| As much as all of us at the Burg love the Warthog, this writer makes a compelling case that its time has come and gone. Worth the read. |
| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| A Modest Defense of the Plan to Retire the A-10 | |
| 2015-03-03 | |
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #5 Ergo, he presents again, no viable replacement. Do what the Grunts tell you to with THEIR CAS. |
| Posted by: newc 2015-03-03 19:31 |
| #4 Yeah, that's what was awkward about that comparison...and let's not forget this place called Korea. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2015-03-03 15:46 |
| #3 OK, so we don't need the A-10 to stop Russian tanks streaming thru the Fulda Gap. (voice from the peanut gallery: care to bet on that?) The argument that the USMC doesn't use it is a tad specious given there is no navalized version of the A-10 and the Marine's habit of tooling around in boats. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2015-03-03 15:09 |
| #2 Something to be said for cheap and dumb, versus fast, sleek, sexy and spendy. Otherwise we could have had the full complement of B-2s; instead we have only a handful of silver bullets that are used reluctantly. Don't want to expose them to risk cuz they might get hurt. sort of like the old navy free bin joke about not being able to issue the last itme in the bin because we might need it; well if somebody has a hole they 'might need it,' and if the slow and cheap A-10 fills a hole, despite ists logistic tail cost, do ya really think the F-35 Edsel is going to be any cheaper?????? |
| Posted by: USN, Ret 2015-03-03 14:40 |
| #1 Compelling? Ask the end user. More than a compelling case has been made to move the whole operation back to the Army (note well that the Marines have their own air arm). Even less compelling is the justification for the next generation attack helicopter who's profile isn't going to be much different than an A-10 after all the bugs and trades offs are made in procurement. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2015-03-03 08:42 |