A-10 retirement indefinitely delayed

[Julien]

A-10 retirement indefinitely delayed, I guess they finally figured out its needed more then a few more F-35s?

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/01/13/report--10-retirement-indefinitely-delayed/78747114/

Julien

[Giorgio N]

Considering that the decision has been forced onto the USAF by the Congress, it's more the effect of some well directed lobbying at political level that has very little to do with any analysis of the military value of the type.

[Ronan71]

The logical thing I always thought would be to give them to the US Army who want them, taking them off the hands of the Air Force who have no interest it seems in CAS missions.

Shame the Army is prevented by law from operating fixed wing assets of course, perhaps that's a law that could be revised to allow them to operate certain types of aircraft?

[bentwaters81tfw]

Since when has logic had anything to do with such decisions?

It's built it's own reputation, but greasy pole climbers want shiny whizz-bangs to command, not slow, dirty, mud-movers. Trouble is, at the moment, we need slow, dirty, mud-movers, because they do the job, and it has been realised where it matters.

Change the rules, give them to the Army, and get on with the job.

[Giorgio N]

The logical thing I always thought would be to give them to the US Army who want them, taking them off the hands of the Air Force who have no interest it seems in CAS missions.

Shame the Army is prevented by law from operating fixed wing assets of course, perhaps that's a law that could be revised to allow them to operate certain types of aircraft?

Is that the same air force that has completed on average 20,000 CAS missions a year, with around 20% resulting in dropped weapons, for the last few years ? If they had no interest in CAS I wonder what their aircrafts were doing dropping weapons 4,000 times a year. Maybe they were disposing of old weapons in some abandoned area ?

Ever wondered why the USMC, the air force that sees support of ground troops as its only mission, has never ever specified an A-10 style aircraft ?

[SleeperService]

Ever wondered why the USMC, the air force that sees support of ground troops as its only mission, has never ever specified an A-10 style aircraft ?

Because they have Harriers....

[alex]

AFAIK, the USMC always wanted aircraft which can operate from aircraft carriers, so the A-10 is not a real option. Unless, they decide to fund a navalized version.

Alex

[Max Headroom]

US Army is allowed to operate fixed wing types, at least up to the size of the C-27J. But that example is a whole world of inter service rivalry.

How many times has the A-10 had major upgrades? Not many. I assume and suspect that any development was strangled early on as it would have diverted tax dollars from 'more capable' types. I know that they have been re winged and there was talk of re engining them too with more economical commercially derived types, but again that was canned just like the two seater proposal (for FAC duties?) for the same reason. Rockwell isn't around any longer to fight its corner.

For a type that isn't popular with some people it appears to lead a charmed life, but for how much longer? Do the US want to keep a dedicated mud mover capability or will it form part of a multi role type - it may even be a helicopter? Which service would operate it? There doesn't appear to be a serious attempt at formulating a replacement, something *should* have been flying by now ready to step into the Hog's trotters as it were and the fact that there isn't speaks volumes about perceived priorities in the Pentagon/Capitol Hill.

When the A-10 draw down is complete, a dedicated capability will probably disappear with it.

Trevor

[Giorgio N]

Because they have Harriers....

Oh yes, the VTOL brother of the A-10, a simple, rugged and reliable type capable of loitering for long time at low level while throwing plenty of old fashioned weapons at the enemy... pity that this is what some think while the reality is that the Harrier is an expensive and complex type, with limited range and load, that costs like an F-18 and is today equipped with every sort of sensor in order to employ smart weapons. At the same time the Harrier has an accident rate 3 times higher than the Hornet and its survivability in combat is nothing great, as shown in the Gulf War

No, the Harrier does not perform the same kind of job of the A-10, these aircrafts in USMC service fight exactly like the USAF F-16s, they don't go down low where a single 23mm hit means losing an aircraft but drop smart weapons from higher level.

AFAIK, the USMC always wanted aircraft which can operate from aircraft carriers, so the A-10 is not a real option. Unless, they decide to fund a navalized version.

Alex

The USMC never looked at the A-10 but also never looked at funding any similar aircraft. The USMC never attempted to have a similar platform developed because they don't need the features of the A-10 to do CAS.

[Alan P]

Entirely political decision, as Giorgio already pointed out. You can try to dress it up with various operational capabilities, but the truth is that the A-10 is operated by ANG part-timers from pork barrel States, and languishes a poor fourth in the USAF CAS league tables behind the F-16, F-15E and, overwhelmingly, the B-1B as the weapon of choice.

I suspect the only reason the air force still operates the thing is NRA lobbying.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Alan P

[phildagreek]

On a purely selfish note, I'm glad they're being kept. They're one of the most brutal, get the job done machines around, I love 'em! I just wish they'd bring them back to the UK, many happy hours of my youth watching them circle & bank overhead.

Remember boys, go ugly early!

[Julien]

Entirely political decision, as Giorgio already pointed out. You can try to dress it up with various operational capabilities, but the truth is that the A-10 is operated by ANG part-timers from pork barrel States, and languishes a poor fourth in the USAF CAS league tables behind the F-16, F-15E and, overwhelmingly, the B-1B as the weapon of choice.

I suspect the only reason the air force still operates the thing is NRA lobbying.

I know a couple of guys who would disagree. When the other stuff was up high it was A-10s hosing terry taliban from the front of their FOB.

Julien

[magwitch]

The logical thing I always thought would be to give them to the US Army who want them, taking them off the hands of the Air Force who have no interest it seems in CAS missions.

Shame the Army is prevented by law from operating fixed wing assets of course, perhaps that's a law that could be revised to allow them to operate certain types of aircraft?

The Army don't want them as they don't want the expense of setting up a training system and logistics pipeline so their is no appetite to amend the Key West agreement at the moment.

[Shane]

A-10 retirement indefinitely delayed, I guess they finally figured out its needed more then a few more F-35s?

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/01/13/report--10-retirement-indefinitely-delayed/78747114/

Julien

It's more the fact that a disproportionate number of qualified aircraft engineers are being kept busy ensuring an old and failing aircraft won't fall out of the sky when they need to be trained to maintain the type which will largely supplant the very small proportion of actual CAS that the A-10 does.

OTOH it does keep a dozen senators in a cushy billet, which is the real story

Shane

[hairystick]

I suspect the only reason the air force still operates the thing is NRA lobbying.

Not quite true.

There has been lobbying, from the general population, to congressmen and onwards up the political ladder. The Joe-Average voter has had a small impact on the process. Luckily there have been a couple of CAS pilots on the hearing committee panels who have asked some extremely difficult questions of the Air Farce.

The A-10 is the only platform that provides a halfway decent CAS sevice to those on the ground. Sadly the blue-suiters only like things that can go supersonic, or LOOK like they are going supersonic.

Neither is of use when their loiter-time is counted in minutes, not hours, and the amount of carried payload is pathetic.

The morons in congress who are pushing the f-35 as a replacement... (bangs head against wall)

[Alan P]

Not quite true.

Ok, should have explained, the NRA thing was a joke, because the A-10 has a big gun.

their loiter-time is counted in minutes, not hours, and the amount of carried payload is pathetic.

Oh, come on. The B-1 carries 20 tons of precision guided weapons, loiters in the target area for 4+ hours, and delivers when needed because it can move that load at 700kts at low level. That's why the Bone, and not the A-10, is the premier USAF CAS platform in Iraq.

The morons in congress who are pushing the f-35 as a replacement... (bangs head against wall)

Rather than the morons continuously overruling the air force to keep an obsolete and limited use platform in service because it makes good TV and looks good to their voters? Edited January 15, 2016 by Alan P

[Alan P]

I know a couple of guys who would disagree. When the other stuff was up high it was A-10s hosing terry taliban from the front of their FOB.

Julien

I'm glad they got saved by a Hog, but there are exponentially more guys and girls who are still sucking air today because a Bone put several tons of boom on a whole hillside for them.

[Greg B]

Gents, please leave the politics out of it.

[-Neu-]

Not quite true.

There has been lobbying, from the general population, to congressmen and onwards up the political ladder. The Joe-Average voter has had a small impact on the process. Luckily there have been a couple of CAS pilots on the hearing committee panels who have asked some extremely difficult questions of the Air Farce.

The A-10 is the only platform that provides a halfway decent CAS sevice to those on the ground. Sadly the blue-suiters only like things that can go supersonic, or LOOK like they are going supersonic.

Neither is of use when their loiter-time is counted in minutes, not hours, and the amount of carried payload is pathetic.

The whole contention that the USAF doesn't do CAS is an incredibly ignorant statement. I say that with strongest words possible because CAS has been the primary mission of the USAF for the past 15 years. There has been over 200,000 strikes in the past decade alone. Even more striking is that you have thousands of "blue suiters" donning fatigues and standing on the front line as JTACS to guide in aircraft.the USAF's training system and procurement system has been pushed to the breaking point because of it. Want to know why the USAF only got 189 F-22s for air superiority, despite calls from almost everywhere that this was insufficient? Money earmarked for the Raptor was diverted to CAS focused assets. Plain and simple.

The supposed CAS deficiency only emerged when the AF started to talk about the A-10 retirement... nothing before that point. IT should be noted that the Current Chief of the Air Staff, Gen Mark Walsh is a former A-10 pilot and he recommended the aircraft's retirement. That should tell you something.

I know a couple of guys who would disagree. When the other stuff was up high it was A-10s hosing terry taliban from the front of their FOB.

Julien

Other aircraft do it too... F-15Cs have undertaken strafing runs over the past decade for goodness sake. Yes the 30MM is larger shell and is superior to the 20mm, however there are already alternatives being fielded, many of which are even more effective than the 30: you have the Laser Guided Zuni, for example.Much of the arguments in this thread about the A-10's utility really bears little resemblance to reality. It discusses an A-10 concept of operations that hasn't existed for over a decade.

In 2006 the A-10 received a major update package, known as Precision Engagement. In the 1980s the AF moved towards medium altitude operations using new targeting pod technologies and precision guided munitions. This brought the aircraft up to date with how other aircraft in the US military's inventory operates. How the A-10 operates today is not very different from a F-16: It flies at medium altitude, uses targeting pods, off board sensor data and comms to gain situational awareness, and then acts. That's a superior way of operating, rather than flying low and slow and trying to pick out targets in a dangerous threat environment.

And this is the cost, which so few people grasp. I'll be the first to admit that there are areas where the A-10 is superior to aircraft currently in service. But those advantages are marginal, especially when compared to the truly revolutionary capability improvements afforded by new avionics and sensors on aircraft like the F-22, and F-35. The AF is fast burning through the last of the equipment purchased during the CArter-Regan Buildup, and its much needed recapitalization is being delayed. This is largely due to a completely misguided effort to retain a 40 year old capability, based on a perverse logic that values performance areas that are of little to no value in current operations. Thus the true cost is that the USAF's Ability to actually be more effective at CAS is stymied as it is forced to soldier on with an nearly half century old aircraft due to romantic notions of warfare.

Edited January 15, 2016 by -Neu-

[HOUSTON]

[mhaselden]

There is a huge disconnect between the article's headline and the actual words and quotes in the article. This is not an indefinite end to the retirement of the Hawg. It is a freeze while the AF puts a new budget proposal to Congress. If that proposal fails, then they're back to square one. I'd also point out the quote from Gen Carlisle included in the article:

“I think we would probably move the retirement slightly to the right," Carlisle said on Nov. 10. “Eventually we will have to get there. We have to retire airplanes. But I think moving it to the right and starting it a bit later and keeping the airplane a bit longer is something to consider, based on things as they are today and what we see in the future.”

So the thinking is to delay retirement until the combined force of F-35s, F-16s and F-15Es is sufficient to continue the planned op tempo. That's not "indefinite".

I agree with Neu's and Giorgio's comments. To state the Air Force isn't interested in CAS is total nonsense...rather like the perception that general officers don't understand air combat operations. Every star-ranked officer I've ever met has had a keen appreciation for front-line needs. The "armchair generals" also need to get out of the mindset that "CAS = A-10". As noted, we have the A-10 flying the same types of missions as F-16s while we have B-1s providing CAS. The neatly defined separation between tactical and strategic bombing that existed 40 years ago hasn't just been blurred, it's been entirely erased.

I love the Hawg. It's a great-looking aircraft and a tremendous design. However, there are more capable platforms in service and more coming on stream. The A-10 is being squeezed from 2 directions. The emergence of armed RPAs offers longer loiter time and a decent weapon package for "fleeting" targets, while the other platforms listed above can provide more robust CAS of the "heavy iron" variety. The perceived benefits of the A-10 are getting narrower and narrower.

[Nigel Foster60]

I remember leading a convoy of 4 tonners on exercise in the late 1970's when the A10's were almost brand new.

They flew so low and meaicingly even though it was just an exercise they frightened the polar bear droppings out of me.

I think they have done the same to to our enemies many times since. If it works why change it?

Nigel

[Alan P]

"If it works, why change it?"

I'm very glad that's not the attitude humanity has adopted over the centuries. I for one appreciate progress.

[mhaselden]

I remember leading a convoy of 4 tonners on exercise in the late 1970's when the A10's were almost brand new.

They flew so low and meaicingly even though it was just an exercise they frightened the polar bear droppings out of me.

I think they have done the same to to our enemies many times since. If it works why change it?

Nigel

By that logic, in 1970 you should have seen DH9A bombers flying overhead! The DH9A was very successful at intimidating actual and potential enemies, it had rough-field capabilities that its replacements couldn't really match so, like the A-10, an argument could be made that we should have kept DH9As in service because of their niche capabilities.

We need to look ahead another 45 years and try to imagine what types of potential conflict might occur. Did anybody in 1925 expect a Second World War? The short answer is no. Today, we don't expect a large, traditional, force-on-force conflict with a well-equipped adversary but it could happen. The battlespace is as different today from 1970 as the difference from 1925 to 1970. The surface-to-air threats are far more capable, while the need to aim weapons with the "MkI eyeball" has pretty much disappeared. We need a modern solution so we can be prepared not just for the campaigns we're engaged in today, but for future conflict that may be entirely different from our experiences in the "Post Cold War Epoch". A design that's already 40 years old, and which simply cannot survive on the modern battlefield of a large-scale, force-on-force conflict, won't do it for us.

Edited January 15, 2016 by mhaselden

[bentwaters81tfw]

Much as I love the A-10, it is getting long in the tooth. It was designed as an expendable tank killer for the North German plain. One could argue that it's usefulness ended with the collapse of the Soviet Bloc. However it has proved it's worth in other theatres, and even if other platforms make up more CAS sorties, the Hog has an enormous psychological effect on friend and foe alike. The Iraqis feared it, and I suspect Terry Taliban and Mohammad ISIS has a healthy respect for it too. The Bone may be effective and invisible on high, but a Hog in the overhead makes you keep your head down and wish you were elsewhere. Wars are not only won with munitions; if you can change the mindset of the aggressor, that counts for a lot. Seeing what deals death at close quarters does concentrate the mind.