Comments by "WarfarenotWarfair" (@warfarenotwarfair5655) on "Why the Air Force is Screaming to Retire the A-10 Warthog" video.

The F-35 is already testing small diameter bombs and can use external pylons. It excels in the air to ground role.
4
@fnhatic6694 Pretty soon these A-10 guys will be saying the USAF should break out P-47 Thunderbolts and A-1 Skyraiders for CAS missions 🤣
3
@Khasym Let me help you out. The A-10 was born as a political aircraft because the Army with buddies in Congress were essentially trying to produce their own fixed wing aircraft. The A-10 was a political aircraft produced to shut the Army up and deal with Soviet tanks in Germany. Since 1991 the USAF has tried ti get rid of it but Senators such as McCain and Thornberry among others protected the jobs around the A-10 for their constituents literally turning the A-10 into a welfare program for voters in certain districts. This is what is known as crony-capitalism but due to your fascination with the airframe your judgement is clouded and research is poor in the great scheme of things. The current the USAF is concerned with is China, not Soviet tanks in Germany or appeasing the Army and friends.
3
@Khasym Hi froma C-130 Crew Chief from 1999-2009. The A-10 is easily replaced by the USAFs vast array of systems including the F-15E, F-16, F-35A, B-1, B-2, B-52, AC-130, and drones. The A-10 is a one trick pony and built to take on Soviet tanks in Germany. Systems like Javelins have shown that tanks are getting long in the tooth. Not only that but based on USAF hearings on CSPAN year after year the F-16 and F-15E were carrying out the majority of close air support missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2
 @Khasym The AC-130 is more useful as is the F-16, F-35, F-15E, B-2, B-1, and B-52. You are literally pining for an inferior politically driven airframe 🤣
2
@themadmallard I was a C-130 Crew Chief and had to laugh hard when you literally questioned the loiter time of a C-130 in comparison to an A-10. You really are clueless if you think an A-10 can loiter longer as well as dish out as much punishment. There is a reason AFSOC has all of the AC-130s 🤣. Civilians arguing with USAF veterans that actually crewed or worked on things is aj exercise in mass arrogance coupled with an extreme barrier to critical thinking 🤣
2
The targeting pods on F-15Es and F-16s alone make the A-10 obsolete. The USAF had increased precision hence is now able to move to small diameter bombs.
2
@CraigGrant-sh3in Except it didn't 😂. The F-15E is superior.
2
@JohnnyWishbone85 It never did, the F-15E is a superior airframe to the A-10. The A-10 was a political plane turned welfare program for certain senators.
2
@RedMedina25 AC-130 is for AFSOC only. The F-15E and the F-16 do more ground work.
2
@richardtuxford1812 How is it tricky when it was never needed in the first place? So any of you know the political history of this airframe and are you aware of the crony capitalism that goes on in Washington DC?
1
@jimwells4240 Why use a one trick pony when the USAF already has a ton of weapon systems in its inventory that are more useful? The F-16 and F-15E has consistently out worked the A-10. The A-10 had one job, take out as many Soviet tanks it could in Germany, thats all. It is now 2023.
1
@k2_tech745 Hi, former C-130E and H model Crew Chief here. You are correct, the USAF hearings on CSPAN and the USAF Budget Overviews discuss the F-16s and F-15Es much higher close air support sortie count citing it wants to phase out the A-10 as it switches focus to China and focuses on it's primary mission of logistics.
1
 @Dimythios The A-10 is a welfare program on the back of USAF readiness.
1
 @1pierosangiorgio The A-10 was born of politics and is a welfare program. The F-35 is something the USAF actually wants unlike the KC-46 and F-15EX crony capitalist projects forced on the USAF.
1
@kalgstol USAF doctrine is gain control of the skies before a lot of bombing takes place. The A-10 is a political aircraft and a welfare program not a multi-role aircraft that can operate in both air to air and air to ground.
1
@Khasym Many A-10s have also been lost and written off for Davis Mothan as scrap due to damage. Play less video games and read the USAF Budget Overviews, the .pdfs are readily available. This isn't even a credible debate you are putting up when people like me actually look at what the USAF outs out every fiscal year which is open to the block for downloadbas its in a .pdf file. Just watching a couple of sensational YouTube videos and determining the USAF should use something is about as intelligent and well thought as a mom on Facebook claiming video games cause school shootings.
1
 @kevinhowe543 The C-130E and H has cleared many minefields by simply dropping a 10,000lbs bomb on them as was done in Iraq. The A-10 is a political plane and a welfare jobs program.
1
 @Kevin-zt7lb The reason is nobody needs one hence nobody is building anything.
1
@Khasym A manpad has and will take out an A-10. Its not about its survival but it's lack of usefulness. The USAF doesn't need a hangar queen while airframes such as the F-15E and C-130 are getting it done.
1
@ypw510 The USAF never needed it, it was born of politics and was made to appease the Army in Germany. Fast forward some years and it has become a welfare program in districts where powerful senators reside especially in Arizona. The USAF has wanted it gone since 1991. Fast forward today and the A-10 is even more obsolete seeing less close air missions than the F-16 and F-15E and yet powerful senators keep it in stealing USAF funding. This airframe is 100% crony-capitalism at this point and needs to go to Davis Mothan to be turned to scrap. Only an incredibly arrogant low IQ civilian who is too lazy to research USAF Budget Overviews would ever think this aircraft is viable in today's threats.
1
@themadmallard Haha, I would have to go through here and look.
1
@SteveB-nx2uo Are you paying attention to China?
1
@TB-ni4ur It wasn't just the missiles it was pilot training cuts as well thanks to Democrat "wiz kid" McNamara. The sparrow had a 80% miss rate until Top Gun and Red Flag were created. Never hire a Democrat to run a war.
1
@themadmallard The C-130 has far more loiter time than any fighter aircraft and delivers continuous fire on target for AFSOC teams. The new version even has missiles. The A-10 requires no replacement because it was never needed and is redundant. Technology like small diameter bombs and targeting pods just make the A-10 really stand out as a jobs program not a viable weapons platform. Unfortunately many people are unaware of Senator McCain and Thornberry constantly blocking the USAF from retiring the airframe due to the jobs being in their district. Sadly just see a gatling and become a fan without researching the USAF Budget Overviews or watching the USAF hearings on CSPAN.
1
@themadmallard You have to remember that military members must tread lightly when it comes to powerful politicians or your career as an officer is over. McCain was economically linked to the A-10 so he was already corrupt and no matter how many times senior USAF staff showed the Senate arms committee the statistics proving the A-10 needed to head to the boneyard senators like McCain would shoot it down. Crony capitalism is common among these Senators, look at the KC-46 and F-15EX, both unwanted airframes by the USAF until powerful people get involved with special interests with Boeing. Before long some random "documentary" will make up a story of how amazing the airframe is for the USAF.
1
@themadmallard The AC-130 is for AFSOC only and supports JSOC teams. The A-10 is simply redundant and by it being gone doesn't damage any mission readiness. The USAF is gearing up for China and China is building up it's Navy and Air Force at a quick pace. The days of the Army demanding CAS in Germany are long over.
1
@williammendoza6062 Hence the A-10 needs to make way for superior platforms that can engage in the multi-role.
1
@tylertorch5914 There is already air superiority for the homeland. Not only do we operate F-22, F-16, and F-15 active duty bases we have Air National Guard and Reserve fighter squadrons. We also have Navy and Marine Corps naval air stations.
1
@tylertorch5914 It scares me when a community of arrogant civilians support corrupt senators to keep an obsolete never needed airframe in service on the back of the USAFs unit readiness to enrich themselves and provide jobs in their districts so they can be in power for 30+ years. If people support the A-10 you are supporting crony-capitalism. The Soviet tank threat in Germany ended in 1991, China is the current threat. Time to adapt to a rising threat.
1
@user-bd5md5cm2j The F-14 was no longer needed and was a one trick pony for decades. The A-10 was never needed ever, it's an Army/Congress welfare project in Arizona.
1
@jimwells4240 The A-10 has tons of friendly incidents. It was obsolete the day it was rolled off the assembly line to end up as a welfare jobs program.
1
@Grant6243 The AC-130U and models cannot fight in contested space but then again they are assigned to AFSOC to support special operations and not for front line fighting. The AC-130 is far more useful and deadly and the new models even carry air to ground missiles.
1
@CODYoungGunna What are you on about?
1
@CODYoungGunna Please cite your sources, my information comes from the USAF Budget Overviews and Senate Arms hearings. The USAF for over a decade isn't interested in the A-10C and Senators continue to use it as a welfare program in their districts.
1
@CharlieNoodles It was never relevant. It's a political infighting product turned welfare program. The only reason it's still forced on the USAF because the general public is mostly ignorant and has a low IQ to know any better.
1
There was no such argument. The US Army lobbied to make their own fixed winged aircraft and ended up making an attack helicopter as a side effect. Congress on behalf of the US Army forced the USAF to make the A-10. Since then it has become a jobs program nothing more. The history of this airframe is crystal clear. Even attack helicopters would not exist if the Army was permitted to produce its own fixed wing aircraft.
1
@mrgrinch837 The mission is not important, was never needed, and it's Army lobbying during the Soviet threat in Germany is over. Statistically the F-15E, F-16, and B-1 conducted far more missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Only people suffering from a low IQ would be promoting the A-10 or a corrupt politician that wants that welfare job in his district on the back of the USAF's unit readiness.
1
@thegrimreefer3185 You seem to have difficulty wrapping your head around the fact that the A-10 was never needed and it has turned into a jobs program on the back of mission readiness in the US Air Force. This ignorant position you and others have, has enabled corrupt congressmen to continue using the military as a district jobs program and social lab experiment. Be sure of your position because such enabling could lead to you or your family being drafted due to a lack of readiness and you will have no one to blame but yourself. You can either side with corrupt politicians or you can side with the military that knows what it needs for mission readiness.
1