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
The Air Force was going to get rid of the A-10s back in 1990. Congress told the Air Force to transfer the A-10s over to the Army in 1991 and then Desert Storm broke out. As we know, the A-10s were the darling of the war (>95% operational rate, most sorties/day flown, etc).
Strangely, the Air Force abandoned the replacement of the A-10 after the war. Go figure. :)
Strangely, the Air Force abandoned the replacement of the A-10 after the war. Go figure. :)
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Let's get back to the question and off the politics. In 1990 the Air Force wanted to dump the A-10 and was weeks away from signing the aircraft over to the Army, then Saddam and the Iraqi Army invaded Kuwait. During the Gulf War, the Air Force found the A-10 was the best built ground attack aircraft ever built. It is time for the A-10 to be transferred to the Army instead of placed in mothballs at Davis-Monthan AFB to root in the desert. The A-10 carries more firepower, better range and longer loiter time than any helicopter made. It is the perfect aircraft to support ground troops anywhere in the world and is self deployable. Bring the total ground support role back where it belongs and away from the Air Force..... Although the Air Force needs to remember where it came from..... The Army Air Corps.
(3)
(0)
COL Randall C.
*chuckle* ... just noticed your post CW4 Thomas Shefflette. I said the pretty much the exact thing above (after you posted this of course).
During Desert Storm, I was with an EAC SHORAD (Vuclan/Stinger) unit from Ft. Bliss (anyone remember 5-62 ADA?). I remember a story one of my Battery Commanders told during the 'Hail Mary' 18th ABC did. He was inside of Iraq and redeploying his Vulcans when he heard one of them fire. After waiting for them to report the engagement in, he heard them fire again. He did a net call to see who was firing and got no answer. He heard them firing once more and the proceeded to query every platoon individually - still nothing.
After moving up the road about a click, they came upon an Iraqi tank column that was decimated by a couple of A-10s. Wasn't funny at the time (almost stumbled upon an enemy talk column ... tanks vs Vulcans is like car vs scooter), but was humorous after we redeployed.
(for those not understanding the 'rest of the story', the Vulcan's 20mm cannon and the A-10's 30mm cannon sound very much alike when you hear them ... like a huge 'zipper')
During Desert Storm, I was with an EAC SHORAD (Vuclan/Stinger) unit from Ft. Bliss (anyone remember 5-62 ADA?). I remember a story one of my Battery Commanders told during the 'Hail Mary' 18th ABC did. He was inside of Iraq and redeploying his Vulcans when he heard one of them fire. After waiting for them to report the engagement in, he heard them fire again. He did a net call to see who was firing and got no answer. He heard them firing once more and the proceeded to query every platoon individually - still nothing.
After moving up the road about a click, they came upon an Iraqi tank column that was decimated by a couple of A-10s. Wasn't funny at the time (almost stumbled upon an enemy talk column ... tanks vs Vulcans is like car vs scooter), but was humorous after we redeployed.
(for those not understanding the 'rest of the story', the Vulcan's 20mm cannon and the A-10's 30mm cannon sound very much alike when you hear them ... like a huge 'zipper')
(3)
(0)
TSgt Tim (lj) Littlejohn
A real good idea, it'll never fly, with upgrades this plane could go 20 more years. Our government if so FUBAR.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
(3)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Army Air Corps was a good institution - they should have waited and just created a US Space Command for those options and platforms. The original Army, Army Air Corps, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard should have stayed as our primary offensive and defensive military forces with a future Space Command that could have been dedicated to all upper atmosphere and space operations.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I have put up a petition on Whitehouse.gov you can see it here https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/transfer-control-10-thunderbolt-ii-usaf-after-2015-army-or-marines/S1qf1cbn
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
In VN we had A1E's for AF CAS. After VN we went without AF CAS for almost 10 years. When the A-10 came along, it quickly became the Infantryman's best friend. We got 3 to play with at Ft. Lewis in 81'. There is no past or current fast mover that can come close to the accurate and effectiveness of the A1E and the A-10. We could never safely call in a fast mover closer than 500 meters because we just weren't real sure where the ordnance was going to go (not the fault of the Pilots).
The Army and Marine Corps should fight hard for control of this wonderful aircraft. That being said, I'm not sure, given the current culture of the WH and Joint Chiefs, that will happen. And for those of you who are the Sensitive Police, I am not disparaging the WH or Joint Chiefs. Just being realistic about the culture that has been created.
The Army and Marine Corps should fight hard for control of this wonderful aircraft. That being said, I'm not sure, given the current culture of the WH and Joint Chiefs, that will happen. And for those of you who are the Sensitive Police, I am not disparaging the WH or Joint Chiefs. Just being realistic about the culture that has been created.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I think the answer should be obvious, someone needs to continue to fly the A-10. The Air Force is considering the F-35 as one of the replacements because it is "multi-role". However the F-35 has a significantly shorter loiter time than the A-10, has degraded performance at the slow speeds necessary for CAS roles, and carries about 10% of the ammo for it's gun that the A-10 does. Should the A-10 go out of service, in my opinion the slack is going to have to be picked up by attack helicopters because most of the planes in the USAF inventory simply can't do the job.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
When it comes to the air to ground role of the A-10 there is nothing that comes close to it. Until they build something that can actually fill it's CAS shoes someone needs to maintain the platform. It was a real life saver/ or taker, depending on what side you were on in Afghanistan.
(8)
(0)
SSG John Bacon
Hey the A-10 gets it's name from the famed P-47 Thunderbolt of WWII which the N version was a Navy plane and the best version. The A-10 landing gear could probably take carrier landings as is but needs a longer arresting hook and Wing Folding modification for Carrier storage. just Imagine what that could be like!
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Hell the F-35 isn't even deployed yet (and the cost of R&Ding it continues to grow) and the USAF is already claiming it's the best thing since sliced bread.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
The US Army is barred by Executive Order and inter-service agreements from operating any armed, fixed-wing aircraft over 5,000lbs.
Look into the;
"Key West Agreement" which led to;
Pace-Finletter MOU 1952 and ultimately to;
Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966
Though it has been argued before, most recently at the close of Desert Storm, the US Marine Corp could lawfully assume the A-10 but only if it was capable of operating from a ship.
Personally, I think this ancient crap between Army & Air Force is hurting our FAC/CAS capabilities, meaning it hurts our ground forces and needs to be squared the f* away!
We KNOW the Air Force has no desire to play in the dirt as evidenced by their response to FAC/CAS complaints from OEF/OIF; Boeing jumped to say they could have OV-10s back in production in 12mos but USAF disregarded them, A-10s could be Blocked up, again USAF turned it down and last but not least, they decided they would buy the foreign made Embraer Super Tucano for FAC/CAS but never really fielded them and they are currently being "given" to the Afghans to create their new "Air Force".
Look into the;
"Key West Agreement" which led to;
Pace-Finletter MOU 1952 and ultimately to;
Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966
Though it has been argued before, most recently at the close of Desert Storm, the US Marine Corp could lawfully assume the A-10 but only if it was capable of operating from a ship.
Personally, I think this ancient crap between Army & Air Force is hurting our FAC/CAS capabilities, meaning it hurts our ground forces and needs to be squared the f* away!
We KNOW the Air Force has no desire to play in the dirt as evidenced by their response to FAC/CAS complaints from OEF/OIF; Boeing jumped to say they could have OV-10s back in production in 12mos but USAF disregarded them, A-10s could be Blocked up, again USAF turned it down and last but not least, they decided they would buy the foreign made Embraer Super Tucano for FAC/CAS but never really fielded them and they are currently being "given" to the Afghans to create their new "Air Force".
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
This is driven by politicians and the administration who think they know everything and when our top military leaders disagree they concoct stories meant to encourage these leaders to quit, get fired or court-martialed. We have seen.......
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Absolutely and unequivocally, this a/c should stay in the arsenal of the American military, up till and including when a suitable replacement a/c is designed and built. Is our congress crazy? (rhetorical question). Of course it should stay.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
This is cutback talk part II. I remember in the 90's the Air Force had explored getting rid of it. They were going to replace it with a Viper that was going to have a center-line gun pod. They were going to dub it the F/A-16. After initial proof concept tests it did not prove to be very feasible. The idea scraped.
The Army explored the possibility of buying the airframes from the AF, but it did not appear to be cost effective to buy a 20 year old weapon system at the time. Once they factored in the logistics, and training for both air crews and MX support it was not considered a value added. Now that it is a 35 year old weapon system in a sequestered environment I doubt this will happen.
Its not that the AF wants to get rid of them, its that they would rather have a shiny new toy or more accurately 1763 planes called the F-35 instead.
The Army explored the possibility of buying the airframes from the AF, but it did not appear to be cost effective to buy a 20 year old weapon system at the time. Once they factored in the logistics, and training for both air crews and MX support it was not considered a value added. Now that it is a 35 year old weapon system in a sequestered environment I doubt this will happen.
Its not that the AF wants to get rid of them, its that they would rather have a shiny new toy or more accurately 1763 planes called the F-35 instead.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Sequestration is the administration's way of saying f/u to the troops and military brass. I have never seen a military so thoroughly pillaged as this one. Makes President Peanuts look intelligent.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Heck yea give it to the Corps. And as robust as the frame is it can be modified for carrier landings
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google