<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Going Whole Hog</title> <atom:link href="http://defensetech.org/2007/04/19/going-whole-hog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/04/19/going-whole-hog/</link> <description>The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:49:00 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Marc de Villiers</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/04/19/going-whole-hog/#comment-159911</link> <dc:creator>Marc de Villiers</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2007 08:20:34 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2463#comment-159911</guid> <description>I am a full time ADA Gunner in the South African National Defence Force with the rank Sgt Major 1st class as a expert in Aircraft recognition and the A10 is the best CAS aircraft in the world, the Apache comes in second but is not in the same league. The thought that people that are not involved in combat make decisions to withdraw such a aircraft make soldiers worldwide sick. Put them on the frontline and see what there reaction would be. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a full time ADA Gunner in the South African National Defence Force with the rank Sgt Major 1st class as a expert in Aircraft recognition and the A10 is the best CAS aircraft in the world, the Apache comes in second but is not in the same league. The thought that people that are not involved in combat make decisions to withdraw such a aircraft make soldiers worldwide sick. Put them on the frontline and see what there reaction would be.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Bryan</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/04/19/going-whole-hog/#comment-159910</link> <dc:creator>Bryan</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:42:45 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2463#comment-159910</guid> <description>Let</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: guy</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/04/19/going-whole-hog/#comment-159909</link> <dc:creator>guy</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:00:31 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2463#comment-159909</guid> <description>I have seen many aircraft come and go in my lifetime but none as wonderful or as capeable in there ability to complete a mission, i have seen these planes come back shredded but they came back with there pilots untouched no other plane since has had this capability, it&#039;s good to see others have noticed it&#039;s vital roll in our military. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have seen many aircraft come and go in my lifetime but none as wonderful or as capeable in there ability to complete a mission, i have seen these planes come back shredded but they came back with there pilots untouched no other plane since has had this capability, it’s good to see others have noticed it’s vital roll in our military.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: K L Rogers</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/04/19/going-whole-hog/#comment-159908</link> <dc:creator>K L Rogers</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:01:27 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2463#comment-159908</guid> <description>I don&#039;t see why the USMC &amp; the ARMY &amp; the AIR FORCE can&#039;t all have the ugly buzzards...Put them back into production and spread em&#039; around so our troops get the CAS when they need it. The AF can still pop-a-top on tanks as well as CAS, but the main idea is to keep top cover for our troops when the need is greatest. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don’t see why the USMC &amp; the ARMY &amp; the AIR FORCE can’t all have the ugly buzzards…Put them back into production and spread em’ around so our troops get the CAS when they need it. The AF can still pop-a-top on tanks as well as CAS, but the main idea is to keep top cover for our troops when the need is greatest.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: joe h.</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/04/19/going-whole-hog/#comment-159907</link> <dc:creator>joe h.</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:09:58 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2463#comment-159907</guid> <description>served for many years in the army, and for C.A.S, there is nothing like the A-10. primarily, its ability to &quot;loiter&quot;( to fly with a lot of flap at slow speed and just hang out a couple of ridges away) means that air supp is always just half a minute away. secondly...well...it IS just an armored flying gun that can also drop bombs,fire missles, and peel open tanks like a can opener. finally is the survivability factor(the pilot sits in a 6&quot; thick tub of armor), and hey, how many planes can lose one of two engines, half a tail, and 1/3rd of both wings and still make its way home to roost?   it was always the best, and will remain so ( a flying gun platform that knows no fear...kinda like its big brother...you know...the spectre gunship!)              i wish the A.F. would give it  to the army and let them run with it.....cause we know what we need to improve our forces. upgrade the electronics and targeting....and then LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!!....you can&#039;t mess with...perfection </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>served for many years in the army, and for C.A.S, there is nothing like the A-10. primarily, its ability to “loiter”( to fly with a lot of flap at slow speed and just hang out a couple of ridges away) means that air supp is always just half a minute away. secondly…well…it IS just an armored flying gun that can also drop bombs,fire missles, and peel open tanks like a can opener. finally is the survivability factor(the pilot sits in a 6″ thick tub of armor), and hey, how many planes can lose one of two engines, half a tail, and 1/3rd of both wings and still make its way home to roost?   it was always the best, and will remain so ( a flying gun platform that knows no fear…kinda like its big brother…you know…the spectre gunship!)              i wish the A.F. would give it  to the army and let them run with it.….cause we know what we need to improve our forces. upgrade the electronics and targeting.…and then LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!!.…you can’t mess with…perfection</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Ski</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/04/19/going-whole-hog/#comment-159906</link> <dc:creator>Ski</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:56:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2463#comment-159906</guid> <description>The Harrier versus the A-10... Easy choice actually if your a grunt, get ride of that damn Harrier and give the Corps what it needs, the A-10!  Close air support is all a grunt being shot at wants or needs... The Marine Corps should have been given the A-10 1st and foremost anyway.  What does the AF know about close air support after all, AF wants to do is stay home and shoot from silows. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Harrier versus the A-10…<br /> Easy choice actually if your a grunt, get ride of that damn Harrier and give the Corps what it needs, the A-10!  Close air support is all a grunt being shot at wants or needs…<br /> The Marine Corps should have been given the A-10 1st and foremost anyway.  What does the AF know about close air support after all, AF wants to do is stay home and shoot from silows.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: USArmy1998</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/04/19/going-whole-hog/#comment-28289</link> <dc:creator>USArmy1998</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:36:47 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2463#comment-28289</guid> <description>A10 warthog &quot;if it an&#039;t broken don&#039;t fix it&quot; just twek it. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A10 warthog “if it an’t broken don’t fix it” just twek it.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Steve</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/04/19/going-whole-hog/#comment-28288</link> <dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:37:57 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2463#comment-28288</guid> <description>As I recall the A-10 was going to go to the Army back in  the early 80s; that was a key reason I became an Army aviator.  I always wanted to fly the A-10.  Should have followed my buddy&#039;s lead and gone Air Force.  He is (or was) an instructor pilot in the A-10 in AZ. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I recall the A-10 was going to go to the Army back in  the early 80s; that was a key reason I became an Army aviator.  I always wanted to fly the A-10.  Should have followed my buddy’s lead and gone Air Force.  He is (or was) an instructor pilot in the A-10 in AZ.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: PhilLeech</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/04/19/going-whole-hog/#comment-159905</link> <dc:creator>PhilLeech</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:06:57 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2463#comment-159905</guid> <description>I think it would be an excellent idea to give these things to the Army. Afterall, the marines have the Harrier, so what&#039;s the big deal? Airforce brass don&#039;t seem to wnat it, so give it to somebody who does, and that goes for the P51 Turbo-prop as well. The Army&#039;s already proven it can handle propellers - as in heli&#039;s - and they did a pretty good job starting the Airforce! </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it would be an excellent idea to give these things to the Army. Afterall, the marines have the Harrier, so what’s the big deal? Airforce brass don’t seem to wnat it, so give it to somebody who does, and that goes for the P51 Turbo-prop as well. The Army’s already proven it can handle propellers — as in heli’s — and they did a pretty good job starting the Airforce!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: mpm8976</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2007/04/19/going-whole-hog/#comment-159903</link> <dc:creator>mpm8976</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:26:36 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2463#comment-159903</guid> <description>Does anyone remember the Rockwell Turboprop P51 variant that was suggested to augment the A-10.  Cheaper than the A-10 with all the hardware necessary to support the troop on the ground.  I believe the AF nixed it since it was not a jet. I was in the AF in teh early to mid 80&#039;a and remember all the hype about the F-16 being able to replace the A-10. I am glad to see that the A-10 was able to survice all that. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does anyone remember the Rockwell Turboprop P51 variant that was suggested to augment the A-10.  Cheaper than the A-10 with all the hardware necessary to support the troop on the ground.  I believe the AF nixed it since it was not a jet.<br /> I was in the AF in teh early to mid 80’a and remember all the hype about the F-16 being able to replace the A-10.<br /> I am glad to see that the A-10 was able to survice all that.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using apc (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 2/7 queries in 0.004 seconds using apc
Object Caching 743/747 objects using apc
Content Delivery Network via images.defensetech.org

Served from: defensetech.org @ 2012-02-10 01:17:22 -->
