It looks like Congress and the Pentagon are poised to make a truly big mistake in phasing out the A-10 plane by 2020 which they expect will save $3.7 billion over this time frame. The A-10 has the nicknames Warthog or Tankbuster its unique military value is that it can provide close air support for ground troops it has a Gatling gun in its nose that can fire nearly 4000 rounds a minute bullets that can even penetrate tanks! It's also unique in that it can fly at a relatively low speed over a battlefield so that the pilot has time to target and unload devastating firepower on a lot of targets; it also has an extremely solid design which allows it to withstand ground fire to a much greater degree than other air force planes and provide increased survivor ability to the pilot! If one watched TV in the 1990's during America'a First Gulf War the media showed a lot of film on this plane watching this plane it is like watching a fast action war video game with its destructive power the Air force has no airplane like it. The reason that the Congress/Pentagon decision here seems so foolish is why shape this decision as an all or nothing proposition. Why not cut the A-10 plane program from the 300 today to 100 or even seventy-five. I bet the air Force didn't even have more than two dozen A-10's in the air on any single day in the theater of Iraq or Afghanistan over the last thirteen years. If the U.S. goes to war it takes a significant amount of time to move our ground troops to the theater in question certainly that would be enough time to move the needed size squadron of a-10's to that theater. The point being the Air force doesn't need to have a 300 plane fleet spread out all over the world it could function with a 100 plane fleet and move the needed number of planes to the war zone when needed remembering to with the size of the Army it seems like America will have going into the future it will only be enough to fight two wars at one time. It seems like the prevailing expert assessment is that if the Air Force ends the A-10 program it will cost American soldiers lives in any major combat ground operation in the future because no Air Force weapons capabilities can match the A-10. Why are American authorities completely eliminating this weapon system to produce such an abhorrent result pare it down yes to save money but leave enough to support one and a half major wars what common sense calls for!
It's just becoming obsolete, and yes, the Air Force has craft that carry a lot more firepower than an A-10. Ground support roles are being covered by integrated Army weapons systems and air and missile units; the Air Force isn't needed for that any more. Ground support is an Army and Marine responsibility, and needs to be a part of their operational organizations and command control. I love the Warthog, but its glory days are over.
Armed drones have already demonstrated, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the capability to carry out much of the A-10s mission. With Army attack helicopters included, I'm not sure there is much of a mission left for the A-10. Though if you put a turret-mounted laser target designator/IIR system on it, it would be perfect for AFACs.
Would it not make since to have the A-10, Apache and Drones? I would like the UK to get some to supplement the Apache and dones we already have. As they have more armaments than the drones we have and increased range over the Apache. As the UK is even now lacking in numbers of aircraft, with only 10-15 Reapers and 67 Apaches used for both land and naval operations. We need more aircraft on the cheap. So 40 A-10's would come in very useful I think. Since the UK is cutting a division of professional troops over the next 6 years and trying to replace them with a couple Brigades of part time territorials, which isn't working.
They might be a good buy for the UK, I guess. You may want to look into their fuel requirements and maintenance costs, all the usual stuff, if you haven't already. I don't much like Wiki articles, but here's the link, anyway ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II
The Air Force does not have to cut the A-10. The airframes are fatiguing out. There are no spare parts beyond what gets cannabalized from other A-10s at Davis-Monthan. It's not even a matter of making a decision. They'll fade away on their own just like the F-15A/B and the F-14. There is a place for an aircraft that can render excellent close air support in a battle space that you have some degree of air superiority. But the A-10 needs a redesign. Smaller gun -20mm or 25mm. Maybe even a .50 caliber electric Gatling. The mega tank threat of the USSR is now scrap metal. A lighter gun with a bigger ammunition storage. Capability of being configured either as a manned plane or autonomous super-drone. Folding wings, tailhook, and catapult-capable landing gear so it can operate off small aircraft carriers. More open airframe design (like the DC-3 or B-52) that will allow for many rebuilds on the cheap. Above all: Don't write a contract that calls for destruction of all production jigs and fixtures at the end of the production run.
It's not like they're loading them on the scrap truck as we speak; it's going to be around until at least 2028 at the earliest if it gets cut, I think I read somewhere.
Food Stamp Cuts Would Hit Military Families... Proposed Food Stamp Cuts Would Hit Military Families 24 May 2017 | Thousands of military families would be impacted by President Donald Trump's proposal for major cuts to the food stamp program. See also: Trump Budget Calls for 2.1% Military Pay Raise in 2018 23 May 2017 | President Donald Trump's first budget proposal included a 2.1 percent pay increase for military troops in fiscal 2018. Related: Walmart announces guaranteed pay for military workers May 24, 2017 — Walmart wants to make sure its employees who take time off to serve in the military never have to take a pay cut.
