Lawmakers Agree to Block Retirement of A-10 Fleet

Lawmakers Agree to Block Retirement of A-10 Fleet

Lawmakers on key defense panels have reached a deal on the annual defense authorization bill that would block the Pentagon from retiring the A-10 fleet.

Sen. Carl Levin, the retiring chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, the retiring chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, on Tuesday announced a compromise version of the Fiscal 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, which sets policy and spending goals for the year beginning Oct. 1.

While the bill would prevent the Air Force from spending any funding in the year to retire the gunship, it would allow the service to move as many 36 of the planes to back-up status. The shift would free up more maintainers to work on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.


Both panels backed a provision “that would prohibit obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2015 funds to make significant changes to manning levels with respect to any A–10 aircraft squadrons, or to retire, prepare to retire, or place in storage any A–10 aircraft,” according to a report accompanying the legislation.

In response to automatic budget cuts known as sequestration, the Air Force proposed scrapping its fleet of almost 300 of the Cold War-era planes, known officially as the Thunderbolt II and unofficially as the Warthog, to save an estimated $4.1 billion over five years. Its snub-nose packs a 30mm cannon designed to destroy tanks and other ground targets.

Key senators such as Sen. John McCain, who next year will succeed Levin as chairman of the Senate panel, and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican from New Hampshire whose husband was a Warthog pilot, lined up to protect funding for the snub-nosed plane, which packs a 30mm cannon designed to destroy tanks and other ground targets.

Before transferring some of the A-10s to back-up flying or inventory status, the defense secretary must certify to the defense committees that he or she has reviewed “alternative ways to provide manpower to maintain the Air Force fighter fleet and field Joint Strike Fighter aircraft,” and determined the move was needed to avoid “degrading the readiness of the Air Force fighter fleet” or “delaying the planned fielding of F-35 aircraft,” the report states.

Months after Pentagon officials argued that the A-10 is no longer needed for close air support — a mission they said can be performed by such aircraft as the stealthy, single-engine F-35 fighter — the military deployed a squadron-sized element of the slow, low-flying Warthogs from Afghanistan to the Middle East to fight militants affiliated with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. “They’re going over there because there’s a need … to be postured for a combat rescue mission,” Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman, told the Stars & Stripes newspaper.

Congress is expected to vote this month on the defense bill before members leave for the holiday recess.

Tags: , , , ,

Join the Conversation

The Pentagon is wrong, they know it. They don’t have the budget to actually have multiple fighters craft in at least the Airforce inventory. A-10 could use updates, but replacing it with something that isn’t really good at anything isn’t a replacement. I’d hate see them forced to keep aircraft they don’t need, but this is where their wrong. I do think Congress needs to step up and give funding to maintain the air force’s resources so they can do their jobs and the missions their given. That’s what really wrong.

They’ve been trying to pull the A-10 retirement card since I was a toddler. The Fighter Jock generals have been trying to do it for decades. Then ends up proven wrong when the old Warthog outperforms their fast moves in every conflict we’ve had since the Gulf War.

I usually don’t agree with a senile cooke like John McCain. But for once he did the right thing.
Since I like to rub it in.

“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.
The USAF brass doesn’t care about helping out the other branches of the military. To them bombing things is all the support the ground troops deserve. They don’t give a crap about friendly fire. The Chairforce would blame the soldiers they got killed.”

How many F-16s were retired in the last two years and where have the maintainers gone that were supporting those F-16s?
The F-35 is replacing at least three times as many F-16s as A-10s. If all of the F-16s and A-10s are being replaced, then what is the issue of replacing 1/3 of the F-16s before replacing the A-10s?
Would it not be better to move the less complex A-10 support crews into an operating F-35A (previously F-16) squadron than to move them from the A-10 to the F-35 in one much larger step in complexity?
Is this another; “Not my idea, so it can’t be good”, simpleton issue?

Good for congress. The whole retirement plan was a political revenge for sequestration im glad it failed. The A-10 and F-16 can carry more bombs more maneuverable and is faster then the brasses little JSF. We have to get threw there closed minds stealth is NOT everything.

With the F-35 the choice is stealth and a small handful of weapons or no stealth and loads close to those of the –16 using internal and external stores.

Perhaps we should just ask our enemies to hold off any aggression until we can complete the A-10 retirement and stand up enough F-35s to combat status. “Hey ISIS and others, take a break, we’re not ready yet..give us five years, okay?.”

Why did my comment disappear? I know it wasn’t because of my spelling error.:/
Looks like old McCain slipped out of senility long enough to do something smart.

The USAF brass doesn’t care about helping out the other branches of the military. To them bombing things is all the support the ground troops deserve. They don’t give a crap about friendly fire. The Chairforce would blame the soldiers if they die.

“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.”

The air force brass is too immature to be left alone, they need adult (Congress) supervision at all times. and maybe and occasional spanking when they start throwing hissy fits

The Air Force give the A-10 To the Army and Let the Army Build a New Air Frame and update the engine ‘s . This is a very solid Air Plane.

This is a classic case a weak assumption (F-35) can provide equal CAS as the A-10, and turning in to a fact.

If the air force wants aircraft to just sit at high altitude and drop GPS-guided bombs with impunity on targets below, both can do that job equally well.

If this job involves being stealthy, then the A-10 won’t do as well.

If this job involves being shot full of 23mm bullets and taking fire from MANPADS (as the A-10 isn’t proven to survive missiles larger than MANPAD), then the A-10 will do well.

Since their retiring the Kiowa Warrior. The A-10 would be the perfect replacement for it. However this is unlikely due to the Johnson-McConnell agreement. Tilt-rotor aircraft is going to make this complicated.
I also read a few suggest that the A-10’s be given to the US Socom air element instead.

You think Congress is adult supervision? Hah!

What’ll probably happen is that whatever squadron is turning over to F-35’s will be stood down, with the pilots going through aircraft training and the maintainers going through familiarization with the new aircraft as one. There’s not much advantage to gradually depriving a unit of maintainers and using them as piecemeal replacements in F-35 squadrons.

The F-35 is not worth the aggravation, and the A-10 is the epitome of LETHAL CAS. Do the math!

A-10s forever! There is no better CAS aircraft in the world! During my time in Afghanistan, the HOGs would return sometimes so full of holes one has to wonder how they could keep on flying. For the life of me I cannot figure out why the USMC a does not have these.

I couldn’t agree more. the warthog is a devastating piece of equipment with a poven track history of saving american lives in battle, not to mention the that it’s very presence on the field of battle inflicts terror on our opponents because of it’s shear destructive force. if it ain’t broke don’t fix it and the a-10 isn’t broke.

LOL You going to use A-10’s against PAK-FA’s, J-20’s, and J-31’s in the future!

I think the best solution would be to leave the A-10 to the Air National Guard to fly and maintain. The USAF could then “keep it in it’s back pocket ” to use when they find the F-35 is unable to carry out the CAS mission in an effective manner. The F-35s, as they come on line, could go to replace the older F-16s. They can only build about 100 F-35s a year, so it is going to take a while to get it fielded. As for budget, the A-10 is the lowest cost to fly per hour in the Air Force inventory.

Two airframes that have always brought fear to our enemies have been B-52’s with a full load of bombs, and the A-10.with the GAU-8.

That’s the problem, the A-10 is broke and falling apart, its old.

The old ‘warthog’ is far and away the best close air support platform we have seen in a long time. The amount of firepower and TOT is just not replaceable in the current environment. The ‘powers that be’ need to consider getting it into the middle east and allowing it to do what it does best.…..remove a threat.

There seems to be a lot of concern for the more glamorous a/c. That sure ain’t the A-10.

Nope not really. They have had their wings rebuilt and are ready for more. Also we have dozens more in mothballs which we could upgrade and activate.

Actually there was a A-10 which got hit my a SAM in iraq. Blew a hole big enough to crawl through in the wing. Guy fly back fine and landed. Plane was patched up and rebuilt and good as new.

The Army is retiring the OH-58 (as well as deactivating several brigades) because they do not have enough money either. Notice how the Army is not proposing to take them over? Why is that? And BTW, the A-10 cannot perform the OH-58 mission as it currently stands.

SOCOM will not have the money either as they would have to pick up the costs across the board.

The A-10 was looked for replacement in the 80s (A-17, A-7F) but was retained. The A-10 was looked at for retirement in the early 90s, but was retained when scores of other acft were retired. Now, it is a funding issue brought to us by our elected officials that simply cannot do their jobs. They dicate what the USAF (and other services) cannot do, but do not offer any sound direction for what they can do. I am a big proponent of having a dedicated, single mission acft for CAS. But congress and the administration simply MUST fund the requirement.

BTW — The USN and USMC use fast movers as CAS acft. They retired their dedicated attack acft years ago.

Than what is there replace it?
F-35 can’t do the job. It’ll be taken down by SAMS due to the fact its tails takes away from its stealthy profile. However most SAMs lack the ability to look down.(Adding that 12mm gun for use against attacking infinity won’t save them.) A-10 is low and fast enough to get close than shred them with it’s main cannon and does the same to top armor of tanks. Can’t take tanks and the new batch of armored vehicles out with bombs.
Since the fighter jocks don’t care about the guys on the ground.
What the Army, Navy and USMC should do is create an agreement to make a more up to date dedicated carrier launched CAS aircraft. With systems that will allow it to control drones(The Apache already does this) and link into the computers of the Future Vertical Lift helicopters.

The pentagon is making decisions based on the budget they have to work with. I wonder how many here will support the aging A10 when the pentagon reduces pay increases or retirement benefits because they’re forced to keep a weapon system no longer needed. This is no different than the pentagon electing to significantly
reduce the manufacturing of the Abram’s tank. Again, politicians who are more concerned about losing jobs in their districts fought to keep production going regardless of the cost to the pentagon budget. In fact, they voted to increase the defense budget for the tank. We have a Joint Chief of Staff to think through these types of options and most politicians with no military training or experience are over-riding these professionals. The bottom-line is something will have to be sacrificed to keep these atiquated systems in the budget and reducing pay and benefits will be at the top of the list.m

This whole post just proves you have not the slightest clue on joint operations. The USAF does more interservice work than any other branch. Logistics, supporting airdrops, ELINT, CAS, pararescue, etc. are continuing and ongoing USAF joint operations. Goes on every day.

Friendly fire? EVERY service branch has been involved with friendly fire. Even the A-10 has been involved with friendly fire. Singling out the USAF just shows bias.

Funny, the USN and USMC are going to use the same F-35 for CAS. Are they off their rockers as well?

The Hornets are only a stop gap solution due to the fact that Dick China canceled the A-12 Avenger. But not the F-35 while he was Vice President. USMC also uses Harriers, which is hardly a fast mover in this day and age.

No your just a Lockheed shrill toll whose never dealt with their bs. They only do it because their force to do it. The Chair Force is run by delusional old men who think that they can win wars by dropping bombs.Any other service with a fixed Wing Air branch can do their jobs.
A-10 also has the least ff incidents of any plane.

Give the A-10 to the Marines. They love this flying tank. It can drop pinpoint accurate bombs and devastate an area with 30mm rounds. It carries more firepower than an Apache and can react faster to changing field conditions. Needs modification for carrier deployment.

No, never worked for Lockheed and do not currently work for any manufacturer. I am, however retired USAF, 23 years. What is your experience? You say every other service with fixed wing acft can do their jobs, but slam the USAF for proposing to use similar (or the same acft in the case of the F-35) as they do. I believe the A-10 should be retained. I also believe that our civilian leadership is screwing up the works by not funding requirements and defaulting to sequestration as an excuse.

No true war can be won with just sea power, air power, or ground forces. It takes a team effort to prevail.

Given the stall speed (in normal, non hovering flight) and fuel consumption of an AV-8, they are indeed fast movers. Any soft-skinned to boot. Acft generally do not perform CAS ground strikes above Mach 1, so the AV-8B being subsonic is moot. The AV-8 is slated to be replaced by the F-35B.

The USN fudged up the A-12 program, indicative of our cantankerous and over-bloated procurement system. Plus the A-12 was not intended to be a CAS asset anyway, but a LO strike acft in the same vein as the F-117, but could also perform SEAD as it would have carried HARMs and could defend itself with AtoA missiles. It was slated to be the replacement of the A-6 although given its low payload it would use primarily precision weapons. Ya know, the kind being deployed right now.

While I believe that the F-35 can replace the F-16A/B/C/D and F/A-18A/B/C/D, I have never felt it was suitable replacement for the A-10. The F-35 can probably do most of the AV-8B missions, but again flying low and slow will not be its forte.

The F-35 was nothing more than an idea on paper (at best) when the A-12 was cancelled. The developmental contract was not signed until/around 1996. The F-22 was the program that was ongoing when the A-12 was axed.

Those maintenance slots were deleted through attrition to meet budgetary constraints. Sequestration just made the situation worse.

The USMC did not buy A-10s when they were in production. Why? The USMC does not have the funds to support them now. The A-10 is not ship capable. From what I understand the current models cannot be fully carrier capable without degrading performance and costing a bunch. At that point might as well develop a new CAS acft.

But the USMC went with multi-role airframes. There is a reason for that.

Would be a great solution. I would rather give up the F-35s slated for certain Guard/Reserve units and let them maintain the A-10. The Guard units flying the A-10 now are very good at their craft.

If the DOD is worried about funding, isn’t cheaper to fund the A-10 and just buy fewer F-35’s? Seems everyone loves them except for the Generals but the last I looked the gerneral aren’t in combat. Don’t we always say that the guys on the ground deserve the best.

Engineering, if I say more I may get fired. It seems your own service has made you biased. Don’t accuse people of bias if your have much of your own.
Which service bought the C-27J and then decided to pawn it off to the National Guard? If you served you should know about these shenanigans they tried to pull over the years. And why the grunts on the ground and everyone else hates flyboys.

USAF isn’t the only branch with land based fixed wing aircraft.
So yes any branch can do their job. The E-6 Mercury too big to land on a carrier. So is the Clipper, the Poseidon and the Skytrain.

For some one who served you don’t have much sense of history.
The JSF was a Marine project. We could have got a decent replacement for the Harrier if the Airforce and Lockheed didn’t interfere. However we now have a plane with inferior performance to the F-16 replacing it.

Not really biased, just have an insider opinion. I have continually heard of what the USAF does not do, does wrong, does not do anything, attach back to Army, dismantle entirely, etc since I joined in 1977. Worked my ass off maintaining acft and got real tired of the bullshit, especially from anyone who really does not know for themselves and there are plenty of those folks out there.

Said from very beginning the USAF should stayed out of the C-27J program. Army just wanted something small for their immediate needs. At least the airframes found good homes and were not scrapped. I also know that the USN threw a hissy fit when it was proposed to modify some B-52Gs to carry Harpoons (based at Loring, Barksdale, and Anderson, less than 1/3rd the G model fleet). The stupidity of turf fighting never ceases to amaze me, regardless if what was being challenged was a good idea or not.

The acft you mentioned are large acft with decent ranges. They support different mission in different ways and do not need mobility of shipborne deployment. Comparing them with a tactical acft is pointless.

It was not just the USAF and Lockheed that interfered. In fact IIRC the decision for a joint acft was made before Lockheed was officially involved. USN was desperate for their own LO acft as well since their eggs were in the A-12 basket and that basket got dropped. To me the USAF and USN should have gone for an acft that fit their needs and transfer any common technology to the USMC for their program. Been following the program since it was first announced, know the history well. But you seem fine with blaming only the USAF when many more factors were involved. Given the political and budget situation in the 90s after Base Force was scrapped and the BUR under Les Aspin (purely budget driven, requirements ignored) reigned supreme, having 2 or 3 tactical acft programs was not going to happen. It simply did not matter what the services or DoD wanted. Fighter acft procurement fell to essentially zero for 3–4 years in the mid 90s and existing force is aging out quickly as it was purchased in rather large blocks.

The F-35 is coming and it will probably do very well once in squadron service and make the USN and USAF content. I just never agreed with it replacing the A-10.

The A-10, while old, has gone through some avionic upgrades and wing replacement and rec’d the designation A-10C. They still have a couple of thousand hours left in them. And as anothe rposter pointed out, we still have a many at DM in storage.Yes, they will need to be replaced in the not too distant future, but IMHO with a suitable similar acft, maybe even new build A-10s. Basic airframe and avionics, newer version of TF-34 still in production, and design could incorporate future growth.

But alas, will never happen. The joint and/or multi-role acft thought processes will prevent it

The AV8 is essentially a slow close support airplane

marines have AV8, same but different to A10

They don’t have to be carrier capable. as CAS they can be based at closer rougher air fields.

And the Army wanted them to begin with and would have them if it wasn’t for that STUPID agreement.

The problem is there is nothing to shoot at with the A10. They do not carry precision guided armaments and as we are all aware as soon as America starts dropping bombs in the Middle East the enemy retreats into the local populace. The A10 is a tank killer but unless we go to war with Russia there are no tanks to shoot at. Bottom-line it’s to costly to maintain the aircraft for the very limited use it gets.

“that the A-10 is no longer needed for close air support — a mission they said can be performed by such aircraft as the stealthy, single-engine F-35 fighter ”

They are FOS.

Time and time again, the delusion that fast and high fighters, excuse me, “multi-role” aircraft, can provide adequate CAS for forces on the ground, especially within close proximity to friendly forces, gets refuted by the actual reality of conditions on the ground.

Hence, the reason why we have situations like using B1s for CAS with disastrous results.

The A10s unique attributes speaks volumes in its effectiveness for the CAS role. That is why it is one of the most successful aircraft in USAF history.

I was thinking,

“Hey we are suffering from lack of mission availability due to the high maintenance cost per hour and low sortie rates of our F22 and 35s. Can you take a break so that we can get back into the fight again with our tiny quantity of wonder weapons?”

People blame the Airforce because they always tend to be wrong or the flyboys are former fratboys who got a cushy job and had low grades at a university and get to fly planes due to having well connected parents. For a maintainer you seem to be in engaging in apologetics for the former fratboys.

Continuing from my first point. The F-4 was chosen because the F-100 series were inferior planes for Vietnam. The F-111 couldn’t take off from a carrier so the F-14 was made. The F-16 has inferior combat radius to F-18. The F-22 has inferior stealth to the F-23 and much slower as well. Since dog fighting only happens to due ROEs violations these days. 2D Thrust Vectoring has limited use.

The point I made was that yes, the Navy and Marine Core easily can do those jobs the Airforce does. The only reason it exists is because of Generals of the Army Air Forces some how convinced some politicians that making both services separate. A big mistake IMO considering the crap like they to pull.
If the USAF got their hands on the other Air Wings. They would replace all the choppers and jets with unreliable Osprey’s and F-35s.

Still you avoided the point. The USMC and USN have ground based aircraft, and both the Harrier(aging) and both Hornets can take off with Carrier support. The only other Fighter that can do both in any service is the Dassault Rafale.
So I still don’t see a point to three fixed wing flight branches, and at least one of them is purposely harming our National Security to grant their Generals and Lockheed executives golden parachutes.

If current statements are accurate. the F-35 is hardly a replacement for the F-16 as well.
“Raytheon Corp did a computer based warfare simulation in which the F-16’s. F-18’s, F-22’s and F-35 were pitted against both the Russia and the Chinese. The F-16, F-18, and F-22 all completed their missions and returned safely. None of the F-35’s performed their missions and none of them survived.“
We’re going to need an interim off the shelf fighter sooner rather then later. As improved F-35D+ variants are only going to happen after a few get shot down or crash mid mission.

Does my heart good to hear that. I was in the A-10 System Program Office and responsible for initial deployments of the A-10 worldwide. She is a good bird for CAS — highly survivable, low cost , very effective. Sorry to see we want to now replace it with a bird costing 15 times more and no where close to being as effective to support our ground forces.

There will be plenty of targets for the GAU-8. Just remember, when Iraqi troops ran, ISIS took control of their equipment, for example the older M1’s. 30mm HEI will eat ‘em up if they catch ‘em, and they will!

It is very simple to solve. Follow the Navy and Marine Corps. They have one Electrician that is responsible for all the electrical systems and wiring. One or possible 2 Electronic Techs. for all the systems on a aircraft, the same for Mechs and Hydraulic and Airframe Sysems. I know for the Electrical Systems the AF has one for Starter Sys., Generator Sys., Troubleshooting wiring to a component and then a Tech. to replace the component and it goes on and on. Follow the Navy and Marine Corps and you can probably get rid of at leas 10–15 maintainers per aircraft.

If the chairforce does not want the A-10, then give it to the Marines. We sure as hell could use it, that plane is a life saver. Close air support is essential to the MAGTF and the A-10 is one bad ass bird.

Humorous comment. The Air Force likes their “sexy” fast movers. They do not like slow ground support.

I agree with you! give the A-10s to the Marines and take the F-18s they now have and put them into the Navy squadrons that are short of Hornets to bring them up to the required levels. The Marines would love to have the Warthogs!

It would also mean the demise of Marine carrier aviation outside of JSF-B. However, many of the NAS’ that fly F/A-18’s could probably also support A-10’s so ashore it shouldn’t be a big problem.

I wonder if an A-10 could take a JATO bottle…

A-10’s can carry targeting pods and support the JDAM. However, a low-altitude operating profile does not maximize the range of a glide bomb. At low altitudes, the increase of accuracy of the guided gravity bomb is minimal, as there isn’t much time to correct. The A-10 is better served carrying ATGM’s and rockets for standoff attack.

The reason they are Generals is because they have served in combat. Have you?

LOL Chairforce Generals serving in combat!. That’s funny! What did their Yachts getting shot up making the flyboys panties wet?
Unless their JTACs, A-10, F22 or F15 pilots I doubt these guys have seen the front lines from anywhere but a meeting room with HD TVs.

There is one way to solve this A-10 and F-35, its called a shoot off. No one has said what the F-35 lower limit for altitude will be yet. Will the F-35 get down and low like the A-10 does, does the F-35 have the loitering time one the battlefield that the A-10 has and most important, how many hits can it take before its no longer useable? Until someone answers that question the Air Force will push for the F-35. Also can you trust the Air Force to be Fair?

as a C/C in early 50s on B 47s my take on the A10 is political the A10s are at Davis Monthan AFB Tucson my old base and Mc Cain is protecting his territory. A10s were prominate in Vietnam every A/C has a shelf life except the B52 that has been flying over 50 years

A-10’s were never used in VN. They were first assigned to 355 TFW at Davis-Monthan in 1976 and later at 354 TFW at Myrtle Beach AFB, SC in 1978, well past VN which officially ended in 1975. It was first used in combat in the Gulf War.

They were seperated from the AF so we could pay for the illegals.

Get rid of the A-10 so we have more funds for the F-35, KC-46 and the Long range Bomber Program? The only problem is we never do it. How many BRAC’s have we had where the money would be used to recapitalize the AF Fleet, the number of ships in the Navy, or Maneuver Battalions in the Army? How many ICBM’s did we cut to recapitalize the Land Based portion of the Triad? How many Nuclear “Boomers” cut from the Navy Fleet so we could pay for more advanced submarines? How many Officers and Airman Riffed or Seperated so we could have a more technologically advanced AF? As Schwarzkoff coined, it’s Bovine Scatology! I am so tired of hearing sequestration and a host of other things being blamed for every ill the military has. The problem we have is elected officals who care more about pork than they do the military. More high ranking officers worrying about the next star. And more Government Contractors who want the taxpayer to pay for their incompetence. And last but not least a lack of real leadership from anyone in Washington, from Obama to McCain!

As a C/C on B-52’s in the 70’s you are correct. They will be flying when my Grandchildrens children join the AF! LOL

AMEN TO THAT!!!!

If I were a trouper on the ground, I would want the A 10 close. As an old Italian saying goes“Never change the old road for the new,because you know where the old road goes ‚but you do not know where the new road will take you.”

Never’s a strong word. More specifically, unless we forecast going to war with nation states that equip their front-line mechanized forces with highly effective surface to air missiles, the A-10 will probably have an easy time.

Note that in GW1 six A-10’s were destroyed by enemy fire. They are not invulnerable in their present ground attack mode.

The greatest re-distribution of wealth since…

Considering the long gap between VN and GW1, there’s a good chance of getting general’s stars without combat experience. Petraeus made it as far as LTC before being assigned to 3/187. There’s some ambiguity about whether or not he was with 3/187 during GW1. If so, then he graduated West Point in ’74 and made it to LTC by 1991, which is fairly far without combat experience. If he was assigned to 3/187 /after/ GW1, then his first “real” overseas deployment with an infantry would have been to Haiti (which may or may not count as “combat”). Brigadier General in ’99, with definite combat experience in 2003 (as an MG) as part of OIF.

It may take a detailed analysis of West Point graduates to determine if it is possible to become a general without combat experience, but I imagine it is not impossible. Take generals outside of the combat arms, for example.

The Hornet is only CATOBAR capable, so it can only fly from the Navy’s CVN’s. Ashore, the Hornet takes off and lands conventionally.

If the Marines wish to surrender aviation billets on the carriers back to the Navy, they could theoretically settle for A-10’s taking off from conventional runways, and STOVL aircraft from amphibs.

Ex air force–First of all, GET OFF MCCLAIN’S BACK. He has probably done more for our countries defense than all the “other side” put together. And why in the world change something that isn’t broken for something new and untested. KEEP FLYING, WARTHOG!!!!!!!

Amazing that finally someone recognized the need for the A10 in CSAR. I wrote a LIMFAC to keep the A10 for CSAR when I was on the Joint Staff in Desert Storm, I finally had succes in integrating CSAR exercise with STRIKEX which I figured was why they combined AFRCC with ACC. The J3 was an F15 guy at the time but his own pilots admitted it was like looking at the ground at 600 miles an hour through a straw. I took flack for it but figured I was already losing my career at that point so screw the establishment

First, the Air Force has and always will be a useless branch of the military. Possibly, keeping the Strategic aircraft and missiles might make sense. ALL other tasks and missions are being performed very well by the other branches of our military. Now, the A-10 is the best close support weapon’s platform, ever. Ask anyone on the ground who was ever in deep shit about being supported by A-10’s. The A-10’s operation has always been the Army’s but the Air Farce had to stick its nose into the pie. Turn the A-10 operation over to the Army and NEVER get rid of it. The troops on the ground will thank you for it. Now, lets see if a wise decision will come from the government because it isn’t going to come from the Air Farce. Modernize the aircraft while you are at it. Long ago, I wished the OV-10 wound have been a weapons platform. Many American lives wound have been saved.

The Army and Marines said if the air force doesn’t want the A-10, we will be happy to take it!
The air force says we can’t do that.
Anyone want to tell me how many air to air dogfights the air force has been engaged in in the last few years?
Silly me, I thought their mission was to SUPPORT the ground troops!
They want to get rid of the A-10 in favor of a fighter that is still being built and won’t be in service for years!

The scrapping was just an endeavor by some stupid upper brass that wanted a new toy to play with. The difference between pilots and little boys is the price of their toys!

I would love to see the Army and the marines take over this role and aircraft. They know what they want and need. The A10 is the perfect aircraft for close air support. The F35, F22 and B1 are over kill for the support roles and they don’t do it very well. They are not hardened against the abuse they would take in this role. Havent we learned anything yet. The nature of warfare is changing. We are fighting a war against adversaries that don’t have radar capability, so why send a stealth aircraft worth multi-millions when you have a proven commodity that is more mission capable and cost effective?

Let’s see. Desert CAS warfare big-time and long-time in our future. This seems like a no-brainer Beyond rugged, pilot protector, small relatively low-speed, relatively maneuverable doesn’t take miles and miles to turn and return, a rugged airframe purpose-built around a *big* gun.….… Why is there even a discussion about occasionally upgrading avionics and other systems to keep this tank and ground force destroyer active for relatively *ever*?

I am sorry to see the A-10 goes, but have you seen what the Russians and the Chinese are flying? It is not the A-10 or anything like the A-10.
The new aircraft can fly longer and faster and get to the target unrecognized, deliver death and destruction and be gone without being so vulnerable to ground fire.
If the navy did not update their firepower we would still be fighting with the Monitor and the Merrimack (Virginia)!
Chief

Agree Manxxhammer, the A-10 would be a perfect weapon to take on the ISIS fighters.…let them come out of their hole.…we’ll then be ready. It’s just a matter of time before ground troops are authorized to go in. We can’t sustain the current growth of ISIS and we have to deal with the cancer with our most effective tools. Until the current administration wakes up and realizes there will be less people killed if we get in and do the dirty work now, the world will continue to lose innocent people at the hands of this ruthless killers. Our current administration has lost sight of what this Country is all about. We’re a mess abroad and now we’re being divided internally over race. It’s ridiculous the direction we’re going.

Scott, do you know the meaning of CAS? Close Air Support. We use F-15s, 16’s, 22’s, and 35’s against the others. None of them can hit the broad side of a barn when needed against enemy ground forces.

“While I believe that the F-35 can replace the F-16A/B/C/D and F/A-18A/B/C/D”

HOPEFULLY, as long as its fuel doesn’t get too warm sitting in the tanker truck. Their “fix”- paint tank portion of truck “here I am, shoot me for a big fireball” bright white.

“I have never felt it was suitable replacement for the A-10.”

Only the clueless do, especially if they’re not in one of the more ground based military branches.

Right next to the C-130!

You know I took the time to read each comment and I have to say like McCain and Ayotte you all don’t know what in the hell you are talking about. It’s just a lot of emotion with no substance or facts. Let’s break it down and I’ll try to use simple words for you (I know some of you would need pictures but that won’t work here). We all know that Obama and his administration want to cut defense and that is what is driving all of this. The Air Force only has funds that go so far. Not once has any AF general said that the A-10 is a crappy plane, its a great plane for its single mission. Aircraft like the F-15, F-16, F-22 and F-35 are multi-mission, that means more bang for the buck. The way this world is going boys and girls our next war will be with China or Russia or Iran or North Korea and the A-10 would last about 2 minutes in those high-threat environments. The F-15 and F-16 would be hard pressed to survive without support from F-22s, F-35s and EA-18Gs. We all know that the A-10 has been the ground pounders best friend but those days are going away and you are going to have to accept that. Couple of you have said, duh, let’s give them to the Marines! Yeah right, is the Navy/Marines going to come up with the $4 billion price tag not to mention the pilots and maintainers? Not gonna happen, they would all resign their commissions and the enlisted would get out. Comments about BRAC and saving money elsewhere are very true, blame Congress they won’t close bases that we don’t need any longer. I’m tired of the repeated Air Force bashing, having served almost 23 years as enlisted and 13 years as an AF civilian despite what you knuckle draggers think the AF knows what needs to be done with air power. Your comments like those of McCain, Levin and Ayotte are uninformed and full of crap.

This plane is unique and a real asset in close air support and tank busting. The Air Farce never liked it because they all want fly upside down at mach 4 with their hair on fire and this plane is just a fundamentally good plane, not a fighter. As usual, give it to the Marine Corps and watch them make something out of if for decades to come just as they have done with the Viet Nam era Huey and Cobra choppers, STILL FLYING and still kicking ass. Oorah!!!

Useless? You are both a clown and a fool Jon Boy. What other tasks and missions are being performed very well by other branches of our military? I noticed that you didn’t provide any factual information because you can’t. Let me break it down for you. Strategic Airlift — no one does it but the USAF. Tactical Airlift — sure you could say the USMC does it a little with their KC-130s but not to the extent of the USAF. Air refueling — sure the USMC does it a little with their KC-130s and the USN does it with buddy tanks on their F-18s but again not to the extent of the USAF. Strategic Reconnaissance — no one does it but the USAF although the USN is starting to with their version of the Global Hawk. JSTARS — AF only. Here’s a little history lesson for you Jon Boy, there was something once called the Army Air Force and yes CAS was their mission, fast forward to 1947, USAF is born and all the planes and pilots move over. USA no longer has the mission nor the planes nor the pilots to perform CAS moron. Turn the A-10 over to the Army is as stupid as turning it over to USMC. Where ya gonna get the money to support the weapon system? How many pilots and maintainers are going to leave the comforts of an AF base and go over to the Army or USMC? Not many. OV-10, O-1, O-2 flown by the AF over Vietnam providing forward observation for the fast movers and artillery. All of your arguments if that is what you call them are baseless in fact. Do some research before you comment next time.

Now … tell us what you really think!

THE A10 WOULD SURE HURT ISSI,THEY COULD COME IN AT 30 FEET OFF THEGROUND ‚AND HAVE ANOTHER ONE COME IN AT 4 MILES APART AND HAVE THAT 30MM SMOKING,WHILE ISSI IS SHOOTING AT IT ANOTHER ONE WILL COME IN AND TEAR SOME ASSES UP OF ISSI AND THEY WOULD SURE PUT A HURTING ON ISSI ‚AND SAVE A LOT OF LIVES OF GOOD CHRISTERN PEOPLE.THE WAR HOG WOULD SURE PUT A HURTING ON THE WAR,AND MAY STOP ISSI FROM KILLING SO MANY PEOPLE,LET UNITED STATES AIR FORCE KEEP THE WAR HOG.ITS ONE HELL OF AIRCRAFT.GOD SPEED.

All I know is the 82nd & 101st wouldn’t be paratroopers without the USAF. I don’t know what this pissing contest’s primary objective is but it’s starting to look like a TROLL issue more than anything else.
Don’t care what branch you’re in, when you’re on the ground and in a tight situation, there’s nothing better than to see close air support show up, now is there? The rest is just pointless dribble—-take it to the field house, get in the ring and hit the bell.

The Air Force Big dogs have wanted that weapon system gone for decades so they can spend on new aircraft yet not another aircraft in the inventory can perform the mission of the A-10. The wanted to use the F-16 in its role but that won’t work they are not survivable in down and dirty close air support, the A-10 can take serious battle damage and get its driver home. No other fighter can. I’m glad to see politicians step in on this issue. Ask any grunt or Marine who they want over head in a pinch.

Yep, the B-29 can carry more than the JSF as well. Perhaps we should bring it back? Sound logic. I love armchair quarterbacks.…

they won’t let the USAF retired AWACS, won’t let them nix the A-10, won’t let them close bases.

Exactly what will they consider acceptable?

As always thats been the case, the Air force does not like the old aircraft because they want to spend money on nice new planes. the warthog cannot at this time be replaced for its job period! there is no way in hell their JSF can do the job of the warthog or F-16. I was in desert storm and witnessed the return of a warthog from Iraq, The pilot flew this aircraft back from a mission with one engine shot off, a 4 to 5 foot section of wing missing most of the rear stabaliser shot off and the crew chief said he quit counting after 450 bullet holes throughout the aircraft. The pilots windscreen was even damaged. How this pilot flew this aircraft safely home is still a wonder. But it shows the ability of this aircraft to sustain damage and still mission accomplished. Try that with your JST or anything else. also ask the army and marines what they think of this plane. (Why not transfer the warthog to the army and place it with their cobras and apache). maybe the air force would leave it alone then.

The problem with turning-over that A-10 to the Marines, is that you’d have to rebuild it from the ground up for cats and traps.

Tony, there had beens talk in the past of turning the A-10s over to the Army, but there are some old rules about what branch of service gets to fly how high, and how fast?
Plus it would mean all of the pilots would have to transfer into the Army, and you know what that would mean? Discipline!

Nothing beats the A-10 for a CAS mission. The Air Force likes to fly high & fast, which is great for an air superiority mission, but does nothing to help the grunts. Also has there ever been a joint strike fighter that was able to perform the mission requirements of the various branches. At last congress did something right.

BS Sam! The A-10 is the most economical airframe in the inventory. So please don’t talk budget concerns while clandestinely supporting a big-black-hole piece of crap F-35 airframe.

Where are the Harrier jump jets? I though the Marines had a bunch!?

Why?

Why is it a “rule” that the Marines have to fly a plane that is carrier-based any more than it’s a critical requirement that they fly aircraft with vertical takeoff capabilities? Answer: it’s a “rule” because that’s what the Marines want — but in reality, it’s something that they don’t have to have. When was the last time that a Harrier HAD to land on the beach or project power from a hidden spot in the woods? Answer: never. Americans so dominate the sky, they always have bases at which to land so the Harrier’s singular ability to land vertically is never used in actual combat on anywhere near a regular basis. It’s utterly unneeded.

Actually, it’d be better if the Marines trade in their Harriers for A-10s. When have we fought a war where we HAD to have Harriers? Yes, the Brits did but a) they’re the ones who chose the Harrier as their ONLY carrier-based aircraft because of the limitations of their own carrier design; we have F-18s and full-sized carriers for that and b) the Harrier is at best an average fighter and average CAS aircraft; with F-18s, we have fighters for fighting and the A-10 for CAS — the best of both worlds.

The A-10 is MUCH more maintainable with cheaper operating costs than the nightmare that is the Harrier. The Marines, then, can use the plane as a land-based aircraft like the Army does. Hell, we need one unified command, anyway, but that’s another argument for another time.

As ALWAYS, SW614 is Right. On. Target! So many morons write crap about “give it to the Army” or even worse “the Army would like/love to have it.” BS!

Air Force truly did want to replace (note: NOT just eliminate) the A-10 in the late ‘80s, back when *everyone*–including the Army–thought THE mission was Fulda Gap. And USAF was right to want to do so, but ONLY within the myopic limited viewpoint of the only mission being Fulda Gap, because the A-10 would have been shot down in droves. There has been *no* truly serious attempt since then to eliminate the A-10, partly because most everyone currently still remembers the lesson that there are still other types of wars to be fought, but only to replace it in another 15 years.

How could *anyone* not see this coming? Of course Congress is going to step in and keep the A-10 flying, just like everyone–including Them (you know, the evil “fighter mafia”)–*knew* they would.

Agree, but I’d point out that actually the F-35 will be able to carry loads greater than the F-16 can, if for some extremely unlikely reason a maximum load-out is required.

No doubt, and in 1991 four other A-10s got hit by small SAMs (SA-8/9/13) and went down.

WHAAATTT??? Impossible! I thought the Marines used AV-8Bs… oh yeah, they do, and they lost five in 1991 to AAA. Maybe that’s why they also use F-18s for CAS, and why they want F-35Bs: So they can actually stay above the trashfire zone and put PGMs right on target.

Funny, because I’ve *never* read an actual quote from *anyone* in USAF uniform who has *ever* said that the F-35 can perform *ALL* CAS missions just as well as the A-10. What it *can* do is perform most CAS missions just as well as the A-10, and the F-35, along with all our other fires–from 81mm mortars through B-1Bs can met our overall close support requirements satisfactorily.

F-15/16/18, AV-8, B-1, B-52, AC-130 all provide extremely precise CAS and have been for the last decade.

I agree, in proportion to the number of CAS missions that will be flown with that profile. And also fly other missions in accordance with the rest of the CAS mission flight profiles that don’t include having to get down into AAA. Now through all of them also consider threats like Pechora, Kub/Buk, Tor, Pantsir/Tunguska, and the variety of similar short-range air defense systems from China, for example. Now who gets hit how often, and who does not–overall?

Exactly!

I’d sure like to see the A-10s back at Grissom AFB (now Grissom Reserve Base). Would be a great place for them. Out of the way, but ready in case they’re needed. Low maintenance. Low overhead. That’s what the defense department needs.

Unfortunately the AF doesn’t the luxury of pushing an airplane that can no longer be repaired over the side of an aircraft carrier–we have to account for all of ours!

“Aircraft like the F-15, F-16, F-22 and F-35 are multi-mission, that means more bang for the buck”

NO

It means you have a jack of all trades and a master of none. In order to suit universalism, you compromise in specialization. Bad news. That is what broke NATO states do, not the USAF.

“We all know that the A-10 has been the ground pounders best friend but those days are going away and you are going to have to accept that”

What is going away? the days we need ground pounders?

You are delusional. The reason why this is a particularly sensitive subject among us ground pounders is because we call on these aircraft when we are between a rock and a hard place. I would rather be supported by something than works, than something that appeases somebody’s sensibilities because it supposedly fulfills all roles.

When writing a document that will be seen by, potentially, thousands of people, PLEASE use the correct grammar and syntax.

I am an old A-10 Maintainer that also retired. But I was the one who decided to retired. TO retired the A-10 that a “Big Miss Take.” SEE what it did in the Gulf War. The Iraqi Army sure were terrify of them. After the War they didn’t have many Tank working, or useable them. They have quick turn around time. You could also land them on Major Highway. Just ask the Korean we use to train we them. Close Highway and land one and see, how useful they are. To retired them is wast of money, from our taxpayers. But just like a kid they want a new Toy to play with. That is way there is not any money They keep wasting our Taxes. But I thing maybe we should give them to The Marine, they well put it to good use. They will terrorize all the other Nation. WE are going to need them for, The North Korean. SO like they say give them to the Marine’s they will terrorize them!

The A-10 has the lowest friendly fire over any other aircraft. I only know of three. Two of them they were directed in by air controllers and the third was a squad hiding in a building and out of sight of the A-10 and the pilot was not a wear of any personnel in the area. They said the F-35 can replace the A-10 and right now I do not see it replacing anything when I have read two articles about them making successful landings. I won’t say it can’t happened but I have extreme doubts about it. On the other side of the coin shouldn’t prove it can and is ready to preform before we talk about retiring the A-10. On the subject of friendly fire is totally misleading, when you are being fired at it is not friendly period. Friendly fire is one that keeps you warm when it is cold and cooks your food. I could never look a family member in the eye and say your loved was killed by friendly fire, I don’t about you. It does not make sense especially to the family.

In short forced reduction so those people are history. The people at the top say we cannot see the big picture but it them that are blinded by beads and shining trinkets. The A-10 proved in the air what it was capable of before the Air Force commission it. The F-35 only looks good on paper know and not yet capable of replacing anything.

A weapons system that is no longer needed?!? Tell that to the ground troops who’s butts have been saved countless of times by the A-10. I think if you were to talk to any Army infantryman who was ever in a position to receive CAS from the Hog, they would see things differently.

Not necessarily true. There are plenty of AF generals who have never seen combat. And even the ones who have seen it saw it from the air and not from the perspective of ground troops. I think you’d have a hard time finding a ground troop who has been in the situation of needing CAS who doesn’t love the A-10, regardless of which branch of service they’re in.

The A-10 is designed for CAS that is low and slow so that it wil actuially hit something with its ordinance. and has a cockpit to bring the pilot home. An F-35 is an incredibly expensive multi role aircraft that the air force will be very hesitent to put into any air space that stealth technology will not protect it, mainly low and slow because if an aircraft pilot can see the target the target can see the plane. Plus stealth technology limits the
amount of external stores that the F-35 will be able to carry. So you give up the 20,000 pounds of ordinance plus the gatling gun of the A-10 plus the extra fuel tanks and loiter time of the A-10 for the f-35 which will not
have any competitve advantage low and slow with less fuel and munitions and will cost $100 million or more a copy. This does not add up to a frequently used close at the treeop at the toops level support air craft.. Give the A-10 to the Marines or allow the Army to have fixed wing again.

The F-35 doesn’t even have the infra maker or pods that can be mounted on the A-10! Nor does that upgrade exist on paper. EOTS is already obsolete compared to the current fleet of F-15Es,F-18s and A-10s.
IRST is just going to make it worse for the USAF brass golden parachutes.

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.