Air Force 'doctored the data' to make A-10 look bad - Anyone Surprised?

GySgt Joe Strong — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:22:07 -0500

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

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 GySgt Joe Strong made Feb 10 at 2015 1:23 PM

GySgt Joe Strong — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:23:33 -0500

More: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/procurement/229723-air-force-secretary-no-regrets-on-retiring-a-10

Air Force secretary: 'No regrets' on retiring A-10

Move would save $4 billion over five years.

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Feb 10 at 2015 1:32 PM

CW5 Sam R. Baker — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:32:12 -0500

It is not the first time the AF tried to ditch the A-10, if not for 1991, it clearly would have been gone, however, the pilots and crew who serve the HOG are more than honorable. They are bad ass CAS from above that every ground pounder is more than appreciative for. The platform is amazing and it still has a purpose, but to buy new toys, they have to cut somewhere. In 1989 when it was going to be transferred to the US Army, there airframes were no issue, it was the operating and maintenance budget that was at issue; It was not going to accompany the airframes. Hopefully the divesture of those airframes will be kept on the ready so when needed they can be quickly activated again.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 2:29 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:29:18 -0500

shocker

Response by Maj Matt Hylton made Feb 10 at 2015 3:39 PM

Maj Matt Hylton — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:39:15 -0500

Another great article by JQP on the matter:
http://www.jqpublic-blog.com/lying-win-air-force-misrepresents-combat-records-campaign-retire-10/

Lying to Win: Air Force Misrepresents Combat Records In Campaign to Retire A-10

“Lie:to create a false or misleading impression.” “Win: to achieve victory in a fight, contest, or game.” There’s a game afoot, and the Air Force is lying to win it. …

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2015 5:00 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:00:35 -0500

This infuriated me when I was reading the information in USA Today talking about the A-10 being involved in more friendly fire incidents than any other aircraft, and more "collateral damage". These statistics MAY be true, but it is generally called upon for CLOSE air support. I fail to see how a tried and true "stick and gun" aircraft could POSSIBLY be more cost effective than the F-22 and F-35 projects that BOTH have BILLIONS invested and have yet to see combat. You shoot up an A-10, you grab a roll of duct tape, a hammer, and 3 or 4 pieces of sheet metal and you're back in business.......think the F-35 can do that?

Honestly, I think the multirole fighter is a bad concept. It may be cheaper, but it creates the "jack of all trades, master of none". The A-10 is PERFECT for CAS missions, the F-15 and F-16s are the masters of the dogfight, and the B-2 is a phenomenal bomber (as are the B-1 and B-52).

v/r,
CPT Butler

Response by SSgt Everett Jones made Feb 11 at 2015 6:18 PM

SSgt Everett Jones — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:18:38 -0500

The whole thing seems to remind me of the C-130 AMP for some reason.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 6:38 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:38:12 -0500

Its no secret that the AF doesn't want it. However, its truly sad when Congressmen and Senators force feed you an airframe all because workers in their district or state will lose jobs.

Senator:Hey DOD you need to cut spending, your budget is too big.
Air Force COS: Ok Lets get rid of this.
Senator: Wait a second, you cant get of of that because my constituents will lose jobs and I wont get re-elected in a few years.

This is the part of politics I hate. It doesn't matter the reasons why. If the service that flies the aircraft doesn't want it let then get rid of it.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Feb 11 at 2015 6:54 PM

SGT James Elphick — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:54:46 -0500

If they need budget room for their new multi-role fighter why don't they start retiring their old one, the F16 or maybe the F15. Those are multi-role fighters, the A10 is a dedicated CAS platform, why take it away when the real jets that are going to be replaced get to stay?

*Note - I know the answers to all of this, this is all rhetorical

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 11 at 2015 7:08 PM

SGT Jim Z. — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:08:22 -0500

No they want the new shiny airplane not the infantrymen or that matter soldiers favorite.

Response by SSG Scott Burk made Feb 11 at 2015 7:33 PM

SSG Scott Burk — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:33:36 -0500

The older I get, the more disgusted I become with the top down methods in our government. If something works well, leave it alone and stop messing with it. The A-10 is a fine CAS platform and those of us who were on the ground dodging bullets should have some input on the issue. Look at the Browning M2; 100 year-old design still in use. Politicians and Generals need to listen to the Company/Battery level Soldiers more and actually pay attention to what is said. I ALWAYS spoke my mind and gave my HONEST opinion when asked by my superiors. It was not always what they wanted to hear, but it was what the needed to hear.

Response by SPC(P) Justin Bergquist made Feb 11 at 2015 8:04 PM

SPC(P) Justin Bergquist — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:04:05 -0500

The air forces has always wanted to be air to air they don’t like the close air support role they want that new and shiny aircraft. I’m all for bringing back the army air core. That way we can cater to our needs as getting aircraft that fit the close air support role that fall under our command. (this next part I do not have personal experience in but my buddy’s do that I have talked about this issue before) I feel like it could element some of the issues with adding extra personnel into teams/units we can train our own combat air controllers and integrate them into our units like we do with our mortar men

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Feb 12 at 2015 9:27 AM

GySgt Joe Strong — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:27:20 -0500

But wait, there's more: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-air-forces-smear-campaign-against-the-a-10-relies-on-flawed-data-243d4964aae1

The Air Force’s Smear Campaign Against the A-10 Relies on Flawed Data — War Is Boring

Per sorties flown, the attack jet is actually one of the least dangerous to friendly troops

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Mar 4 at 2015 4:31 PM

GySgt Joe Strong — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:31:31 -0500

Really? Just go ahead and read paras 4 & 5.
"What it is really due to is two things: one, the disaster of ridiculously over-complex computer software system; and two, the fact that the gun itself is mainly for the purpose of close support and close in the air combat and the air force does not think that either of those are important.

In fact they think that close support is so unimportant that they are willing to cancel their present A-10 airplane. They'd like to wipe it out immediately, as soon as possible. And it is the best close air-support plane in the world. And they’ll promise that “well, later, sometime later the F-35 will replace it, we don't know quite exactly when.”"

http://rt.com/op-edge/219655-f35-gun-software-disaster/

‘Software disaster’: Pentagon never even planned F-35’s gun to shoot until 2019

The problem with the gun system of the Pentagon’s most advanced F-35 jet, which won’t be able to shoot until at least 2019, is just a part of the disaster of ridiculously over-complex software, an aircraft designer Pierre Sprey told RT.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2015 4:56 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 16:56:14 -0500

Why scrap a aircraft that still has a purpose for new toys that will cost more to maintain? I have seen A-10 in action they can support mount convoys just as well as our Apaches.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 4 at 2015 11:34 PM

COL Charles Williams — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 23:34:15 -0500

Go figure... Hmmm.... The A-10 is the cool fancy Air Superiority Next Gen Fighter they want and we don't need, but a simple, effective and lethal weapons platform us ground forces need. The Air Force is not concerned about CAS or MAC... They are all about newer cooler fighters we don't need. Why do we need the F35 or whatever they are working on, when the F16, F15, F18 have no matches?