Military Review

The Pentagon will not write off the A-10 attack aircraft due to ISIS and "resurgent Russia"

84
The US military leadership revised its plans to write off the A-10 attack aircraft in connection with active hostilities in the Middle East, as well as due to the “revival of Russia”, reports TASS Statement by Chief of Staff of the Air Force David Goldfein.


A-10 Thunderbolt II

“Life is getting in the way of the ideal plan, this is how you can describe what is happening,” noted Goldfein. “When we made the decision to write off A-10, there was no ISIS, we were not in Iraq, we were largely out of Afghanistan, and we did not have a resurgent Russia.”

According to him, “the attack aircraft has well established itself as an aircraft supporting ground operations during the air antiterrorist campaign in Syria and Iraq.”

In addition, the Pentagon places the A-10 in Europe. In September, the American command announced the sending of more 12 attack aircraft to NATO countries. During the Cold War, around 140 of such machines, squadrons in 6, were based on European territory.

A-10 produced by Fairchild-Republic made its first flight in 1972 g, and after 5 it was adopted for years. The decision to write off the attack aircraft was made in 2013 “in connection with the sequestration of the defense budget and the shift of strategic priorities from the European to the Asia-Pacific region”. It was believed that its functions will be able to perform the aircraft of the new generation F-35, armed with high-precision ammunition.

However, plans for the withdrawal of A-10 from the Air Force were severely criticized by Congress. Parliamentarians believe that "multi-purpose combat aircraft are not always able to replace a heavily armored attack aircraft, hitting targets from low altitudes."
Photos used:
en.wikipedia.org
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ami du peuple
    Ami du peuple 23 January 2016 08: 24
    25
    Parliamentarians believe that "multi-purpose combat aircraft are not always able to replace a heavily armored attack aircraft, hitting targets from low altitudes."

    And the congressmen will be smarter than the American military, who in all seriousness were going to replace the "multipurpose" F-35 by an attack aircraft.
    1. Haettenschweiler
      Haettenschweiler 23 January 2016 08: 39
      +5
      Quote: Ami du peuple
      And congressmen will be smarter than the American military, who, in all seriousness, were going to replace the attack aircraft with the F-35


      - And you are cunning. First I inserted a quote in order to stake out the place of the first comment, then, without rushing, I came up with the "body" of the message.
      1. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 23 January 2016 08: 45
        +5
        Quote: Haettenschweiler
        - And you are cunning. First, I inserted a quote to stake out the place of the first comment, then, without haste, I came up with the "body" of the message

        Envy silently. bully
        1. avva2012
          avva2012 23 January 2016 08: 54
          +7
          You can’t forbid to live beautifully. lol
          1. Sid.74
            Sid.74 23 January 2016 09: 04
            11
            The Pentagon will not write off the A-10 attack aircraft due to ISIS and "resurgent Russia"

            I do not understand .... Tse peremoga chi zrada? what But I understood ... zradimoga! laughing

            For each low-flying warthog pig will find its own willow or shell, which is flying a pig at a speed of 550 km. Wings pruned necessarily.wink
            Pigs should be lying in the mud and not flying through the sky ... yes
        2. samoletil18
          samoletil18 23 January 2016 09: 06
          37
          And please bring me the minuses. I would have been more comfortable with the f-35, chasing bearded men on carts. Tamahawk's excavator is also good. Minuteman with a conventional warhead in a fuel truck - a balm for the soul. In short, the more expensive they will use the funds, the more affection and joy I have.
          Let the world see that it is possible to sausage effectively for $ 4 million with Russian weapons, and $ 40 million with American weapons, and only in hospitals, instead of terrorists.
          1. Haettenschweiler
            Haettenschweiler 23 January 2016 09: 19
            -8
            Quote: samoletil18
            Let the world see that it is possible to sausage effectively for $ 4 million with Russian weapons, and $ 40 million with American weapons, and only in hospitals, instead of terrorists.


            - The world will see exactly what it is allowed to see. We "see" how ancient Su-25s destroy everything and very effectively. The statesmen "see" how ultra-modern Russian Su-25s destroy residential areas, but do not fall into the "terrorists". And, by the way, the United States can afford to burn as many dollars as it wants in this stove - it has a printing press, the Fed, Wall Street, and there are no complexes in this regard. But Russia will sleep a well-known body in the monetary confrontation, because the "rejection of the dollar" (have you not forgotten how pathetic we were promised this?) Has not happened. And, apparently, it will never happen.

            Quote: vlad66
            There it is, so mattress warriors should thank a resurgent Russia


            - With its most powerful economy in the world, apparently. Revived so revived. True, I do not remember that someone finally killed her in order to revive her ... but, on the other hand, the previous "trend" about the gross "getting up from his knees" was even uglier and disgusting. So let it be ... paper "revival".
          2. Amurets
            Amurets 23 January 2016 09: 42
            +7
            Quote: samoletil18
            Let the world see that with Russian weapons it’s possible to sausage effectively for $ 4 million.

            A-10, how, too, can be considered Russian development or Georgian?
            created by the brilliant designer Alexander Cartvelli. And while he was alive, the company Ripablik brought us a lot of anxiety.
          3. psiho117
            psiho117 23 January 2016 14: 33
            +1
            Quote: samoletil18
            I would have been more comfortable with the f-35, chasing bearded men on carts.


            The warthog will not be written off, if only because he has a huge moral effect with his terrible "brrrr!".
            At the same time, they rejoice, the enemies erase the underpants.

            And in terms of price-quality ratio - in modern antiterrorist conflicts there are a huge number of goals for his gun, and here it will not be replaced by either the 35th or drones with missiles.
        3. ava09
          ava09 23 January 2016 09: 42
          24
          Guys, stop throwing your G in the form of spam, one "blah-blah-blamknul" and this was enough for a public pick. And most importantly, none of them noticed: (C) Goldfein noted. “When we made the decision to write off the A-10, there was no ISIS, we were not in Iraq, we, by and large, left Afghanistan, and we did not have a reviving Russia.” (C)
          This Goldfein admitted that the West sees an enemy in Russia, regardless of its socio-economic structure and ideology. Moreover, in Russia now "there is no ideology" according to the constitution and we are restoring, it seems, not the Soviet Union. Although it would be worth considering the restoration of a really social state.
      2. lis-ik
        lis-ik 23 January 2016 13: 22
        +2
        These are the regulars of social networks hunt for "likes", what to do is the power of habit.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. vlad66
      vlad66 23 January 2016 09: 09
      15
      and also because of the “revival of Russia”,

      Look, it’s so, so mattress warriors should thank a resurgent Russia, thanks to us, these warriors began to receive additional funding, won’t change their minds to attack aircraft, and in 2012-13, the warrior also reduced the budget in the mattress military department, and then Russia returned, and here rubbing their raking hands at the Pentagon.
    3. Misha Honest
      Misha Honest 23 January 2016 09: 46
      +4
      Quote: Ami du peuple
      And the congressmen will be smarter than the American military, who in all seriousness were going to replace the "multipurpose" F-35 by an attack aircraft.

      Congressmen are just a toad strangling. Although, if you compare the F-35 with the A-10 in terms of price and quality, I don’t blame them. laughing
    4. killganoff
      killganoff 23 January 2016 11: 11
      -12 qualifying.
      For general information.
      The Russian PAK-FA (T-50) in the Russian Ministry of Defense is seen as a promising replacement for the entire available range of aircraft: from a front-line bomber and fighter to an attack aircraft.
      1. samoletil18
        samoletil18 23 January 2016 12: 46
        +7
        Judging by the planned circulation is not considered
      2. Sid.74
        Sid.74 23 January 2016 13: 40
        +6
        Quote: killganoff
        It is considered as a promising replacement for the entire existing nomenclature of aviation: from the front bomber and fighter to attack aircraft.

        What kind of nonsense ... The aircraft is being developed to replace the Su-27, T-50 Russian multipurpose fighter the fifth generation.
    5. beer-youk
      beer-youk 23 January 2016 14: 41
      +1
      Everything is just like on a collective farm! The parliamentarians, unlike the military, do not saw a dime from this replacement, so they look sensibly at the situation.
    6. gIloT
      gIloT 23 January 2016 18: 18
      +3
      I agree to 100. The Warthog is one of the most efficient American aircraft. Maybe the 35th will cope with similar tasks, but it will be much more expensive. A-10 - cheap and cheerful.
    7. kodxnumx
      kodxnumx 24 January 2016 19: 27
      0
      Quote: Ami du peuple
      Parliamentarians believe that "multi-purpose combat aircraft are not always able to replace a heavily armored attack aircraft, hitting targets from low altitudes."

      And the congressmen will be smarter than the American military, who in all seriousness were going to replace the "multipurpose" F-35 by an attack aircraft.

      It’s just that they saw how our SU-25s are working on the IG, so they came to the conclusion that they are stupidly running ahead of the engine! But only one of them admits that thanks to Russia they understood this!
  2. 33 Watcher
    33 Watcher 23 January 2016 08: 26
    10
    We looked at the work of the "good old" Su-25s in Syria, and thought: And we, our fools, almost wrote off. And that's what it is, it still works, and how it works ..! yes
    1. gjv
      gjv 23 January 2016 08: 36
      15
      Quote: Observer 33
      And we, our fools, were almost written off. And there it is, it still works, and how it works ..!

      The US Air Force published an amusing picture-table of the middle age and readiness of its fleet.

      And an entertaining comment on the high availability of the B-52H
      “... comes from the original engineering and simplistic design of the weapon system. Most of the subsystems are based on 1970s technology. This provides for easier troubleshooting and more efficient / effective repairs. ”
      [“... achieved by original engineering solutions and a simplified weapon system design. Most subsystems are based on 1970s technology. This provides easier troubleshooting and more efficient repairs. ”]
      And a visual aid on repair technologies ... bully
      1. 33 Watcher
        33 Watcher 23 January 2016 08: 49
        +7
        Yeah, finally realized that by means of tape and VDhi miracles can be done ..! But they don’t succeed like ours, hands and heads are neither. Although let’s study, I will later for them (after 5 years, so as not to overload it with information), I’ll open the pliers and the mounting knife. Well, probably, with a laptop, it doesn’t work either, it's not that thing laughing laughing laughing
        1. samoletil18
          samoletil18 23 January 2016 09: 11
          +1
          And sledgehammers at the price of a gold analogue they vparit, let the efficiency and terms of repair become top-level.
        2. GRAY
          GRAY 23 January 2016 10: 16
          +6
          Quote: Observer 33
          But they don’t succeed like ours, hands and heads are neither.

          And there is no blue electrical tape - savages.
          1. gjv
            gjv 23 January 2016 11: 37
            +2
            Quote: GRAY
            And there is no blue electrical tape - savages.

            Plus, because I liked the funny joke. bully
            However, in fact, you are wrong, in nature these bandos have both blue and other colors of electrical tape. request

            Insulation tape 3M Temflex ™ 1300
            1. GRAY
              GRAY 23 January 2016 14: 05
              +3
              Quote: gjv
              However, in fact, you are wrong, in nature these bandos have both blue and other colors of electrical tape.

              Not for the sake of a flood of damned, but for the sake of fun. hi
              From the point of view of a Russian person, the presence of blue electrical tape in the device indicates a creative approach to repair or the presence, in the device, of non-documented functions. It is not enough to have a blue electrical tape, you also need to have unconventional thinking in order to use it wisely.
              Here is an example (hypothetical):
              The bourgeois made a video on the impossible conditions.

              But what happened on this topic from the guys from Novosibirsk.
              1. gjv
                gjv 23 January 2016 15: 16
                0
                Quote: GRAY
                for fun. From the point of view of a Russian person

                + It's hard to disagree.
    2. Same lech
      Same lech 23 January 2016 09: 03
      +4
      the building is full of holes ... and its gun works well against Aboriginal people.

      1. novobranets
        novobranets 23 January 2016 09: 38
        14
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        building holes well

        The A-10 was conceived as an anti-tank weapon. A rotary cannon with a barrel almost five meters long, accelerates the projectile at a breakneck speed, and pierces the tank's upper armor like paper, like some kind of brick-adobe houses. For all its ridiculous appearance, the Thunderbolt is not a bad weapon.
        1. engineer74
          engineer74 23 January 2016 10: 38
          0
          When I see A-10, I remember the movie "Heaven Submits to Him" smile

          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. APASUS
          APASUS 23 January 2016 10: 43
          +5
          Everything is fine, of course, but this papelats works only in the absence of enemy air defenses. It’s wonderful to drive the natives, but Russia was also mentioned in the comments. I understand that they were going to scare us
          1. novobranets
            novobranets 23 January 2016 18: 11
            +1
            Quote: APASUS
            All of course is good, but this papelats works only in the absence of enemy air defense.

            Of course, like any other attack aircraft operating at low altitudes. Amy, for all their unbearable nature, are not idiots, at least not all, and can upgrade the old man by hanging a container with portable air defense countermeasures. The bad news is that for these "chainsaws" they have enough pilots with combat experience, which in some circumstances can become a kind of problem. And they will be tortured to frighten us, ours and not such shawls tore.
  3. Lyapis
    Lyapis 23 January 2016 08: 27
    20
    If we put aside the reasons, then we can say that this is an extremely correct act. The idea of ​​replacing the A-10 with a light "Scorpion" or, in general, with the F-35 is difficult to call otherwise than moronic ...request
  4. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 23 January 2016 08: 29
    +1
    How is the A-10 planned to be used against a developed military country like Russia? Yes, it will be shot down 1000 times by military air defense or fighters before it gets close to our tanks and equipment (after all, it was precisely to destroy military equipment that the United States was afraid of the USSR tank blitzkrieg 2 days before the La Manche, and therefore they built the A-10).
    1. AlexTires
      AlexTires 23 January 2016 08: 37
      +9
      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
      Yes, his 1000 times will be shot down by military air defense or fighters before he gets close to our tanks and equipment

      For American pilots who are ready to fly to the positions of our troops - without clinking glasses!
      1. bocsman
        bocsman 23 January 2016 09: 00
        +3
        If we put aside the causes, then we can say that this is an exclusively correct act.

        And what, someone really thinks that the Yusovtsy will seriously attack Russian troops at low altitudes?

        How is the A-10 planned to be used against a developed military country like Russia? Yes, he will be shot down 1000 times by military air defense or fighters before he gets close to our tanks and equipment.

        For American pilots who are ready to fly to the positions of our troops - without clinking glasses!

        There are no examples of this, how many valiant pin. Dosas fought against a defenseless enemy and, tail-tailing, sat quietly in a corner, chewing a rag, meeting a serious rebuff! So the news is good for unicellular from the EU and New Khazaria.
    2. Haettenschweiler
      Haettenschweiler 23 January 2016 08: 43
      +9
      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
      How is the A-10 planned to be used against a developed military country like Russia? Yes, it will be shot down 1000 times by military air defense or fighters before it gets closer to our tanks and equipment (after all, it was precisely to destroy military equipment that the United States was afraid of the USSR tank blitz cry 2 days before the La Manche, and therefore they built the A-10).


      - Apparently, other machines will deal with air defense systems. The first wave, in theory, will mow out the air defense points, the second wave, consisting of A-10 and similar vehicles, will work on armored vehicles and people. Actually, when it was created against the Soviet armored horde, how do you think it was supposed to be used? Kamikaze pilots? It is doubtful.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 23 January 2016 09: 00
        +3
        Quote: Haettenschweiler
        - Apparently, other machines will deal with air defense systems. The first wave, in theory, will mow out the air defense points, the second wave, consisting of A-10 and similar vehicles, will work on armored vehicles and people.

        That's just the point, the USSR probably kept all NATO military airfields at gunpoint, and in case of war medium-range missiles would fly there: Pioneers, Temp-S, etc. It is unlikely that they would have managed to raise planes into the air. And in principle, there could be no nuclear war with the USA.
      2. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 23 January 2016 09: 18
        +6
        Quote: Haettenschweiler
        First wave

        As soon as it rises into the air ... remember how our radars from the Moscow Region recorded an imitation of a target launched from an aircraft carrier spotted. The first blow can be delivered by units of planes that supposedly patrol the air borders, but there is a difficult choice for them ... to hit missiles, to hit airfields or command posts? As soon as the average number of aircraft is exceeded, our interceptors will already be in the air. You have to live next to two airfields on Kola in order to get used to the massive rise of MiGs and SU-24. Imagine a conveyor: every three minutes it takes off above the city at a minimum height with an uncleaned chassis.
    3. WUA 518
      WUA 518 23 January 2016 08: 43
      +3
      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
      Yes, it will be hit 1000 times by military air defense or fighter jets

      Based on this statement, in the presence of air defense of aviation, one does not need to fly into the air at all.
      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
      because it was precisely for the destruction of military equipment

      Any military equipment is created to destroy enemy equipment.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 23 January 2016 08: 56
        0
        Quote: WUA 518

        Any military equipment is created to destroy enemy equipment.

        But now it is often used to destroy pickups with machine guns in the back, it can hardly be called military equipment. All the same, military equipment is primarily armored equipment: tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, etc. etc..
        1. WUA 518
          WUA 518 23 January 2016 09: 04
          +4
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          pickup trucks with machine guns in the back,

          Well, you can do business with these jihad mobiles as well. Moreover, to destroy them you do not need something high-tech, you can do it the old fashioned way, with cast-iron.
          1. Lt. Air Force stock
            Lt. Air Force stock 23 January 2016 09: 10
            0
            Quote: WUA 518

            Well, you can do business with these jihad mobiles as well. Moreover, to destroy them you do not need something high-tech, you can do it the old fashioned way, with cast-iron.

            Against pickups, it is much more economical to use drones, the same traitors or rippers.
        2. psiho117
          psiho117 23 January 2016 14: 11
          -2
          Even to destroy cyclists bully there is such a video - the poor thing's head burst like a watermelon ...

          Well, by the way, our helicopter pilots in Afghanistan also played "football" with the front landing gear ... whose head will fly off further.
      2. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 23 January 2016 08: 58
        0
        Quote: WUA 518
        Based on this statement, in the presence of air defense of aviation, one does not need to fly into the air at all.

        Except for nuclear weapons. That anti-aircraft defense can only be carried out with anti-radar missiles, but here the one who has more anti-aircraft missiles or anti-radar will win.
        1. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 23 January 2016 09: 35
          0
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          That air defense can be made

          electronic warfare systems. When this system is squeezed to the size of a warhead, V.V. will not need to, a cruise missile flies at a minimum and leaves the 20 km zone from burnt electronics with a range of 2000-km.
          1. Lt. Air Force stock
            Lt. Air Force stock 23 January 2016 11: 09
            0
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            V.V will not be necessary, a cruise missile flies at a minimum and leaves a 20 km zone of burnt electronics with a range of 2000 km.

            You won’t burn military electronics, it is protected from various kinds of influences.
      3. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 23 January 2016 09: 24
        +2
        Quote: WUA 518
        Based on this statement, in the presence of aviation defense

        one should pray and pray when approaching the air defense coverage area. You can recall: Sevastopol - the floating battery "Carry my God", the air defense of Moscow, when Pe-3 worked on the distant approaches, Three strips of anti-aircraft batteries with searchlights (searchlights shot down six German aircraft, blinding the pilots), Single-engine night and day fighters and heights of 4 km. The Germans could not understand how the Russians were able to raise the balloons by 4 km. And ours. when the first balloon lifted the critical mass of the cable by 2 km, the end of the cable was hooked to the next one and a two-story balloon system was obtained.
  5. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 23 January 2016 08: 30
    11
    From a military point of view, they are doing the right thing. There is military equipment, including aviation, which has served for decades, and it serves with great benefit. A-10, if I'm not mistaken, is 40 years old, but it has proven itself very well and can serve for a long time. Our Su-25 ("Rook") is the same (since 1975), but it serves well and will continue to serve.
  6. AlexTires
    AlexTires 23 January 2016 08: 34
    +4
    In fact, they wanted to organize a new cut for cancellation, but the crisis confused all the plans - the dough for cutting is not enough. And completely without planes to remain zapadlo. The plane is not bad, although it cannot be compared with Drying ...
    1. 0255
      0255 23 January 2016 12: 21
      +3
      Quote: AlexTires
      In fact, they wanted to organize a new cut for cancellation, but the crisis confused all the plans - the dough for cutting is not enough. And completely without planes to remain zapadlo. The plane is not bad, although it cannot be compared with Drying ...

      Maybe it's enough to call everything Western "saw cut"? Their army is strong and efficient, with combat experience, numerically superior to the Russian one, equipped with the latest technology. American bases in South Korea, the Baltics, Poland and other countries of the former Warsaw Pact - is this also a cut?
  7. avva2012
    avva2012 23 January 2016 08: 43
    0
    It may be as good as an airplane, but purely outwardly, an urban freak.
    And it's not about aesthetics. Our "rook", too, was not created for a beauty contest. Something, in him, awkward.
    Feeling of miscarriage. They wanted something worthwhile, but there was not enough time or money (water had previously been diverted).
    1. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 23 January 2016 09: 37
      0
      Quote: avva2012
      Wanted something worthwhile

      but it turned out "Henschel 117"
  8. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 23 January 2016 08: 43
    +4
    So the dumb Americans realized that the armored attack aircraft was the king of the battlefield. But only on condition of gaining air supremacy. Provided that the air defense is more serious than Iraq or Yugoslav, such aircraft are doomed to high losses. Well, the massive use of MANPADS and over the battlefield will cause such attack aircraft a lot of trouble.
  9. gergi
    gergi 23 January 2016 08: 45
    +5
    Airplane is not bad. Hassle can deliver a lot. Do not have time to write off, annoyingly, but okay. Thank you for the reviving Russia. We will try not to disappoint the Americans.
    1. gjv
      gjv 23 January 2016 08: 55
      +2
      Quote: gergi
      Thank you for reborn Russia

      Our BTA pilots fly around the new IL-76MD-90A transporter




    2. gjv
      gjv 23 January 2016 08: 58
      +3
      Quote: gergi
      Thank you for reborn Russia

      The 559th Bomber Aviation Regiment was re-equipped with front-line bombers of the new production of the Novosibirsk Aviation Plant in 34-2013, receiving 2015 of these aircraft (36th, 4th and 5th production series aircraft), which are equipped with all three regiment squadrons . Currently, the 6th Aviation Regiment is the largest operator of Su-559 aircraft in the Russian Aerospace Forces.
  10. Strashila
    Strashila 23 January 2016 08: 48
    +2
    Business and nothing more.
    The most basic ... the generals kept their seats ... i.e. service and money.
    The machine is not bad, but it was prepared for recycling, therefore, repair was minimized ... but there was no question of modernization.
    Now, in order to lead to today's realities, it will be necessary to specifically invest in modernization ... there simply is no heir in this segment of aviation, no one thought about it.
    And again money ... money and money again.
    1. WUA 518
      WUA 518 23 January 2016 08: 57
      +1
      Quote: Strashila
      about modernization and no question.

      In 2013, they upgraded to the level of A-10C. And in Congress last year, the majority supported the A-10.
    2. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 23 January 2016 09: 16
      +2
      Quote: Strashila
      The machine is not bad, but it was prepared for recycling, therefore, repair was minimized ... but there was no question of modernization.

      She was prepared for conservation, not disposal.
  11. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 23 January 2016 08: 49
    0
    It's time to save money and roll out a long-forgotten technique. It can be seen that the Americans have long been living very hard, but for some reason they dybilo smile everywhere they are being shot, but there is little fun.
  12. Sergey Vladimirovich
    Sergey Vladimirovich 23 January 2016 08: 51
    0
    An attack aircraft is an aircraft used mainly for conducting hostilities in direct contact with the enemy ... At the mention of Russia, vague doubts began to torment ... If they did not gather, then, like min, they seriously do not exclude such a possibility. An interesting "movie" is taking shape.
  13. fa2998
    fa2998 23 January 2016 08: 56
    +2
    Quote: rotmistr60
    From a military point of view, they are doing the right thing.

    Yes, and the horror story about ISIS and Russia is PR. Most likely the military insisted! NO fighter will replace the attack aircraft, well-protected and with a good gun. Here they will make a new plane, this will be written off.
    Under Khrushchev, we decided to get rid of the attack aircraft, and assign the support of the troops to the MiG-15 and 17. It did not grow together! hi
  14. Alexander 3
    Alexander 3 23 January 2016 08: 57
    +1
    A beautiful plane flies beautifully, and a terrible tank shoots terribly.
    1. glasha3032
      glasha3032 23 January 2016 15: 57
      0
      He is not scary, he is DAMAGED.
  15. Ros 56
    Ros 56 23 January 2016 08: 58
    +1
    Parliamentarians believe that "multi-purpose combat aircraft are not always able to replace a heavily armored attack aircraft, hitting targets from low altitudes."



    In my opinion, all this is nonsense, simply, the F-35 did not live up to expectations in terms of price or quality, and nobody needs expensive junk. Well, who admits that billions on the development of the F-35 have been wasted. There are sheep like us in the government, they will find a bunch of reasons to justify their worthlessness. They are all capable of only one thing, to fill their pockets, crisis, not crisis, they are on the drum. That's all, nothing new.
  16. Masya masya
    Masya masya 23 January 2016 09: 06
    +5
    "The US military leadership has revised plans to decommission the A-10 attack aircraft in connection with active hostilities in the Middle East, as well as because of the 'revival of Russia'," Air Force Chief of Staff David Goldfein reports to TASS. "
    Was Russia, is and will be ... Always ...
  17. shinobi
    shinobi 23 January 2016 09: 10
    +3
    The warthog is not perfect, but very good. His not retirement means that the Yankes project of intellectual and technical superiority has safely burst. All their "new items" are worse than the "obsolete" proven old men of their own military-industrial complex. The US Army is only MASS MEDIA.
    1. Ros 56
      Ros 56 23 January 2016 14: 30
      0
      Quote: shinobi
      US strong only in the media


      This is what I have long suspected, one of the main weapons of the states, if not the most important thing, is to beat the show off. As they say - good show-offs, the same money, and in life it is all the time.
  18. samoletil18
    samoletil18 23 January 2016 09: 18
    0
    Since they retain the A-10 because of Russia, the question arises: why did they come up against our air defense and air forces that they are not afraid? And I'm not kidding, I somehow do not like it in an adult way.
    1. Ros 56
      Ros 56 23 January 2016 14: 35
      0
      Quote: samoletil18
      why did they come up against our air defense and air forces,


      And most likely, they did not come up with anything, just an elementary thing, there is nothing to replace.
  19. Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 23 January 2016 09: 23
    0
    Now the new trend "Reviving Russia" is a super-scare for yourself. By the way, the trend is from the word tryndet! which means a new tank factory ... Now a golden rain will fall on the military, and Russia is to blame for the wrong time reviving. By the way, if somewhere in a bar a couple of American martyrs lose their teeth, at least this will also happen due to the revival of Russia.
  20. pts-m
    pts-m 23 January 2016 09: 23
    -3
    The praise of the technique of the adversary does not suit the "patriots", it is a pity the article uk is canceled.
    1. Ros 56
      Ros 56 23 January 2016 14: 36
      0
      Quote: PTS-m
      sorry article uk canceled.


      Did you understand what you wrote?
  21. GeorgeSev85
    GeorgeSev85 23 January 2016 09: 29
    +1
    Quote: The same Lech
    the building is full of holes ... and its gun works well against Aboriginal people.



    Yes, and in his own way he works well, so to speak "fratricidium" ...
    Well, in fact, the GAU-8 gun is really good, only the shells have a core of
    depleted uranium which is very harmful to human health, Iraq and the Balkans are an example.

    1. psiho117
      psiho117 23 January 2016 14: 24
      0
      Quote: GeorgeSev85
      ... only the shells have a core of
      depleted uranium which is very harmful to human health, Iraq and the Balkans are an example.

      War in general is harmful ... they die on it.
      And for the military, all the damage from heavy metal pollution is leveled off by a double striking ability.
      In general, Americans do not bother with these poisonous shells; what is they - they will not lie in their land, why worry?
  22. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 23 January 2016 09: 38
    +1
    Some loyal Amer got caught. "Reviving Russia". Usually they write"Aggressive","Revisionist","Threatening".
  23. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 23 January 2016 10: 02
    0
    Or maybe we should pay attention to IL-102 modernization and all that, although I think I’ve lost the crisis and the car was interesting.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 23 January 2016 11: 11
      +1
      Unless for export.
    2. Ros 56
      Ros 56 23 January 2016 14: 38
      0
      Quote: Siberia 9444
      and her interesting car in 1991 exhibited


      Or maybe dig a stone ax, why are you guys?
      1. Siberia 9444
        Siberia 9444 23 January 2016 16: 35
        0
        And what's in it stone! Heavy attack aircraft hi
        1. Ros 56
          Ros 56 23 January 2016 18: 45
          0
          Quote: Siberia 9444
          And what's in it stone! Heavy attack aircraft


          And the stone in it is that in order to launch it in a series, more than one year will pass, the development of 82 g.
          There are no economic prerequisites for replacement.
          And finally there is Su 39, based on Su 25, well, it makes no sense.
          By the way, I completely forgot, in terms of dimensions, it’s easier to get into it.
  24. LvKiller
    LvKiller 23 January 2016 10: 39
    0
    Well, who are they going to scare?
  25. 31rus
    31rus 23 January 2016 10: 46
    +2
    Dear, everything has been written for a long time, to fight ISIS, what you need, for a war with Russia, the flag is in your hands when equipping our air defense troops, the Americans are all in the "clouds flying", well, that's good, we'll land quickly
  26. shura7782
    shura7782 23 January 2016 16: 59
    0
    And 10 is a good car if there is no air defense nearby. If there is air defense, then the Americans would prefer to work on our Rooks. That’s the whole story.
  27. project sity
    project sity 23 January 2016 17: 17
    +1
    The US military leadership has revised plans to decommission the A-10 attack aircraft in connection with active hostilities in the Middle East, as well as because of the "revival of Russia"
    The fuckers! Nothing more to add ....
  28. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 24 January 2016 05: 53
    0
    The car is good and they made the right decision, they would have used to modernize the a-10, in general it would not have had a price.
  29. anid
    anid 24 January 2016 14: 44
    0
    Cover the a-10 with the latest stealth paint and the pilot's "miracle helmet" ....