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: 2) by tibman on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:57PM
If the Army was given some fixed wing, the Airforce would be deployed a whole lot less. Marines are interesting in that they are actually under the Navy. The Navy does have fixed wing. It just has to be able to land on a boat.
I would love it if the Army had A10s. But even the Army is cutting down on air-frames. The OH-58 Kiowa Warrior is being retired which leaves the Army without an aerial scout craft and light Combat Air Support (CAS). Their plan is to use UH-60 Blackhawks as scout craft, lol. Might as well give the ground scouts some school buses at that rate. The AH-64 Apache is to take over the CAS role. The Apache can probably do that but it is far more expensive to operate and has other cons. For example of light CAS, the Kiowa pilot and co-pilot literally shoot their rifles out the windows to provide close support (modified M4s to be fully auto). They have rockets and other things but the point is they get really close and maneuver very quickly.
Right now the US (and everyone else i guess) needs a lot of CAS. So why is the USAF and US Army getting rid of their best CAS?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:07PM
Shooting hand-held guns out the window is a WWI tactic. It means wimpy weapons, difficulty with belt-fed ammo, lack of stabilization, greatly limited ability to aim, and much awkwardness.
They don't really do that, do they? Seriously?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:01PM
They sure do. Not belt-fed though. Just M4s that have been modified to be full auto. It's as primitive as shooting out of HMMWV(hum-vee) and ground vehicle windows : ) The Kiowa is not a large platform. It's the equivalent of a HMMWV. Fast, used by scouts, can deliver only a few people to a target, mostly small arm weapons, with one or two "crew weapons". Imagine if the Army got rid of the HMMWV and the only vehicles they had were slow tracked and large wheeled. You'd have to do all your recon in vehicles over 10 tons!
I admit to being biased. I was a Scout. One of the mottos was "Speed saves lives". I couldn't imagine trying to patrol, scout, flank, or rescue with a large/heavy vehicle. I think the same thing applies to helicopters.
Nimble is a trait that is often traded for bigger weapons and armor. That is not necessarily always a good trade. I totally agree that M4s qualify as "wimpy weapons" though : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.