Air Force: Keeping A-10 means F-35 delays, F-16 cuts

AirForce Times — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:41:00 -0400

From: Air Force Times

If not allowed to retire the A-10, the Air Force says it will have to send F-16s to the boneyard and delay plans for the F-35 because there aren't enough airmen to maintain both fighters.

If lawmakers succeed in passing a bill requiring the Air Force to keep the A-10 in its fleet for another year, too few maintenance personnel would available to stand up the first operating unit of the F-35 at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, and even fewer to continue maintenance of the F-16, the service told congressional staff in a recent briefing. The base is expected to begin receiving F-35s later this year.

The Air Force plan, if authorized, would be to move F-16s from Hill to replace retiring A-10s at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, and Fort Wayne Air National Guard Base, Indiana.

But if that plan is blocked, the Air Force cannot move the F-16s from Hill. Meanwhile, the Falcon units would lose maintenance personnel to the new F-35 units, causing the F-16s to "lose deployable capability," according to an Air Force talking paper obtained by Air Force Times.

Thus, moving forward with the F-35 "requires the retirement or transfer of assigned Hill AFB F-16s in late FY15/early FY16, " the paper says.

Nevertheless, it is looking more likely that the Air Force again will be directed to keep the A-10s flying. House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, in his markup of the defense bill included $682.7 million for the fleet. The bill will go to the full committee Wednesday, and multiple senators have also vowed to keep the planes flying.

The Air Force wanted to move the F-16s to the bases as soon as possible, following environmental impact studies. But the requirement to keep the A-10s at the bases would prompt the service to move the F-16s to the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, "until such a time they are transferred to another base or divested permanently."

The Utah base will be the first operational location for the F-35s, with it expected to have 72 of the jets. The base currently has 48 Block 40 F-16s.

The Air Force has said it needs 1,100 trained maintainers to reach initial operating capability for the F-35. Lawmakers have previously blasted Air Force concerns on the maintainer issue, saying it is a "false choice."

After the F-35 program executive Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan raised the issue last fall and said he was worried about the impact on IOC, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said there are other ways to move money and personnel to support both the A-10 and F-35.

"Suggesting that we must prematurely retire the A-10 to fulfill long-anticipated maintenance requirements for the F-35A is a false choice," Ayotte said in a statement to Defense News, sister publication of Air Force Times. "There are a variety of steps the Air Force can take to maintain the combat-proven and cost-efficient A-10, while also providing sufficient maintenance personnel for the F-35A.

Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh has vowed to reach initial operating capability on time, despite a possible issue with having enough maintenance personnel. This includes hiring contractors and increasing use of Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve personnel.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/04/28/air-force-keeping-a10-impact-16s/26519547/

Response by SGT James Elphick made Apr 29 at 2015 11:47 AM

SGT James Elphick — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:47:57 -0400

Good, the F-35 is supposed to directly replace planes such as the F-16. There is no replacement for the A-10 so shutting down F-16 units that will be getting F-35's anyway actually makes sense.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 11:49 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:49:33 -0400

So maintaining an airframe that is far superior than anything else we have, or are attempting to have is a hindrance. Therefore we will act like children & take away one of your toys (which is probably what the F-35 should be replacing anyways, or the F-22 should've been kept to replace) & take longer to get you your next toy.

This is what the article reads like.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 12:03 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:03:38 -0400

Tranfer A-10 to Army, allow A-10 crew chiefs to go blue to green and follow their airframe. Create new pipeline for maintenance officers in the Army, integrating UAV and fixed wing aircraft into a new CAS branch. Fully delete Air Defense Artillery branch to make room and transfer assets to Artillery, Cavalry and Infantry. Replace lost A-10 maintainers with F-16 Crew Chiefs to compensate for the shortage and make make the Crew Chief technical school at Sheppherd AFB a joint training facility for Army and AF fixed wing maintainers.

Don't know what to say about the F-35. It sucks and has been too expensive to keep or scrap...The F-22 seemed more than capable of filling both roles and making the F-35 irrelevant, but who knows. The AF is keeping it and that is that.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 29 at 2015 12:09 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:09:10 -0400

Wait. Wait. Wait.

I need to throw a Ref flag in. What color one do I use for BS?

The F-35 is already experiencing delays because it can't use its guns in stealth mode. Or was it because it doesn't have guns... or was it because it doesn't actually do CAS... Oh that's right, it's not actually comparable to the A-10.

Keeping the A-10 has no logistical, nor financial affect on the F-35 project at all. The F-35 project is already behind schedule. Was going to be delayed anyways, and keeping the A-10 is a GREAT EXCUSE for delaying it further.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Apr 29 at 2015 1:02 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:02:41 -0400

If you read earlier A-10 questions, you already know I love the A-10. But this article skips the hard stuff.
The Air Force, Army, and Navy do not get to set their own budgets. They are given a budget by Congress. Manpower? Same answer.
Also, can't defend the F-35, but it is not an AF-only program, and it wasn't approved by the AF. Who approved the F-35 program? Yep, Congress. Last I checked, the Navy and Marine Corps are also buying them, along with Great Britain and a few other allies.
So, while Congress can direct keeping the A-10, (some for operational warfighting reasons, some for money-in-my-district reasons) they don't have a plan for what the AF has to cut in order to keep, it, so the AF has to make a plan on what to cut. Transfer the A-10 to the Army? Same answer. Army manpower and budget are fixed. So what would the Army cut in order to make room in their manpower and money budget for the A-10?
We military folks can't hold ourselves to the "Civilian control of the military" doctrine and at the same time attack the Services on decisions which are not theirs to make.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Apr 29 at 2015 1:08 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:08:57 -0400

Didn't they test replacing the A-10 with fast movers during DS, only to discover it can't be done effectively? I think the AF just wants to ditch its CAS role in favor of something they can make another Tom Cruise movie with.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 1:34 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:34:58 -0400

Some politicians have an investment in the F-35, if you get me. Probably a windfall for someone. And nevermind the fact that some countries, ah, Russia, China, Iran, etc have a problem or two with us.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 8:19 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 May 2015 20:19:01 -0400

Well with Maj-Gen. Bullet-head gone, maybe these Brassholes should mothball the F-16s, cut-off their noses to spite their faces.
I am not in the Air Force anymore because they asked me what I though of converting our base from A-10s to F-16s, I told them, well...lets just say they got an honest answer.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Aug 29 at 2015 8:04 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:04:18 -0400

Please tell me you can't train a guy to work on both planes... @@

Response by MSG Kirt Highberger made Oct 19 at 2015 12:25 PM

MSG Kirt Highberger — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:25:17 -0400

Send the AF Politicos to do some patrols in Afghanistan and have them do a "post deployment" survey on this and see what they want then.

Response by SPC Donald Wright made Oct 29 at 2015 11:19 PM

SPC Donald Wright — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:19:43 -0400