Too many eggs…

And no basket, at least as far as the USAF is concerned…

First it was getting rid of the A-10 back around 2000 (nope), then it was the A-10 in 2006 (nope), then it was the F-117 in 2008 (partial, but maintain a force that could be recalled), 2013 it was the A-10 again (they REALLY hate that airplane), now with justification that they need A-10 maintenance crew to train/maintain the F-35.

Fast forward to 2016, and it’s the death knell for the F-117…

America’s F-117 stealth fighter has been in a state of limbo. In 2008, the U.S. Air Force officially retired the black, angular warplanes but they never entirely went away. For eight years, the radar-evading aircraft have rested in climate-controlled hangars at the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada.

Here’s why — when the F-117s retired, Congress required the Air Force to maintain some of the planes in case they were ever needed in a future war. The flying branch even kept flying a handful, most likely as guinea pigs for stealth-penetrating sensors … or some other mysterious hardware.

Full article HERE, from National Interest.

But the USAF STILL wants to kill the A-10… sigh…

In other news, the latest NRA Freedom spot is Charlie Daniels! I love this one!!!

 

h/t JP

Comments

Too many eggs… — 18 Comments

  1. I’m not a pilot or military, but I’ve heard a lot of GREAT reviews of the A-10 Warthog in the field. Why would they want to scrape an airplane that is so effective in the battlefield ?

    My first view of the A-10 was in the 1980 G&A Ammo Gun Annual. Seeing that picture of an airplane literally molded around that 30mm rotary barrelled cannon – just full of badassery (to use a phrase).

    Hopefully, someone in the new Administration with common sense will prevail.

  2. The Marines and the Army are willing to take the A-10. The USAF should give it to them…

    • The USAF hates the idea of the Army operating fixed wing aircraft. Marines too, but they don’t want to fight the Navy over the issue.

      • Oh, I know. That’s why they’d rather scrap the A-10 than give it to somebody who can use it. It’s all about Air Force turf to them.

    • It’s all about the Benjamins. The Marines and Army are willing to take the A-10 ONLY if it comes with the personnel and budget train. If they’ve got to take it out of hide, they’ve got the same problem as the AF. “What do we give up to finance the A-10?”

      Face it, the DOD budget is not funded by Obamanomics. Anything new is funded by shutting down something old. Planning for the next war means not funding things used in the last war. Keeping things from the last or even current war means not planning for the next war.

      If we (The Congress and the President) had planned a budget that was balanced, and followed that plan, instead of printing money until it’s worthless, we might, just might, have enough money to keep the A-10 while still moving forward on newer airplanes (And ships, and SEAL delivery vehicles and….)

      But NOOOOOOOOOOOOO… we’ve got to fund obamaphones, and obamacare, and obamacations and obamagolf.

      /Rant

  3. Congresswoman Martha McSally is a friend of my dad’s. She commanded an A-10 wing when she was AirForce. If she has anything to say about it the A-10s will fly forever.

    • Col. McSally is a hero. I really like her. Solid, intelligent and I’m very happy to see her in congress.

  4. All- Thanks for the comments. The USAF’s ‘excuse’ is that the airplane is old and obsolete… Sigh… Yes, McSally is one of the good ones!

  5. That Charlie Daniels piece is spot on! Now, if we can just get Congress to quit trying to legislate how war is fought …

  6. Well I think I have heard that before about the P-3. They are a bunch of idiots.

  7. Grunts love the A-10. Zoomies, not so much. But wars are won on the ground, not in the air (although air superiority damn sure helps).

    Not sure why it’s an either/or situation, other than budget constraints. In a conflict between bread and bullets, bread’s going to win every time thanks to the welfare pimps.

    Speaking of time, it’s Happy Hour here in Central Texas…

  8. Juvat- You’re exactly right!

    Rev- They’ve done it before, remember…

    PE- Exactly!

    Senior- Yep, they tried to kill both the P-3 and P-8.

    Tim/Rick- It’s all budget… See Juvat’s answer.

    Ed- Great point!

  9. If I recall correctly, the USAF wanted to “kill” the A-10 from day one. It was the antithesis of the Air Force’s attitude that aircraft development needed to focus on going faster and flying higher. The Army desperately wanted a dedicated ground attack aircraft. This was mostly based on experience in Vietnam. The Army wanted something low and slow to insure accurate delivery of ordinance on target, the toughness to withstand inevitable group fire, and enough loiter time to be on-call anytime a ground unit need a little help from above. Also in the mix was a need to counter the growing disparity of armored forces in Europe so tank killing was added to the design specs.

    In essence the Army forced the Air Force to accept what would become the A-10 and the Air Force has been looking for an excuse to get rid of it ever since.

  10. Nuke- very true. And I don’t think the Air Force brass has ever forgiven the army brass for cramming the A-10 down their
    throat !!! 🙂

  11. Hey Old NFO;

    We Army guys love the A-10 it was part of our security blanket when we faced off against GSFG during the cold war and when we went hot in Desert Storm 1. I saw the damage dome by the A-10 to the Iraqi forces.