Back to Squawk list
  • 16

Hagel Budget Calls for Elimination of A-10

提交時間:
 
President Obama's Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is planning to present a new budget that will call for the elimination of the entire Air Force A-10 Fleet, and it's sole remaining U-2 Spy Plane. (www.foxnews.com) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


CaptainFreedom
lol ocne again they're trying to get rid of the warthog, but then they realize that they have nothing to replace it with...darn, I guess we'll have to keep around for a few more years :)
btweston
btweston -2
We have plenty of systems that can deliver explosives to particular points in space.
preacher1
preacher1 8
The meat axe needs to fall on the F35 and really stop the bleeding. There is no serious Military press release about it that doesn't have the F22 in there basically as a backup. Not needed, won't perform, and too much money. Sorry Lockheed but it just ain't working and the teat is dry.
jdriskell
I guess we're at the "Dogs and Solders Keep off the Lawn" point again in our history!
btweston
btweston -1
I guess you're out of your mind!
btweston
btweston -1
But, come to think of it, I rarely involve dogs when I solder. What are you into?
SpaceRanger
The A-10 was designed to attack targets on the ground, and of course we know that REAL USAF pilots only shoot down other airplanes. Sometimes I think that separating the Air Force from the Army was not such a good idea after all.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Tell that to a Hog pilot and watch the reaction, especially that part about real USAF pilots. LOL
SpaceRanger
That was sarcasm on my part. In my opinion, the REAL USAF pilots are those who have to fly down on the deck amongst all the flak.
preacher1
preacher1 1
That said, give them to the Army to go with their choppers. Marines have their own planes and the Navy does the rest of it. What's the USAF gonna do?
preacher1
preacher1 2
I know, it's just sad to me that the USAF role, except by the Army, is getting overrun by the other branches. that said, tankers fly, and so do B1's, B2', and still the
mighty BUFF's. I really think the hogs and the BUFF's make a good pair, but then what do I know. I know it's a sad sight, after watching them for years at the 188th in FSM, to see them being reassigned and giving way to drones. We did an Angel flight last year just before Easter, up to Dover and back, and a flight of them picked us up over North Arkansas on the way back, and as we descended on final, to have 5 come over your top in missing man formation is a feeling you won't never forget.
bbabis
bbabis 2
Thanks for the Angel flight. And it is amazing that the BUFF is still doing its job. But then again, so are we and I believe that we are just as old. We must be doing something right.
preacher1
preacher1 2
LOL on the old. It's just amazing to me that they have the BUFF projected out until 2050 or so; While the B1 & B2 is high tech and alongside, it just looks like the Hog's could find a place in there somewhere, but then, we aren't going to get in anymore little ground wars like Afghanistan or things like that so we won't need them. It is amazing to look thru the fence at Tucson and see what our past is littered with.
bbabis
bbabis 2
Yeah, even if I had trillions to spend on maintenance and upkeep, I don't think I'm projected much past 2040. The aircraft and other machinery stored in Tucson and many other areas of the desert Southwest are truly amazing. I'd love to be able to get out there among them on a four wheeler. With a couple of gallons of water of course!
canuck44
canuck44 4
What we really need is a budget that eliminates Hagel. The guy is a total putz.
preacher1
preacher1 5
To be from the midwest, a 'Nam vet and a hawk while a Senator, he has definitely been a disappointment. That said, in his budget he admits that the military will be drawn down to the point of not being able to get involved in some 3rd world conflict. I guess that is good to keep us from being the world's cop and first responder, getting mired down and bring home too many solders mutilated and dismembered. That said, it may make the way for some other superpower to rise up on the stage, which may not be all bad. Russia got their a** kicked in Afghanistan and left with their tail tucked between their legs. Ya'll c'mon and get you some of that. Ya'll been buying up all that equipment and training your armies. Here's your chance to see what you got.
nortonsnavy
nortonsnavy 6
He was my senator. Politically-aware Nebraskans knew exactly what we were getting with him at the DoD. He got to Washington and very quickly became unprincipled. There is a reason he didn't seek a third term.
preacher1
preacher1 5
Understand; there are a bunch like that, that forget how they got there.
btweston
btweston 0
True. I'm not too worried about the Russians. Or the Chinese. We have plenty of firepower and no one's beating down our door. Why not save some shekels?
btweston
btweston 1
Yes. Cutting arbitrary military spending is so, so terrible. But rest assure, you poor guy, that we'll still waste plenty of money on blowing things up.
coffee3425
Hagel and the WH know-nothings seem to be intent on more bells and whistles and fewer war-fighters. Fits right in with the windmills and other "new technologies" that DC has spent billions on and other unproven technoligies.
btweston
btweston 1
A cursory wikipedia search will tell you that you're misusing the term "know-nothing." However, on a practical note, it's not just about blowing things up with old planes. Sure, maybe you like them for... some reason... but if you'd actually read the article you'd see that this wasn't just Hagel's idea.

The F-35 is not exactly wonderful thus far, but considering the amount of waste and bloat that the military has represented over the past several decades one would think that it's encouraging that the folks in charge are picking a determined path and going for it rather than just expanding the military-industrial complex at the expense of domestic programs. That path, for better or for worse, must be forward.

And yes, using technology to lessen the amount of meat we put into the grinder is a good thing. What's wrong with windmills? Is burning fossil fuels so awesome?
bbabis
bbabis 2
Get us down to pre-WWII levels hey. Isn't that what got us into WWII? We were perceived as weak and vulnerable to an attack. Germany gobbled up Europe and Japan gobbled up the Pacific and Far East. It was only a matter of time before one of them attacked us. The names have changed but human nature has not. There are many players willing and waiting to step into those roles. Many think that it cannot happen again but rest assured that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it and our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences.

We once had the Triad system of defense that kept us and most of the world safe. It consisted of Land based missiles, airborne bombers, and sea based missiles. The theory was that no enemy could defeat all three. Well, no external enemy ever tried. Today's enemy, Washington, DC, is defeating all three as they slowly bleed them dry of funds in order to feed their vote buying schemes of entitlements. The only thing our politicians wish to defend is their little Washington bubble. Very, very few and none of our top leaders have America's best interest in mind.

They use phrases like,"We must be pragmatic and make tough choices." and "We need to reposition and focus our assets." Strange how these same lines do not come up during entitlement discussions that keep the ruling class in power. If anyone feels safe behind Special forces and technology, they are kidding themselves. Due to the same reasons I've mentioned above, our special forces are not so special anymore and technology is and always has been a double edged sword that will cut us as easily as we think it protects us.

On the world stage, walking softly and carrying a big stick accomplishes respect and security. Much of the world today wishes American would return to that policy. Today, as we walk brashly and carry smoke and mirrors the world churns into chaos that sets into motion the past.
preacher1
preacher1 4
Well Said!!! especially that last line in your opening paragraph; "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it and our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences."
bbabis
bbabis 2
Thanks preach. Its only a matter of if enough other people see the light of what is really going on before the pendulum swings too far. It is also a shame that one of the FEW actual powers expressly given to the government by the States and the People, to provide a common defense, is what the politicians chose to disregard in order to finance their power games. If they would just get out of all the businesses that they have no business in, this conversation would be wholly unnecessary.
btweston
btweston -3
The pendulum has barely moved. Your radio is not telling you the truth. It is selling advertising.
bishops90
Look at the facts and you will discover that spending on the military you obviously loathe is dwarfed by the real Trillions spent on wealth redistribution and trying "lift" people out of poverty etc. Of course you will accuse me of wanting to stave children and old people because that's what YOUR radio tells YOU. Bill is right on the money. I'm not saying the A-10 system needs to be preserved or that the F-35 isn't grossly inefficient financially, but the fact remains that America must remain the most powerful nation on Earth for the very resons Bill explained. You don't buy it, we get that.
btweston
btweston 0
First of all, you're presumptuous. I was in the military. I have good friends who are still in the military. I don't obviously loathe anything.

Second, I didn't say a thing about lifting people out of poverty. I said that we shouldn't let poor children starve. Sorry, I didn't mean to be controversial on that point.

Third, I listen to music and sports on my radio. I also read the newspaper. And I feel that the use of capital letters is akin to yelling when you don't really know what you're talking about. Or honking the horn in your car when you're mad.

Which facts are you speaking about, by the way? The bombs we drop cost enough to feed thousands of people and massively reinvest in our infrastructure. I'm talking about one of those bombs.
bishops90
Your rhetoric supports my presunmtpion.

The facts of total military spending vs entitlement spending in macro is what I was referring to.

I don't care how many loaves of bread = 1 smart bomb, it's a matter of national priority, and where we are as a country at the moment illustrates the ideology of those currently in power who want to redistribute wealth, penalize success, and cut our military readiness and superiority to a very dangerous point. At the same time promising free or subsidized health insurance and every other "necessity" with no investment on the part of the recipient.

The all caps was simply to illustrate the application of your own logic to your own comment. You seem to insinuate that those who disagree with you get all their infomation from "your radio" (implying talk radio? - I won't assume, so why don't you tell me, yes?). I assure you, sir, I do know what I'm talking about.
preacher1
preacher1 1
There is enough here to go around for all. If the military would have been a LITTLE more frugal with what they had and if the civilian part of government the same, chances are with an adjustment of priorities and needs could have all been handled without the well deserved reputations they have all gotten now that causes folks to cringe every time the subject is brought up. I for one think it is foolish to give borrowed money to people overseas that hate us while we have hungry and homeless folks here.
btweston
btweston -1
Well, I mean, we must be pragmatic and make tough choices. That's the line they use when they want to starve poor inner city children. You know, during entitlement discussions that keep the ruling class in power. But that's cool, right?

Your history is a tad revisionist. There are many reasons why we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. The absence of a massive naval fleet is not one of them. Quite the contrary.

The United States, due to its size and resources, was able to mobilize very quickly and end the biggest war in history in four years. All of the king's horses and all the king's men still haven't solved Afghanistan. Perhaps they were dithering. It's a matter of how we put things into action.

To turn a practical discussion about whether or not we should retire an old platform which has become very expensive to maintain into a tirade about how Washington has become our biggest enemy is lazy and wildly unproductive. Not to mention melodramatic. There are ways to avoid conflict without whipping out our dicks. Do you realize how much we spend on trying to kill people? You complain about entitlements without even mildly questioning the trillions we spend on the gadgets of war. That is sick. Sure, we must get our house in order, but I must say I profoundly disagree with your underlying philosophy. Paranoia is not the answer.
bbabis
bbabis 4
No history revision here. You seem to be a product of revised history yourself and are a part of the problem. In today's world we won't get four years to mobilize. Even if we had that time, this government hasn't come up with a functioning website in that time. The truth is that there are predators out in the world as well as in our society and they do not prey on the strong. No one wants a fight, but if the fight finds you, you have to win it. Gadgets of war as you call them are necessary and if trillions are needed to provide them so be be it. Every one of them built in the hopes of never being needed. If they are ever used frivolously or unwisely, look again to Washington and pay attention to whom you vote for. I don't mean Democrat or republican. I mean whoever has America's best interest in mind. Contrary to what you have been taught, we can prosper and be strong at the same time. Once again, go back to real history and look at how many times the US and the World talked and tried other ways to avoid conflict with Hitler and Tojo then come back here and tell me what worked.
preacher1
preacher1 4
Well, Yamamoto said that he feared we have awakened a sleeping giant. They did, but we sure took some hellacious licks before we got mobilized and were able to strike back effectively and by the time Dday came along, the US was leading the charge. How many died in that in between time is what matters, with almost 3000 at Pearl Harbor alone and 54000+ in 'Nam. I have always heard that the best offense is a good defense. If the defense is there, not many will challenge it. That said, you must have leadership willing to use it. 'Nam is a good example of not letting boots on the ground run the war and Afghanistan is an example of losing focus and detouring through Iran. These examples span all parties so no use to blame either side. There is enough to go around.
btweston
btweston 2
We mustn't ignore the political situation of the world in 1940-41. My point is this: To claim that WWII was a result of our refusal to develop our military is ludicrous. To be sure, we were caught with our pants down at Pearl. But we had the ships. We just sat there and let them bomb us. Had we been a bit more proactive strategically (read: not had our entire fleet sitting in one place), the war in the Pacific would have ended much quicker.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, we certainly did not have the defense forces at the beginning of that war that we had at the end
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
Actually, Yamamoto never said or wrote those words. He expressed feelings similar to those in general, those feelings were never expressed about any attack on the United States. This is not to say, however, that he thought Japan could defeat the US, far from it, just that the quotation has no provenance.
bbabis
bbabis 1
Not so fast my friend. No one knows what he may have said, felt, or meant at any given time. There weren't as many open mikes back then to catch one's utterances and some P-38s made sure he couldn't be asked later. Me, I'm sure he said it. Regardless of proof either way, it sure turned out to be true. That is what matters.

Many point to that mobilization and think, we can let our guard down, get fat and sloppy, cut our defense budget to ribbons, and spend it willy-nilly. When the time comes, we"ll just smoke 'em again. The problem is, that kick won't be a bloody nose. It may be a knock-out and, if we're still standing, our time to respond will be measured in days, not years.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Admittedly there is controversy about the exact line and we all know that is was in the film Tora Tora Tora. That said, the producer of that film said he found it in Yamamoto's diary which is why he used it in the film. Regardless of whether he did or didn't, as you said, the Admiral's feelings were similar. My whole point is that if we digress too far, we are perceived to be weak. While as in the past, we may can mobilize, build up and kick the s*** out of somebody, we will definitely get a bad bloody nose out of it first. My problem today is just the total inability of our C in C to make a timely decision. It has already got us in the position of a paper tiger, as in we may run our mouth but everybody knows we won't do anything and most of the world leaders are not as naïve as what we have. I wouldn't hurt a fly ordinarily, but let an unwelcome party step on my property or in my house, ammunition is too expensive to waste on a warning shot.
btweston
btweston 0
You are wildly sidestepping the point. First of all, we are not in a situation in which we will need to mobilize. No state is going to attack us. There is simply no reason to do so.

Second, the infamous website was developed by a private company. You know, those magical people who do everything right.

Third, no. War machines are not the end all be all in foreign policy and to suggest that we should spend infinitely to develop them is simply stupid. Sorry, I don't mean to make a personal attack (though you don't seem to be averse to doing so), but that is stupid.

You have no right to lay claim to having 'Merica's best interests in mind. Don't tell me what I've been taught. This is not World War II. This isn't even Vietnam. You are obsessed with the idea that we will need to fight a real war (not fucking around like the ones that started under the previous administration) very soon, but we won't. We should not throw money overboard just to feel safe. That's what fat women do when they feel slighted.
SpaceRanger
The biggest "entitlement" program we have is the defense budget, particularly the F-35 program.
bishops90
That is absolutely factually wrong. We spend more on the main entitlement programs every year than we have on the entire F-35 program to date.
btweston
btweston 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOqHNNmTz68
deanbrothers3
John Dean 0
This is what happens when liberals are elected into officer by ignorant Americans.
btweston
btweston 0
Yes. Into officer. Thank you for that cutting insight. Chuck Hagel is not a liberal, by the way.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, he really didn't start out that way but he sure has started grabbing a big part of their agenda. As a former Midwestern hawk, he sure isn't marching to that drummer anymore.
btweston
btweston 0
Is it really all about playing to a label? I believe that this line of thinking is precisely what is crippling our political discourse. My team, your team, let's fight.

Not the way to go.
btweston
btweston 0
I got voted down for that comment? Seriously? I thought aviation people were supposed to be reasonable. I suppose not.
ldoord
Joe, check out this link..... http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/super_tucano/
Cost per Flight hour is killing the A-10 and has only really survived this long because of location of the DM boneyard, the boneyard side of the fence looks like a you pull junk yard. You can bet SEC Hagel's call for elimination for the A-10 was completely agreed to by Senior Air Force leadership!!!!!!!!!!!!
The link talks about USAF looking for a Light Aircraft System (LAS)...... and I knew for a FACT it was to replace the capability of the A-10 and the AAF.
ldoord
The EMB-314 or the T-6Texan II, could replace the A-10, the EMB-314 has already proven it can carry Gun's, Rockets and MK-81 LGB's....... No need for speed, just the need for on station time with accurate weapons... Warheads on foreheads....
CaptainFreedom
While I agree that these are fantastic warbirds, I'll hazard a guess that their time has passed. We could also consider brining the F4U Corsair out of retirement....maybe even consider the Stearman...lol I digress.
jmilazzo
joe milazzo 1
David,
Your clueless!!!!
btweston
btweston 2
*You're
blake1023
blake1023 0
Don't worry folks!

"Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive"! Thats what they live by!
btweston
btweston 2
What... are you talking about?
bishops90
Duh....Obama campaign message. You don't remember that line?
btweston
btweston -1
No. I do not remember anyone saying that. Did you fabricate that to fit your narrative or something?
bishops90
It was actually Biden who said it, but it was a campaign theme.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKCwQnIygcw
ldoord
Joe here another Link: http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/air-force-chief-says-cutting-a-10-fleet-would-save-3-7-billion/

登入

還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!
本網站使用cookie。您使用並繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您接受這一點。
退出
您知道FlightAware航班跟蹤是由廣告支持嗎?
通過允許展示來自FlightAware.com的廣告,您可以幫助我們使FlightAware保持免費。我們努力使我們的廣告保持相關性,同時不顯突兀,以創造一流的體驗。在FlightAware上將廣告加入白名單快速而簡單,或者請您考慮選擇我們的高級帳戶.
退出