Another $585 billion dollars they don’t have and will therefore just print.
Better spent on sustaining the working military than propping up Obama contributors!
I live in the Congressional District this mostly affects. We just had a Congressional election so close it’s come down to just over a 100 votes. It’s amazing how both candidates just love this aircraft (and the jobs that go with it). The RINO actually retired as an Air Force Colonel (now apparently doesn’t know what to do with herself without a government job – had them all her life) and she flew the Warthog. Her Communist (lets not parse words here) opponent of course wants to save the children, reach out to the Dreamers, save the planet, and of course we need an expensive obsolete Sturmovik derivative because he’s all for jobs and the economy. What a way to run a country!
What a beautiful war machine, and very affective as a tactical ground support weapon. I would hate to be on the receiving end of what that sucker can deliver.
Maybe that is why some want to get rid of it. This machine might be sending more terrorists to collect their 72 v*rgins than those that sympathize with the MB would like.
Obsolete…pretty difficult to establish that for an armoured aircraft optimized for ground attack….
In some ways this reminds me of the UK government’s premature retirement of the Hawker Hunter….aircraft in front-line service globally….with refurbished aircraft a hot item.
The big problem is the obsession with the A10 original role being attack on the Warsaw Pact tank forces on the North European plain. The world is still full of MBT in unfriendly hands….
60 years back it was declared that MBT were obsolete weapons systems left over from WW2…that the new anti-tank systems gave them a survival time of seconds or minutes on a modern battlefield…..a prediction as accurate as peak oil.
It can deliver a boat load of death and destruction in a highly accurate manner. It can loiter over a target for what must seem an eternity for the bad guys. It can have many important parts blown off and still remain in the air. It gets good gas mileage and is relatively inexpensive to produce. Considering the capabilities of the barbarians running amok in Syria and Iraq at the moment, the chances of it having to engage a fighter jet in a dogfight are nil.
However it is old. It is not sleek and sexy. It has to go.
This is one of the best combat warplanes ever. It is outstanding for protecting troops on the ground. The Warthog can “loiter” over a battle field for long periods of time. Faster jets cannot do this as well. It has saved countless lives, and sent many an enemy to the nether regions. They are one of the sturdiest aircraft, and can keep flying even when they have been shot to pieces. When they announced they were mothballing the Warthogs about a year ago, I assumed it was because they were so effective, and that’s something president F___pants doesn’t want in his military.
Air Force generals seen gnashing teeth, muttering “Curses! Foiled again!”
Air power wins wars. Better the A-10 than western forces having to go toe-to-toe with aggressors on an equal footing. The alternative to the A-10 is helicopter gunship support for ground troops and helicopters are far too easy to shoot down compared to the A-10.
bring on the Drones!
millions of fanboys playing shoot em up games.
harvest that raw talent
I like how the nose landing gear has to be offset from the plane’s centreline because of the BFG.
Awesome ground support aircraft! It can seemingly dance in the air. Glad to see it will be staying around. I’m sure the terrorists are not.
Saw one banking low at an airshow years ago. Really scary looking when it’s coming at you.
Cottus said above: “… an expensive obsolete Sturmovik derivative.”
Sure. There currently is no new aircraft available or even on the drawing board to do the job the A10 does. Which is ground attack.
The A10 (or some reasonable equivalent) is what we should have in the Canadian Air Force to beef up the antiquated CF-18. And by antiquated I mean -old-, not useless.
The Canadian Air Force does two things. 1) It protects Northern Canada from Russian incursions, which are on the rise.
2) It supports NATO ground troops in the Middle East and Europe. Given the Russians in Ukraine, there could be tanks needing busted and ground troops needing strafed pretty much any time now.
What does Canada have in the air? CF-18s bought in 1982. Wikipedia says 77 still fly. CF-18s can do ground attack, but they aren’t -awesome- at it. And they are fragile. Because they are primarily meant to be a carrier based air superiority fighter, and because they’re over 30 years old. We could use a bunch of new ones, and some new A10s to break tanks with. What are we getting? the whizbang do everything F-35. IF Boeing can actually make the d@mn thing work, that is. I used to be a fan of the F-35, but then we found out it breaks easy. Not what you want in a fight, IMHO.
US Air Force is in much the same situation. Aging go-fast fighters salted with some truly amazing “new” ones (F-22 Raptor has been in service for TWENTY YEARS kids!). Massively high tech, massively -expensive-, fragile, fiddly aircraft. Which are just what you want if you’re fighting the Cold War against the high tech Soviets or the Chicoms or even the Russians, but not what’s going to work against the Taliban/ISIS/Alqueerda etc.
Why do I say this? Because we’ve already seen where this business of using air superiority fighters to do ground attack ends up. Vietnam War. Whole reason the A10 was invented in the first place. And the attack helicopter too. Fast movers have no loiter time. They can’t slow down. They can’t carry enough boomboom. You need something that flies low, slow, cheap and long, and can carry some serious weight. That’s the A10.
The politicians are probably saving the Warthog for all the wrong reasons, but its the smart thing to do. They should be making more with new battlefield networking capability and night vision gear. They won’t, but they should be.
If you ain’t got better, keep what you got
I love drones, BUT the warthog has the best computer, for certain functions, that the military can provide, it’s called the human mind.
The A-10 like the AC-130 Spectre can lay one h3ll f a beating on ground troops and machinery. They are both pretty much indispensable in certain situations, and neither needs a multi billion development program.
And the USAF intends to replace the Warthog with the F-35? Har!
I saw an A-10 at Abbotsford a few years ago, giving a demo. Amazing maneuverability at low altitude.
The A-10 looks looks to have been designed by Heinkel or Junkers. Indeed it is the true heir of the Ju-87G (Stuka) tank buster. As for the USAF, like the USAAFs before them, all they want to do is fly around shooting at enemy aircraft if they find any. They have a long and undistinguished record when it comes to ground support. I may be biased: my army uncle with the Canadian forces in the Low Countries was bombed a couple of times by the USAAF. Didn’t do any harm, of course, but it wasn’t neighbourly.
Better to spend the money o National Defense then on the United Ntions and keeping their cporpt dictators rolling in the dough or spend it on some dumb pork barrel project(Camel statues,Protecting river rats Etc)that the tax and spend demacrats are always comming up with
More F-35 nightmares.
****************************
After a year of several fleet-wide groundings for the F-35, the latest problem to plague the fifth-generation fighter is forcing the U.S. Air Force to revamp an entirely separate fleet to support the military’s most expensive plane.
The F-35 can only fly on jet fuel under a certain temperature due to the high heat output of the F-35B variant’s short takeoff and vertical landing engine and other powerful subsystems. According to the USAF, the dark-green trucks that carry fuel absorb too much heat from the sun to keep the planes in the sky
“However it is old. It is not sleek and sexy. It has to go.”
It needs a Lumbersexual paint job, rich Liberal wack-jobs will rub themselves in support or want to buy them for yard ornaments.
The A-10 like the AC-130 Spectre are the two best combat aircraft in the whole military arsenal. That’s the aircraft Canada should be getting. NOT the F-35 ‘camel’ craft.
Dear Santa;
I would like a flock A-10 Warthogs, so I can take them over and go play in the sandbox.
(Santa means Saint in Espanol, so I think he’ll understand.)
If Israel tries to buy them, keep them.
Sexy is in the eye of the beholder.
You are exactly right. The F35 may or may not be a good aircraft, but they are way to expensive to use shooting up machine gun equipped pick up trucks in support of ground troops. One weapon from an F35 probably costs more than an A10.
Unfortunately Canada does not have the leadership to start building new A-10s here. That’s the fleet of combat aircraft we should have. The upgraded F-18s are good enough for the US Navy, and Canada too. If we need a few F-35s then rent, don’t buy.
For all the experts:
Instead of an aerodynamically unsophisticated aircraft working at low level using the on-board pilot’s visual acquisition of ground targets…
why not use drones?
Drones are too easily fooled/hacked.
One of my favorite planes. Had the pleasure of being on exercise in Wainwright, we were in full camo but stuck out like a sore thumb. Pilot flew over us inverted and low, waved to us, then we got the radio call that our position was officially destroyed.
the decision making speed of the onboard pilot is far faster and more accurate then that of a computer/offboard “pilot”. Each of these different tools have areas were they have an advantage. The pilot has a much more realistic view of the battle field conditions that a camera has, and can “guess” at developing situations. Were as a computer is limited to real time.
I saw a pair of A-10’s put on a great display of how they attack a tank in pairs,at the Abbotsford air show,early 80’s before DOT ruined it.
Coincidentally, my Dad was among the Canadian soldiers who had the living sh** bombed out of them in WW2 by the USAAF, I believe it was Nijmegen, could be wrong,and Pa’s no longer around to confirm it.
He said in desperation they laid out a big British flag on the ground to alert the Yanks that they were bombing friendly forces. After a while someone got through to them and they quit bombing hell out of our guys.
I don’t remember the casualty count.
Best damn close support and ground attack plane ever built….without question. Ask the enemy folks 🙂
If Canada’s Military had any foresight and hard commitment to defense fire sale(s). They’d take every one of these guys, cancel the “prima donas” being considered.
BONUS…we’d be able to bill back to US when they needed close support aircraft with some muscle. US looking to drones..unmanned…no harm done items. Fact is…wars are ugly, people die, and support, ground and air, adaptable to conditions is key. Computer programs are not people…fact folks.
US, and Canada, unfortunately falling into entitlement model, liberal/socialist mindset…fairness…other have it..we deserve it. Fairness and sharing…
North America, unless we stand guard, return to roots of hard work breeds success…we are doomed.
What do we stand for??? What are our values???
Love this country, the country who accepted you and gave you opportunity…immigrants of many generations and nationalities. Without conditions…otherwise folks, please feel to return to where you came from.
Love it, accept our values, our ethics and morals…or…head home. There was a reason you came here…called freedom…its not without cost.
Every November 11th, we honor those who paid the price for what we have in North America.
My opinion, if you don’t like it here, and don’t wish to contribute and build this country…we won’t discourage your return , may in fact assist, your return to that place from which you came.
Love it, support it and our values, hard fought and won, or leave…your choice. If you want what you had, please go back and enjoy that society, environment, and morals. We won’t miss you.
My thought and opinion anyways….
If Canada’s Military had any foresight and hard commitment to defense fire sale(s). They’d take every one of these guys, cancel the “prima donas” being considered.
Exactly true. An A-10 squadron or a few would be an excellent role for Canadian participation in the emerging ground wars.
Drones are great. However, if you put a great big tank-busting cannon and the engines to drive it in a drone it will be one big drone! Add in some armour for the fuel tanks and you end up with an aircraft that looks a lot like an unmanned A-10. Might as well stick a pilot in for good measure, the reaction times are shorter.
But drones, especially drones armed with Hellfires, are good stuff.
What one is hearing abut the F-35 doesn’t sound good. And the UK have built a carrier or two around them.
The A-10 was apparently the allied aircraft most feared by Iraqi infantry during the first Gulf War. One plane could take out a column of tanks, APCs, trucks, whatever and the infantry could not shoot it down; even ZSU-23s couldn’t touch it. It destroyed 900 tanks during the war.
Obama is retiring it because it would be a huge asset in an invasion of Iran – preventing which, is the whole point of Obama’s purge of Army war fighters, and reduction in personnel. I am glad it survived.
>>However it is old. It is not sleek and sexy. It has to go.
Here is a link to a photo of a Ju 87 G-1, clearly showing the big cannon. http://waralbum.ru/14616/
Not as big as the A-10’s, though. Virtuosi such as H.-U. Rudel would maneuver the 87 G at low altitudes, to get the Russian tanks from the sides or the rear.
Another $585 billion dollars they don’t have and will therefore just print.
Better spent on sustaining the working military than propping up Obama contributors!
I live in the Congressional District this mostly affects. We just had a Congressional election so close it’s come down to just over a 100 votes. It’s amazing how both candidates just love this aircraft (and the jobs that go with it). The RINO actually retired as an Air Force Colonel (now apparently doesn’t know what to do with herself without a government job – had them all her life) and she flew the Warthog. Her Communist (lets not parse words here) opponent of course wants to save the children, reach out to the Dreamers, save the planet, and of course we need an expensive obsolete Sturmovik derivative because he’s all for jobs and the economy. What a way to run a country!
What a beautiful war machine, and very affective as a tactical ground support weapon. I would hate to be on the receiving end of what that sucker can deliver.
Maybe that is why some want to get rid of it. This machine might be sending more terrorists to collect their 72 v*rgins than those that sympathize with the MB would like.
Obsolete…pretty difficult to establish that for an armoured aircraft optimized for ground attack….
In some ways this reminds me of the UK government’s premature retirement of the Hawker Hunter….aircraft in front-line service globally….with refurbished aircraft a hot item.
The big problem is the obsession with the A10 original role being attack on the Warsaw Pact tank forces on the North European plain. The world is still full of MBT in unfriendly hands….
60 years back it was declared that MBT were obsolete weapons systems left over from WW2…that the new anti-tank systems gave them a survival time of seconds or minutes on a modern battlefield…..a prediction as accurate as peak oil.
It can deliver a boat load of death and destruction in a highly accurate manner. It can loiter over a target for what must seem an eternity for the bad guys. It can have many important parts blown off and still remain in the air. It gets good gas mileage and is relatively inexpensive to produce. Considering the capabilities of the barbarians running amok in Syria and Iraq at the moment, the chances of it having to engage a fighter jet in a dogfight are nil.
However it is old. It is not sleek and sexy. It has to go.
This is one of the best combat warplanes ever. It is outstanding for protecting troops on the ground. The Warthog can “loiter” over a battle field for long periods of time. Faster jets cannot do this as well. It has saved countless lives, and sent many an enemy to the nether regions. They are one of the sturdiest aircraft, and can keep flying even when they have been shot to pieces. When they announced they were mothballing the Warthogs about a year ago, I assumed it was because they were so effective, and that’s something president F___pants doesn’t want in his military.
Air Force generals seen gnashing teeth, muttering “Curses! Foiled again!”
Air power wins wars. Better the A-10 than western forces having to go toe-to-toe with aggressors on an equal footing. The alternative to the A-10 is helicopter gunship support for ground troops and helicopters are far too easy to shoot down compared to the A-10.
bring on the Drones!
millions of fanboys playing shoot em up games.
harvest that raw talent
I like how the nose landing gear has to be offset from the plane’s centreline because of the BFG.
Awesome ground support aircraft! It can seemingly dance in the air. Glad to see it will be staying around. I’m sure the terrorists are not.
Saw one banking low at an airshow years ago. Really scary looking when it’s coming at you.
Cottus said above: “… an expensive obsolete Sturmovik derivative.”
Sure. There currently is no new aircraft available or even on the drawing board to do the job the A10 does. Which is ground attack.
The A10 (or some reasonable equivalent) is what we should have in the Canadian Air Force to beef up the antiquated CF-18. And by antiquated I mean -old-, not useless.
The Canadian Air Force does two things. 1) It protects Northern Canada from Russian incursions, which are on the rise.
2) It supports NATO ground troops in the Middle East and Europe. Given the Russians in Ukraine, there could be tanks needing busted and ground troops needing strafed pretty much any time now.
What does Canada have in the air? CF-18s bought in 1982. Wikipedia says 77 still fly. CF-18s can do ground attack, but they aren’t -awesome- at it. And they are fragile. Because they are primarily meant to be a carrier based air superiority fighter, and because they’re over 30 years old. We could use a bunch of new ones, and some new A10s to break tanks with. What are we getting? the whizbang do everything F-35. IF Boeing can actually make the d@mn thing work, that is. I used to be a fan of the F-35, but then we found out it breaks easy. Not what you want in a fight, IMHO.
US Air Force is in much the same situation. Aging go-fast fighters salted with some truly amazing “new” ones (F-22 Raptor has been in service for TWENTY YEARS kids!). Massively high tech, massively -expensive-, fragile, fiddly aircraft. Which are just what you want if you’re fighting the Cold War against the high tech Soviets or the Chicoms or even the Russians, but not what’s going to work against the Taliban/ISIS/Alqueerda etc.
Why do I say this? Because we’ve already seen where this business of using air superiority fighters to do ground attack ends up. Vietnam War. Whole reason the A10 was invented in the first place. And the attack helicopter too. Fast movers have no loiter time. They can’t slow down. They can’t carry enough boomboom. You need something that flies low, slow, cheap and long, and can carry some serious weight. That’s the A10.
The politicians are probably saving the Warthog for all the wrong reasons, but its the smart thing to do. They should be making more with new battlefield networking capability and night vision gear. They won’t, but they should be.
If you ain’t got better, keep what you got
I love drones, BUT the warthog has the best computer, for certain functions, that the military can provide, it’s called the human mind.
The A-10 like the AC-130 Spectre can lay one h3ll f a beating on ground troops and machinery. They are both pretty much indispensable in certain situations, and neither needs a multi billion development program.
And the USAF intends to replace the Warthog with the F-35? Har!
I saw an A-10 at Abbotsford a few years ago, giving a demo. Amazing maneuverability at low altitude.
The A-10 looks looks to have been designed by Heinkel or Junkers. Indeed it is the true heir of the Ju-87G (Stuka) tank buster. As for the USAF, like the USAAFs before them, all they want to do is fly around shooting at enemy aircraft if they find any. They have a long and undistinguished record when it comes to ground support. I may be biased: my army uncle with the Canadian forces in the Low Countries was bombed a couple of times by the USAAF. Didn’t do any harm, of course, but it wasn’t neighbourly.
Better to spend the money o National Defense then on the United Ntions and keeping their cporpt dictators rolling in the dough or spend it on some dumb pork barrel project(Camel statues,Protecting river rats Etc)that the tax and spend demacrats are always comming up with
More F-35 nightmares.
****************************
After a year of several fleet-wide groundings for the F-35, the latest problem to plague the fifth-generation fighter is forcing the U.S. Air Force to revamp an entirely separate fleet to support the military’s most expensive plane.
The F-35 can only fly on jet fuel under a certain temperature due to the high heat output of the F-35B variant’s short takeoff and vertical landing engine and other powerful subsystems. According to the USAF, the dark-green trucks that carry fuel absorb too much heat from the sun to keep the planes in the sky
“However it is old. It is not sleek and sexy. It has to go.”
It needs a Lumbersexual paint job, rich Liberal wack-jobs will rub themselves in support or want to buy them for yard ornaments.
The A-10 like the AC-130 Spectre are the two best combat aircraft in the whole military arsenal. That’s the aircraft Canada should be getting. NOT the F-35 ‘camel’ craft.
Dear Santa;
I would like a flock A-10 Warthogs, so I can take them over and go play in the sandbox.
(Santa means Saint in Espanol, so I think he’ll understand.)
If Israel tries to buy them, keep them.
Sexy is in the eye of the beholder.
You are exactly right. The F35 may or may not be a good aircraft, but they are way to expensive to use shooting up machine gun equipped pick up trucks in support of ground troops. One weapon from an F35 probably costs more than an A10.
Unfortunately Canada does not have the leadership to start building new A-10s here. That’s the fleet of combat aircraft we should have. The upgraded F-18s are good enough for the US Navy, and Canada too. If we need a few F-35s then rent, don’t buy.
For all the experts:
Instead of an aerodynamically unsophisticated aircraft working at low level using the on-board pilot’s visual acquisition of ground targets…
why not use drones?
Drones are too easily fooled/hacked.
One of my favorite planes. Had the pleasure of being on exercise in Wainwright, we were in full camo but stuck out like a sore thumb. Pilot flew over us inverted and low, waved to us, then we got the radio call that our position was officially destroyed.
for those small (soon to be dead) animals in your lawn I present http://hdwallpapersfactory.com/high-definition-wallpaper/aircrafts-a-10-thunderbolt-ii-lawnmower-johndeere-john-deere-desktop-hd-wallpaper-516993/
What it’s like to be near A-10 30mm rounds impacting the earth (turn your sound down or not whatever you prefer).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOYWbxrlGko
the decision making speed of the onboard pilot is far faster and more accurate then that of a computer/offboard “pilot”. Each of these different tools have areas were they have an advantage. The pilot has a much more realistic view of the battle field conditions that a camera has, and can “guess” at developing situations. Were as a computer is limited to real time.
I saw a pair of A-10’s put on a great display of how they attack a tank in pairs,at the Abbotsford air show,early 80’s before DOT ruined it.
Coincidentally, my Dad was among the Canadian soldiers who had the living sh** bombed out of them in WW2 by the USAAF, I believe it was Nijmegen, could be wrong,and Pa’s no longer around to confirm it.
He said in desperation they laid out a big British flag on the ground to alert the Yanks that they were bombing friendly forces. After a while someone got through to them and they quit bombing hell out of our guys.
I don’t remember the casualty count.
Best damn close support and ground attack plane ever built….without question. Ask the enemy folks 🙂
If Canada’s Military had any foresight and hard commitment to defense fire sale(s). They’d take every one of these guys, cancel the “prima donas” being considered.
BONUS…we’d be able to bill back to US when they needed close support aircraft with some muscle. US looking to drones..unmanned…no harm done items. Fact is…wars are ugly, people die, and support, ground and air, adaptable to conditions is key. Computer programs are not people…fact folks.
US, and Canada, unfortunately falling into entitlement model, liberal/socialist mindset…fairness…other have it..we deserve it. Fairness and sharing…
North America, unless we stand guard, return to roots of hard work breeds success…we are doomed.
What do we stand for??? What are our values???
Love this country, the country who accepted you and gave you opportunity…immigrants of many generations and nationalities. Without conditions…otherwise folks, please feel to return to where you came from.
Love it, accept our values, our ethics and morals…or…head home. There was a reason you came here…called freedom…its not without cost.
Every November 11th, we honor those who paid the price for what we have in North America.
My opinion, if you don’t like it here, and don’t wish to contribute and build this country…we won’t discourage your return , may in fact assist, your return to that place from which you came.
Love it, support it and our values, hard fought and won, or leave…your choice. If you want what you had, please go back and enjoy that society, environment, and morals. We won’t miss you.
My thought and opinion anyways….
If Canada’s Military had any foresight and hard commitment to defense fire sale(s). They’d take every one of these guys, cancel the “prima donas” being considered.
Exactly true. An A-10 squadron or a few would be an excellent role for Canadian participation in the emerging ground wars.
Drones are great. However, if you put a great big tank-busting cannon and the engines to drive it in a drone it will be one big drone! Add in some armour for the fuel tanks and you end up with an aircraft that looks a lot like an unmanned A-10. Might as well stick a pilot in for good measure, the reaction times are shorter.
But drones, especially drones armed with Hellfires, are good stuff.
What one is hearing abut the F-35 doesn’t sound good. And the UK have built a carrier or two around them.
The A-10 was apparently the allied aircraft most feared by Iraqi infantry during the first Gulf War. One plane could take out a column of tanks, APCs, trucks, whatever and the infantry could not shoot it down; even ZSU-23s couldn’t touch it. It destroyed 900 tanks during the war.
Obama is retiring it because it would be a huge asset in an invasion of Iran – preventing which, is the whole point of Obama’s purge of Army war fighters, and reduction in personnel. I am glad it survived.
>>However it is old. It is not sleek and sexy. It has to go.
Here is a link to a photo of a Ju 87 G-1, clearly showing the big cannon. http://waralbum.ru/14616/
Not as big as the A-10’s, though. Virtuosi such as H.-U. Rudel would maneuver the 87 G at low altitudes, to get the Russian tanks from the sides or the rear.
I fondly recall this obsolete critter….
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=297
Then there was that other anachronism…PUFF THE MAGIC DRAGON….