A-10 warplane tops list for friendly-fire deaths

AirForce Times — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:54:11 -0500

From: Air Force Times

The Air Force A-10 attack jet has killed more U.S. troops in friendly fire incidents and more Afghan civilians than any other aircraft flown by the U.S. military, according to data declassified and obtained by USA TODAY.

The close-air-support aircraft has been embroiled in a battle over its survival between hawks on Capitol Hill and the Air Force. To Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others, the jet represents an Air Force commitment to troops engaged in ground combat. To the Pentagon, it's a Cold War relic with no future in a time of tight budgets.

Wednesday, Ashton Carter, President Obama's choice to be Defense secretary, was drawn into the fight to kill or save the Warthog, as it is known. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., a member of the Armed Services Committee, wrested a commitment from Carter to meet with an association of troops and veterans who support the jet.

The A-10 can strike fear in an enemy. Its 30mm cannon can fire as many as 3,900 rounds of depleted uranium shells per minute at targets posing a threat to U.S. ground troops, many of them from the Army. Those bursts can shred the armor on a tank. They can also hit unintended targets.

Since 2001, the A-10 has been involved in four friendly fire incidents that killed 10 U.S. troops. The next highest is the B-1B bomber, which killed five soldiers last year in one incident. Friendly fire deaths are exceptionally rare. There have been 45 total friendly fire incidents out of about 140,000 missions flown by the Air Force, Navy and Marines.

The A-10 is the aircraft responsible for the most civilian deaths in Afghanistan since 2010, when data on those deaths started to be collected. Thirty-five people have been killed compared with 19 killed by the Harrier, data show.

In close-air-support missions in which weapons were dropped in Afghanistan, the A-10 has a slightly lower percentage of civilian casualty incidents per missions flown than B-1 bombers or F-16 fighters. More than 99% of the missions in which warplanes attack enemy ground fighters avoid harm to U.S. troops or civilians.

The Air Force would like to phase out the A-10 by 2019, but pilots still use it. Since August, it has flown 14% of the missions against militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIL.

Its limited range and speed have prevented it from taking part in strikes against Kobani, a senior Air Force official said. The siege on the city by ISIL militants was lifted last week after months of airstrikes, many by the B-1, whose range, speed and payload far exceed the A-10.

The Air Force wants to retire the A-10 and use some of the $4.2 billion savings over five years to pay for crews to maintain the F-35, a costly new warplane that can perform multiple missions, from close-air support to attacking enemy fighters.

"The A-10 has been in service for 40-plus years," said Lt. Col. Chris Karns, an Air Force spokesman. "While the A-10 and its airmen have a long and proud history, fiscal realities and the significant cost savings associated with A-10 divestment are resulting in tough decisions."

The debate continues about the jet's value. Four senior-level Army and Air Force officers spoke to USA TODAY on condition of anonymity because the A-10 issue has become politically charged and the data are sensitive.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, where insurgents blend with average people, avoiding civilian casualties is a paramount goal. Incidents have been used as propaganda by insurgents or have driven a wedge between the U.S. effort and the Afghan government.

"First, you better do no harm," a senior Army officer told USA TODAY. The officer commanded at high levels in Iraq and Afghanistan and, like other senior officers, has seen the A-10s work up close. "I didn't want any stinkin' A-10s flying unless they were going to drop a (satellite-guided bomb) or other precision-guided munition."

Two other senior Army officers, both with combat command experience in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past two years, had more charitable views of the A-10. Both said they understood that automatic budget cuts known as sequestration, which occurred two years ago and are scheduled again for October, forced the Air Force to make tough choices. The sight of the slow-moving jet above a battlefield and the guttural sound of its gun can reassure troops facing enemy fire, they said.

For pilots and ground troops, "the most important thing is for the platform to get there and provide support," said Brig. Gen. Patrick Malachowski, a former A-10 pilot and expert on close air support. "If time is an issue and you need to get there quickly, then the A-10 is not the preferred platform."

The best aircraft for a mission depends on the threat, Malachowski said. All of the aircraft the Air Force uses for close air support work well, he said.

The Project on Government Oversight, a non-partisan group, wants the Air Force to release more data about the performance of aircraft in close-air-support missions, said Mandy Smithberger, a military analyst with the group. POGO would like to see the Government Accountability Office conduct an audit to determine which plane is superior for close air support.

"It's not about not liking or not wanting the A-10," Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff, said. "It's about some very tough decisions that we have to make to recapitalize an Air Force for the threat 10 years from now."

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/05/a-10-warplane-tops-list-for-friendly-fire-deaths/22949239/

Response by SPC Ryan D. made Feb 6 at 2015 10:25 AM

SPC Ryan D. — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 10:25:27 -0500

Last time I checked, the A-10's didn't fly themselves.

Using the argument that this aircraft is responsible for those deaths, and not the actual pilots or the controllers calling them in, is very misleading and unfortunate.

This aircraft, next to the apache, IMO is the best close air support troops have on the battlefield today.

I hope the A-10 stays in play for as long as possible.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Feb 6 at 2015 10:25 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 10:25:53 -0500

CAS platform engages in CAS. Film at eleven. In other news, water is wet.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Feb 6 at 2015 10:45 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 10:45:51 -0500

$hit happens in combat. Whiz-bang modern gadgetry is not going to change that. We have folks in politics who've never been there, and done that and understand that Murphy is in the treeline and that accidents are ALWAYS going to happen....

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2015 1:23 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 13:23:03 -0500

The A-10 is a fantastic ground attack aircraft. I would like to see money going towards improving upon the A-10's already potently lethal platform rather than dumping billions more into the F-35 program. I believe that dedicated air superiority/ground attack aircraft will always trump "universal/multi-roll" aircraft when performing their missions. If the money that has been spent on the F-35 had instead been spent on improving upon or developing aircraft with a specific purpose in mind, who knows what kind of advancements and improvements we may have made.

Response by SPC John Decker made Feb 8 at 2015 2:13 PM

SPC John Decker — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 14:13:30 -0500

First. How many other aircraft has the PRIMARY mission of close-air-support. The very concept of close air support indicates the there will be military personnel and/or civilians in relative proximity, thereby increasing the likelihood of friendly fire and/or collateral casualties.

Response by Sgt Francis Santa-Teresa made Feb 8 at 2015 2:40 PM

Sgt Francis Santa-Teresa — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 14:40:13 -0500

Same liberal mentality regarding guns....blame the plane, not the pilot. How dumb!!!

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Feb 8 at 2015 2:48 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 14:48:09 -0500

Looks like a classic case of comparing Apples and Tomatoes. We just don't have another platform that is flying a similar enough mission, often enough to really draw any useful data. Friendly Fire happens. Sometimes it is the Pilot, some times it is the TACP/Forward Air Control, sometime is bad radios, there is a whole list of things that can go wrong to lead to one. The Platform in and of itself is the smallest of those factors.

Response by CW2 Geoff Lachance made Feb 8 at 2015 3:12 PM

CW2 Geoff Lachance — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 15:12:03 -0500

One of the most comforting sights for a ground trooper. There'll be a lot more deaths without them!

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Feb 8 at 2015 3:23 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 15:23:43 -0500

PR dribble at it's most despicable. Let's blame the very airframe we are hell bent on eliminating from the inventory and blame it for friendly fire. The A-10 is just a tool used by troops, very often in the deepest of poop. Artillery is more unpredictable for danger close missions so those A-10's get the call. We had friendly fire incidents with my own beloved OH-58Ds. When they are cleared hot and the danger of CAS in conveyed, there will always be incidents of friendly fire in lenghty conflicts. I promise you that the reason the A-10 is so revered and fought for is because of the incredible success stories offered by the very people ON THE GROUND IN CONTACT. For slamming our A-10, I award the bean counters and nay-sayers who orchestrated this report the only combat badge they are fit to wear.....

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Feb 8 at 2015 9:08 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 21:08:39 -0500

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p7s73ceVRGI&feature=youtu.be

Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) interview on the merits of the A-10 "Warthog"

In this interview, Air Force Technical Sergeant Robert Gutierrez discusses a firefight, in which he directed A-10 "Warthogs" from the ground against enemy ta...

Response by A1C Gregory Beckham made Feb 8 at 2015 10:26 PM

A1C Gregory Beckham — Sun, 08 Feb 2015 22:26:18 -0500

Let's look at the big picture here.

If the stat was, "Which firearm caused the most blue on blue situations?" What would the answer be?

Are we going to stop using the M-16 now?

Further more, I've never been in combat but I could see a situation where the plane is taking hours to arrive, Marines see an opening in enemy ranks, and assume they have time to get in and get out. Besides, was the plane retro-fitted with blue force tracker? Were the stats based on the airframe's lengthy past or it's much improved present?

Who knows? The point is, this article has shock-value. The fact that I'm even defending the airframe means it's accomplished it's task... cause a stir.

Response by Lt Col Michael Hills made Feb 9 at 2015 10:10 PM

Lt Col Michael Hills — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 22:10:24 -0500

The C in CAS stands for close--this is inherently dangerous, it doesn't mean the A-10 is at fault in those casualties, it means that it is an incredibly challenging mission...more difficult without a capable aircraft and pilots trained to do that specific mission. Moving to even less specialization will result in more casualties and is a bad call in my opinion, especially given this is one of the few relevant platforms the Air Force brings to the fight. We're not in an air dominance fight right now, we're fighting insurgency and terrorists, not a peer competitor--we have air superiority...toss the parochialism and protection of budgets that don't make sense and do the right thing. The A-10 was a good aircraft and is an economically sound decision...the F-35, a complete embarrassment.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2015 10:21 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 22:21:02 -0500

I'm going to say this right up front: As a Soldier who has been involved in some hairy ground situations, I'd rather have that beast flying over me more than any other airframe the Air Force has... This is a farce - using misleading statistics to try to get rid of an aging airframe because the Air Force Leadership doesn't like, or is afraid of, the CAS mission. Why doesn't the Air Force like this mission you ask? Because it's not "cool", not "flashy", and their pilots don't become "aces" by blowing up tanks - only by shooting down other airplanes. Never mind that fact that firing a missile at a plane that's more than 3 miles away - which means you can't even see it - isn't really all that cool...

Air Force: You want to get rid of the air frame? Then give it or sell it to the Army.

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Feb 10 at 2015 3:45 PM

GySgt Joe Strong — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:45:02 -0500

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/232202-watchdog-air-force-doctored-the-data-to-make-a-10-look-bad Claim uses incomplete data says POGO...

Watchdog: Air Force 'doctored the data' to make A-10 look bad

POGO said the service is using "dirty tricks" to make the case for retiring the aircraft.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 7:11 PM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:11:49 -0500

Benefit to friendlies > Risk of fratricide

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 2:50 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 02:50:49 -0500

Heres a song: Take my life, take my land, take me where I can not stand but you can the plane from me because I have an enemy.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 3:45 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:45:22 -0500

So the A-10 has the highest friendly fire count? I am also willing to bet that hey have flown more missions than any other fixed-wing CAS platform which would more than explain the ratio and correct me if I am wrong but aren't there far more A-10 in service than B-1s?

The tragedies of friendly fire are caused by human error, not the aircraft. The brass' arguments that they need to spend billions of dollars to fund a single aircrafts development is ridiculous; the money would be better spent training ground combat personnel in counterinsurgency and small unit tactics, or believe it or not, maintaining the fleets of aircraft we already possess

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Feb 11 at 2015 10:01 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:01:51 -0500

And people who live near the ocean are more likely to get wet.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Feb 11 at 2015 10:19 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:19:38 -0500

I miss seeing them. They used to be HQd right here at Richards-Gebauer. Not as cool since they closed the Base.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 11:45 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:45:43 -0500

Their argument is invalid. I found this on military.com this morning.

http://defensetech.org/2015/02/10/group-af-skewed-data-in-a-10-smear-campaign/?ESRC=deftech.sm

Group: AF Skewed Data in A-10 'Smear Campaign'

The U.S. Air Forcemanipulated casualty datato make the A-10 attack aircraft appear more hazardousthan it really is, according to a watchdog group. The service "cherry-picked"information on civi...

Response by CAPT Gary Foster made Feb 12 at 2015 8:53 AM

CAPT Gary Foster — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:53:22 -0500

On the plus side, I am sure this aircraft is responsible for saving many lives. How about we put a few thousand ISIS terrorists in front of this aircraft?

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Feb 12 at 2015 10:32 AM

GySgt Joe Strong — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:32:28 -0500

And the hits just keep coming - Is the Air Force mocking itself at this point? http://www.jqpublic-blog.com/dog-least-fleas-air-force-chooses-killing-10-upholding-integrity/

The Dog With the Least Fleas: Air Force Chooses Killing A-10 Over Upholding Integrity

First, a few thoughtsabout integrity. It’s more than a word — or at least it shouldbe. It’s an idea. An idea tomorally bind together the world’s most consequential air se…

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Feb 12 at 2015 11:14 AM

GySgt Joe Strong — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:14:22 -0500

Be aware the stats against the A-10 may have been Cherry picked to provide the desired result - http://www.jqpublic-blog.com/dog-least-fleas-air-force-chooses-killing-10-upholding-integrity/

Response by SPC Don Stringer made Feb 22 at 2015 9:45 AM

SPC Don Stringer — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 09:45:11 -0500

This is the same thing as claiming firearms cause violence.
NONE of the friendlies were killed by the A10. They were killed because they were deployed to a war zone, were under enemy attack, close air support was called, then the engaged the enemy, and hit friendlies.
The A10 should be kept on the TOE until something better comes along, because using B1 Bombers for close air is NOT a better option.

Response by LTC Paul Heinlein made Feb 22 at 2015 9:53 AM

LTC Paul Heinlein — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 09:53:22 -0500

Stats can say what ever you want them to say.

What about some comments from the guys on the ground that they support...Army, Marines and SPEC OPS...

I for one have never heard anyone with boots on the ground complaining about the A-10, except for the enemy.

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Feb 23 at 2015 10:16 AM

GySgt Joe Strong — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:16:10 -0500

Picked and chosen statistics.
If you'll suspend belief that I'm not cooking the books, I'll also prove that drinking Water is far more dangerous than any other substance.

You have to start with valid cases that compare apples to apples and not select your time frames in ways that eliminate big numbers from either side of the argument as was done here
.
The Air Force head shed is just throwing it's credibility out the window when they participate in or don't decry these flawed studies. They'd certainly be out there telling us about the flaws in the arguments if the discussion were going the other way.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2015 4:55 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 04:55:24 -0500

Sounds like more politics

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 1:17 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 01:17:07 -0500

Can the army absorb the program? Key West accords not withstanding.

Response by SPC David S. made Feb 26 at 2015 3:27 PM

SPC David S. — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:27:52 -0500

I think part of this is that in CAS often times its within danger close (600 meters). Not a lot of room for error.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 8:29 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 20:29:59 -0500

Interestingly, Doctrine Man and a couple other sources have showed that the Airforce cooked the books on this and used different time periods of data to show the A-10 was more dangerous, if you do an actual side by side, the A-10 comes out as one of the least dangerous. I'll try to dig up the original article at some point.

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Mar 3 at 2015 10:04 AM

GySgt Joe Strong — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:04:11 -0500

And now, given the frontal assault isn't working and the Planes are being forward deployed due to their suitability for a mission - we now have backdoor draw downs. http://www.stripes.com/news/senators-say-a-10-moves-amount-to-backdoor-retirement-1.332305