The fight for the A-10 starts anew. What say you?

2015-03-23T12:40:53-04:00

Once again the push for retiring the venerable Warthog is on by SecAF & AF Chief of Staff. It appears that the "ordinary soldier's" voice is starting to be heard in the halls of Congress on this.

What say you?

The battle to kill the A-10

The message: Warthog isn't the only close-air-support aircraft in the service

Response by SSgt Joe V. made Mar 23 at 2015 1:13 PM

2015-03-23T13:13:35-04:00

I think the cost to re-work the A-10's to a more 'modern' platform would still save a boat-load of money compared to trying to make a F-35 fly for more than two minutes...that, and there is a reason it is called low and slow - when you are in a fire-fight, an A-10 stirs more emotion than anything ever in the troops it was sent in to protect and deliver. It flies low and slow to save those asses on the ground. It gets eyes on because it is low enough to, and delivers when asked - oh, and its titanium tub keeps the pilots alive too - oh and it can fly riddled with bullets and missing half a wing and one engine and still deliver munitions - oh and the sound of BRRRRRRRRRT is the sound of its people.

Taking a step back before the steam from my ears overheats the monitor, I had great successes with the F-16 and 15, 18 and even a B-1 once...love the super cobras and apaches, and the AC-130 is a beautiful beast in its own right, but the A-10 is it...it was literally made for the role it plays, which is saving lives on the ground.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Mar 23 at 2015 2:06 PM

2015-03-23T14:06:33-04:00

I would like to say the AFSec. James is correct in that CAS is not a plane, it is a mission. HOWEVER, the A-10 is a plane designed specifically for that mission, like no other plane is. I think the interesting thing about the Air Forces rhetoric is how obvious their true intentions are. They say that they must retire an air frame (specifically the A-10) in order to be able to field the F-35. But they fail to even consider retiring other aircraft of the same age which are explicitly meant to be replaced by the F-35 (the F-16 and F-15 in particular). Both aircraft are of similar age to the A-10 and while they have performed strike and CAS missions quite well they are obviously not the same. My suggestion would be to retire the F-16 and I think it should be obvious that that aircraft is most similar to an F-35.

Also, when listening to the Air Force rhetoric it seems like they are trying to imply that Strike and CAS capabilities are the same. This lends further credibility to the idea of retiring the F-16 since of the 3 aircraft that take on the majority of these missions it is the only one that is not a dedicated platform (A-10 = CAS, F-15E Strike Eagle = Strike). Then they even say they are dedicated to the CAS mission yet we all know they have tried to rid themselves of it before and even shutdown production of the A-10 after its initial run (real supportive). The one advantage there is that they do enjoy their strike mission (it combines their 2 favorite things fighter aircraft and strategic bombing) so at least they aren't completely vacating the ground-attack. Unfortunately that hasn't translated into a love of the CAS mission.

That brings me to my final point, why is the Air Force so insistent on ditching the CAS mission and the A-10. If not for CAS the Air Force would have essentially been relegated to transport for the duration of the past 2 wars after the initial strikes and "Shock and Awe" had ended. They are even changing configurations on the AC-130 which, in my opinion, change it from CAS to CAS/Strike (bombs on a cargo aircraft? losing the cannon?). Furthermore, their beloved Air Superiority and Strategic Bombing missions are not likely to materialize anytime in the near future so why keep themselves out of the game?

Those are my thoughts, at least some of them.

Here is a good article looking at the subject too.
http://www.jqpublicblog.com/mission-air-forces-misguided-plan-kill-10-exposed-pure-politics/

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 4:08 PM

2015-03-23T16:08:24-04:00

Being a JTAC I deal with all CAS platforms and speaking from experience the A-10 is by far the best. When the topic of retiring the hog is brought up the JTAC community hangs it's head in dismay. Being on the ground trying to nutralise a threat or target is much easier when you have long loider time and payload, which the A-10 has both. The people in charge of making the decision to retire the A-10 one are either non JTACs, or two use to be or have once been JTACs and have been out of the community for too long to remember the importance of the A-10. If they want to replace the A-10 don't short change us. Keep the guys on the ground in mind when you make decisions like this. To them it's numbers... To me it's lives, weather they are lives saved or lives taken.

Response by TSgt Tim Templeton made Mar 23 at 2015 5:17 PM

2015-03-23T17:17:16-04:00

Speaking from a direct nature as a weapons loader and technician on the A -10, let the facts speak for themselves. It is the preferred aircraft when in support of groundtroops. The best FMC rate (fully mission capable ) rate during the first Gulf war. So as we go forward in our progress lest we not forget the aircraft that performed on a daily basis with very little down time.

Response by SMSgt Gary Calhoun made Mar 23 at 2015 9:50 PM

2015-03-23T21:50:35-04:00

Déjà vu – all over again. The good idea fairy wants to take the venerated A-10 (with an excellent record in Desert Storm, OIF and OEF) off the roster and into history.

They (AF leaders) wanted to ice the A-10s and buy new toys after Desert Storm but Congress shut it down (even after they shot down 2 Iraqi helicopters with cannon fire). Since the late 1990s the AF has planned to scrap the A-10 program and shift it over to the Joint Strike Fighter. This expensive little gem, still trying to get to IOC for its primary mission, only has a 25 mm gun and 182 rounds to use. The F-35B and F-35C models can be fitted with a gun pod that carries 220 rounds, but the pod negates the plane’s stealth capability.

Supposedly putting all the Hogs in mothballs (saving ~$3.7B from 2015-2019) would pay for about thirty F-35s.

In addition to the money argument, we are told ad nauseum that in a time of shrinking budgets the USAF cannot afford a single-role platform. In addition to the Offensive Counter-Air and Defensive Counter-Air operations, F-16s conduct Wild Weasel missions and F-15s perform “mud mover” missions.

Granted, the A-10 only does one mission – save lives. In doing so it flies higher than attack helicopters can in RC-East (Eastern Afghanistan), it gets under the weather better than F-16s, and there are more of them than other specialized platforms (AC-130s). According to the Air Force, the A-10 only brings one 30 mm GAU-8/A seven-barrel Gatling gun (with 1,174 to 1,350 rounds); up to 16,000 pounds of mixed ordnance on eight under-wing and three under-fuselage pylon stations, including 500 pound Mk-82 and 2,000 pounds Mk-84 series low/high drag bombs, incendiary cluster bombs, combined effects munitions, mine dispensing munitions, AGM-65 Maverick missiles and laser-guided/electro-optically guided bombs; infrared countermeasure flares; electronic countermeasure chaff; jammer pods; 2.75-inch rockets; illumination flares and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles.

Uniformly, our Soldiers and Marines are loudly advocating that the Air Force keep the Hog. The Tactical Air Control Party Association, speaking on behalf of the Air Force’s JTACs and ALOs, also is vocal in their desire to keep the A-10s.

Some have suggested that the Army “pitch in” some funding to keep the program alive, but that is a non-starter. Each military department is extremely parochial when it comes to funding.

So much for history – both recent and longer-term. Why does this continue to come up?

One thought is that close air support (CAS) isn’t one of the 6 listed Air Force core competencies (Air and Space Superiority, Global Attack, Rapid Global Mobility, Precision Engagement, Information Superiority and Agile Combat Support) as defined in AFDD 1, Air Force Basic Doctrine, Organization, and Command, but rather a subset. The AF doctrine is that “[a]irpower has a degree of versatility not found in any other force. Many aircraft can be employed in a variety of roles and shift rapidly from the defense to the offense. Aircraft may conduct a close air support mission on one sortie, then be rearmed and subsequently used to suppress enemy surface-to-surface missile attacks or to interdict enemy supply routes on the next.”

Another thought is simply that CAS isn’t “sexy” enough for Air Force leadership. Fighters shoot down opposing fighters and after 5 kills the pilot is an “Ace”. Bombers remind leaders of the massive campaigns of WW II and Vietnam. In both cases, that airpower is managed by senior AF leaders. CAS serve the ground maneuver elements and is directed by those elements through JTACs that are attached to the ground commander.

Lastly, some have speculated that AF leaders are using the A-10 as leverage to secure funding from Congress or mitigate damage from potential sequestration...a dangerous game if it were so. In advocating for the scrapping of the Hogs our AF leadership appears uninformed, out of touch and disingenuous.

Let us hope that clear heads will eventually prevail and the A-10C will continue to support our men and women in harm’s way.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 5:33 AM

2015-03-24T05:33:06-04:00

In all seriousness, I am a big fan of the A-10. It is a well proven scunion layer, tank killer, and does a pretty damn good job on personnel. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Army has been talking the same talk for the M1 Tank.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 10:08 AM

2015-03-24T10:08:46-04:00

I have had the privilage of hearing General Welsh speak about this topic in person (about 2 1/2 months ago), the way it was explained to me then made me say, "I understand why we are looking into this option and the reasoning seems to be sound."

Here's how it was explained to the Airmen at our base:

The Air Force needs to modernize. Now the original purchase order of the F-22 was cut by Congress and we are not allowed to purchase more Raptors. This means we have been forced to go with the F-35 to do any modernization at all. At the same time we have sequestration slamming us and we've seen a massive reduction in personnel to the point where some fields are at extremely critical manning, particulalry in aircraft maintenance. To effectively field the F-35 with its prohibabtively high cost and the critical manning levels we need to take maintainers and cross train them from existing airframes over to the F-35.

We will also need to retire airframes to deal with the further stretching of personnel and budgets that will be caused by this. So the question becomes, "which airframes?" The answer is obviously to look at an older platform at try to retire it. The Tankers, Bombers, ISR (U2 basically), and Cargo planes are not suitable for retirement because they lack replacement platforms in the immediate future and cannot suffer further reduction in capability right now so they're off the table.

That leaves Fighter aircraft and CAS. The primary job of the Air Force is to dominate the Air, Space, and Cyber Space realms of a battlefield. CAS comes second. With this in mind, we do not currently have a strong enough Fighter fleet to justify retiring an older airframe without significant loss to Air Superiority capability, this is directly because of the reduced purchase of Raptors which put our Fighter modernization behind schedule.

This leaves only one realistic option: We reduce by removing the only CAS primary airframe we have. Yes, it will degrade our ability to do CAS. Yes, its a lousy choice and no one is really happy about it but it's what we're stuck with because of sequestration and the fact that we weren't able to purchase our full order of Raptors.

The laundry list of Raptor issues after it joined the fleet didn't help either since it solidified the realization that we will need a lot of maintainers for the Lightning II and all its inevitable teething issues.

At the end of the day the retiring of the A-10 is the only choice we can make in good conscience. We can deal with a setback in CAS. But if we lose the fight for our Airspace we will truly suffer. And that's something that we cannot allow to happen.

That's roughly the message I got and I'm behind it. Hopefully we can get Congress to find a way to cut us a break.

Response by Sgt Tom Vaughn made Mar 24 at 2015 10:48 AM

2015-03-24T10:48:08-04:00

As a U S Marine , I say keep the A-10. They can control fire better in ground support missions , The F-16 and the F-15. Are on and off the target in less than 5 seconds. I want that A-10 there killing the enemy and giving us full support in a way that helps and can be corrected in its use much faster and more easily
SEMPER FI

Response by TSgt Tim (lj) Littlejohn made Mar 24 at 2015 10:58 AM

2015-03-24T10:58:00-04:00

To hell with drones knocking 1 or 2 trucks at a time. Put A-10s in Turkey with fighter cover than when a convoy go out wipe it out, Syria or Iraqi.

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Mar 24 at 2015 11:00 AM

2015-03-24T11:00:31-04:00

When they can find a more cost effective and more maneuverable airframe to build around that gun, then they can retire it.

Response by SSG Adam Wyatt made Mar 24 at 2015 12:02 PM

2015-03-24T12:02:31-04:00

If you are against the A-10, then you have never really needed one.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Mar 24 at 2015 12:23 PM

2015-03-24T12:23:44-04:00

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member, I've been retired for a long time, so I can't speak from personal experience, but from all I've heard from those in the know, it seems like this is an aricraft that the USAF should maintain and keep in active service.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2015 12:20 PM

2015-03-25T12:20:00-04:00

Keep GrimReaper's transportation. I don't ask for too much but this one I ask for please. That sound of battle is pure motivation and the sound of tomorrow for a lot of us.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 10:59 PM

2015-03-26T22:59:28-04:00

Give them to the Ukrainians and the Iraq's they are too good to squandered and turned in razor blades by the USAF!

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Apr 21 at 2015 9:53 PM

2015-04-21T21:53:48-04:00

If you don't mind a word from a Navy guy, the most significant testimony is missing; that of our enemies. Nothing like the sound of an A-10 and its gun breaking the will of the enemy. And the features that protect the pilot in a low and slow environment can't be surpassed within the envelope of other airframes. The bosses forget sometimes that Joint Multi Razzmatazz is a compromise on all fronts. The best you can get is "adequate" vs. "superb". However it's tough having a stable of various single mission assets. A-6 veterans see this as Group Think, Part Deux.

Response by SGT Michael Touchet made Apr 25 at 2015 1:00 PM

2015-04-25T13:00:34-04:00

I just loved seeing the A-10 in action along with hearing that signature sound as it rained hell down on the enemy.