Everyone in Congress and in the Military who has been pushing to get RID of this amazing, necessary, and like-no-other aircraft should be fired post haste.
Sadly it's mostly the USAF generals (who are beholden to the MIC) that ae fighting to get rid of the A-10s. They want newer and more expensive fighters, because they either get kickbacks or job promises from the MIC or the MSM if they get rid of older stuff and get CONgress to buy new and way more expensive tech.
In the past, the Army (and I believe the Marines as well) wanted to take over (or at least share) the A-10 program. The Army was denied because of the no-fixed-wing doctrine.
Under the Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966, the Army agreed to limit its fixed-wing aviation role to administrative mission support (light unarmed aircraft of civilian design).
The Marines have fixed-wing aircraft but until the recent A-10 actions nobody envisioned them being useful for water duty and they certainly won't go on aircraft carriers and take a fighter's place.
We have the Stratofortress, and will for many decades still. The B-52 has 8 jet engines and can fly 8,000 miles without refueling. With in-air refueling it can fly as long and as far as the pilot is able to. I believe the current record (for a B-52H) is over 17,000 miles and close to 50 hours.
In 1960 one of the original B-52s set a record for going 10,000 miles without a refuel. In 1962 another B-52 broke that record by going 12,532 miles without refueling. In 1975, 3 of them flew completely around the world without landing - the first time a jet ever did that. Note - this was done as an in-your-face message to our adversaries that showed we could drop nukes anywhere we pleased - even without using an ICBM.
The B-29 is a perfect example of retiring a plane when it had fulfilled it's purpose and couldn't keep up with current technology. Besides, the B-52 will likely see 100 years of active military service. It started in the early 1950s and is scheduled to run (currently) through the 2050s. The B-1 and B-2 are great for what they do, but they weren't made to fly slow and linger over a battlefield while decimating huge swaths of land.
Hmm - reminds me of the A-10... flies low and slow, lingering above the battlefield while destroying anything it sees, and provides support for our ground troops that can't be replicated with any other aircraft.
Badass gun with an airplane attached. My father flew these in the Air Force.
Badass Pops
o7
Yes he was!! Silver Star, Distinguished Flying Cross and Bronze Star medals. My hero! His nickname in the military was "Train Wreck".
o7
It's a fan favorite. Can't get rid of those.
Everyone in Congress and in the Military who has been pushing to get RID of this amazing, necessary, and like-no-other aircraft should be fired post haste.
Sadly it's mostly the USAF generals (who are beholden to the MIC) that ae fighting to get rid of the A-10s. They want newer and more expensive fighters, because they either get kickbacks or job promises from the MIC or the MSM if they get rid of older stuff and get CONgress to buy new and way more expensive tech.
In the past, the Army (and I believe the Marines as well) wanted to take over (or at least share) the A-10 program. The Army was denied because of the no-fixed-wing doctrine.
The Marines have fixed-wing aircraft but until the recent A-10 actions nobody envisioned them being useful for water duty and they certainly won't go on aircraft carriers and take a fighter's place.
Narg, make it so.
I've always thought that military equipment has an essential patriotic function and should not be replaced in the name of progress.
e.g. it is shameful we are no longer deploying Pennsylvania rifles, the M1861, or the Superfortress.
We have the Stratofortress, and will for many decades still. The B-52 has 8 jet engines and can fly 8,000 miles without refueling. With in-air refueling it can fly as long and as far as the pilot is able to. I believe the current record (for a B-52H) is over 17,000 miles and close to 50 hours.
In 1960 one of the original B-52s set a record for going 10,000 miles without a refuel. In 1962 another B-52 broke that record by going 12,532 miles without refueling. In 1975, 3 of them flew completely around the world without landing - the first time a jet ever did that. Note - this was done as an in-your-face message to our adversaries that showed we could drop nukes anywhere we pleased - even without using an ICBM.
https://www.designworldonline.com/today-in-engineering-history-b-52-sets-nonstop-flight-record/
The B-29 is a perfect example of retiring a plane when it had fulfilled it's purpose and couldn't keep up with current technology. Besides, the B-52 will likely see 100 years of active military service. It started in the early 1950s and is scheduled to run (currently) through the 2050s. The B-1 and B-2 are great for what they do, but they weren't made to fly slow and linger over a battlefield while decimating huge swaths of land.
Hmm - reminds me of the A-10... flies low and slow, lingering above the battlefield while destroying anything it sees, and provides support for our ground troops that can't be replicated with any other aircraft.
Its far superior to anything more recent, isnt it?
Strangely, technology normally works that way, despite what the progressives/evolutionists would have you believe