Cross filed in my book under Fixing DOD Stupidity�
Real Clear Defense: January 22, 2014 Save the A-10: Give It to the Army By Everett Pyatt
Many articles have been written and speeches made about the exploits and success of the A-10 fleet. It has been a phenomenal airplane in its close air support role. Support for the A-10 remains so strong that the current National Defense Authorization Act precludes additional retirements. The confirmation of the Air Force Secretary was delayed while the issue was deliberated in Congress.
Despite widespread recognition of this success, the Air Force wants to junk all 340 aircraft by 2020. In order to achieve significant savings, the Air Force must cut entire fleets, says Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh.
Retiring the A-10 fleet would achieve a projected $3.7 billion in savings, a decent chunk of the $12 billion the Air Force must cut each year under sequestration.
The Air Force never wanted this aircraft from the start in the 1970s. It was designed to be a tank killer in Western Europe. Never used in this role, it became a weapon of significance killing armored vehicles in Iraq and providing close air support to ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But it has never really been accepted by the Air Force. Modifications to support modern precision ordnance were slow to be installed and pilots had to use the weapon sensors to find targets, rather than cockpit displays.
The A-10�s orphan heritage is further complicated by the split custody of the aircraft between the Air Force�s active, Guard, and Reserve components. Half the A-10 fleet resides within the Air National Guard, for example.
The A-10 fleet is over 30 years old, but does not have many flying hours and will be available for many years. The design is low tech having been designed to operate from unprepared airfields. This design is still relevant in current military scenarios involving ground forces and assures that many more years of flight hours can be obtained.
Yet current plans call for the Air Force to acquire 1,743 F-35As, about 300 of which would replace the A-10. Significant testing of the F-35 ground support capabilities has yet to occur. But the multi-mission design of the aircraft is likely to reduce ground support emphasis. Pilots have to learn interdiction, air combat and defense suppression before turning to ground support techniques. It has been done with the F-16, but ground troops prefer support from the A-10 or helicopters.
At current projected prices, 300 F-35s will cost about $37 billion, and operate at much higher cost.
One alternative worthy of consideration would be to transfer the A-10 fleet to the Army with sufficient resources to operate and provide logistic support. The Army would then update the A-10 combat system to conform to Army standards. This would allow the Army to integrate the A-10 with existing attack helicopter units and provide a more cohesive close air support capability. That process might allow the Army to make reductions to attack helicopter forces.
If this sounds familiar, it should. The Marines operate this way now with a combination of fixed and rotary wing aircraft with great success.
However, the 1948 Key West Agreement precludes this change. The policy paper approved by President Harry Truman after the passage of the 1947 National Security Act specifically assigned the Air Force to provide �close combat and logistical support� for the Army. Since the Agreement did not contemplate the existence of major helicopter forces, the Army was allowed to successfully pursue the military development of helicopter.
Now is the time for a bigger change that will allow the Defense Secretary to make a more thoughtful assignment of ground support responsibilities to ensure they are conducted in the most supportive manner for ground units.
Giving the Army the A-10 would allow the service to fulfill the close air support mission with a quality aircraft.
Retaining the A-10 fleet would cost $3.7 billion, but it would eliminate the need for those 300 F-35As, saving the Pentagon $37 billion.
Such savings would cut about 10% of the Pentagon�s major system cost growth, estimated at $411 billion by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
It would be a first step in managing the issue of cost growth the acquisition system prefers to ignore.
Transfer of the A-10 fleet to the Army is a money saving action avoiding early retirement of proven ground support aircraft. The Key West Agreement should not be allowed to prevent a common sense management action.
Everett Pyatt is the Leader of the Project for Management and Acquisition Leadership at the McCain Institute for International Leadership, a part of Arizona State University. He is formerly Assistant Secretary of the Navy and Acquisition Executive.
The Air Force will not have any part of those planes going to the Army they rather see them sit in Tuscon at Davis-Montham AFB than see the Army get them! Its one of those things the airforce wanted control of all UAV's the Army told them to go get bent and kept them.
We were glad to see them during OEF and OIF too. We had Marine Corp Super Cobra Helicopters and A10's as CAS on numerous missions. Knowing an A10 is on standby gives you a warm fuzzy when the SHTF.
Now that there is no need for SAC the Air Force should become the Army Air Corp again. 99% of the Air Force mission today is in support of the Army in one capacity or another.
Put a itty-bitty little rotor on it and call it a attack helicopter!
That is called the AH-64 Apache. Similar armaments. The Army WANTED the A-10 when it was introduced but AF jet-jockeys had a fit about Army officers flying fixed wing aircraft.
IIRC the military was gonna scrap the Warthog in the early 90's�but it turned out the Army was mighty glad to see it deployed in Desert Storm�.
The Air Force never wanted this airframe in the first place. During the cold war and up until the money dried up, they were obsessed with only one thing: Single Seat fighters to mix it up with the Soviets over Eastern Europe. CAS to them was a redheaded step child best left to the other Services, Army and Navy. During Desert Storm the aircraft was the MVP of the conflict, not only in the CAS role, but when Saddam and the worthless (but popular among reporters and idiots) SCUD attacks came to the forefront, it became the darling. Great airplane and BTW, it saved my airframe, the S-3 as they have common engines and our were worn out so we were able to buy 100 power plants.
There's not only that Key West Accord (which is only paperwork after all) but one tiny little problem: The Army doesn't have runways. So they'd have to operate their A-10s from Air Force bases. And maintain them there. So if the only difference would be the color of the pilot's flight suit, what real savings would you have?
MMM,well when I wuz in a NG tank battalion, we operated in Ft. Drum. Got to see A-10's all the time. Army Engineers are ALWAYS looking to rip schit up with their heavy equipment. Fun stuff for them. Not a biggie for the Army Engineers to cut a decent runway and being a very hard use aircraft, it wouldn't need much more than PSP for a surface. Almost as good as Russian aircraft for primitive fields.
Are quite a few Army bases and joint bases that have runways they could operate from.
Hunter Army Airfield. Lawson Army Airfield (Ft. Benning). AP Hill in VA has at least a 5000ft runway. Those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head. I've jumped on quite a few more.
Standard tactical runways shoule be no less than 8K and like tits, more is better we had a 12K at Cecil Field. While the Wartie (and S-3) can comfortably take off from shorter runways, your envelope gets way too iffy and all your "V"s (VCrit etc) get way down. Great airplane and the Air Force did a great job with it, but nowadays between bean counters and requirements, they all want a common airframe which hardly ever works.
Now that there is no need for SAC the Air Force should become the Army Air Corp again. 99% of the Air Force mission today is in support of the Army in one capacity or another.
Yes, kill the best run service and give it to the worst run service.
Even during the Cold War, SAC was only a fraction of USAF operations.
[�] Lieutenant Colonel Eric Murphy is an A-10 pilot from Baltimore. Lt Col Murphy flies with the 104th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron from the Maryland National Guard. In his day job, �Captain� Eric Murphy is a commercial pilot who flies A320s but today he�s not flying British tourists traveling within the United States. He�s going to Helmand Province to cover the British �Royal Welsh.� I remembered some Royal Welsh from Iraq. There had been much fighting. A lot of killing that went both ways. They had been Men of Valor.
As Lt Col Murphy crawled in, I wished him luck in covering the British, but didn�t say that some of those British soldiers are my personal friends. It was good to see the A-10s heading out there. The Brits appreciate it. [�] A-10s have more tricks than Harry Potter, such as the flares designed to lure heat-seeking missiles away from the engines. Over these battlefields, pilots often pop the flares as �We see you� warnings to the enemy. If the enemy is in the open and no civilians are around, they are unlikely to get a friendly flare warning, but sometimes it�s better to hold off on the big weapons; the enemy might be fighting from a built-up area.
Today, Lt Col Murphy�s 30mm cannon is loaded with 1,150 rounds. The 30mm can destroy tanks, but believe it or not, typically will not penetrate the walls around Afghan homes. When the 30mm fires, it�s almost unbelievable. The bullets don�t fly in a laser-like stream, but sort of spray in a lethal mist, as if the cannon is shot-painting a swath with huge bullets. If the enemy is in the open, the cannon is like a weapon of mass destruction. When people are hit with M-16 bullets, the wound is often more like a couple small holes, but when bodies get hit with weapons this large, they fly in pieces�
This is the best video I've seen on this magnificent plane. IIRC, this is the one where the pilot says, "When you fire that 30mm, the cockpit fills up with the smell of gunpowder....it smells like...victory!"
Who cares if there are Army Conus bases capable of supporting the A-10, there aren't any overseas Army bases capable, which is the whole point. The A-10 (hopefully) will never be used in the U.S., so what's the point.
I think the only Army base in Europe capable of supporting the A-10 was Echterdingen AB, which was used for Mohawks and it was closed years ago.
So they'd have to use USAF bases anytime they deployed, they'd need an entire new fixed wing branch of the Army trained and set up to support it logistically, not to mention train pilots.
The Army would be better off giving an equal allocation of $$ to let USAF keep the A-10. It would probably cost half as much.
For your viewing enjoyment. Years ago, one was here and did serious aerobatics, including a hammerhead stall. Then flew west, dropped below the trees and flew down the creek, turned left down the river, then popped up from the trees in an attack run center stage. It don't get any better then that.
The 442 FW transferred from Richards-Gebaur to Whiteman AFB down at Knob Noster, Missouri in 1994 and now parks its A-10s next to all those B-2 bombers.
Who cares if there are Army Conus bases capable of supporting the A-10, there aren't any overseas Army bases capable, which is the whole point. The A-10 (hopefully) will never be used in the U.S., so what's the point.
I think the only Army base in Europe capable of supporting the A-10 was Echterdingen AB, which was used for Mohawks and it was closed years ago.
So they'd have to use USAF bases anytime they deployed, they'd need an entire new fixed wing branch of the Army trained and set up to support it logistically, not to mention train pilots.
The Army would be better off giving an equal allocation of $$ to let USAF keep the A-10. It would probably cost half as much.
Marines like their own fixed wing ground support. They think it works better for them then depending on Air Force.
Army thinks so too.
Army likes the ugly old Warthog and wants to give them a home.
Air Force doesn�t want those old Warthogs anymore.
If the Key West Accord prevents the Army from having them, let the Marines have them. Modify them so they're able to launch and land on aircraft carriers and the Marines will have the best ground support plane they've ever had.
For your viewing enjoyment. Years ago, one was here and did serious aerobatics, including a hammerhead stall. Then flew west, dropped below the trees and flew down the creek, turned left down the river, then popped up from the trees in an attack run center stage. It don't get any better then that.
My introduction to the A-10 was in July of '76. We had a pair of F-15s, an F-16 with the chief test pilot and a pair of A-10s flown in for our bicentennial celebration. The F-16 and an A-10 put on an amazing show. The left our base for a quick flight to the Paris Air Show where one of the A-10s crashed during a demonstration. The pilot did a split s, hit the runway when he was pulling out of the verticle loop.
Saw a 4 ship of hogs fly over us leaving Las Vegas (SHOT) last week. Red Flag at Nellis AFB. They seem to just hang in the air as they can fly so slow.
Had to really watch out on the flight line on Kadena if we had hogs on base because they are pretty quiet. Easy to hear an F-15 taxi up behind you but not so much with the A-10s. Flight OPs shows a distinct lack of humor if the pilots have to wait for a fuel truck to get out of their way.
The 442 FW transferred from Richards-Gebaur to Whiteman AFB down at Knob Noster, Missouri in 1994 and now parks its A-10s next to all those B-2 bombers.
Our house sits directly under that flight path. I love it when the A-10 flies over. They fly low enough that I can hear them coming. I was an engine guy on them for 4 years. They still give me goose bumps when I see them.
You guys are missing the point. Some congress critter can promise their constituents 300 more planes will be built in that plant where the F35 is being built. THAT is the only reason the A-10 isn't going to the army and is going to the bone yard.
There is no doubt that the A-10 rivals the AD-1 for the best Close Air Support craft ever built but you have to back away from the plane and look at where it is in it's lifecycle and the support tail
Yes, they have new wings available (http://tinyurl.com/A-10-rewing-at-Hill) but if they think that the rest of these airframes will last another 30 years in a tactical flying environment then they are doing drugs. We have seen what happens when you try this, a gradual flight envelope restriction to preserve airframe life to the point that you have a really nice flying club airplane and your pilots are reduced to flying instrument flights and pretending to be tactical aviators. It happened to the A-6, EA-6B, F-14 and is happening now to the early generation (A/B/C/D) Hornets.
The second issue is that support tail. Say the Army gets the airframe for free (think free puppy). Now you have to adopt/acquire/staff all the staff and equipment to keep Depot, Intermediate and Operational level support going. I assure you that is millions of dollars that an Army, who is conducting significant reductions, wants nothing to do with taking this on. http://www.army.mil/article/106355
Don't mistake my post, the F-35 is an abortion. It will look great on paper but we will have seriously reduced ability to conduct diverse missions and CAS, more than anything else, requires diversity and flexibility.
This is simply a money thing and the only way to save money, grand money, is to get rid of entire platforms. The A-6 and F-14 (and soon the EA-6B) didn't go away because the F/A-18 can do it better. They went away because the services were able to close complete supply and maintenance lines. Don't look for the Army to make their financial position worse in this time of constructing budgets. It's not about capability but about money right now. We'll pay for it with blood later but we never learn that lesson or there would have been P-47's and not P-51's doing CAS in Korea.
If the Key West Accord prevents the Army from having them, let the Marines have them. Modify them so they're able to launch and land on aircraft carriers and the Marines will have the best ground support plane they've ever had.
I don't know if you could sling an A10 off a carrier. Good idea tho.
There is no doubt that the A-10 rivals the AD-1 for the best Close Air Support craft ever built but you have to back away from the plane and look at where it is in it's lifecycle and the support tail
Yes, they have new wings available (http://tinyurl.com/A-10-rewing-at-Hill) but if they think that the rest of these airframes will last another 30 years in a tactical flying environment then they are doing drugs. We have seen what happens when you try this, a gradual flight envelope restriction to preserve airframe life to the point that you have a really nice flying club airplane and your pilots are reduced to flying instrument flights and pretending to be tactical aviators. It happened to the A-6, E-6B, F-14 and is happening now to the early generation (A/B/C/D) Hornets.
The second issue is that support tail. Say the Army gets the airframe for free (think free puppy). Now you have to adopt/acquire/staff all the to keep Depot, Intermediate and Operational level support going. I assure you that is millions of dollars that an Army who is conducting significant reductions wants nothing to do with taking this on. http://www.army.mil/article/106355
Don't mistake my post, the F-35 is an abortion. It will look great on paper but we will have seriously reduced ability to conduct diverse missions and CAS, more than anything else, requires diversity and flexibility.
This is simply a money thing and the only way to save money, grand money, is to get rid of entire platforms. The A-6 and F-14 (and soon the EA-6B) didn't go away because the F/A-18 can do it better. They went away because the services were able to close complete supply and maintenance lines. Don't look for the Army to make their financial position worse in this time of constructing budgets. It's not about capability but about money right now. We'll pay for it with blood later but we never learn that lesson or there would have been P-47's and not P-51's doing CAS in Korea.
Another world-class post from someone who knows WTF the big picture is....
This gets me... the A10 is like a batch of a/c that nothing new betters it on the mission that it does and the versatility offered...
instead of scrapping them, they ought to be re opening assembly lines to manufacture new ones.. same with the A 6 Intruder, the F 14 Tom Cat, and even the B 52s...
its nuts try to get 30 to 50 years out of an a/c.. but retooling to make new ones would be cheaper than developing new A/C to replace them......do the technology upgrades on the new ones... and keep putting the hurt on the bad guys...
stupid politicians...and upper military brass that caters to them...
You guys are missing the point. Some congress critter can promise their constituents 300 more planes will be built in that plant where the F35 is being built. THAT is the only reason the A-10 isn't going to the army and is going to the bone yard.
I'm in a Facebook group that included active duty aircraft crewchiefs. There's talk that the Pentagon is cutting 25,000 personnel from the AF.
Modify them so they're able to launch and land on aircraft carriers and the Marines will have the best ground support plane they've ever had.
There has never been a successful transition of a shore based plane to the carrier in an operational role and the Warthog couldn't do it either. The requirements to be a carrier based aircraft needs to be in the aircrafts genetic mix.
The T-45 and F-17 are but shells of their shore-based cousins. When I applied to AOCS in 1985 I was told I would fly the T-45 in flight school. It took until a year after I retired (22 years later) before VT-86 got them. Stunts like the U-2, and C-130 and DT&E like the P-51 don't count.
From Wikipedia: The B-52 completed fifty years of continuous service with its original operator in 2005; after being upgraded between 2013 and 2015, it is expected to serve into the 2040s.
As of 2012, 85 were in active service with nine in reserve.
The B-52 completed fifty years of continuous service with its original operator in 2005; after being upgraded between 2013 and 2015, it is expected to serve into the 2040s.
As of 2012, 85 were in active service with nine in reserve.
And there were 744 built and they are not a tactical aircraft and are not subject to the stresses of CAS.
You guys are missing the point. Some congress critter can promise their constituents 300 more planes will be built in that plant where the F35 is being built. THAT is the only reason the A-10 isn't going to the army and is going to the bone yard.
I'm in a Facebook group that included active duty aircraft crewchiefs. There's talk that the Pentagon is cutting 25,000 personnel from the AF.
Oh that isn't talk that's a fact! My good bud is getting looked at for the chopping block. Some folks will not qualify for early retirement some will miss it by a yr or two. That's what happens when you sign a contract with the devil. I'm in the Army and they are holding boards as we speak going through records...
Oh that isn't talk that's a fact! My good bud is getting looked at for the chopping block. Some folks will not qualify for early retirement some will miss it by a yr or two. That's what happens when you sign a contract with the devil. I'm in the Army and they are holding boards as we speak going through records...
Yep, it's 1991 all over again and I'll bet the lessons learned then get to be relearned with lots of promises to do it better next time. Retired and done with it never felt so good but I feel for you guys going through it now.
I worked for several years (about 14 years ago) in private aviation with a fine gentleman and Vietnam vet who commanded a NG wing of A-10's at BTL. He was very fond of that airframe and had some great stories about it. He said back then that it was close to the end of its usefulness, at least as far as the Pentagon saw it in dollars and cents. One comment he made to me I'll always remember; "Jim, you're an aero-engineer- could you imagine someone coming into your design office just to say he's got a really big gun and needs an airplane to carry it?"
Who cares if there are Army Conus bases capable of supporting the A-10, there aren't any overseas Army bases capable, which is the whole point. The A-10 (hopefully) will never be used in the U.S., so what's the point.
Well, yeah, there's this thing the Army does called "training" so they would get use in CONUS. Wartime O-CONUS? Need an airfield? Just take it. Pick one. US Army Rangers are ready when you are.
There is no doubt that the A-10 rivals the AD-1 for the best Close Air Support craft ever built but you have to back away from the plane and look at where it is in it's lifecycle and the support tail
Yes, they have new wings available (http://tinyurl.com/A-10-rewing-at-Hill) but if they think that the rest of these airframes will last another 30 years in a tactical flying environment then they are doing drugs. We have seen what happens when you try this, a gradual flight envelope restriction to preserve airframe life to the point that you have a really nice flying club airplane and your pilots are reduced to flying instrument flights and pretending to be tactical aviators. It happened to the A-6, E-6B, F-14 and is happening now to the early generation (A/B/C/D) Hornets.
The second issue is that support tail. Say the Army gets the airframe for free (think free puppy). Now you have to adopt/acquire/staff all the to keep Depot, Intermediate and Operational level support going. I assure you that is millions of dollars that an Army who is conducting significant reductions wants nothing to do with taking this on. http://www.army.mil/article/106355
Don't mistake my post, the F-35 is an abortion. It will look great on paper but we will have seriously reduced ability to conduct diverse missions and CAS, more than anything else, requires diversity and flexibility.
This is simply a money thing and the only way to save money, grand money, is to get rid of entire platforms. The A-6 and F-14 (and soon the EA-6B) didn't go away because the F/A-18 can do it better. They went away because the services were able to close complete supply and maintenance lines. Don't look for the Army to make their financial position worse in this time of constructing budgets. It's not about capability but about money right now. We'll pay for it with blood later but we never learn that lesson or there would have been P-47's and not P-51's doing CAS in Korea.
Another world-class post from someone who knows WTF the big picture is....
The big problem is that CAS low tech platforms like the Hog don't generate big dollars for the defense industry. A new version of the A-1 or A-10 would be a stellar airframe for CAS. Unfortunately stealth and supercruise cost much more and therefore are much more lucrative to push for the defense lobbyist.
I think the F-22 plays at whole different level in the HICAP role and we should have bought more (F-22s) but the F-35 is neither fish nor fowl. Too expensive for CAS and lacking in the real Air Superiority role.
At the current price the F-35 is a HVAF (High Value Air Frame) and any Air Wing commander who might like a promotion in the future will be reluctant to subject the platform to the dangers of CAS. Stealth don't help with a visual firing solution and the F-35 will never be able to eat lead like the Hog.
Who cares if there are Army Conus bases capable of supporting the A-10, there aren't any overseas Army bases capable, which is the whole point. The A-10 (hopefully) will never be used in the U.S., so what's the point.
Well, yeah, there's this thing the Army does called "training" so they would get use in CONUS. Wartime O-CONUS? Need an airfield? Just take it. Pick one. US Army Rangers are ready when you are.
Obviously I'm talking about an end use, rather than just a training toy. How are you getting those A-10's to the sandbox or Germany or Korea, where your grunts might need the CAS?
Or are you going to ask USAF to give you some KC's as well?
The whole thing is silly, the cost to enable the Army to operate an aircraft, where the last one built is already 30 years old, is just not feasible.
It's just not as simple as a new paint job, training some pilots and teaching grunts to maintain and arm them.
As good as the Airplane is, its service life is coming to an end. Like or not. The airplane was a orphan from the start. Lot of good airplanes when down the road over the years. Sorry to see it go but its going to go. The Key West Agreement that took the Army Air Corp and made it the U.S. Airforce is well what it is. They are never going to give or let the Army have fixed wing aircraft like the A-10 to do so is to take air force branch and stick it back as part of the Army. Its a territorial thing.the Air force is going to protect its turf. The Army on the other hand operates helicopters a lot of helicopters and even that is changing.
From the OP... The A-10 fleet is over 30 years old, but does not have many flying hours and will be available for many years. The design is low tech having been designed to operate from unprepared airfields. This design is still relevant in current military scenarios involving ground forces and assures that many more years of flight hours can be obtained.
Yet current plans call for the Air Force to acquire 1,743 F-35As, about 300 of which would replace the A-10. Significant testing of the F-35 ground support capabilities has yet to occur. But the multi-mission design of the aircraft is likely to reduce ground support emphasis. Pilots have to learn interdiction, air combat and defense suppression before turning to ground support techniques. It has been done with the F-16, but ground troops prefer support from the A-10 or helicopters.
At current projected prices, 300 F-35s will cost about $37 billion, and operate at much higher cost.
One alternative worthy of consideration would be to transfer the A-10 fleet to the Army with sufficient resources to operate and provide logistic support. The Army would then update the A-10 combat system to conform to Army standards. This would allow the Army to integrate the A-10 with existing attack helicopter units and provide a more cohesive close air support capability. That process might allow the Army to make reductions to attack helicopter forces.
If this sounds familiar, it should. The Marines operate this way now with a combination of fixed and rotary wing aircraft with great success...
...Now is the time for a bigger change that will allow the Defense Secretary to make a more thoughtful assignment of ground support responsibilities to ensure they are conducted in the most supportive manner for ground units.
Giving the Army the A-10 would allow the service to fulfill the close air support mission with a quality aircraft.
Retaining the A-10 fleet would cost $3.7 billion, but it would eliminate the need for those 300 F-35As, saving the Pentagon $37 billion.
Such savings would cut about 10% of the Pentagon�s major system cost growth, estimated at $411 billion by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Obviously I'm talking about an end use, rather than just a training toy. How are you getting those A-10's to the sandbox or Germany or Korea, where your grunts might need the CAS?
The same way we did forty years ago, fly em.
Quote
Or are you going to ask USAF to give you some KC's as well?
KCs have always been used to support other services with aerial refueling. I still read stories of naval aviators messing up a drogue basket. Too bad they can't hook up to a boom like good pilots can...
From the OP... The A-10 fleet is over 30 years old, but does not have many flying hours and will be available for many years. The design is low tech having been designed to operate from unprepared airfields. This design is still relevant in current military scenarios involving ground forces and assures that many more years of flight hours can be obtained.
Yet current plans call for the Air Force to acquire 1,743 F-35As, about 300 of which would replace the A-10. Significant testing of the F-35 ground support capabilities has yet to occur. But the multi-mission design of the aircraft is likely to reduce ground support emphasis. Pilots have to learn interdiction, air combat and defense suppression before turning to ground support techniques. It has been done with the F-16, but ground troops prefer support from the A-10 or helicopters.
At current projected prices, 300 F-35s will cost about $37 billion, and operate at much higher cost.
One alternative worthy of consideration would be to transfer the A-10 fleet to the Army with sufficient resources to operate and provide logistic support. The Army would then update the A-10 combat system to conform to Army standards. This would allow the Army to integrate the A-10 with existing attack helicopter units and provide a more cohesive close air support capability. That process might allow the Army to make reductions to attack helicopter forces.
If this sounds familiar, it should. The Marines operate this way now with a combination of fixed and rotary wing aircraft with great success...
...Now is the time for a bigger change that will allow the Defense Secretary to make a more thoughtful assignment of ground support responsibilities to ensure they are conducted in the most supportive manner for ground units.
Giving the Army the A-10 would allow the service to fulfill the close air support mission with a quality aircraft.
Retaining the A-10 fleet would cost $3.7 billion, but it would eliminate the need for those 300 F-35As, saving the Pentagon $37 billion.
Such savings would cut about 10% of the Pentagon�s major system cost growth, estimated at $411 billion by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Works for me.
On paper it might look doable but old airplanes are exactly that "old Airplanes".I'm quite sure the bean counters were a significant part of its impending demise.Just a matter of time before all tail numbers are headed for the bone yard IMO .Air frame combat hours are cumulative and hrs of maintenance to deliver one flying hour are paramount in overviews of new aircraft procurement kinda like a money pit house you continually feed.Don't get me wrong I've been a Hog fan from day one especially with a little experience in CAS although in another life time but the mission still remains as it was back then only more so in high tech mode..sadly the F-35 in any CAS config will never measure up to the A-10 .
I agree. I'm not expert that's for sure but the A-10 was designed for ground attack and the F-35 is a multirole single engine air craft which means it isn't going to be worth diddly to anybody. Fighters should be fighters, ground attack should be ground attack, and bombers should be bombers.
Two entirely different airframes bow. The 52 was at best limited to may 2.5-3Gs where the A-10 closer to 5-6. It's the bending paperclip priciple. Pugs' post covered it nicely.
I have already posted the numbers on the fifty years and counting of the B-52. Supposed to be good to go into the 2040s.
Seems to me that the tough as nails Warthog could well do the same. And weapon sensors upgrades seem to be mostly all it needs.
two completely different airframes doing completely different jobs....in any real mission the A10 actually pulls a hell of alot of fairly high G maneuvers so as not to make itself to easy of a target and keep the target in sight....it puts more strain on the airframe in one true tactical mission that the B52 is gonna see in a 100 missions....
and i am a fan.......to the right is a dummy round for the Gau-8A gattling gun in the a-10 i just had to have
Let the Air Force retire the A-10 but let the Army field a turboprop dedicated CAS airframe along the lines of a Super Tucano or something similar that is less of a maintenance hog than any actual jet aircraft, particulary a fighter and more suited to short fields.
The Army could field a buttload of those for a lot less and the maintenance and logistics wouldn't so different from what the Army already does with its rotary fleet.
Better yet, let the Air Guard have all of them and all of the 130s. Neither one is sexy, but they are needed and the guard can handle the mission as well, or better, than the AD for less money.
I have already posted the numbers on the fifty years and counting of the B-52. Supposed to be good to go into the 2040s.
Seems to me that the tough as nails Warthog could well do the same. And weapon sensors upgrades seem to be mostly all it needs.
Alot of Buffs were retired because of the continual heavy bomb loads as a direct result of high wing loadings they strapped on during the SEA years in other words worn out beyond repair.Had a pard that worked for Boeing after he retired he often commented on how much tax payer green was being poured into depots to keep them flying and this was moons ago.As we all know G loads on bombers are insignificant when compared to the nimbleness of the Hog which could carry some heavy munitions even in CAS mode.All I have to do is watch a Hog vid showing their high G maneuvers to convince me they're on their final countdown since they've been doing this for so long.
That does not fit the concept that the Hog is built, overbuilt, for its mission.
It is supposed to be a low tech, easy to fix, ground support airframe designed to fly in and out of real $hit holes.
And where is its replacement?
The F-35? I don�t think so.
Other than the high mounted engines and the titanium bath tub to protect the pilot there isn't a big differences between the A-10 and other airframes...
That does not fit the concept that the Hog is built, overbuilt, for its mission.
It is supposed to be a low tech, easy to fix, ground support airframe designed to fly in and out of real $hit holes.
And where is its replacement?
The F-35? I don�t think so.
Other than the high mounted engines and the titanium bath tub to protect the pilot there isn't a big differences between the A-10 and other airframes...
well it does have a better simple redundancy to its control package to keep the plane flyable when shot full of holes...IIRC its one of the few you can still keep flying with all its hydraulics shot out.....also flies alot slower on station than most which makes a hell of alot of difference when dropping ordinance with in spitting distance of your own guys.....
not saying you couldnt start over and do something different and get the same result, a damn good CAS aircraft but the thing was designed from the ground up to be hit by the enemy, most our other stuff focuses on not getting hit in the first place
Other than the high mounted engines and the titanium bath tub to protect the pilot there isn't a big differences between the A-10 and other airframes...
Other than the high mounted engines and the titanium bath tub to protect the pilot there isn't a big differences between the A-10 and other airframes...
Trying to figure that one out?
Lot of airframes of that time period had back-up systems for flight controls and self-sealing wet wing construction.
Other than the high mounted engines and the titanium bath tub to protect the pilot there isn't a big differences between the A-10 and other airframes...
Trying to figure that one out?
Lot of airframes of that time period had back-up systems for flight controls and self-sealing wet wing construction.
Ok gotcha thought you were implying overall appearance
There were some A10s modified for the FAC mission and were called OA-10s. They had extra radios and maybe other equipment. If the OA-10 is still in service they may be the last to go. The F-4G Wild Weasels were the last to go due to no replacement. Flying low level without yanking and banking is hard enough on an airframe. Add yanking and banking like the A-10 does low level and the airframe gets really stressed.
Many of the older C-130s suffered wing cracks from low level flying. Hard assault landings added to the problem. There used to be a form for USAF C-130s the flight engineer filled out that tracked all flight aspects. The forms were sent to Warner/Robbins AFB and the info was input into a computer. The computer could predict when depot maintenance was due by not only flying hours but the environment the plane was subjected to. The program was started for the hurricane hunters and was so successful the rest of the fleet was added. Funding cuts ended the program before I retired. Many time change parts were changed to fly until fail status. I guess the greens at the golf courses were more important.
One of the problems would be supporting them. Saw something a year or two ago about them having to salvage parts from mothballed planes to keep the remaining ones flying. From memory (not my best feature) had something to do with the wing and the parts only had a limited life time when in use. Thus, all the available spare parts of that type would soon run out. Jigs, etc. used to build the parts were destroyed years ago, when the AF planned to phase out the plane. Thus building new ones would cost as much as for a new plane and we know how those costs skyrocket! Example: What is an elephant? A mouse built to government specs.
Super great air plane and we/the army - marines definitely need it or better yet, an upgraded version. But unlikely to happen in the current political climate. JMHO YMMV
That does not fit the concept that the Hog is built, overbuilt, for its mission.
It is supposed to be a low tech, easy to fix, ground support airframe designed to fly in and out of real $hit holes.
And where is its replacement?
The F-35? I don�t think so.
Other than the high mounted engines and the titanium bath tub to protect the pilot there isn't a big differences between the A-10 and other airframes...
well it does have a better simple redundancy to its control package to keep the plane flyable when shot full of holes...IIRC its one of the few you can still keep flying with all its hydraulics shot out.....also flies alot slower on station than most which makes a hell of alot of difference when dropping ordinance with in spitting distance of your own guys.....
not saying you couldnt start over and do something different and get the same result, a damn good CAS aircraft but the thing was designed from the ground up to be hit by the enemy, most our other stuff focuses on not getting hit in the first place
FAS report: �Service Life The original service life of the A/OA-10 was 8,000 hours, equating to approximately to FY2005. The revised service life was projected out to 12,000 hours, equating to approximately FY2016. The most recent long range plan has the A/OA-10 in the fleet through FY2028, which equates to approximately 18,000-24,000 hours.�
As pointed out by Everett Pyatt in the OP, the A-10 has plenty of service life left and there is nothing else quite as good for close air support. Nothing in the pipeline at anywhere near the lower cost.
The question he posed is who could best use those hours. Army or Air Force? The Marines have the answer to that.
The question he posed is who could best use those hours. Army or Air Force?
The ANG of AFRes would be the most cost effective. All of the support is already in place to support then in the USAF system. It's all about money and control.
![[Linked Image]](http://s809.photobucket.com/user/Arch48/media/dsc_3673_dm_a10_zpsd1795f6e.jpg.html)
Stunts like the U-2, and C-130 and DT&E like the P-51 don't count.
![[Linked Image]](http://smg.photobucket.com/user/rattler_mt/media/IMG_0323_zps1b2d3ddc.jpg.html)