A-10 Warthog to be retired by USAF (maybe)

[Edward Campbell]

I feel very sorry for the USAF, for all the US military services in fact. The Congress has voted for sequestration ~ budget cuts ~ but it refuses to accept the consequences of its own decisions.

This isn't about the A-10, it's about the sorry bastards in the USA who vote ... over and over and over again for the mentally handicapped (which, in my opinion, describes about 75% of Washington legislators).

The solution is for the majority of Americans to be required to use condoms until the IQ goes up.

 

[cupper]

I feel very sorry for the USAF, for all the US military services in fact. The Congress has voted for sequestration ~ budget cuts ~ but it refuses to accept the consequences of its own decisions.

This isn't about the A-10, it's about the sorry bastards in the USA who vote ... over and over and over again for the mentally handicapped (which, in my opinion, describes about 75% of Washington legislators).

The solution is for the majority of Americans to be required to use condoms until the IQ goes up.

Perhaps we should institute a test that assesses one's ability to think for themselves as well.  :nod:

As long as the Defense contractors keep redistributing the wealth spreading the work on military systems throughout the country to has a finger in every congressional district, don't expect rational decisions to be made in congress with regards to defense appropriations.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It's worse than that; political stagnation - the unnaturally high rate at which incumbents are re-elected - is a real problem in US politics ...

    BUT   

                                                                    AND

                                            ... and the solution is simple: smarter American voters.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well part of the problem is the escalating cost of getting elected which limits the people who can and the ruthlessness of the press to dig up any dirt or perceived dirt which reduces the pool further.

 

[cupper]

It's worse than that; political stagnation - the unnaturally high rate at which incumbents are re-elected - is a real problem in US politics ...

    BUT   

                                                                    AND

                                            ... and the solution is simple: smarter American voters.

Well part of the problem is the escalating cost of getting elected which limits the people who can and the ruthlessness of the press to dig up any dirt or perceived dirt which reduces the pool further.

Interesting thing is that when polled, the average US voter feels that Congress is doing a crap job and all the bums need to be thrown out. EXCEPT, when asked how they feel about their own representatives, They feel they are doing a good job, and would vote for them again.  :facepalm:

So we should expect to see the A-10 flying well into the next century.

 

[observor 69]

The country is poorly served by it's media. When I was living in Texas a few years ago PBS and NPR were my salvation for objective and informative news vice infotainment.

Fortunately thanks to the internet us northern liberals can now be in the south and read our New York Times. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

Cancel my last?

The Air Force based its plan to retire the A-10 on an inaccurate projection of cost savings, and will run into a capability gap associated with providing close air support, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released Thursday.

The GAO's report punches holes in the Air Force's justification for its controversial decision to retire the attack jet, saying planners did not "fully assess" the cost savings associated with the A-10 divestment. For example, the Air Force's projection of saving $4.2 billion over five years by retiring the jet did not include the increased workload on other aircraft tasked with picking up the slack. On the other hand, the savings could be more, because the Air Force didn't include savings from canceling software upgrades and other modifications to the aircraft, the GAO said.

"Without a reliable cost estimate, the Air Force does not have a complete picture of the savings it would generate by divesting the A-10 and does not have a reliable basis from which to develop and consider alternatives to achieve budget targets or assess the impact on other missions such as air superiority or global strike," the GAO said in the June 25 report.

Congress tasked the GAO with reviewing the Air Force's plan in the fiscal 2015 National Defense Authorization Act. The agency briefed congressional defense committees on its report in April, shortly before the House Armed Services Committee marked up its version of the fiscal 2016 defense bill, which included an amendment from Rep. Martha McSally, R-Arizona, to block the Air Force's plan.

The GAO report does not recommend any action. The agency will continue to study the plan for a report later this year ....

From the GAO report (attached):

The Air Force A-10 fighter aircraft divestment decision came out of a strategy-based, portfolio-wide review of alternatives used to develop the budget at lower than previously anticipated levels. The Department of Defense (DOD) and Air Force strategic guidance prioritized, among other things, fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-35, readiness, and multirole aircraft, while placing a lower priority on single-role aircraft like the A-10. In developing its fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Air Force examined its entire portfolio in light of this guidance and concluded that the benefits of divesting the A-10 outweighed the cost of retaining it. DOD reviewed and approved the Air Force A-10 divestment decision and submitted this as part of the fiscal year 2015 budget request.

The Air Force has not fully assessed the cost savings associated with A-10 divestment or its alternatives. In its fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Air Force estimated that divesting the A-10 would allow it to save $4.2 billion over its 5-year budget plan; however, our analysis found that the Air Force’s estimated savings are incomplete and may overstate or understate estimated savings. In presenting its budget to Congress, the Air Force provided a number of alternatives to A-10 divestment that would also result in approximately $4.2 billion in cost savings. However, these alternatives were rough estimates that were illustrative only and not fully considered as alternatives to A-10 divestment, according to Air Force officials.

Finally, Air Force divestment of the A-10 will create potential gaps in close air support (CAS)—a mission involving air action against hostile targets in proximity to friendly forces—and other missions, and DOD is planning to address some of these gaps ....

 

[CougarKing]

Just how much damage can a mere eight A-10s inflict if Putin went full full force against the Baltic states under the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians there?

Aviationist

EIGHT U.S. A-10 TANKBUSTERS HAVE JUST DEPLOYED TO ESTONIA
Aug 23 2015 -

By David Cenciotti

ANOTHER PACKAGE OF U.S. AIR FORCE A-10 THUNDERBOLT II ATTACK PLANES HAS ARRIVED IN ESTONIA.

Eight A-10s and approximately 170 reservists have arrived to Ämari Air Base, Estonia, as part of a flying training deployment in support of Operation Atlantic Resolve on Aug. 22.

The aircraft belong to the 303rd Fighter Squadron, 442nd Fighter Wing, from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, and they task is to show “continued commitment to the collective security of NATO and dedication to the enduring peace and stability in the region.”

Supported also by guardsmen from three Air National Guard units, the A-10s will train with their Estonian counterparts for three weeks and will also take part in training with Finnish air forces.

The “Hogs” will also perform low-level flying activity during the deployment.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[tomahawk6]

Combat Camera video of the A-10 in action.I doubt the USAF wants this to be widely distributed. ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L_TjXXx7eQ

 

[SupersonicMax]

Cool video and I recognized a couple of faces.

But...  Their premise is largely based on emotions/feeling rather than facts.  It would have been a great opportunity to say why th A-10 is a keeper and use other arguments than "the 19 yo kid on the ground wants A-10s".

 

[tomahawk6]

I think the point is that the A-10 is very well suited to CAS as opposed to the F-15.Although the Marines seem to do well with the Hornet.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I know it's their point but they haven't addressed with facts why it is better suited than the Hornet, Strike Eagle, Viper, JSF... 

Without facts...  You can't really convince anybody...

 

[cupper]

I know it's their point but they haven't addressed with facts why it is better suited than the Hornet, Strike Eagle, Viper, JSF... 

Without facts...  You can't really convince anybody...

You forget the old maxim "Never let facts stand in the way of a good argument"

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I know it's their point but they haven't addressed with facts why it is better suited than the Hornet, Strike Eagle, Viper, JSF... 

Without facts...  You can't really convince anybody...

There is more intangibles to morale effects than just facts and morale is significant force drain or multiplier. So the morale of the 19-30 years on the ground is a significantly important factor. The USAF management does not really care, because they are soldiers, someone elses problem and not their budget issue. I suspect the F-35 will make a better bomb truck than the A10. But it will be poorly suited for doing the other part of the A10 missions which is in the weeds.

Then there is mission focus. The army guys rightly or wrongly believe that a F-35 Air Force will put CAS on the low end of the priority. The lads on the ground are astute enough to know internal and inter service politics exist. They know the pilots of the A10s have one primary mission and that is to do CAS, they are good at it and supporting the troops on the ground is near and dear to their hearts. The grunts have absolutely no faith in the more or less worthless promises of some USAF general who will never have dust on their boots.   

 

[George Wallace]

I think the point is that the A-10 is very well suited to CAS as opposed to the F-15.Although the Marines seem to do well with the Hornet.

The question would be:  "If the Marines had the A-10, would they be use the Hornet for CAS?"

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The A-10 is not carrier capable, the Hornet is and the Harrier was. The Harrier seemed to be more in the role of the A10 for the marines than any other aircraft. I think of the 3 version the F35B is the one that is going to shine. It will improve upon the performance of the Harrier and fill the same roles. A quick checks shows the US Harrier carrying 300rds of gun ammo as opposed to the F35 180rds, not as big of a difference as the gap between the A10 1200rds and the F35B will bring better sensors and payload than the Harrier.

 

[George Wallace]

Irrelevant facts really.  If the Marines had bought into the A-10, making it carrier capable would have meant mods, like any other aircraft that is carrier capable.  As for sensors, again a moot point, as upgrades to sensor packages occur almost daily on most combat aircraft.

I guess the Marines also never got interested in the A-10, as they have their fleets of Cobras to provide that capability.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Modding an aircraft for carrier ops is a significant investment that often offsets the benefits.

Colin: I believe (as well as many other well qualified people) that the F-35B is why the JSF is not what it could be.  A lot of compromises were made on other variants to make it STOVL, a capability I really question.  The C variant could easily be used by the marine corps.  IMO, the most versatile and adequate version of the JSF will be the C (minus the fact it doesn't have an internal gun). 

As far as the debate about the morale of troops on the ground and wether or not CAS will be provided, I strongly believe that as long as CAS is the best way to support the operational and strategic objectives, it will happen.  If, however, interdiction (deep, air or battlefield) best supports the achievements of the operational and strategic goals, it will be prioritized over CAS, as it should.

A-10s conduct interdiction.  I actually commanded a mission where I had 3 other formations with me, all A-10Cs during an interdiction mission during Op Impact. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Just some thoughts here:

A Minuteman III from Montana, depositing its payload danger close to FLOT is Close Air Support.

An A-10 refuelling in flight to strike tanks in a parking lot in the enemy's capital thousands of miles ahead of FLOT is Interdiction.

And a Minuteman III is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.

Is that about right?

Nudder thought.

Junkers Ju-87 Stuka, the original flying artillery - was a great psychological weapon  - but by 1940 it had pretty much had its day, especially against western militaries.  It flew in the east for the a bit longer, terrorizing civilians.

 

[Baz]

A lot of compromises were made on other variants to make it STOVL, a capability I really question.  The C variant could easily be used by the marine corps.  IMO, the most versatile and adequate version of the JSF will be the C (minus the fact it doesn't have an internal gun). 

As far as the debate about the morale of troops on the ground and wether or not CAS will be provided, I strongly believe that as long as CAS is the best way to support the operational and strategic objectives, it will happen.  If, however, interdiction (deep, air or battlefield) best supports the achievements of the operational and strategic goals, it will be prioritized over CAS, as it should.

The B is required to operate of the LHA, LHD, and LPH; the C can't.  The argument could be made that you could only put them on the CVAs, but under a credible Maritime or Air threat the CVAs have to go out to blue water, making the it less responsive for CAS.  You could also make the argument that you could rely on the AH-1s, but again it limits the flexibility and reach for deep maneuvre CAS.  These are based on hard lessons for the Island Campaigns and Korea.

As a bridge argument between your first quoted point and your second, the Marines don't believe what you strongly believe.  The reason they wanted a replacement for the Harrier is that both the blue water navy and the air force may decide they have higher priorities then the Marines and leave the grunts a$$ high and dry on the beach; again based on experience.  They want their own rotary and fixed Wing CAS up close when they are taking the risks.  They also have their own Hornet Squadrons to help force the operational decisions to support them; there is nothing a VMFA can do a VFA can't, but VMFA still exists.

As well, having been invlovled in planning at the strategic and opertational levels, I don't beleive what you strongly believe.  Even in operations subordinate commanders are always pushing for decisions that only make sense in their playpen, and I find air forces tend to be the worst, and least joint, of the bunch.