Posted on Apr 10, 2014
Should the A10 Thunderbolt II be an Army / Marine asset due to the Air Force's plans to drop the platform in 2015?
48.1K
253
113
12
12
0
<p>As Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced last week, the Air Force plans to retire its A-10 Thunderbolt fleet, a plane built for close air support and long and widely appreciated by ground troops. But the Air Force considers the plane, dubbed the “Warthog,” as a single-mission aircraft at a time when it needs weapons able to conduct multiple missions.</p><p>Air Force leaders have said retiring the A-10 “achieves large savings while preserving multi-role [aircraft].” Of course, the Air Force tried this last year, and was promptly denied by Congress who included legislation in last year’s budget ordering the service not to spend a dollar toward retiring the fleet.</p>
Army
Officers
Marine Corps
Air Force
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 42
1
1
0
And when we say Air Force we mean people who do not know shit from shinola. Those civilians who use the military as a social experiment and who in the 70s and early 80s, absolutely hated us. (the military). They were/are the best and the brightest and we, but expendable parts. Satellites that replaced ground troops but satellites cannot get the kind of intel that ground troops can. It is a mess and the kind of mess that happens when liberals arrogantly assume they know more about war than people like Norman and other tactical leaders.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I wonder how many maintenance Manhours are for every Flight Hour!! I think the AV-8 is like 8 to 1
(1)
(0)
CW4 Thomas Shefflette
The Harrier is l I e most helicopters, very maintenance intensive. What I read during the 1990 A-10 discussions for transfer to the Army was approximately 4 to 1. It may have changed with the upgrades but probably still fairly close.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
If they can fly the U-2 and B-52 for as long as they have because of it's record, the A-10 should have another 30 years of life.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SGT Tobey Cummings
Yes; it would be a shame to put the Warthog in mothballs. It is a beast and a most of all a great asset. My son is a JTAC and loves supporting and getting support from A10's
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
It's kind of like the logic they used to mothball our mighty 'Battleships' from the active inventory of weapons platforms.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I have put up a Petition on Whitehouse.gov see it here https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/transfer-control-10-thunderbolt-ii-usaf-after-2015-army-or-marines/S1qf1cbn
(1)
(0)
Capt Joseph Olson
You will have to put the petition up again and advertise the new one HERE {in a separate thread to boost response}.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The reason the A-10 exists is to provide Close Air Support for the ground soldier. If the Air Force doesn't include this incredible aircraft in their budget, the Marines or Army should fly it. If you ask any ground soldier what their favorite AF aircraft is, I'd be surprised if the answer wasn't the Hog. We need to do everything we can to protect the ground forces and keeping the A-10 flying does just that.
(1)
(0)
CW4 Thomas Shefflette
The A-10 should never have been in the Air Force inventory. It is a closer air support aircraft. It has a better time on station than any helicopter owned by any country, can provided better support and take a hell of a lot of damage and still complete its mission. In 1990, the A-10 was to go to the Army but then Iraq invaded Kuwait. It's time to put it where it belongs.
(2)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
In 1990 the A-10 was going the way of the Gooney Bird. The USAF kept it around because the Army made them do it, but with the fall of the USSR, it appeared that the A-10 no longer had a mission. Quite frankly, had we never gotten involved in the Middle East the A-10 would have been scrapped years ago.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
The logic that the 'grand thinkers' use for airframe relevance has always mystified me. You have an airframe in inventory that is cheaper to manufacture and maintain, that can handle various upgrades as they come and can pretty much eliminate any and all types of aggressive ground force combatants - but because it isn't fast, and super high tech - then it is somehow not relevant anymore. As long as we have men and equipment 'on the ground' - the A-10 will always be a relevant platform. Plus, with the multitudes of different types of munitions it can transport and deploy - it remains an awesome force of destruction.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The Marines are 1st to move in anyways, so why not Pick-up the Aircraft and use them for that purpose themselves. Who else feels the same way?
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
And how would you get it to where you're going? It can't operate off of carriers (as is).
(0)
(0)
SrA Eric Olsen
If I remember my history correctly the F4U Corsair had landing gear problems at first when landing on carriers. As a result only the Marines flew them until the issue was resolved. I see no reason why this same tactic couldn't be used if needed until the landing gear was beefed up for it. Also it is worth remembering that the USAF has tankers that can refuel them without the need of a drogue, so getting them to their destination isn't a problem as the USAF already does that. As for the argument that the USAF doesn't refuel Navy or Marine planes, they can and do. And refueling in a combat zone could easily be accomplished by dispatching a tanker to the area.
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
LTC Paul Labrador. Pickup the A-10 from the deck with a C-47 and drop it on the nearest 5000' straight stretch of improved / unimproved airstrip / road. Doesn't seem like such a very difficult problem. Warmest Regards, Sandy
0
0
0
Here's the way I see it. Not to put the Army on blast, but these should go to both the Marines and Navy. The Marines are a no brainier. I say the Navy because as we've seen over the last 20 years, terrorists like to use small water craft to harass and damage our warships. A10's have proven they can take out dozens of these watercraft in a single run and with the Republican Guard using speed boats to swarm our bigger vessels, it would only make sense to modify a squadron to fit aboard our assault carriers for close air protection
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Of course they should go to the Army but that would violate the 1948 Key West Agreement under which the Army can only have "fixed wing" cargo planes. And it would deprive the USAF of a mission (that they hate) and the money that comes with it (that they love). So the AF Brass all stand at attention and "claim" that the F-35 can do the mission. But only if: (1) the F-35 ever goes into full production and , more importantly, (2) air commanders are actually willing to risk a limited number of hugely expensive airframes attacking low value assets like tanks, trucks, bunkers, all the while flying low and slow, fully exposed to cheap ground fire weapons. I will bet $100 that #2 insures the Army will always have a need for larger, better armed "combat" helicopters.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google