A-10 Warthog: the Plane the Air Force Wants to Kill
And why does the Air Force want to kill the A-10?
- It’s ugly. The fact that it’s extremely effective matters less to them.
- It’s slow. Who would want a plane that can’t fly at Mach 2? Never mind that Mach 2 has almost no military value.
- It supports ground troops. That’s not something the Air Force particularly wants to do.
- It doesn’t engage in air combat. Flying it, you can’t pretend you are in the glorious tradition of Manfred von Richthofen.
- It doesn’t cost a lot.
- It’s ugly.
Labels: A-10, Air Force, Bureaucratic Politics, Thunderbolt II, Warthog
posted by John McAdams at 4:13 PM
4 Comments:
It is the most effective tank-killer in our armory. It best defends the USA against its foes.
Therefore, President Obama opposes it, though enslaved political generals, as part of his overall plan to weaken the USA>
You hit the head on the proverbial nail: it doesn't cost a lot.
Politicians love spending money. The don't like practicing fiscal restraint or saving money. They also don't like people having jobs either (Connecticut has a good sized military/armament infrastructure), and particularly with the Air Force, it's all about political correctness.
In regard to it's dealings with the A-10 and it's CAS mission..the Air Force is out of control.. The statements below are pretty incriminating..and border on treason, especially as it pertains to our ground troops.
“I can’t wait to be relieved of the burdens of close air support,” Maj. Gen. James Post, the vice commander of Air Combat Command, allegedly told a collection of officers at a training session in August 2014."
"As with his now notorious warning that service members would be committing treason if they communicated with Congress about the successes of the A-10 Warthog, Post seems to speak for the id of Air Force headquarters’ true hostility towards the close air support mission."
"Air Force four-stars are working hard to deny this hostility to the public and Congress, but their abhorrence of the mission has been demonstrated through 70 years of Air Force headquarters’ budget decisions and combat actions that have consistently short-changed close air support."
Yup, sad but true....
Post a Comment
<< Home