A-10’s Delayed Retirement Threatens to Push Back F-35 Program

A-10’s Delayed Retirement Threatens to Push Back F-35 Program

Program officials warned Thursday that the operational readiness dates for the Air Force and Marine Corps F-35 fighter planes may be behind schedule due to testing delays, maintenance staffing problems and incomplete mission data packages.

The Air Force’s inability to convince Congress that it needs to retire the A-10 Warthog is further complicating the process. Maintainers that the Air Force had planned to move to the F-35 program may no longer be available, said Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program manager.

The Marine Corps has planned to introduce the F-35B into the fleet on July 1, 2015. The Air Force has planned to similarly announce the F-35A’s initial operating capability on Aug. 1, 2016.


Bogdan said the Air Force F-35A’s IOC date may need to be moved back as the service tries to acquire the necessary maintainers.

“You have to have about 1,100 maintainers by 2016 to man and maintain those airplanes.  What I’ve learned is a combination of those 1,100 people includes new trainees and experienced maintainers from other platforms to include the A-10. If we don’t get rid of the A-10, then you don’t get experienced maintainers,” Bogdan explained.

It will take much longer to acquire, train and prepare less-experienced maintainers, he said.

Also, Bogdan said implementing various fixes needed for the aircraft’s engine have delayed the program’s scheduled testing by as much as 45 to 50 days.

A problem with the F-35’s engine, resulting in an engine fire, grounded the aircraft for several weeks this summer. The F-35 program has analyzed the problem and is now immersed in a series of fixes to the engine which are causing delays in the program.

“The engine problem put us behind 45 days. That extra time puts pressure on air worthiness and the ability to certify the full envelope by July 1. They [Marine Corps] needs 10 planes in warfighting and configurations and modifications are not easy. We have to make sure the airframe can fly in the full warfighting envelope,” Bogdan explained. “We have to work hard to get to July 1.”

Bogdan said the Marine Corps might have to push back the F-35B’s IOC date by several weeks, if not more.

Another potential hurdle to meeting IOC for the Marine Corps and Air Force on time is the need to complete what’s called the mission data files for the F-35, Bogdan explained.

Described as the brains of the airplane, the mission data files are extensive on-board data systems compiling information on geography, air space and potential threats in known areas of the world where the F-35 might be expected to perform combat operations, Bogdan explained.

Consisting of hardware and software, the mission data files are a data base of known threats and friendly aircraft in specific parts the world. The files are being worked on at a reprogramming laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, Bodgan said.

“The mission data files contain all sorts of information that the airplane needs to make sense of the battlespace that it is flying in. Finishing this is a threat to IOC because we only have one factory up and running and they are trying to service all the airplanes,” Bogdan added.

The mission data packages are loaded with a wide range of information to include commercial airliner information and specifics on Russian and Chinese fighter jets. For example, the mission data system would enable a pilot to quickly identify a Russian MiG-29 if it were detected by the F-35’s sensors.

The data files are being engineered to accommodate new threat and intelligence information as it emerges. For instance, the system will be updated with details on the Chinese J-20 fighter or the Russian T-50 PAK FA fighter.

“The Marine Corps requires mission data files for two different areas of the world to be ready for IOC. There is no problem with the first one, but there is schedule pressure on getting that mission data file done for the second area,” Bogdan said.

Overall, the Air Force is developing 12 different mission data files for 12 different geographic areas, Air Force officials said. The first four are slated to be ready by the time the service reaches its planned initial operating capability with the F-35A in August of 2016. However, engine delays and schedule setbacks will make this difficult.

The F-35’s software packages are being developed in increments. The Marine Corps plans to declare IOC with a software increment or Block 2B.  It builds upon the enhanced simulated weapons, data link capabilities and early fused sensor integration of the earlier Block 2A software drop.

The next increments Block 3I and Block 3F will increase the combat capability even further and increase the aircraft’s ability to suppress enemy air defenses.

The Air Force plans IOC with software block 3I in 2016. Full operational capability will come with Block 3F, service officials said. Block 3F will increase the weapons delivery capacity of the JSF as well, giving it the ability to drop a Small Diameter Bomb, 500-pound JDAM and AIM 9X short-range air to air missile, Air Force officials said.

Tags: , , ,

Join the Conversation

Oh isn’t that special, an aircraft this expensive has geographically limited operating ability depending upon which “mission data files” are loaded!

I can easily imagine a future snafu where the wrong files are loaded, an aircraft has S America loaded but it needs to fly in the middle east!

This whole program is looking like the Microsoft service model-making sure you constantly need “updates.”

Still the same old dance since the 70’s.

“We need money for the F-16, so scrap the A-10. We need money for the Enhanced Tactical Fighter program so please let us scrap the A-10. We need to buy more F-22’s so let us retire the A-10. We need to our overly expensive fighter that does an inferior job at everything so let us retire this piece of junk already.

PS. The boys on the ground can go screw themselves .
PSS. CAS is for pussies.

Signed: The flyboy brass of the USAF.”

If a single USMC block 2B F-35B squadron consisting of a mere 10 combat aircraft can’t achieve IOC by end of say 2015, because USAF maintainers are still assigned to A-10 squadrons (that are refusing to retire prematurely, which apparently is necessary now in order to sustain the F-35 program roadmap), then there would seem to be a gap in communication and clarity of how realistic/accurate all the pre-conceived schedule expectations and estimates still being officially advertised to potential customers?

“The Marine Corps has planned to introduce the F-35B into the fleet on July 1, 2015. The Air Force has planned to similarly announce the F-35A’s initial operating capability on Aug. 1, 2016.”

The jet was not even capable of being flown to an air show earlier this year.

That’s TOTAL BS. The money to operate the A-10 comes from a completely different pot of money for procurement and testing. Nice try Pentagon

As usual Washington Moneyspeak red herring… and all of your readers know it…

Let’s end this argument all together. Put the A-10 and F-35 in a “head-to Head” CAS demonstration role and see which survives.

Just buy 1000 F-35s for all service departments, buy newer F-18s/F-15s, updayte the A-10 and start on the next generation fighter.

LOL, My dog ate my paperwork would have been a more believable excuse.

Now, that I’d like to see! An honest to God fly-off! When was the last time we had one of those? I understand that in the 1970 AX fly-off, the FRC A-10 design beat the Northrop A-9 because the ground crews could change an engine in 45 minutes. Which oddly enough, gets us back to O&M capabilities and constraints. Thanks, AIRCSD!

I’m not impressed.

If this were a serious problem, they could train new blood for A-10’s, which are much simpler aircraft, and start migrating the senior A-10 guys to the F-35 (who could be recalled to A-10 duty, should the shooting start). W/r/t the “Chair Force” version’s IOC — no one will be surprised if its late. As in very.

The Chair Force has never been enthusiastic about the A-10, and were horrified at how effective it proved to be in both gulf wars and Afghanistan. Their contempt for the aircraft is so manic, that they would sacrifice readiness to get rid of it once and for all, even though their new toy isn’t able to meet even the several-times reduced mission requirements.

It’s total BS, but not for that reason. The money for F-35 maintainers comes from the same pot as the money for A-10 maintainers. This is a claim about personnel costs, not procurement.

That said, anyone who believes any F-35 variant will be sufficiently mission-capable to deserve an IOC declaration within the next five years should probably not be allowed out in public without a keeper.

DoD: You miserable slug! You think you can talk your way out of this? You betrayed me.

JPO: No I didn’t. Honest… I ran out of gas! I–I had a flat tire! I didn’t have enough money for cab fare! My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN’T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!!!

You forgot the part about the cat having puppies!

Great idea, BUT, Hagel and the generals will never buy it. They are all looking for jobs with the F-35 program after they retire, think! It would be nice if the generals would start worrying aboutthe troops again, instead of their retirement jobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It seems to me that this fighter continues to be problematic and not very functional. Why would the AF not train maintainers for the 35 when they knew in advance they would need them. There has to be a lot of difference between maintainers working on the A10 compared to what is needed on the F35. That’s like having someone transition from a sop worth camel to a P51, big difference. I really have no confidence left for the 35 and think we are wasting our money. Just imagine what the next gen fighter will go through!

The A-10 should be kept in the lineup until the F-35 and its variants are ready for service. If the A-10 is retired and the F-35 is not ready for ful time service then there are areas that will not have the assets need to preform their mission.

…and the “sun was in my eyes; there was a rock in my shoe, I left the oven on…

I’m interested in how the Navy version of the F-35 is doing. Is it so good that we don’t hear about it?

What does Air Force “maintainers” have to do with Marine Corps F-35Bs???

Same crap and temper tantrums as usual from spoiled USAF brass. The F-35 is a disaster and in many ways needs to be shut down. The A-10 does its job far far better than any JSF version can. Since were fighting ISIS and not the Russian and Chinese we need planes like the A-10 not the F-35. Tell these Pentagon idiots to shut up!

The first 2 are “suppose” to do live carrier landings and cat shots this next week off the coast of Norfolk,Va.

Wrong coast.

What a ludicrous argument! The A-10s were not originally going to be retired for some time, but when the budget sequestration “event” actually happened, the USAF found an excuse to propose an early retirement for the A-10s. Now they are trying to justify their decision by foisting the idea that they need the A-10 maintainers for the F-35. Reading between the lines, this can mean that A: the F-35 needs more mx man-hours than originally planned; B: the USAF botched their manpower pipeline; or C: are continuing their disingenuousness with all things F-35…

im getting motion sickness from these dam A-10 scrapping articles, sh%( or get off the pot.

Why blame the AF? Why not blame congress for budget cutts? They take money away and wont let them make cuts. Yes lets have a CAS flyoff, but make sure we add S-300s

I’m smiling wryly. Great tactic. You gotta admire them for pulling this. Complete disingenuous jerks but shrewd and ruthless. Tying the scrapping of the A-10 to the F-35. Smart.

The very concept of the F-35 is ludicrous at best. We need a ground support aircraft capable of busting tanks, fortified positions, take a pounding and rtb. Wait, it’s called an A-10. We also need an air superiority craft. Oops they are called, F 14, 15, 16, 18, 22. You know, aircraft that can actually perform the missions they were designed for. Frankly I think it’s past time the brass in the Pentagon are held accountable for these boondoggles.

CAS is for pussies? What a load of BS! CAS is what Marine Air is all about, and has been all about since WWII. The USMC flew CAS using F-4’s and A-4’s in Viet Nam when the A1 Spad would have been a better platform. They would have loved the A-10 but got the AV-8 Harrier instead and pressed that turd hearse into service making a long term effort for little results. Now the F-35? They deserve the Super Hornet or the A-10 and beach those Harrier carriers.
Semper Fi!

Sstatkus

The most obvious problem with the F35 is technology creep. The techno-wizards keep coming up with more and more for this platform to do and the increasing complexity just results in an aircraft that is more and more difficult to maintain and easier and easier to break.

Blame the A-10 which has a cost of a few billion over several years as compared to 2443 F-35s at around $110,000,000 each.. This is a poor excuse.

Don’t blame congress, blame the whitehouse

Lets face it. The AF only pays lip service at best to CAS. The AF’s priority for CAS is very very low on their totem pole. They are going to put all their $$ and assets into air superiority and strategic bombing. At the same time the AF holds to a law from 1949 forbidding the Army to own/fly any kind of fixed wing aircraft that mounts any sort armament whatsoever.

Forgive my ignorance on an US issue (I am Canadian) but why is the –35 labeled an F? Surely in reality it is a single-engine light bomber with good stealth capability. Even the released material shows that its ‘fighter’ capability is inferior to existing US fighters, let alone the European fighters and one would assume comparable Russian ones.

actually unit costis around 130mil for the A model and the B and C models are at more than 200mil.

HOOAH Christopher! You nailed it.

YES. PLEASE send an F-35 to the annual A-10 (I want to call it top gun but I know its known as something else) competition between the best A-10 pilots in the US and let’s just see how much better the F-35 does and see which one can do it for less money, a smaller ground crew and be refitted and mission capable in less time.

My money’s going to be on the A-10 in all categories.

Remember the snafu for the F22 when they tried to fly from Hawaii to Japan but computers hadnt been programmed to allow for crossing International date line, result return to base ! Cant have missiles firing at a target on the wrong day of the week.

They have an extremely myopic view of what types of aircraft should be flying in their ranks and have had the biggest boner for supersonic, flashy, expensive aircraft since they split from the Army in 1947. The A-10 is among, if not THE most sensible, cost effective jet aircraft they’ve ever flown.

Many fine points. The 35 is a joke.

Or D: all of the above.

You can be sure giving all those A10 maintainers the quick flick was part of the ‘savings’.

I think he was saying that sarcastically as the Air Force brass. The only people who understand the need for CAS are Marines and soldiers. Anyone else can stick their opinions where the sun won’t shine. The Chair Force has a nice, cush job observing the ants below from on-high and way back in Kuwait and Kandahar, but CAS pilots are the only ones among them who give a damn about our safety.

Its confusing, with various models and changing prices.

Two very different planes for totally different missions & actions. The A10 is still needed & very effective for what it was designed for; as the F35 variants are designed for actions totally different.

Single engine light bombers have a bad history. Like everything on the F-35 its all about marketing

Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan = what an Idiot, Do he really thinks ppl will believe that crap talk of his?
He is just another retarded shit talker, world is full of them.

Yeah. That was basically Snark about how the Air force are adrenaline jockeys who hate CAS. They’ve been trying to downsize and eliminate close air support with these lame excuses long before most of us were born.
If you ask me I personally believe that the USAF should be dissolved with it’s duties distributed between the Navy, the Army and the Marine Corps.
However you should know that General Amos has pretty much wrecked the Marine Corp due to his favoritism towards the Air Wing. The Fighter Jocks pretty stand together in wrecking our armed services.

Yeah! And to be totally fair, run the test in a high threat environment! That way we can see if the A10 can actually get to the target.

Ground Pounders want/need the A-10, it’s tried and true, get rid of that money pit F-35.

You mean to tell me that you can’t go out to the F 35 and get in it and fly it by the “Seat of your Pant’s” like pilots used to do .It , In world war 2 it was the pilot that was responsible to get all the information that he needed to hit his target.They didn’t need to depend on some software to tell them where their target was and how to attack it .I think that the Armed Forces should get back to training their pilots how to fly by the seat of their pant’s because the software in their plane just might fail at the most important time of their attack on their target.Thet’s why I say keep the A– 10 .Cause when their software fails they can still fly and attack their target​.at a much cheaper price.

Yep!!!!! Can’t have a brutal CAS bird with proven low and slow dependability, we need a super sonic that is hard as heck to keep operational but we’ll claim it can do it all.

While I completely agree, the Pentagon is convinced that the F-35, F-16, F-18, and F-15 can perform the A-10’s job just as well. Total BS!!!!! The A-10 has no air to air capability to speak of, but it’s a ground strike beast. We need to keep a hundred or so in the inventory.

Let’s be honest, the A-10 is not an all purpose bird and that’s what the Pentagon has a hard on for. It’s crazy. Instead of having some birds that are absolutely exceptional at a specific task (e.g the A-10, F-14, etc.), they prefer one bird that is mediocre at every task.

Lets all pull our heads out of the dark side of our back sides. We all know the F-35 cannot and will not ever be able to do the role the A-10 does. Follow the money… You’ve heard about Congress and their insider trading investments, so you should know why the F-35 is being pushed. Hell, I wouldn’t put it passed some of the top brass having money vested in this jet.

Sure, as long as the F35 has to do the same gun runs the A10 does in that high threat environment.

That vested money is called their “retirement plan” given to them when they join Lockheed or other contractors after leaving the Air Force.

Psychiatrists has finally discovered and officially classified a new mental illness called: “Chairforce disorder”

symptoms include:
–a disbelief in grunts on the ground, they say “we don’t believe in fairly tales“
–a deeply held belief that the more expensive it is, the better it is
–they have a warped sense of time, 5 real years equal 1 air force year, so they say “The F-35 has only been in development for a little over three years.“
-“Aim High” means they are always looking up, they never see anything at their feet, so they stumble and fall on their faces a lot
–A deep belief that ‘nothing’ happens below 10,000ft, that’s why they keep repeating “Above All“
–They believe they are invisible i.e. stealthy so they say “I am air force, you can’t see me.“
–Lastly and perhaps the most disturbing symptom is that they believe that their uniforms are cool.

unfortunately there is no cure

You have absolutely no clue as shown by the crap you spew. The USAF spends MANY flight hours practicing CAS, and not just in the A-10. F-16s and F-15Es do as well.

You claim the USAF has been trying to shed the CAS mission for decades — total BS. EVERY time force structure was evaluated the A-10 was retained when other airframes were retired en mass. EVERY TIME. We also have to admit the A-10 is 35+ years old and sooner or later it will be retired. Given how the other services have retired their single mission acft, it is not surprising the USAF is going in the same direction.

The distribution of USAF responsibilities is much more difficult than you envision. First off the USMC will have to learn to play well with others, something that historically it has loathed to do. Second each service will have to be wiling to put its own desire secondary to that of other services when the mission dictates, something that the Army, USN, and USMC historically resist. Lastly, you have to think past just CAS missions. SEAD, IDS, refueling, logistics support, ISR, ELINT, etc. all are currently performed by the USAF.

I would like to point out that the ISN, USMC, nor the Army have ever shown any interest in owning the A-10. None have looked at taking the airframes already sitting at DM and refurbishing them an placing them back in service. I wonder why. Probably why the USMC never purchased them in the first place; not ship capable and single mission.

Oh, yeah all USAF functions would be soooooo much better distributed under oner services — NOT.

>This whole program is looking like the Microsoft service model-making sure you constantly need “updates.”

That’s one of the many features taken from HAL 9000. Heuristic ALgorithmic Information System that is.

Guess who had the contract for 2001 Mars odyssey? :)

“EVERY time force structure was evaluated the A-10 was retained when other airframes were retired en mass. EVERY TIME.”

Uh, evidence?

“I would like to point out that the ISN, USMC, nor the Army have ever shown any interest in owning the A-10.”

Again not true. Besides uncountable papers coming out of the Army’s Command and General Staff College and Army War College (just google it) check out Senate Bill 2884 20 July 1990. On page 245 of the bill it directs: “The Secretary of the Military department concerned shall notify the Secretary of the Air Force at the time each such aircraft (OV-1 and OV-10) is retired, and the Secretary of the Air Force shall upon notification, transfer one A-10 aircraft and all required support equipment to such military department.” This was a greatly desired move by the Army and the Air Force at the time didn’t reject it.

LOL, while everyone is admiring the Air Force’s chutzpah no one’s asking…

Wait a minute, what about the maintainers for the F16? You know, the PRIMARY airplane the F35 is supposed to replace?

Yeah, like American ground troops are gonna be fighting and calling for close air support anywhere near operational S-300 outfits. Gimme a break.

You do realize that those systems are both uncommon and very expensive, right? Not to mention optimized to take on high value strategic threats like bombers and strike aircraft. And as such, they will be on the USAF/USN priority list to be targeted and destroyed long before ground troops would contact adversaries under their protective umbrellas.

“EVERY time force structure was evaluated the A-10 was retained when other airframes were retired en mass.”

Name them. Every time there’s been a force structure change more A-10 squadrons have been retired or moved to the Guard. The Air Force fought tooth and nail for the A-10 to die on the drawing board.

“First off the USMC will have to learn to play well with others, something that historically it has loathed to do. ”

Why should they? Every time there is a budget fight, someone is always asking for the Corps’ head as the first serving.

They’re keeping those around to make up for the F-22s they didn’t build enough of.

Define “high threat.” Do you really think we’d have ground troops that close to theater missile defense systems? You’re aware that the Air Force would never allow any of its airframes near an area for ground strikes without conducting SEAD first. The A-10 has proven to withstand missile and large caliber gun hits that would have shredded any other aircraft in the inventory. Besides, every time the A-10 is discussed and someone yells “But the MiG-29! The S-300! The S-400!” we end up just a few weeks later in a fight with someone who owns none of them but still requires killing.

The F-35 is targeted for being everything to everyone and will have a hard time being excellent at anything. The A-10 is a air support platform with superior persistence capability — something the F-35 will never be capable of doing given its limited flight time and lack of capability to survive. Complaining that the reason for the F-35’s delay is the presence of the A-10 is ridiculous. Make a plane that can truly replace the A-10 and then we can move forward.

They are not talking money issues, only personnel issues (manpower).

I don’t understand that logic of retiring all the A-10s or none. They could retire them progressively over the next 7 years until the F-35 get the block 4 capability. If they did that they would keep more CAS capability while being able to convert the A-10 staff to the F-35.

Its funny when they say that because those systems are not only effective counters to the A10, but all fixed wing aircraft lol…

The Air Force has been deliberately writing the A-10 out of the current missions being flown. The area requirements have been edited and changed to favor that of the Vipers (F-16’s Falcons) and Bones (B-1 Lancers). By doing such, they have directly influenced the mission numbers drastically. These changes in mission profiles have helped provide the data the AF needs to prove that the Hog (A-10 Warthog) is no longer flying a high percentage of available CAS (Close Air Support) missions, thus is no longer needed. These sortie numbers are reported and on paper make it sound like the Hog is not longer needed as they hardly fly any of the missions.
Single mission aircraft do the job better then then a plane that does it all. The F-111 and Century Series proves how short sighted the Air force has been for the last fifty years.

Any plane can be modified to do SEAD. The F-22 is doing it now in Syria. Making the F-35 less relevant. The Strike Eagle being the second newest plane the Chair Force can also do SEAD.
If they cared about ISR and ELINT, Why they also retiring the U2? Nor other Aircraft can currently fly as high as it can nor has it’s radars. A fighter will be easier to shoot down.

As for logistics. The Navy can do that. Without screwing over the other branches. It would justify the V-22’s existence.
The USAF just pulled the rug under the Army by saying they will buy the C-27j and then retiring them as soon as they could.

Saying that no other branch want’s the A-10 is a tired meme that needs to go away. The USAF blocks an attempt for any other branch to get the A-10. Using a fifty year old law that allows them to hamstring the other branches.

USMC as the smallest of the armed forces always get the shortest end of the strike. Even worse when they now have to clear up the mess Amos left behind.

NOTHING CAN REPLACE THE A-10 FOR CAS!! Point in fact…the B-52 is still flying.….…questions Fighter Mafia.…Really Congres simply needs to pass a law FORCING the Air Force to consider Close Air Support! THAT WILL END THE DEATH GRIP OF THE FIGHTER MAFIA!

I think the A-10 has been a great combat platform and I’m old enough to remember when Dems in Congress wanted to kill the entire program claiming that the Thunderbolt II(as it was called then by Fairchild) would not be survivable on the then modern battlefield of the early 1980s. Well, never had to find that our thank God, but the Soviets certainly feared and respected this tank killer and worked like hell on developing MANPAD missiles to counter it.

But, I do think there are a couple of very good reasons to retire the A-10 to its well deserved place in honored glory as one of the greatest planes ever made by the US. You see, these airframes are getting to be 40 years old now. They were never expected to last this long. They were not designed or tested to keep going operationally this long. I think keeping the A-10 would mean that we will start losing pilots to airframe stress mishaps that were never anticipated by the designers and cannot be predicted. The Navy recently lost an MH-53 off Norfolk(killing half the crew) because of a wiring harness chafing through a fuel line, causing a catastrophic fire inside the cabin. They grounded the entire fleet of 53’s and found that same chafing on all of them. This was not a design flaw but is instead related to the age of those helicopters. And you can’t really get ahead of that kind of problem without yanking all 300 the A-10s apart and looking for the wear and tear of 40 years in plane only made to go about 20 years. While I respect the views of the grunts on the ground and their love for this plane, I don’t think they realize that the A-10 is now a ticking time bomb for the pilots who fly them, subject to age related mishaps that can’t really be anticipated until the wings come off of one or the tail break off. Hopefully the pilot ejects safely and they can ground the entire fleet until they figure out the problem and fix them all. That would certainly make a mess of CAS when you needed it in the field. I just think that nostalgia aside, we owe our pilots the best and operationally safe aircraft possible in order to protect the grunts on the ground. The first time they ground all the A-10s for an age related mishap, its reputation is gone. The A-10 should not go out that way.

Finally, it’s time to move the needle so to speak. The F-35 is not perfect. No new airplane is. All our new airplanes come up short initially, they all break and kill people. They get improved and refined, we learn our lessons and they come out the other end great. The CH-46 is now a fine helicopter with a low mishap rate, but you should see how many Soldiers, Sailors and Marines they killed in the 1980s getting them to where they are now. Once the teething problems of the F-35 get worked out I think it will be a great platform, if the Marines get the VTOL working right(It melts the decks of carriers right now) it will vastly increase the deep strike capability of the Navy while also providing the Marines with CAS, strike and CAP protection from their LPH’s That’s a big move of the needle if they can make a refueling version of the Osprey. That’s a move we should make.

Finally,

Sorry, should have typed LHA instead of LPH.

Fighters are not what we need. Afterburners are fluff…the real AF warriors here are the guys that fly low, can linger on station and kick-a$$ with the guys on the ground in contact. The fighters we have are still 2 generations head of any potential enemies’ aircraft. Russia/China…who are they? We’re not dog-fighting here. This isn’t “top gun.” Keep the A-10. It’s the right plane, at the right place, on the right mission.

Roger that. Congress is a joke. We’re still building M1 tanks meant for the cold war, and brand new MRAPs while we’re demolishing new ones in theater and detailing old ones to send home to give to police departments that certainly don’t need them.

God,that was a great movie!

Why is it the government is getting ahead of itself on all this questionable change?.….I always thought the Wart was a cost effective tool for support, I thought they would make one even better, somehow I do not see the F-35 in the same capacity or anywhere near as durable in combat for this kind of work.…

I really do wonder about the mindless decisions coming out of Washington from this merry group of intepts.…

So this new plane is another Windows Vista.….…I like the A-10…It works.…it’s paid for.

Yes the A10 is getting old. So is the B52.

The lesson from the CH53 mishap isn’t that we should shelve old aircraft but that we replace them with aircraft to do that mission. The CH53 has a whole new series of SC53’s coming along to replace it. Further, we aren’t mothballing the CH53s until we have the new aircraft flying. BTW, we haven’t had an A10 structural failure while we have with CH53s, F15s and F16s yet no one is arguing for mothballing all those aircraft.

The F35 is a poor replacement for CAS. The only thing it does well is carrying an equivalent bomb load (at the cost of its highly prized and publicized stealth). It doesn’t have a fraction of the survivability the A10 has. It is not capable of delivering cannon fire with a smaller cannon as accurately as the A10 (the F35’s cannon is angled up not down maximized for air to air, not air to ground). The F35 is over 10 times more expensive so when losses come and they will the break point for providing support will be reached much sooner.

Finally, the same multirole status the Air Force promotes as a “cost saving” feature also ensures other missions will compete and no doubt take precedence over CAS. So we won’t only have a less capable airframe but less of them to do the mission.

That IS the fundamental solution.

“Why should they? Every time there is a budget fight, someone is always asking for the Corps’ head as the first serving.”

Actually it’s the second serving for the last half a century. The Army has always paid the majority of any cutting.

Not disagreeing that they suffer cuts, just the meme they are always the red headed stepchild.

So the AF wants to scrap a proven weapons system for a weapons system that has only proved it can swallow enormous amounts of money with nothing to show for it? I think the powers that be have been mesmerized by all the shiny objects and blinking, flashing lights that represent the F35.

More like windows 95 with its state of the art stability and security… :/

Yep, tracking that the Army gets cut the deepest. I was remarking more on the fact that you always hear shouts to abolish the entire Corps when budget conversations come up, so why should we expect them to “play nice?”

Yep but by and large the overwhelming majority of people that suggest abolishing the Corps are fools. The ones that back it up with an ounce or two of thought are so unaware of what that service provides that their input isn’t worth reading.

It’s the same thing with those that promote shutting down the Air Force. There are some roles that absolutely require we maintain a separate air service though the completely artificial restriction to the Army having armed fixed wing aircraft is ridiculous. As ridiculous as if the Army told the Air Force they couldn’t arm their armored vehicles.

Not entirely true: the “Chair Force” did permit the Army to buy UAV’s during Gulf War II, because they had *zero* faith in them. Then once the saw the army, etc., start to arm them, and took note of all the publicity and successes they had, the “Chair Force” reacted predictably: they attempted to take control of ALL UAV’s from everyone, because of course, they could manage them better than anyone.

However, that pony had long left the barn, and now the army (etc) was providing overhead recon to a rapidly growing number of ground troops — yet another job the “Chair Force” didn’t care for.

The “Chair Force” bid to take over control of all UAV/UCAVs was therefore, unceremoniously, publicly, and deservedly, smacked down.

Excellent point, Will…

And we’re got a LOT more F-16s in the inventory than we do A-10’s — yet the “Chair Force” ONLY focuses on the maintainers of the A-10.

Anyone from the “Chair Force” care to reply to the major?

Well, the A-10 is hanging around, the AV-8B has been extended but the EA-6B is still slated to just disappear by 2019 with noting to replace it in the USMC. I wonder if common sense is going to strike someone before they shut down the training pipeline.

You are right Keep it flying until the F-35 is operational and proves it can do the same job

Look what happened when the space shuttle was retired, Obama cancelled it follow on and may us rely on the Russians to get crews to the space station

Same concept her, cancel the only good aircraft for another aircraft that is not operationally ready or proven

Military and Intelligence oxymoron words

Congress would rather give tax breaks and food stamps than pay for the F35.

What is the next list of excuses for project delays, solar flares and global warming?

The EA-6B is being replaced by the E-18G Growler. They’ve been trading them out since 2009.

As a taxpayer I say enough of this BS!!!!!!!!! Scrap this POS and build more proven aircraft including the A-10. Upgrade our older aircraft build updated models and scrap the F35 which will never become operational and will take the lives of our pilots. If they even work they are still not better than anything out there. This aircraft should have been cancelled years ago. As usual they tried to do too much too soon and that never ends well. Use the info they learned by this and build a better aircraft that actually works and does at least one job well. This one size fits all never works, will never work and wastes way too much money. One aircraft cannot do all the jobs necessary for air combat.

Respect, good sir. o7

Chair force is hedging its bets. JSF may burn in flames, but they’re unlikely to sacrifice their F-16 maintainers first. Abraham hesitates to sacrifice his only son.

As a supporter of the F-35, I also believe we should keep the A-10. If USAF doesn’t want them, give/transfer them to the US Army !! The Army I bet would love to have them.
Every supporter should write to the Congress person to force the transfer via US Law and the 2015 Defense bill.

All modern fighter jets use MDX files specifically created for their area of flight — typical stupid and uneducated comment by an arm chair — engineer / pilot !!

This is a USAF man power issue and the fact we are still actively fighting wars in two theaters !!

The real problem with the A-10 for USAF, is because of big DOD budget cuts, USAF is short on maintenance personnel, and they were going to shift the A-10 people to the F-35. Now they can’t and they are still short of personnel which will delay the USAF IOC date.

You are right and you are wrong. The F-35A when fully operational and past the early burn-in / immature period will be 2x to 3x more reliable than an F-16 per flight hours.

I’ll believe it when I see it. All we have are the assurances from people with a vested interest in the continuation of the program. I have my doubts.

Wonder what The Chair Force brass is going to do when the Army get’s its own tilt rotors that isn’t the Osprey. if UAV’s made them pissy. Oh boy.
It just goes to show that the Airforce is always behind the curve on innovation.

Considering who just won and its the party that wants to cut the A-10 for CEO and Stockholder handouts. Don’t hold your breath.

F-35 delayed so we can keep the A-10?

GOOD.

The F-35 “cannon” is a joke that carries ~10% of the rounds of the A-10. It’s pathetic.

The F-35 won’t just kill pilots in its initial use; many, many, many men on the ground for the Army will die because it’s a piss-poor CAS platform just like the Viper and the Mud Hen are when compared to the Hawg.

I worked on the A-10 for 27 years. It proved itself during Desert Storm (it was the most feared aircraft by the enemy forces). It again did a great job during the War on Terrorism in Iraq. There is nothing to replace it. No other aircraft can maneuver and stay on target like the A-10.
We may need the F-35 but we still need the A-10 for close air support and ground troop protection. That’s a fact!

It has been pointed out to me in the past that the A-10 belong to the reserves and is separate funding and personnel from regular air force. So what is the Air Forces problem. the A-10 cost (including maintenance) cost a small fraction of the F-35. It alone will not have much of a impact on the F-35 cost. It sounds like any excuse will work to get rid of something they did not really want from day one.

sure wish congress would stop micro-managing. They say “make cuts to save money!” and then deny the USAF to make the cuts. It’s absurd.

Maybe it’ll change with a republican congress! Thankyou America! Now, just don’t forget about the pain of democrats come 2016.

Just how many of those A-10’s are in the Regular Air Force? I thought most of them were in the Air Guard and AF Reserve? So how are those mx folks going to be available to the Regular Air Force?

Simple solution…transfer all A10 Guard assets including personnel to the ANG. They want the capability, they can pay for it. USMC might help.

The headline makes you think the A-10 is the main issue for delays. Reading down into the article and it turns out that there are many other issues to resolve before the plane is ready.

As a former ground pounder, I’d love to keep the A-10 for a lot longer. Hell, put advanced avionics on it and let the Army and Marines fly them as attack drones over the battlefield. Ground control would be with the battlefield command center.

Very well put.

What a crying shame.….….The A-10 a proven tank and vehicle killer. The A-10 has proven over and over that it can protect, ground pounders. The A-10 can loiter over the battle field. While the F-35 has a fuel tank about as large as my bladder. The F-35 has a smaller gun, and smaller amount of ammo carried. Plus the F-35 costs.……What ????? errrrrr.….….…..What ???????????????????

It is sad that our Air Force is so backwards. They would rather look good in their F-35’s than do a good job for their customers (grunts) in the A-10. BTW, I like grunts. The maintenance excuse is pathetic.

Be careful JTAC, someone is going to come along and ask for your FAC qualifications after telling you you don’t understand CAS. (sarcasm off :)

Now I don’t want to lump all the Air Force in there. JTACs and Security Forces are outside the wire with the rest of us and the pilots of our beloved A-10s DEFINITELY care about us ground pounders; we are why they fly and keep flying the ‘Hog.

Politicians , some of the most corrupt individuals along with the lobbyist want to dump the best damn ground support aircraft ever built, After pumping trillions of dollars to revamping way too many complicated aircraft. The A-10 maintance cost is a drop in the bucket compared to the others. The A-10 , the close support and tank buster is a marvelous piece of equipment that has save so many lives of our troops . Why don’t we close a few of the Command officers overseas bases for glamour tours of duty and leave the a-10 alone.

Nailed it, Ed. History: didn’t we have similar difficulty with Robert McNamara’s F-111 program, which was also planned to be all things to all services/missions? Didn’t we learn our lesson from THAT acquisition disaster? The more things change, etc.

Mine too. The A-10 has always been a highly effective, easily maintainable, survivable, and well designed aircraft for CAS. I can’t imagine how the F-35 could compete
Colonel Jim Ball, USAF Ret — Former Director Operational Support A-10 Systems Program Office

I’m just going to leave this video link here as it seems relevant. I honestly don’t believe that the F-35, even with its much cited thrust vectoring, is going to have anywhere near the low-speed, low-altitude maneuverability that the A-10 has and it certainly isnt going to be able to chew up tanks or self-propelled guns like this.

http://​foxtrotalpha​.jalopnik​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​-​t​h​e​s​e​-​a​-​1​0​-​w​a​r​t​h​o​g​s​-​o​n​-​a​-​t​r​a​i​n​i​n​g​-​m​i​s​s​i​o​n​-​r​i​p​-​o​l​d​-​1​6​5​5​0​4​1​843

The A10 is still needed in the conflicts america faces today, Keep the A10 as long as ground support missions around the world are needed. You can’t effectively support operations in the middle east using F35 generation aircraft! The A10 does a much better job and is far more cost effective in these missions. Anything I have said not true?

Why put all that computing capability in to an Airframe. One Round in the right place
And the aircraft is brain dead. Cheap way would be: Install an On Star button. .

Maybe we could get AT&T to run a wire from IBM’s cloud. Could those “Full Birds”
Be convinced to launch Satellites to do the heavy work, thus relieving the pilot to
TEXT on his I-Phone.

Let’s Reincarnate the AAF,50ty mission crush head gear, Officer Pinks and give
The A-10’s to the Army. Leave the bus drivers to worry about happy hour at the
Officer’s Club.

Marine Squadrons do not use Air Force maintainers so your comment makes no sense

Nope. Your logic is sound. If the brass actually gave a crap they would support DARPA’s PCAS upgrades for the A-10 and make specifications for a proper replacement. Their not which is why both the Army and Navy are looking for Tilt Rotors to do the job in the future.

I was an A-10 crew chief back in the day. The A-10 has always been a redheaded stepchild. If you brush up against it you get dirty from the gun gas. It’s slow and ugly. There is nothing flashy about it at all. The A-10 crews are considered more Army than AF by some folks. It’s down in the dirt, in your face, slug it out, trench warfare. I think that the high and fast Air Force that wipes down the jets with rags and spray on wipe off cleaner after every sortie will be glad to kiss the A-10 goodbye. That’s fine. Everything has it’s time. But, I feel certain that the F-35 is not a replacement for the A-10. The A-10 is like George Foreman in his heyday. If he hit you it felt like being run over by a semi truck. The GAU-8 gun is a death dealer on the battlefield and always will be. I remember the early F-4s that didn’t have a gun. The designers thought that all that was needed in a modern jet fighter was rockets. It was a hugely bad idea that thankfully got fixed in time. The F-35 is a good idea on paper I suppose but, we must never forget that an attack aircraft ultimately needs to be able to loiter, bring hell to the battlefield and survive to go home. The A-10 has proven that it is the best friend for the boots on the ground. I am giving the F-35 a wait and see. Skeptical but, waiting to see.

Thanks for your part in keeping us covered out there. At least you recognize our existence.

Some awesome comments! I am an x Fuel System Mechanic 354th Myrtle Beach ’76 to ’80. Was on duty when we transitioned from the A-7 to the A-10. Don’t know who designed the Wart Hog — Skunk Works? But they deserve a beer or two! It did what it was designed to do! If we can not do it right then don’t do it! A KISS platform that kicks the enemy hard. Glad to hear that over the years it has been a loved sight to those who needed it most and that’s a hats off to the ground forces! Said enough! Cheers!!

You would think the Air Force has the geographic problem resolved, especially when there is a need for the Air Force to be “globally” responsive. Geographic updates are constantly required, especially international flight routes and flight information data that are updated every 28 days under the ICAO flight publication process, which is updated more often, as required, by NOTAMs.

The White House is directing the Pentagon to reduce the defense budget and the SECDEF is not fighting back. The WH wants to reduce the Navy to number of ships before WW I, ground troops to a number before WW II, and number of aircraft to before the Air Force was established in 1947. The only savior to the cuts has been Republicans in Congress. The generals and admirals are behind the cuts because they are taking orders from the SECDEF. Over the past 6 years of this administration, the senior officers who were against any draw down were forced to resign or retire. The current seniors are obligated to the administration because they were promoted to their positions by the current administration.

The Air Force has lost touch with its original charter to support the Army for CAS, interdiction and destruction of enemy ground force reserves. The Army has been okay with the cancellation of the A-10, because they want to agree with the grand strategy of this administration’s draw down. To say the the F-35 can perform CAS is to change the definition of CAS and to put ground forces and civilians at great risk of friendly fire and collateral damage. Bombing geographic coordinates with jet fighters does not improve CAS but actually is a last resort to a shortage of CAS. A preplanned shortage of CAS is disingenuous, if not criminal.

Shack! A lone voice of educated reason.

Right. On. Target. And that high-threat environment for CAS is not (just) the possibility of long-range IADS systems like S-300/400, etc. It’s also Pantsir/Tunguska/Tor/Buk, and others like LY-60/HQ-61/DK-10/etc., plus even legacy FSU systems like SA-3/6/8/9/13/etc./etc.
I’ve heard that four of the five A-10s lost in ’91 went down to short-range SAMs (SA-8/9/13). Now send them against the newer systems integrated into the much more modern C2 used by forward area air defenses.

Jessmo makes another great comment. And that high-threat environment for CAS is not (just) the possibility of long-range IADS systems like S-300/400, etc. It’s also Pantsir/Tunguska/Tor/Buk, and others like LY-60/HQ-61/DK-10/etc., plus even legacy FSU systems like SA-3/6/8/9/13/etc./etc.
I’ve heard that four of the five A-10s lost in ’91 went down to short-range SAMs (SA-8/9/13). Now send them against the newer systems integrated into the much more modern C2 used by forward area air defenses.

Oh. My. God! Right on, sw614! Easily the most intelligent and best-informed post in this thread!

F-35, it’s hard to survive in air combat. F-35 have used too much technical. If there are some technical failure Maybe it’s a plane crash it all. It should be at NASA to the appropriate .

The army has every right to have aircraft like the a10 for ground support. They also should have troop/cargo aircraft like the carabou the got in 1960. But the airforce took them to. The marines, (naval infantry) has its own fighter aircraft and the most expensive and worthless piece of shit ever, the osprey. Screw the Air Force and the marines. Semper F—.

This entire argument should not be happening. Its a ‘money for blood’ argument and our troops suffer. I want the enemy troops (our adversaries) to suffer NOT US fighting men an women in the field. Anyone who tells you different is attempting convolution of the argument so they can line their pockets.

4 of the 5 out of 300+ A-10 sorties? A-10 WIN!

Don’t retire the A-10 sell them to the Army or USMC as the Army already wanted to buy them but the Airforce would not give them up after saying that they might retire the lot. As long as they are flying soldiers arn’t dying!!!

Of course DS was an A-10 win… it was also an F-111 win, and an F-16CJ win, and an F-15E win, and an F-117 win, and a B-52 win, etc. Meanwhile, we lost five A-10s to small short-range tactical SAMs, and five AV-8Bs (four to AAA that the A-10 would likely have taken and still recovered at base). In the F-35 future, the sort of targets those 10 a/c were going after will be serviced above the AAA, and most of those short-range SAMs won’t be able to engage.

And all of those are missions for another a/c platform. I don’t think anyone is arguing that there isn’t A need or purpose the 35 will be well suited for, but we ARE arguing that it is a substandard CAS platform because it’s CAS capability was more of a passing interest than a purpose built design goal.

And I don’t think ANYONE is arguing that utterly 100% of all CAS missions can be performed specifically by F-35s as well as or even better than can be by A-10s. Thankfully, that’s okay because we also have many, many other platforms that can also perform the MISSION of CAS. Which all boils down to the fact that most CAS missions will be met just as satisfactorily by one of the dozens of other platforms as by A-10s, some will be met even better than could be by A-10s, and some will be met but not as well as could be by A-10s.

No, I’ve never read any USAF ever say the F-35 can do everything the A-10 can do and do it at least as good or better in all respects every time.

No, that’s exactly what AF Brass is arguing.

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | , and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.