Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the from-the-old-but-still-able dept.

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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by VLM on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:52PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:52PM (#176575)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Funny=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5