A-10 in play as Senate Appropriations Committee drafts FY 2015 NDAA

a-10-warthog-jtacShortly after the July recess, the Senate Appropriations Committee will draft their version of the appropriations bill for the FY15 NDAA, and supporters of the A-10 are rallying support for the low and slow flying aircraft.

According to Jane’s Defense Weekly, the Russians and the Iraqis still think an aircraft that specializes in close air support is worth retaining and is the best aircraft to deal with the threats the Iraqis face from ISIS. “Often described as a ‘flying tank,’ the Su-25 is the Russian equivalent of the US’s much-lauded Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II in that it is designed to loiter over the battlefield with a wide array and heavy load of weaponry to provide close air support (CAS) to troops on the ground.”

At the same time, the United States Air Force is working frantically to kill the plane that the troops on the ground love and trust with their lives.

Earlier this month, through the efforts of Arizona Congressman Ron Barber, the A-10 survived the budget process. An amendment was added to the House’s version of the NDAA, which would prevent the Air Force from spending any money on mothballing or otherwise destroying the aircraft. The entire Arizona congressional delegation joined Barber in support of the A-10 except Ann Kirkpatrick.

Barbara Mikulski Stephen Ham stephen_ham@mikulski.senate.gov (202) 224-4654
Patrick J. Leahy Sherman Patrick sherman_patrick@leahy.senate.gov (202) 224-4242
Tom Harkin Tom Buttry tom_buttry@harkin.senate.gov (202) 224-3254
Patty Murray Adam Goodwin adam_goodwin@murray.senate.gov (202) 224-2621
Dianne Feinstein Christopher Gaspar christopher_gaspar@feinstein.senate.gov (202) 224-3841
Richard J. Durbin Nick Deml nick_deml@durbin.senate.gov (202) 224-2152
Tim Johnson Karen Kunze karen_kunze@johnson.senate.gov (202) 224-5842
Mary L. Landrieu Ross Nodurst ross_nodurst@landrieu.senate.gov (202) 224-5824
Jack Reed Carolyn Chuhta carolyn_chuhta@reed.senate.gov (202) 224-4642
Mark Pryor Chris Sweipzer chris_sweipzer@pryor.senate.gov (202) 224-2353
Jon Tester Jorge Rueda jorge_rueda@tester.senate.gov (202) 224-2644
Tom Udall Matthew Padilla matthew_padilla@udall.senate.gov (202) 224-6621
Jeanne Shaheen Patrick Day patrick_day@shaheen.senate.gov (202) 224-2841
Jeff Merkley Adrian Snead adrian_snead@merkley.senate.gov (202) 224-3753
Mark Begich Cory Turney cory_turney@begich.senate.gov (202) 224 – 3004
Chris Coons Bradley Fultz bradley_fultz@coons.senate.gov (202) 224-5042
Richard C. Shelby Shannon Cantwell shannon_cantwell@shelby.senate.gov (202) 224-5744
Thad Cochran Will Todd will_todd@cochran.senate.gov (202) 224-5054
Mitch McConnell Phil Maxsom phil_maxsom@mcconnell.senate.gov (202) 224-2541
Lamar Alexander Daniel Hale daniel_hale@alexander.senate.gov (202) 224-4944
Susan Collins Jill Carney jill_carney@collins.senate.gov (202) 224-2523
Lisa Murkowski Nathan Bergerbest nathan_bergerbest@murkowski.senate.gov (202) 224-6665
Lindsey Graham Craig Abele craig_abele@graham.senate.gov (202) 224-5972
Mark Kirk Brandon Greene brandon_greene@kirk.senate.gov (202) 224-2854
Dan Coats Jim Dolbow jim_dolbow@coats.senate.gov (202) 224-5623
Roy Blunt Bo Brosch bo_brosch@blunt.senate.gov (202) 224-5721
Jerry Moran Caroline Prosch caroline_prosch@moran.senate.gov (202) 224-6521
John Hoeven Josh Carter josh_carter@hoeven.senate.gov (202) 224-2551
Mike Johanns Jillian Workman jillian_workman@johanns.senate.gov (202) 224-4224
John Boozman Toni-Marie Higgins toni-marie_higgins@boozman.senate.gov (202) 224-4843

 

Related articles:

Ayotte: If the Air Force cut their acquisition failures they could save the A-10

Wooten & A-10 legend to host town halls

Air Force brass taken to task for A-10 mothball plans

Army Vice Chief of Staff says A-10 is a “game changer”

Flake drops A-10 bomb on constituents

1 Comment on "A-10 in play as Senate Appropriations Committee drafts FY 2015 NDAA"

  1. lets look at this way, during the cold war the russians supposedly has massive amounts of armor, which they did but unlike the US they dont give away or destroy old equipment at least at that time anyways. They just kept the stuff in echelon reserve and thus the A10 was born along with the latter AH-1 which primarily was just a gunship. It later evolved into the anti tank role when armed with wire guided ATMs they destroyed a couple of north vietnamese tanks in the north country.

    The russians then developed their sukoi version the frog foot to combat the A10 and its role. Low and slow the A10 is the AF version of the AH-1/AH-64 but they wont admit it. They gotta have high and fast toys. Just watch some old WW2 movies the flying leathernecks and see ow they talk about supporting the mud marines. Army guys are/were much the same, the af wienies, well just think of the movie the Blue Max and there is your comparison.

Comments are closed.