Quote from: redbeard on January 21, 2015, 04:51:35 PM
This makes no sense! When they hear this plane coming they haul ass or die! The A-10 has proven it's self more then capable and doesn't require Million dollar high tech bombs to take out a mud shack. A couple burst from the gatlengun and a couple missiles and no one wants to play anymore! Maintenance is cheap compared to it's high tech rivals! Scraping this air craft makes no sense!!

Yes it does, when you can make drones, which do the same thing, place no pilots at risk of harm and which cost less than a plane does.

That's what the gummamint line is.

And oddly enough was the same argument for ending the manned missions to the moon etc....

But the problem they seem to overlook with that, is this. A little thing I like to call HACKERS.

And trust me, if they can hack the NSA, they can hack anyone and anything.

That's why, while I do think they have their place in our arsenal, we still should and still have a need for planes such as the A-10.

With a Human pilot, there in the cockpit of the plane in control. Not back at some base, here in the states playing a video game. Besides sometimes you need that "human element" there on the scene. There are things our eyes, and brains can do, computers just can't.

Unless they're coming out with some new, updated version of it that is.

Like some version of a A-10/ stealth bomber/osprey/Comanche.

An A-10 that can hover silently, that can carry large ordinance, and can attack the enemy before they even know we are there, because it gives off no radar cross section, makes no sound, and uses light refraction technology and is invisible.

Like some version of a A-10 Bird of Prey that can hover lol.

That would be a awesome machine you have to agree. 

The B-52 is still in service after about 75 years because it does one very thing well, in spite of technology and social issues.

I heard a guy this morning quoting his brother who flew one.  That you can't put a price on the situational awareness you get from flying a couple hundred feet off the ground.  He said that today's aircraft that can do similar things, but all from too high an altitude to get that C3 benefit.  Also that it's a huge psychological negative for the enemy, and positive for the guys you're supporting, to see and hear you coming.

There's plenty of desolate terrain out there without sophisticated defenses, that this aircraft could be needed in.  Shame to scrap them all and then find yourself in a low-level conflict where they would be ideal.

But to answer the original question, from Obama's perspective -

Why get rid of them  ?

Because they are the most effective plane we have against ISIS.

Quote from: AndyJackson on January 22, 2015, 09:06:25 AM
The B-52 is still in service after about 75 years because it does one very thing well, in spite of technology and social issues.

I heard a guy this morning quoting his brother who flew one.  That you can't put a price on the situational awareness you get from flying a couple hundred feet off the ground.  He said that today's aircraft that can do similar things, but all from too high an altitude to get that C3 benefit.  Also that it's a huge psychological negative for the enemy, and positive for the guys you're supporting, to see and hear you coming.

There's plenty of desolate terrain out there without sophisticated defenses, that this aircraft could be needed in.  Shame to scrap them all and then find yourself in a low-level conflict where they would be ideal.

But to answer the original question, from Obama's perspective -

Why get rid of them  ?

Because they are the most effective plane we have against ISIS.

The B-52 has been in service for 60 years. [/nitpick]

Quote from: redbeard on January 21, 2015, 07:05:13 PM
Why get rid of anything that scares the hell out of the enemy? I'm not saying to add new ones but by every count this aircraft is fairly easy and cheap to maintain. nothing can match it's survivability record. Helicopters are much more vulnerable. The real problem is the air force brass looks down on this ugly plane never mind that it really gets it's job done!

The Air Force has always hated the ground support role. They'd much rather spend their money on nifty fighters and strategic bombers.

Quote from: Mountainshield on January 22, 2015, 06:54:42 AM
Equality is Our mantra after all 

One of the reasons the germans did so great was it's specialization of both Tanks and Airplanes, might say they took it too far compared to the Soviets, but the US is hardly in Germany's lack of Resource situation. The Stuka (Junkers Ju 87) was good for taking out tanks and psychological warfare much like the Warthog. If you have air superiority, why not use the best ideal tool for the job? Especially if it's more economic as well..

The Germans really got beat when the Soviets came up with an even better ground support platform, the Ilyushin Il-2 Stormovik.

Quote from: mdgiles on January 22, 2015, 12:21:03 PM
The Air Force has always hated the ground support role. They'd much rather spend their money on nifty fighters and strategic bombers.

OUR money, Sunshine. Yours and mine and the other guy's. Especially the F-35 with every last one of its limitations and design issues. (I'm not current: did they ever get an engine that will do what they need?)

But the Chair Force sure runs a huge chunk of our military intelligence and NSA as well. Different budgets but still the same blowhards in blue.

Quote from: TboneAgain on January 22, 2015, 12:13:15 PM
The B-52 has been in service for 60 years. [/nitpick]

well consider my nit picked......

but weren't they flying in the early 40's in WW2  ?

60 years would only go back to 1955.

Quote from: AndyJackson on January 22, 2015, 12:45:07 PM
well consider my nit picked......

but weren't they flying in the early 40's in WW2  ?

60 years would only go back to 1955.

It entered service the year I was born, 1954.

Quote from: AndyJackson on January 22, 2015, 12:45:07 PM
well consider my nit picked......

but weren't they flying in the early 40's in WW2  ?

60 years would only go back to 1955.

No!!

Quote from: AndyJackson on January 22, 2015, 12:45:07 PM
well consider my nit picked......

but weren't they flying in the early 40's in WW2  ?

60 years would only go back to 1955.

No. The B-52 is an eight-engined swept-wing jet bomber. The US had no operational jet aircraft in service in WWII. From Wikipedia:

QuoteAlthough the B-52A was the first production variant, these aircraft were used only in testing. The first operational version was the B-52B that had been developed in parallel with the prototypes since 1951. First flying in December 1954, B-52B, AF Serial Number 52-8711, entered operational service with 93rd Heavy Bombardment Wing (93rd BW) at Castle Air Force Base, California, on 29 June 1955. The wing became operational on 12 March 1956. The training for B-52 crews consisted of five weeks of ground school and four weeks of flying, accumulating 35 to 50 hours in the air. The new B-52Bs replaced operational B-36s on a one-to-one basis.

Quote from: mdgiles on January 22, 2015, 12:21:03 PM
The Air Force has always hated the ground support role. They'd much rather spend their money on nifty fighters and strategic bombers.

I am all for building strategic bombers. The United States shouldn't waste a single human life to fight these ISIS nuts.

Instead we should be carpet bombing them, each and every time one pops his head up.

Oh whats that you say, collateral damage? Oh well, thats what ya get for trying to hides these savages.

Quote from: TboneAgain on January 22, 2015, 05:52:14 PM
No. The B-52 is an eight-engined swept-wing jet bomber. The US had no operational jet aircraft in service in WWII. From Wikipedia:

Back to the OP and the A-10! Is there any other air craft in our inventory that can spend as much time in a target area, carry as much ordinance, and come anywhere never as effective not just eliminating targets but also scaring the S--t out enemy! This last one alone is enough to want to keep it around for awhile longer!!

Quote from: daidalos on January 22, 2015, 06:05:11 PM
I am all for building strategic bombers. The United States shouldn't waste a single human life to fight these ISIS nuts.

Instead we should be carpet bombing them, each and every time one pops his head up.

Oh whats that you say, collateral damage? Oh well, thats what ya get for trying to hides these savages.

The A-10 is much more effective. I've seen pictures of ISIS pickup trucks in line running down desert highways! A perfect A-10 target. Can anyone say Highway to death?

Quote from: mdgiles on January 22, 2015, 12:28:17 PM
The Germans really got beat when the Soviets came up with an even better ground support platform, the Ilyushin Il-2 Stormovik.

The black death, very cool but why did it become such a feared weapon?




To me it looks like yet another soviet reverse engineering product, except for the landing wheels. Like AK47 is a clear rip off of the Sturmgewehr.

Quote from: redbeard on January 22, 2015, 06:09:34 PM
The A-10 is much more effective. I've seen pictures of ISIS pickup trucks in line running down desert highways! A perfect A-10 target. Can anyone say Highway to death?

It probably is the best weapon to use against ISIS in many of their scenarios.

Precisely why Obama & co. would scrap it.

Their serial actions that stop us from succeeding against ISIS, MB, AQ.......are becoming pretty damned obvious right about now.