Small Scale Military Headquarters

Link: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... -10-Fleets

So many of these cuts concern me. I realize there are budgetary constraints but it bothers me to cut proven, effective items. I acknowledge the desire for the new systems but why fix what isn't broken. The F-15 is still probably the best fighter out there. The tanker is relatively new and has many years of service left. The A-10 has been so effective in Iraq and Afghanistan. The A-10s have already been removed from Europe. I like having them in Korea because we're out gunned and out manned. To make a long story short, it seems like we're willing to cut what's already paid and incur more debt when we're trying to save.

It seems like most politicians today are of a corporate "beholden to the stockholders" mentality, where growth means spend spend spend on new stuff and neglect/toss out the old but still useable.

It's one of the things that killed my old company, Borders Books.

Lobbyist and special interests my friends, lobbyist and special interests. As long as provisions such as those upheld in the Citizens United case are allowed to stand, politicians will always care more for those that are lining their campaign coffers (and pockets), than they will their constituencies. As [CAT]CplSlade said, they want those "investors" to be happy, and that means justifying new government expenditures on their "investors" products.

-Kevin

So, if the government scraps ALL KC-10's - what's going to fuel our fighters when they go rushing into (put name of new foe here)?
Sad when you have a useable item, but the governement wants to throw it away for newer, shinnier item...
Razor

Foolish....I remember when the Airforce was saying they didn't need A 10's in very late 1980's/very early 90's after the Soviet Union collapsed, but then performed so well in the 1st Gulf War...and again in Iraq and Afghanistan. They say the F-35 will replace the A 10 and other air-frames..if it survives all cost overruns/delays/Chinese espionage....

More on the A-10:

Link: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/18/air-f ... 0-warthog/

Huge mistake ! I worked this jet for 17 1/2 years, great machine. Hey wait, didn't we just spend ALOT OF MONEY converting the A-10A's to C models and didn't we just about put new wings on all the A-10's as well. Seems like we need to cut the decision makers not the platforms, WTF !!?? This is why we are broke, stupid people making even more stupid, costly decisions.


Steve

We need to stop electing lawyers and businessmen to run the country. Lawyers look for loopholes for their own gain and businessmen seek to make themselves a profit.

We should instead elect war heroes and those with a track record of helping the common man.

Term limitations would certainly help...

Making politicians wear the logos of their corporate sponsors and otherwise, a la Nascar, would help too lol.

-Kevin

PanzerArm wrote:Making politicians wear the logos of their corporate sponsors and otherwise, a la Nascar, would help too lol.

-Kevin

Hey, I like that idea. If their not working for the American People, they should show us who they do care about.

Update.


Link: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013 ... ESRC=eb.nl

I am pleased to see logical, rational thought. The senator is right. Once the F-35 is in service, then contemplate the retirement of the A-10.

exactly

Update.

Link: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013 ... ESRC=eb.nl

In the new book "The Air Force" from The Air Force Historical Foundation, there is a drawing of a "KCX" which is a large box wing tanker flown remotely. It is at least a full generation off but it is being considered. Page 347.

They want to cut the A-10 because it's a "single mission" aircraft?
That single mission is perhaps the most important mission this specialized ground attack aircraft could have to the men on the ground. More importantly it has saved lives time and again.

It's not likely the F-35 or F-16 could fly low and slow enough to get situational awareness on the ground, or more importantly take the punishment while doing so and pack a whalop on the enemy at the same time.
I foresee some collateral damage and friendly fire incidents with the laser guided nintendo style strikes.

How about squeezing Wall Street for a little more cash? That seems to be who these people that are making back room deals are working for.

Interesting PBS segment on the proposed A-10 retirement, including opinions of it's designer:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/10- ... teristics/

Update.

Link: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014 ... ESRC=eb.nl

"The A-10 and U-2 have served the country well, but the Air Force can't afford to continue flying planes that fulfill "niche" missions."

If the A-10 is so obsolete then why are the remaining units being deployed sooooo much ?? It's a GREAT platform and that POS F-35 WILL NEVER fill the role. These guys who make these decisions should spend a little time in country and see how "obsolete" the A-10 is. What a bunch of F*%KING IDIOTS !!


Steve

They mention "specialized political interests" are trying to stop the retirement of the A-10 by the Airforce.

Excuse me, but there seems to be a bunch of payola going on with the AF here. Seems they can't find enough money for the F-35 boondoggle.

I think that certain members of Congress are right this time. Their constituents have sons and daughters on the ground they are trying to protect here. What better reason.

UPDATE.


Link: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014 ... ESRC=eb.nl

Good news. The A-10 is a proven effective asset.

More updates:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/05/23/senat ... -growlers/

Did they save the A-10, or just vote to save it?