SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Defense News reports
The House Armed Services Committee (HASC), for the second consecutive year, is proposing blocking the retirement of A-10 attack planes.
[...]The long-expected move was revealed Monday afternoon with the release of Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry's version of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which the full panel will mark up on [April 29].
The Air Force argues the decades-old A-10s are too expensive to keep flying. Lawmakers reject those arguments, saying the A-10s--which bring jobs to their states and districts--save US lives on the battlefield and must be kept operational.
"Rigorous oversight, endorsements from soldiers and Marines about the protection only the A-10 can provide, and repeated deployments in support of [Operation Inherent Resolve] have persuaded Chairman Thornberry and many members from both parties that the budget-driven decision to retire the A-10 is misguided," according to a HASC fact sheet accompanying the legislation.
On the downside IMO:
Responding to the Navy's and Marine Corps' shared list of "unfunded priorities" submitted this year to lawmakers, the House committee is proposing language that would clear the services to purchase more fighter aircraft than requested.
The Arizona Daily Star notes
Arizona [Congresswoman] Martha McSally [a former A-10 pilot and squadron commander] said she plans to offer amendments prohibiting both the A-10's retirement and the EC-130H [the Compass Call electronic jamming and surveillance plane] cuts.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by SubiculumHammer on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:20AM
http://pando.com/2014/12/18/the-war-nerd-more-proof-the-us-defense-industry-has-nothing-to-do-with-defending-america/ [pando.com]
The War Nerd talks the A-10 Warthog in a great post.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:56AM
I enjoyed that, thanks : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday April 29 2015, @09:26AM
Awesome article, pulls no punches.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday April 29 2015, @11:43AM
And to add to your proof it turns out our billion dollar turkey, the F-35? Yeah well it turns out the engine is shit [msn.com] which being a single engine "fighter"? Kinda a problem.
The USA better pray that it never goes to war with anybody more advanced than the Taliban, as we have a fleet of Reagan era planes that get more worn out by the day while the fighter jocks at DoD keep buying bullshit like F-22 and F-35 techno turkeys instead of buying proven tech like the F15 and F16. Meanwhile any potential enemy is gonna be able to spam us with MiGs, SUs, and the Chinese knock offs, all of which are damned nice and reliable as hell.
Isn't it kinda ironic we are falling into the same trap Germany fell into in WWII? Instead of building proven tech like the Pzw-IV and BF109 and FW190s they wasted limited resources on "wonder weapons" that were technological marvels.....that broke down a lot more, were insanely expensive in money and time to build, and spent less time on the field than in the shop like ME163 and ME262, Panther and Tiger II. We are just lucky that the most technologically advanced we've had to fight since Vietnam ended were using 40+ year old Soviet tech, otherwise we'd have some serious trouble.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 5, Funny) by VLM on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:52PM
were using 40+ year old Soviet tech
Are there any realistic non-nuclear opponents using anything better? I'd say no. Who's top non-nuclear dog who is a realistic opponent (not the UK or .de for example)? Maybe in two or three generations when France demographically converts completely to an islamic nation they might get some peculiar ideas of a european caliphate empire, but thats not for a long time. It would be difficult to fight AND HOLD Australia or Canada but they're our lapdogs and I'm not seeing a reason to fight Canada. Other than poutine, that shit is probably a chemical weapon violation (seriously WTF canada?), although the maple syrup makes up for it. I suppose Canada's women are the hottest on the planet on average, so if the USA wanted to continue in the Roman Empire style imperialism we could re-enact Rome's little Sabine expedition to harvest some cuties. On the other hand if Canada marched troops south and took us over and "forced us" to participate in their modern civilized health care system I'd gladly throw myself at the feet of their hot athletic female infantry combat soldiers in submission. As long as they don't send us to camps and force us to eat poutine, that would really be the only downside. That and hockey. When our canadian overlords get to Arizona good luck pushing that ice hockey stuff.
Thats about the best I got. So yeah 40+ year Soviet tech is our only real opposition.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:26PM
instead of buying proven tech like the F15 and F16
To be fair *both* of those programs were financial nightmares when they first started out and both did not work very well. The F-16 especially was over tasked for the size airframe. It has been moved back into the original role it was designed for. Light fighting and quick in/out ground strafe/bomb. It took them years though to work out the kinks in the f15/16.
The thing is drones are the real future. Things like the f35 while they will cost a lot. The a10 get lots of press about being great support. Drones are where it will be at. Some dude in kansas will rain fire on that cave in the middle east. If it gets shot down he will call up one of the ones from 50k feet, he has in reserve and do it again or just do it from 50k feet 5 miles out.
The last 2 presidents have not had the balls to say 'our system is messed up and we are wasting money'. Instead they have doubled down on the stupidity across the board in all facets of our government. All the way from social security to buying bullets.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:44PM
I'd say America's love of the high-tech "wonder weapons" goes back to WWII too -- how else would you describe the first atomic bomb?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday April 29 2015, @11:57AM
He seems to now be learning what Smedley Butler and Dwight Eisenhower both knew decades ago: The point of the US war machine is not to win wars and definitely not to protect the citizens of the US from foreign attack, but to ensure that a few politically connected corporations and their owners make an ungodly amount of money while leaving the population desperate enough so that working 20 unpredictably scheduled hours a week at $8 an hour looks like a good deal.
Remember, $750 billion for a plane that doesn't fly (the F-35) gets a lot more support from US politicians than $75 billion to feed hungry people. That tells you a lot about their priorities.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tathra on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:01PM
it tells you everything about the priorities of the people who keep re-electing them too. funny how self-proclaimed "christians" ("The US is a Christian nation!" lol) are so intent on fucking the poor and murdering brown people, you know, the exact opposite of Christ's teachings.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:21PM
and before anybody says anything, while the US may not be a Christian nation, it is a nation of self-proclaimed christians, [pewforum.org] with 78% of the country self-identifying as christian (here's the census data [census.gov]). a supermajority of US citizens claim to follow Christ's teachings while doing the exact opposite, ensuring their country dedicates itself to fucking the poor, and murdering and profiteering.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:44PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:45AM
I'm not sure if the War Nerd is an expert in any one field of history, but he seems to be fairly knowledgeable about war history, and current conflicts.