|
Posts: 7684
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:40 am
$1: Officials told the Times that Hagel's plan has been endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and protects funding for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. It also calls for the Navy to maintain all 11 of its aircraft carriers currently in operation. However, the budget proposal mandates the elimination of the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft, as well as the retiring of the U-2 spy plane, a stalwart of Cold War operations.
The A-10 seems to have a bullseye painted on its back
|
Posts: 7835
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:00 am
NOOOOOOOOO! Not the A-10! Seriously, the plane is a sexy beast.
|
Posts: 9445
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:11 am
With the moves Putin is making the Cold War is back in business.
|
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:18 pm
Wow, cutting 100,000 from the military. That's a lot of vets with a specific skill set.
|
Posts: 7684
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:42 pm
commanderkai commanderkai: NOOOOOOOOO! Not the A-10! Seriously, the plane is a sexy beast. Not to mention ridiculously survivable and effective in its role. I'd like to see the F-35 absorb 57mm cannon fire and keep on trucking.
|
Posts: 19926
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:16 pm
commanderkai commanderkai: NOOOOOOOOO! Not the A-10! Seriously, the plane is a sexy beast. They must be phasing it out because it's combat and cost effective.
|
Posts: 13404
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:55 pm
Those Navy carrier groups are the key to their power.
Now, if our own government could figure out the potential flexibility, mobility of the Navy and how relatively easy it is to project power from quality ships ...
|
Posts: 65472
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:34 pm
Jabberwalker Jabberwalker: Those Navy carrier groups are the key to their power. Maybe that's why Obozo wants the Navy cut down to four carrier groups.
|
Posts: 7835
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:43 pm
I don't see the A-10 going anywhere. It'll be the B-52 of CAS aircraft, existing for decades upon decades.
|
Posts: 13404
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:45 pm
I'll bet that at any given time, you have at least 3 carrier groups at sea, all in or near potential trouble spots ... the Strait of Hormuz, The Med., The South China Sea, for example. Ha anyone told him that to keep a continuous presence, you will need something like 8-9 carriers ... for every one at sea, one in work-up and one in re-fit. You might be able to push it to 6 or 7 but not without diminishing your reach pretty substantially and kicking the crap out of your personnel.
|
Posts: 7684
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:44 pm
Carriers are being left alone for now, but many authors seem to write as if the USN still had 11 CVN's.
They're already down to 10, and apparently George Washington's refuelling has not been funded.
11 Guided Missile Cruisers, half the cruiser force, will be mothballed.
All three services are being "Obummered".
|
Posts: 65472
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:53 pm
saturn_656 saturn_656: Carriers are being left alone for now, but many authors seem to write as if the USN still had 11 CVN's.
They're already down to 10, and apparently George Washington's refuelling has not been funded. We're effectively down to six carriers right now given that four of the ten you cited are alongside at Bremerton and Newport News awaiting various services.
|
Posts: 42160
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:04 pm
close down most foreign bases, and invest the savings in carrier groups which are essentially mobile bases that can project American power anywhere in the world within a week or two. Subic Bay should be kept for operations in eastern Asia and the western Pacific. The Japanese should also be encouraged to build up and counter the Chinese, Norks and Russians.
|
Posts: 7684
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:09 pm
Subic Bay was shut down in '92.
|
|
Page 1 of 3
|
[ 41 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests |
|
|