5 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
5 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

A-10 Warthog vs F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

by thunderbird
3 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
"The fact that the USAF is so willing to throw away 300 of the finest close air support platforms ever invented just to save the cost equivalent of 30 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters is total bullshit and both the American taxpayer and those who bravely fight our wars on the ground should be furious."\
The Air Force's Rationale For Retiring The A-10 Warthog Is Bullshit

Disclaimer: I'm not a US taxpayer, just a mere Canadian looking in from the outside,
  • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
    I take offense to your post. There is no such thing as a mere Canadian.

    In WWII, the generals were opposed to Roosevelt's decision to invade Africa because it would have delayed D Day and cost precious logistics. And they were right.

    But... Roosevelt had larger concerns. He had to invade Africa and engage the Germans to divert some the Germans' attention away from our ally, Russia.

    What's the larger concern other than the A-10? I don't know. It's unlikely we will know in the immediate future.
    Signature

    I

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9284493].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
      Originally Posted by David Maschke View Post

      I take offense to your post. There is no such thing as a mere Canadian.
      Thanks for that, but I am butting into something that really isn't any of my business. It just concerns me because it would immediately affect soldiers in actual wars, if recent wars are any indication.

      Originally Posted by David Maschke View Post

      In WWII, the generals were opposed to Roosevelt's decision to invade Africa because it would have delayed D Day and cost precious logistics. And they were right.

      But... Roosevelt had larger concerns. He had to invade Africa and engage the Germans to divert some the Germans' attention away from our ally, Russia.

      What's the larger concern other than the A-10? I don't know. It's unlikely we will know in the immediate future.
      I have gathered that the F-35 isn't even so stealth any more with the advent of technology among potential adversaries, therefore not only astronomically expensive but already obsolete. Those all-in-one dream machines never actually seem to work or prove useful in wars, but please correct me if I am mistaken. Could technological advancement that stems from the massive allotment of capital and resources put into it be useful for civilian applications as much weapons research has been? It could be, I don't know. Hopefully, the US won't need to suffer repercussions of cutting funding to A-10 Warthogs, probably the most useful combat craft in recent wars.

      Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about.
      Signature

      Project HERE.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9285023].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    This all boils down to the top brass of the USAF never liking the close air support role. When the AF was created, the army wanted to keep some fixed-wing aviation capability, but politics overruled it, putting it all in the hands of the air force.

    And, politicians are, at their core, just stupid.
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9286281].message }}

Trending Topics