The Chuck Norris of airplanes gets supporter
The Air Force Times reports that the Air Force efforts to rid itself of the venerable A-10 aircraft may have them facing their most formidable opponent – Chuck Norris. The action star writes in the World Net Daily that he intends to do battle with the service branch over their decision to dump the popular aircraft;
Norris disputed ACC chief Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle’s conclusion that the Warthog must be replaced because “those airplanes are gonna wear out.”
“But that statement is true of every airplane in existence, and even the sun!” Norris said. “The question is: Is the fleet of A-10s ready for retirement? I just celebrated my 75th birthday, but I’m nowhere near ready to head to the scrapheap. Some things improve with age, and the A-10 has done just that, too.”
Norris also argued upgrades to the A-10 over the last two decades should extend its life.
Norris noted that some online have referred to the Warthog as “the Chuck Norris of airplanes.” He is selling “Save the A-10” T-shirts online, the proceeds from which will benefit his children’s martial arts charity KickStart Kids.
Of course, the Air Force has nothing to replace the aircraft in the near future, and A-10s are currently deployed and wreaking havoc on ISIS thugs in Iraq and Syria. The F35, which is supposed to fill the role of the A-10, won’t be operational as a ground combat support asset for another 4 years. The Air Force says that it needs another 500 million bucks per year to keep the aircraft alive – so how much are American ground troops’ lives worth?
Category: Air Force
They haven’t retired the B-52, yet. So, the Gerneral’s excuse is invalid.
…or every paratrooper’s favorite USAF aircraft, the venerable C-130.
For that matter, there’s the Army’s CH-47, too.
In aircraft, “old” doesn’t always = “obsolete.”
Sometimes a machine is invented that just flat out WORKS and there’s no need to replace it until it no longer does. Presumably the USAF isn’t keeping those B-52s and C-130’s in the inventory out of any sentimental attachment. 😉
The C-130 is an anomaly. It first flew 61(!) years ago and is still in production. The early models are long gone. The newer models just keep getting better.
CH-47/DC3 are still flying as cargo planes today… may not be in military service any more but they’re still working 80 years after they were introduced.
C-47s are the planes. CH-47s are the helicopters (Chinooks).
Old does not necessarily mean, “there is a replacement”.
A good friend kicked rice (both soft and hard) out of the back of C130s over Laos in the late 1960s. Sturdy, moderate to heavy lift, sturdy, good short field performance, and sturdy. My best friend kicked rice (both soft and hard) out of the back of C47, C119, C123, Porters, and so forth over Laos in the early 1960s.
I think that it is amazing that people can keep rebuilding engines for C47s.
P-51s, P-47s, Corsairs, B-17s and other WWII aircraft still fly.
The Fighter Mafia just don’t like the A-10, it’s not what they think any airplane should be.
Well….let’s be fair, here. Nobody is flying a P51 for ground attack missions and nobody in their right mind is flying a B17 as an actual bomber over a combat zone. Those are preserved for historical purposes, not because they’re practical or effective on a modern battlefield.
People still drive old flivvers and tin lizzy’s from the 1920’s but nobody’s going to make the argument that it’s done for practical reasons or for basic transportation. 😉
Hell, the maintenance alone on those multi-cylinder radial engines is enough to make my head hurt. I don’t know what the ratio of maintenance hours to flying hours is on something like a B-17 but I’d be shocked if it’s less than 10:1.
My point about the C-130, B-52 and CH-47 helicopter was to point out that these are not kept flying for sentimental or historical reasons, these are workhorse airplanes that still do the job they were designed to do more than half a century ago, and do it well. Ditto for the C-47 airplane.
Yeah, I guess I could have left that reference to WWII aircraft out of my post. 🙂
My other point stands, the gen’ruls just don’t like the A-10, it doesn’t go fast enough and doesn’t look like a fighter.
Or, on the weapons side, the Ma Deuce. That thing’s been in service since 1933 and I don’t hear them screaming to replace it.
I thought the MA Deuce was first fielded shortly after WWI?
ALSO, to the MODS: I accidentally clicked on ‘report comment.’ That was a mistake, I meant to click “reply.” Maybe make those buttons further apart from each other? Just a thought.
As well as the 1911 45cal. Maybe no in the military’s service but still being used a lot.
One of my favorites.
I heard the distinctive “WHOMP WHOMP” of a wide rotor over southern AZ this morning. Looked up expecting a Huey, what I saw was a lone Cobra, looking as mean as the day it was born.
I understand that the older a plane gets, the more it costs to keep it flying – but looking at roughly comparable planes: F16 was introed in 1974, still flying. F15 was introed in 1972, still flying. F14, introed 1970, retired 36 years later in 2006. Seems like the A10 should have at least another 15 years of life, especially considering how ruggedly they are built?
While your supposition that older airplanes require more maintenance is correct, the flip side is that the A-10 is cheaper per flying hour than anything that can do the same job or designed to do the same job in the future.
See this Time article which references data at the second link:
http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/
Data as provided by the Air Force:
http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/afcap-data-for-2008-2012.xlsx
In my opinion, it is hard to make the case of getting rid of a plane that the troops love, and that does the job better and cheaper than anything at the Air Force’s disposal.
especially when its replacement is still years away from replacing anything but congressional campaign coffers
‘Some things improve with age.’ – Norris.
Yes, wine, women and cheese.
I have definitely improved with age.
(snnnffffffff)
Yep!
And anyone who says otherwise gets smacked with an empty wine bottle and a wheel of cheese by Ex-PH2.
Except Jeff Dunham’s ‘Walter’ – “My wife’s aging like milk”
Or there’s the one “Women are like cheese, they get sharper with age”
Not that I am referring to you PH2, nope, I’m not that dumb!
Someone please give Chuck Norris a Treason Coin. (see below)
http://flightlines.airforcetimes.com/2015/03/16/treason-patch-coin-poke-fun-at-latest-a-10-controversy/
Closeup view:
http://1qmtep20zn2y32t8u626omqv.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/03/treason-coin.jpg
BRRRRRRRRTT!!
Want!
I read a reddit comment posted by some retired USAF General that talked about how ground pounders should not be telling him, an expert in Air Support, what to bring to the fight as long as he supports the fight.
I am paraphrasing but I was left wondering how that could be since the general had never been in a ground fight. You would think that the ones who knows best what supports thier operation are those in it.
But I was just a captain. What the hell do I know.
Here it is.
http://np.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/2z4dmk/now_the_us_air_force_wants_you_to_believe_the_a10/cpfs3hi?context=3
Well,,, his boss thinks he knows more about war and fighting than all the generals in the service of this country. So he is in good company.
Sarc/off
I love the sound of the wart hawgs flying the skies of Tucson. Dad flew the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker and it’s been in business since the late 50’s. Gunna wear out my patootie.
There are some A-10’s around Southeast Houston somewhere… I love watching them blow over. The engine sounds are wicked!
YES!!! SAVE THE A-10!!!
COLLECT THE ENTIRE SET!!
(oh. sorry. that’s for “save the whales”. my bad)
If Gen Carlisle wasn’t sitting at the top of my chain of command, I would opine that he is probably deep in the pocket of the military industrial complex that is pushing the F35 down the throats of the military and the taxpayers. But being as he sits in such a venerable posting, alas, I cannot say such a thing.
Don’t do it. You’re on the ARCOM list. Moerk lurks.
I can actually understand why the general might not like a bunch of civilians or even non USAF types telling him how to do his job.
Still, the A-10 has capabilities that no other aircraft does particularly in terms of dwell time over the battlefield, survivability and firepower (that awesome 30mm gun.) It seems to me that if DoD wrote a requirement to the USAF and said “this is what the ground support mission needs to do” they could then leave it up to the USAF to determine how best to accomplish that mission.
But the one thing the USAF would NOT be allowed to do is to say “that’s not a valid requirement.” Um, no, that’s not your call to make, Air Force, any more than it’s Private Snuffy’s role to determine whether the latrine needs to be cleaned every day.
If the USAF can hang a 30mm chain gun off the belly of an F-35 and give it the same armor plating and dwell time, and still stay within budget, hey, power to them. But the requirements should be the requirements and right now the A-10 is capable of meeting those requirements.
And until the USAF can field another aircraft that can fulfill ALL of the requirements currently being performed by the A-10, the A-10 should stay in service.
There are certain threat environments where the A-10 would be dead meat. Those environments are not present in today’s wars. The A-10 has had continual upgrades in its capabilities over the years and is more than capable of doing its mission and surviving. Also, the Air Force just spent millions replacing the wings on the jet which were the only part of the airframe that was beginning to show their age. I am retired AF and am aware of the extensive inspections that are performed on these types of aircraft. My resume is on the F-4 and the F-16 but each type of aircraft is thoroughly inspected according to criteria developed for it. They are safe and there is no other aircraft that can do this job as well.
Here’s a different take from a retired Army guy.
Chuck Norris,,, who is she?
Just kidding. I figured someone would have already beaten me to it.
“The Air Force says that it needs another 500 million bucks per year to keep the aircraft alive…”
First they could do things like cutting back on the utilities bill by cutting back on things like air conditioning.
I’m for keeping the A-10, I’m not for taking advice from Hollywood people who have no dog in the fight. I support his efforts, but don’t give a damn about his opinion.
The A-10 Thunderbolt II is a modern day Stuka capable of rendering tanks and SCUDS useless on the battlefield. It’s support of the grunts and gravel crunchers is legendary and I support it as the most cost effective detterent in modern warfare. I see it as a vital piece in today’s and tomorrow’s “Battlespace”. Write your Congressman and Senator to approve Service Life Extention Programs (SLEP) to keep this national treasure viable for use in future conflicts.