Comments on: How an ugly, brutally effective warplane won the battle for its future http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/24/how-an-ugly-brutally-effective-warplane-won-the-battle-for-its-future/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Ismailtaimur http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/24/how-an-ugly-brutally-effective-warplane-won-the-battle-for-its-future/#comment-1122469 Mon, 07 Dec 2015 12:26:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44993#comment-1122469 Wonderful Reporting.

]]>
By: cwi4691 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/24/how-an-ugly-brutally-effective-warplane-won-the-battle-for-its-future/#comment-1122457 Sun, 06 Dec 2015 22:43:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44993#comment-1122457 If Air Force brass can’t make the proper equipment assessments without letting “sexy” cloud their vision, fire ’em all and start over. Our guys in the field deserve equipment that WORKS and saves lives, not equipment that looks “sexy”. Nobody looks “sexy” in a coffin.

]]>
By: CavalryTrooper http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/24/how-an-ugly-brutally-effective-warplane-won-the-battle-for-its-future/#comment-1122455 Sun, 06 Dec 2015 21:50:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44993#comment-1122455 Threaten to transfer the A-10s, the billets and funding to the Army where the plane is appreciated and watch how quickly the Air Force finds new love for the plane. The reality is the F-16, F-22 and F-35 are totally ineffective in the close air support role. They do more for pilot ego than support of troops on the ground

]]>
By: Dolmance http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/24/how-an-ugly-brutally-effective-warplane-won-the-battle-for-its-future/#comment-1122149 Sat, 05 Dec 2015 15:52:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44993#comment-1122149 The Air Force is now killing the A-10, quite effectively actually, by retiring its pilots and ground crews, and not training new ones to replace them. This is just as destructive to the A-10’s future as junking them outright.

]]>
By: mnkymn http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/24/how-an-ugly-brutally-effective-warplane-won-the-battle-for-its-future/#comment-1122057 Fri, 04 Dec 2015 22:46:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44993#comment-1122057 Replacing the A-10 with the F-35 is a folly. The original A-1 skyraider is a more intelligent option than the F-35 against targets like IS. Cheaper, easier to train into, etc. Use the appropriate tool for the job not the most expensive. Ask Vietnam vets if they would like an A-1 Skyraider or the F-35 for close air support let alone the the A-10.

]]>
By: Vicntc http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/24/how-an-ugly-brutally-effective-warplane-won-the-battle-for-its-future/#comment-1121982 Fri, 04 Dec 2015 17:53:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44993#comment-1121982 Credit where credit is due….Don’t forget these great aircraft that were developed at the same time as the Stuka and Sturmovik (Particularly the Typhoon)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Typ hoon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-39_ Airacobra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_P -47_Thunderbolt

]]>
By: pbrwn http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/24/how-an-ugly-brutally-effective-warplane-won-the-battle-for-its-future/#comment-1121810 Thu, 03 Dec 2015 21:09:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44993#comment-1121810 Go Ugly Early!

]]>
By: Kelvin.McDaniel http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/24/how-an-ugly-brutally-effective-warplane-won-the-battle-for-its-future/#comment-1121365 Tue, 01 Dec 2015 22:16:01 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44993#comment-1121365 “Transfer the warthogs to the Marines.
Problem solved.
Darryl Johnston (USMC)”

Seconded.

Kelvin McDaniel (Civilian, Tax Payer)

]]>
By: rattrayc http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/24/how-an-ugly-brutally-effective-warplane-won-the-battle-for-its-future/#comment-1121293 Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:54:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44993#comment-1121293 The Army already has helicopters. Is there a precedence for them to fully assume the close air support role and pay for the A-10’s out of their budget?

]]>
By: Tintinmilou http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/11/24/how-an-ugly-brutally-effective-warplane-won-the-battle-for-its-future/#comment-1121069 Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:00:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=44993#comment-1121069 I’m indirectly acquainted with two A-10 pilots, and the love the plane. There is no other ground-support fixed-wing aircraft in the U.S. arsenal. And they can take incredible punishment and bring their pilot home. The plane is essentially a flying gun, with an armored bathtub for the pilot. Drones can’t perform the same kind of close-contact mission that the A-10 can. They have the ability to locate and engage the enemy in an “intimate” fashion.
As to the Spectre gunship, the Vietnam war version was affectionately known as “Puff the Magic Dragon!”

]]>