Posted on Mar 8, 2016
Should the A-10 Warthog be flown by Army Pilots since the Air Force does not care for it and Senator McCain sees through the AF b.s.?
38.9K
380
130
21
21
0
Senator McCain again grilled the Air Force Chief of Staff on the lack of a good replacement. The plane should be kept in service and flown by Army Aviatiors, Guard and Reserve, who often have commercial jet pilot experience already. The price of the F-35/F-16/F-18 is like comparing the price of a Bentley vs a Dodge Challenger Hellcat that can do the job better for a fraction of the price. Keeping the A-10s will save lives. Keep the extra ones not used in Guam or Diego Garcia ready for use. Put some in England to protect NATO. Hire retired air force A-10 veterans or Air Guard mechanics to fix them. If a 1950s B-52 is being kept until 2040, why not keep a 1970s A-10 around just as long? Makes sense to any Army Soldier or Marine who prefers an armored plane vs an unarmored fast mover that can't see you very well! Senator McCain and Congresswoman McSally should pursue having every single A-10 air frame out of Davis-Montham and be rebuilt to the C-model modern tank killer just like the Army rebuilds their tanks at Anniston Army Depot and makes them M1A2s. I doubt two F-16s today can destroy 32 Iraqi tanks in less than 90 minutes like the two A-10 Alpha models like did in Desert Storm back in 1991. If it works, don't fix it! Air Force, we love you, we just beg you to keep an effective weapon that Army and Marines love! I am an admirer of Air Force as a whole. http://www.stripes.com/news/mccain-lambasts-air-force-chief-of-staff-over-a-10-in-islamic-state-fight-1.397359
Aviation
Warrant Officers
A-10 Pilot
A-10
A-10 Dedicated Crew Chief
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 36
11
11
0
Col Joseph Lenertz
Capt Seid Waddell , yes, just like the Buffs, C-130s and tankers. The 40 wing AF is gone, and we could not re-create Desert Storm with what we have today.
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Col Joseph Lenertz, agreed. We almost were unable to do it then as the A-10 was on the way to the scrap yard before the war broke out - when it showed its value on the battlefield.
(2)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
Sir,
These airplanes at DM are well past their service life/funding. They are kept for pieces and parts that are no longer manufactured. We in the maintenance field do not have enough maintainers to go around to do what you are proposing and honestly no country would want to invest in a airplane such as the A-10. All of the countries you listed all want the F-16.
These airplanes at DM are well past their service life/funding. They are kept for pieces and parts that are no longer manufactured. We in the maintenance field do not have enough maintainers to go around to do what you are proposing and honestly no country would want to invest in a airplane such as the A-10. All of the countries you listed all want the F-16.
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
Despite 2022 deadline, Air Force wants A-10 squadrons to go away sooner
Even with 2022 deadline, Air Force wants A-10 squadrons to fizzle out sooner
(1)
(0)
10
10
0
Here's the big problem that the Army would face: sustainability. As great as these are for CAS, they're old jets. The older the jet, the more hours flown, means the more the work in maintenance and cost in parts to keep them in the air. Granted while the Army has a large budget, what current programs, personnel, and commands that would need to be cut to take these on? What other ratings and training would Army pilots require IOT fly these? There is no simple answer to this question. Any USAF A-10 maintainers/MOs around that can help put this in perspective?
(10)
(0)
CW2 Jo Alistair
Well..... I see you are in the USMC. What is your attack helicopter airframe again? The AH-1??? How old is that airframe?
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
So the AH-1 Cobra has been around since 1967. The Army retired their fleet in 1999, reserves in 2001. The twin engines were introduced in 1971 and upgraded in 1986.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
The AH-1Z Viper, based off of the AH-1 SuperCobra, has been around since 2010. The SuperCobra, AH-1W, has been around since 1986. Those birds are subject to different stresses to fixed wing aircraft, and have their own requirements to meet. What does that have to do with the employment and sustainability of A-10s by a service other than the USAF?
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
Air Force is run by FIGHTER pilots and has a general distain for the CAS role. Always has.
(9)
(0)
SSgt Donnavon Smith
The striking difference is with Marines, Marine Aviators wear camouflage helmet covers to show solidarity with the guys on the ground. This to me shows (at least on the surface) that the marines have the correct ideas about the need for CAS.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
SSgt Donnavon Smith - and the USAF pilots don't go with the Marines on the ground anytime in their career like the Marine Pilots do so there is no bond. My retired COL friend here on RP told me his cav squadron of cobras, loches and huey gunships did care about his men and when they got the mission they did their best to be there ASAP and sometimes even flew and night and they were not instrument rated. The Army, once they get the A-10s, should do that and put the pilots on the ground some time in their career as FACs( forward air controllers) and give them the bond the Marine pilots have with their client units. The Army aviators should follow the tradition of the USMC and wear a camo cover over their helmets!
(2)
(0)
MSG Louis Alexander
All services not necessary the Air Force need to agree what’s good for those ground forces who face the death and carnage on the ground nose to nose. It’s easy to talk shyt from the air or from behind a desk, it’s when you’re staring death eyeball to eyeball that reality hits home. I wouldn’t give two shyts in hell how much it cost to keep up… so as long as my back and yes sometimes my front is covered by a rain of fire. Until you experience that…don’t self-righteously jump to how much it’s going to cost and who if anyone will benefit. Keep the fleet, train the personnel and help save some lives!
(4)
(0)
9
9
0
The issue is a few fold. This idea was floated prior to Desert Storm and the issue was the AF would give up the airframe, but not the pilots. There are no "trainer" (2-seat) versions of the A-10, which makes it a problematic airframe even for the Air Force to train their pilots on. I don't know where you justify your statement that many Guard/Reserve Aviators have mulit-engine jet experience, I can think of none of the top of my head that I've ever ran into, and even if I had, the only multi-engine jet pilots who "count" (official military rating) are the VERY small amount we have in OSAA with the UC-35/37 detachments (45 jets TOTAL).
I'm not saying that it couldn't be done (after some amending of federal laws which prohibit the Army from operating combat fixed wing aircraft), but when you account for the training costs and time to train pilots and maintainers, combine that with assimilating the supply chains, finding appropriate locations for basing, and then also determine how/where to doctrinally assimilate the weapon system into the order of battle... Chances are the airframes would all be well past their recommended retirement dates (as most of them already are). As an aviation maintenance officer, the Air Force's argument for retiring the airframe makes sense to me. It's the same problem the Army faced with the KW, older airframes are simply not cost effective to maintain when compared to newer airframes. In a budget constrained environment, the AF is making the fiscally sound decision regardless of Senator McCain's opinion on the matter.
I'm not saying that it couldn't be done (after some amending of federal laws which prohibit the Army from operating combat fixed wing aircraft), but when you account for the training costs and time to train pilots and maintainers, combine that with assimilating the supply chains, finding appropriate locations for basing, and then also determine how/where to doctrinally assimilate the weapon system into the order of battle... Chances are the airframes would all be well past their recommended retirement dates (as most of them already are). As an aviation maintenance officer, the Air Force's argument for retiring the airframe makes sense to me. It's the same problem the Army faced with the KW, older airframes are simply not cost effective to maintain when compared to newer airframes. In a budget constrained environment, the AF is making the fiscally sound decision regardless of Senator McCain's opinion on the matter.
(9)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
LTC Stephen Conway - Ouch... I'm in ILE-DL right now wondering if it's really worth becoming an O5! LOL!
(1)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
COL (Join to see) I think the challenge is more about resources than pilot skills. Maintenance manpower and budget are the drivers.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Col Joseph Lenertz - Completely agree, Sir. Lifecycle management is absolutely huge and as they say, one cannot beat the slow march of time.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
COL (Join to see) - It is if you can change the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about! I am took DL and I dropped out. I am now in the less boring and way more fun 3 phase ILE. 2 weeks then 8 months of one weekend a month and I am almost done with that part. 2 weeks in July at Fort Dix and I am done with the Common core CGSOC.
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040
My fellow Americans:
Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.
My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
II.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
III.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
IV.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
• and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
V.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
VI.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
VII.
So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040
My fellow Americans:
Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.
My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
II.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
III.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
IV.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
• and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
V.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
VI.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
VII.
So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
A10, a Grunt's best friend (next to his weapon, Woobie, Beanie, and the dude next to him). Put it in the hands of the Army if it just isn't flashy enough for the Chair...Ahem, sorry, Air Force--don't get mad, just having some fun. ;-)
Seriously though, while I know that age and maintenance/cost are issues for such a machine, I think its value--the plane's superiority in close air support--would offset such downsides for the Army. If they gave it to the Guard or Reserve, instead of or in addition to, the Regular Army, for a chance to fly it, I'd re-up and go Warrant or Commissioned Officer (doubt I could get an age waiver, but I would try for a shot at that beast!).
I do feel that that option should be given some serious consideration.
Seriously though, while I know that age and maintenance/cost are issues for such a machine, I think its value--the plane's superiority in close air support--would offset such downsides for the Army. If they gave it to the Guard or Reserve, instead of or in addition to, the Regular Army, for a chance to fly it, I'd re-up and go Warrant or Commissioned Officer (doubt I could get an age waiver, but I would try for a shot at that beast!).
I do feel that that option should be given some serious consideration.
(8)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
SGT Dave Tracy - its f35 politics not common sense here that is why im screaming here on RP.
(3)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
MSgt Darren VanDerwilt - I bet for less than 10 billion we can upgrade all 300 of them.
(4)
(0)
7
7
0
The A-10 is close air support that is heavily used to support Special Operations teams and should remain in use and housed as close by the service that it supports.
(7)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
A-10 pilots honored for mission that saved Marines
The day started slow for the A-10 pilots, using their legendary attack aircraft to provide some intelligence over targets in Afghanistan. Capt.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
Despite 2022 deadline, Air Force wants A-10 squadrons to go away sooner
Even with 2022 deadline, Air Force wants A-10 squadrons to fizzle out sooner
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
It would be awesome to go ahead and assume ownership of that airframe. However, the airforce would kill it and bury it long before they would ever let us have it.
(6)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
its happening now yet for the $160 billion wasted on the F-35 on issues and its 'oh well just one more mile..I mean one more year (now SEVEN), just think what $160 billion would do to rebuild the air frames. I bet there would be enough money left to buy a few F-18 super hornets and train any crew chiefs/mechanics the Air Force would not want to spare!
(1)
(0)
CSM Charles Hayden Passed 7/29/2025
Wasn't the USAF formed to support the U S Army? SFC (Join to see)
(2)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
McCain lambasts Air Force chief of staff over A-10 in Islamic State fight
Sen. John McCain on Thursday charged the Air Force chief of staff with being dishonest about the critical role of the A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft in the war against Islamic State militants.
(1)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
I would love to see the Army get a hold of the A-10. However, like you said, the USAF would kill it and bury it before we could get our hands on it. Same as the C-27J Spartan Intra-Theater Transport-- was a joint project between the Army and USAF, but then the USAF changed their minds and scrapped the project, with Army Aviators still in the training pipeline. Many of the existing airframes were given to the Afghanis.
The F-35, like the V-22, is a financial boondoggle and money pit. The original buyers have all backed out, and no one wants a plane that is supposed to do a little of everything satisfactorily, but nothing superbly.
The F-35, like the V-22, is a financial boondoggle and money pit. The original buyers have all backed out, and no one wants a plane that is supposed to do a little of everything satisfactorily, but nothing superbly.
(3)
(0)
5
5
0
Credit where credit is due: A-10 pilots "get it". It's "Big Air Force" that's got the problem.
(5)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
U.S. Rep. McSally Discusses Her Efforts for Continued A-10, EC-130H Funding
U.S. Representative Martha McSally spoke with KVOA’s Sean Mooney about her efforts to advocate for continued A-10 and EC-130H funding in the Fiscal Year (FY)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m2LX9t3EY4
It is nice that this Congresswoman was once an A-10 pilot and Squadron Commander! She can't be bullshitted by the brass!
It is nice that this Congresswoman was once an A-10 pilot and Squadron Commander! She can't be bullshitted by the brass!
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Keep it in the air until a superior replacement is designed, fully tested and proven operational. Again, the MIC wins.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Open up the option for Army Warrant Officer pilots to fly them and I'm sure you will have a huge line of Warrant Officers willing and able to take the reigns. There are already some Warrant Officers flying smaller fixed wing aircraft so it's not out of the question.
(5)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
I have three aviators in my brigade. 145 person brigade that is branch immaterial, we are OC/Ts from the 75th from California and I have 3 field grades in aviation that are commercial jet qalified so it would be a lot easier than the Air Force or army wants to admit. It would mean they go to Fort Rucker to retrain but how hard would that be for them? If they already fly airbus or boeing jets in their full-time job and blackhawk or apaches as reservists then these geniuses, honestly, will kick ass and learn quickly!
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google