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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:26PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:26PM (#176619) Journal

    "the F35 is supposed to replace planes like this,"

    The F35 was meant to be a fighter, but it's being shoehorned into replacing EVERYTHING! I expect to see a headline soon, proclaiming the wonders of the F35 as a refueling tanker, a bulk cargo plane, a heavy lifter, and maybe even a replacement for the Apache helicopter.

    That piece of crap MIGHT HAVE made a decent fighter, had it gone straight from the original drawings into prototype. I say, MIGHT HAVE. I don't really think so, but it had some potential. It's all the changes and addons meant to make it capable of performing all those OTHER missions that have damned it to hell.

    I can agree though. Scrap the entire F35 program, and purchase a few hundred each of F18 and A10, you'll have plenty of change left over to resupply all of our military helicopter needs.

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

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:24PM

    by albert (276) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:24PM (#176703)

    This is the same thinking that led to the FB-111, an aircraft originally intended to serve both the Air Force and Navy while being a bomber, fighter, interceptor, and ground attack plane. These are conflicting requirements.

    We ended up with something that the Navy rejected as being too big and heavy. It didn't make a decent fighter, bomber, or interceptor. It did manage a bit of ground attack, hitting tanks in Iraq right after sundown.

    We got rid of it. Once a new generation of generals took power, the lessons learned were lost. The same dumb idea came up: one aircraft that can do everything! We want an aircraft that can be everything that the FB-111 was hoped to be, plus a helicopter too!