10 Become Sabotage?’

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Foxtrot Alpha and the Warthog

  1. Wombat says:

    I try to keep my swearing to a minimum but I hope you’ll forgive me in this instance.

    The report also missed one other crucial detail.

    The the A10 is a bad-ass mutherfucking death machine that looks, flies and destroys stuff as though God transformed a platoon of Marines into a fucking giant metal eagle of death!

    And that, my friends, is something that those limp dick bureaucrats can’t quantify on fucking paper.

    There’s a big fucking difference between waiting on a grassy knoll as a 500 pound bomb destroys some Afghan hut, and having the engineering equivalent of superman streak in at hundreds of miles an hour so low you can almost touch the bastard before he unleashes hell on your enemy right in front of your fucking eyes.

    It’s called “morale” you useless fucking turds, and if you’d ever been in the shit down on the ground you’d understand how fucking important it is.

  2. Darin says:

    There was a retired Russian general back on the late 90’s who made the statement that he would never field Russian tank columns if A-10’s were in the arena,he knew what the outcome would be.

    The Chair force needs to sit down and STFU or be folded back into the Army.Let the Marines have the A-10’s afterall the tip of the spear should have the sharpest point.

  3. Yokel says:

    Just like the retirement of the Harriers from RAF & RN. What is in service at present is never as good (so the top brass say) as what they could buy if only they had the savings from premature retirement of what works now. Only the new stuff never works as well as its salesman’s hype!

    In software, “vapourware” is what they call programs that are promised but never deliver. Should it apply to defence procurement as well? Or is there a better term?

  4. Jamie says:

    Air Force leaders wanting to send the A-10 Thunderbolt to the bone yard already have any number of lawmakers criticizing them from Capitol Hill.

    Now they’ve got “Lone Wolf McQuade” coming after them.

    Action star Chuck Norris – an Air Force veteran – on Monday delivered an editorial roundhouse kick to the Air Force, arguing on the World Net Daily website that the “Warthog” – as it is known – still has plenty of fight left in it.

    In the ongoing campaign against ISIS, Norris writes, “the A-10′s utility is warranted even more now than ever.”

    “Its firepower capability, speed and accuracy, frequent war use, and the oft-painted teeth on its nose cone have made it one of the military’s most popular aircraft,” Norris wrote.

    Norris said its “combination of large and varied ordnance load, long loiter time, accurate weapons delivery, austere field capability, and survivability has proven invaluable to the United States and its allies.”

    The Air Force has made clear it wants to begin retiring the Thunderbolt fleet next year, linking the move to paying for the development of the Joint Strike Fighter.

    In his column, Norris throws some jabs at Warthog critics, including Air Combat Command Commander Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, who is quoted as saying: “There’s only so much you can get out of that airplane. Those airplanes are gonna wear out.”

    “But that statement is true of every airplane in existence, and even the sun!” Norris wrote. “The question is: Is the fleet of A-10 ready for retirement? I just celebrated my 75th birthday, but I’m nowhere near ready to head to the scrapheap. Some things improve with age, and the A-10 has done just that, too.”

    http://defensetech.org/2015/03/23/chuck-norris-writes-to-save-the-a-10-warthog-from-retirement/

    • KG says:

      ““There’s only so much you can get out of that airplane. Those airplanes are gonna wear out.”
      Really? The Abrams tank wears out, and the fleet is refurbished and updated endlessly. And relatively economically.
      Gen. Carlisle is being dishonest.

  5. Jamie says:

    If they were to be sent to the bone-yard perhaps NZ as a trusted ally could have a few of them on the cheap like…maybe with a few C130’s thrown in???

    • KG says:

      :mrgreen: Great idea! But then allies might not be so enthusiastic about buying the latest gee-whiz weaponry at inflated prices, Jamie? I see Airbus Industrie has been running ads in the NZ media for their troop transport, possibly as part of a “softening up” process leading to the NZ government wasting millions on equipment it doesn’t need, will hardly use and can’t afford.
      As usual.

  6. Jamie says:

    The Airbus A400M

    • Developed at estimated cost of $26 billion.

    • Four turboprop engines with eight-bladed propellers.

    • Can fly up to 8700km, at a cruising altitude up to 37,000ft.

    • Can carry 116 personnel. Maximum payload of up to 37 tonnes.

    • Can operate on rough, short airfields.

    • 174 orders from eight air forces.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11423033

    They look nice…….and expensive

    • Darin says:

      Most bang for the buck would be the C130J.If it comes down to a choice between the C-17 and the Airbus A400M,well let’s just say if it ain’t Boeing I ain’t going.

      • KG says:

        My feelings exactly. :lol:
        And I wonder how many muslims are employed in the factories in Europe?

        • Darin says:

          Oh,probably droves,but even if they were not Airbus’s carbon fiber designs are a bit lacking,especially on the vertical stabilizers which seem to come off mid flight. :shock:

  7. Michael in Nelson says:

    Got to admit, I’ve always had a soft spot for the A10 Warthog…mostly because of the soft spots they make of US enemies. http://falfn.com/CrusaderRabbit/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif