Army Not Interested in Taking A-10 Warthogs from Air Force

Army Not Interested in Taking A-10 Warthogs from Air Force

The U.S. Army has no interest in taking over the Air Force’s fleet of A-10 attack planes, even if it would save the venerable Cold War-era aircraft from the bone yard.

The service’s top civilian, Army Secretary John McHugh, rejected the idea of accepting hand-me-down A-10 Warthogs from the Air Force.

“No chance,” he said during a breakfast meeting with reporters on Wednesday in Washington, D.C. “That’s not even been a topic of casual conversation.”


“With our own aircraft fleet we’re taking some pretty dramatic steps to reconfigure and become more affordable, and the A-10 mission is not something we considered. That’s an Air Force mission as it should be and I’m sure the Air Force feels the same way,” McHugh said.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James defended the service’s renewed budget proposal to begin retiring its fleet of almost 300 Warthogs — even as pilots fly the gunship in the Middle East to attack militants affiliated with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Over the past decade-plus of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, James said, “the A-10 has done a magnificent job, but so has the F-16 and the F-15E, and the B-1 bomber has been a contributor and there have been a number of aircraft that have contributed to the totality of close-air support. So to me, close-air support is not a plane, it’s a mission.”

James made those comments during a Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing after Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, asked her to respond to officials such as Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno who have praised the Warthog’s performance in close-air support missions.

The aircraft, known officially as the Thunderbolt II, packs a 30mm, seven-barrel Gatling gun, called the GAU-8 Avenger, which is configured to 3,900 rounds per minute. Pilots and ground troops alike appreciate the low, slow-flying aircraft for its high rate of fire and ability to decimate ground targets.

“We do it with the greatest of reluctance. It’s a budgetary matter,” James said of the recommendation to retire the plane. “Every aircraft eventually gives way to the next generation.”

If lawmakers approve the Air Force’s budget request for fiscal 2016, which begins Oct. 1, the service would divest the A-10 over a period of five years and save an estimated $4 billion during that period.

Congress blocked the service’s previous budget request to retire the aircraft, but allowed it to move as many 36 of the planes to back-up status. The shift will free up more maintainers to work on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon’s most expensive acquisition program.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, who testified alongside James, has made similar comments in the past. He has said the push to retire the Warthog is being driven by automatic budget cuts known as sequestration.

The across-the-board spending reductions were agreed to by the White House and Congress in 2011 as part of deficit-reduction legislation known as the Budget Control Act. The cuts are due to return in fiscal 2016 with greater effect unless lawmakers agree on an alternative plan.

Separately, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, whose husband flew the A-10 and who was part of a group of lawmakers that fought last year to protect funding for the aircraft, reportedly sent a letter to James this week asking for an update into the investigation of Maj. Gen. James Post.

Post, vice commander of Air Combat Command, reportedly warned officers last month: “Anyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason.”

–Michael Hoffman contributed to this report.

–Brendan McGarry can be reached at brendan.mcgarry@military.com

Tags: , ,

Join the Conversation

The perverbial Warthog is not replaceable by a high speed jet or a high flying bomber and that was proved with a devastating friendly fire accident in Afghanistan about a year ago. They just do not have the low, slow loiter time that A-10 has, and “THE GUN” is feared by all of the bad guys. My grandson (Army) and his platoon and a group of Marines on a joint patrol near the foothills of Afghanistan and Pakistan were attacked by about 200 bad guys from the high ground. My grandson was responsible for calling in air support and two A-10’s showed up and made two low, slow passes and totally devastated the bad guys location. My grand son told me there was not enough meat left to even ID a full body and the majority of all of thier weapons were destryed. Let me a fast mover do that.

I’m guessing It was likley a give or take scenario…Something along the lines of: “Hey Army! ya want the A10’s in your inventory?..If so we’ll change the seervice markings now, the only issue is that you gotta give-up an infantry Brigade.…

Maybe its time for the Army Air Corps. And maybe the US AeroSpace Force for strategic defense.

I hope the Marine Corps would throw their number into the hat…take’m all and assign them to the Marine Corps Reserve Air Groups

I disagree with the statement of both the army and the air force. For close in ground support there is none other as capable. But with that said if the air force is going to mothball the plane and the army does not want it then in the name of saving money then the service of this A-10 should be done immediately. The funds used to keep it is service should be use to develop and introduce the system that will replace it.

THE AIR FORCE HAS HAD THERE HEAD UP THERE XXXX FOR YEARS

The US Army like all the services think newer is better and unwilling to accept handouts like the A-10 even though it makes perfect sense to have the A-10 Warthog as they can be the perfect tactical ground support aircraft because of their loiter capability and ability to destroy enemy armor; maybe the US Air Force should give the A-10 to the US Marines as this would better than the F-35B. Additionally, the US should consider selling the A-10 Warthog to Ukraine.

Who in the Army did he confer with or better yet what was the payoff he received for this position. Close air support is an Army mission ask our Apache crews… The A10 serves in that role and fully loaded can carry significantly heavier ordinance load on a highly survivable platform. You Mr Secretary have to say more than a simple position because they urged you to espouse it. Who did you ask????

“We do it with the greatest of reluctance. It’s a budgetary matter,” James said of the recommendation to retire the plane. “Every aircraft eventually gives way to the next generation.”

That’s fine and dandy but the question i have is what is going to replace the Warthog?

Yeah, I caught that, too.
GAU-12 Equalizer is the AV-8B’s gun, but I don’t know the USMC refers to it by the name more than the designation. Also used in some AC-130 types, and Rutan’s ARES, but never any A-10.

This Brendan McGarry fellow/lady lost a chunk of any credibility, mis-identifying the A-10’s key feature.

GAU-8/A Avenger. Research… Come on.

More like they would transfer the planes, but not the money budgeted for maintenance and upkeep.

Transfer of the aircraft has to include a transfer of funds. No way the army would accept the planes without the money, and the USAF has been dedicated to getting rid of the planes some they can keep the money for something else (F-35).

With decisions like this, I figure both McHugh and James were obama appointees. They don’t care about the boots.
Simply put, A-10 is mission superior and mission available. It will be four years before F-35 is available for CGS and it will still be inferior. (it will carry 4 seconds of firing capability (192 rounds); one straffing pass then fly back to reload…come on. A-10 carries nearly 1200 rounds). Pretend you are a boot. Which one would you like covering you? (Disclosure: I’ve worked in weapons development as an engineer for over 30 years. Keeping our guys as safe as possible has always been my priority. Do not let these amateurs hurt them with their ignorance.) Push to keep the A-10.

I worked flight testing the A-10 in the 80s. Fighter mafia hated it. Kept coming up with crap like the A-16 that went nowhere. The grunt on the ground knows what works. That’s the A-10. It works and is ready now, all the A-10s were upgraded to A-10Cs. The sole A-10B 2 seat trainer is in the desert at Edwards AFB as a museum piece.

Good luck getting an A-10 to take off and land on a LHD.

If it doesn’t threaten their F-35B acquisition, I’d think the Marines would love to have the A-10 (which can operate from less-than-perfect forward operating bases which will be hard for the F-35B).

the f-35 will replace them at $238,000,000 per copy, but they can’t afford the annual A-10 program cost of 400,000,000/yr. Something like this makes sense to a fool, or maybe two of them.
Reducing F-35 program by 1% could fund A-10. See story at: http://​breakingdefense​.com/​2​0​1​4​/​0​8​/​d​o​i​n​g​-​t​h​e​-​m​ath
With leaders like this, we are in deep trouble.

Save some more(American) lives! Keep the A-10!

The A-10 is unique in how the gun is such an important weapon to it. By comparison if you’re using the gun as the primary weapon on any modern fighter something is horribly wrong. Even on other types of attack aircraft like the A-7 the gun was a “secondary” weapon compared to whatever ordinance was being carried.

The Air face doesn’t want the ‘mission” nor the aircraft, the Army say they don’t want the aircraft but says the air farce wants the job” Well, I betcha the first time the Army boots call for CAS and the air force says, “we never wanted that mission anyway, you’re on your own” the Army will change it’s tune real quick

But since both the are farce and now the Army seem to be crazy, The Navy/Marine Corp will gladly take them and we’ll do a great job doing CAS for the Mad Dogs on the ground.

I like it!

Really, look how many years the Marine Corp took “hand me downs” !?! I am former USAF, however, as painfully it is to admit; the USMC has always done more with less… and was proud to do it. Speaking from an 8 year embedded police mentor with the USMC and Army in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When the Air Force can point to a replacement that does, at the very least, ALL of the capabilities of the A-10, and more, then the plane should continue to fly. The Snuffies on the ground deserve nothing less. those Zoomies in the Air Force really don’t count. It’s the troops on the ground and in harms way that counts. The Zoomies, at the end of the mission, are going back to the golf course. (Maybe to play a round with the Commander in Chief). The Snuffies will still be in the dirt getting shot at. The A-10 is not fast and sexy but it gets the job done.

The Air Force also has to plan for wars where the enemy does have a lot of weapons to shoot back at them with you know. If we were guaranteed to fight nowhere other than Afghanistan for the next 100 years we might as well go back to building P-47s.

“Army Not Interested in Taking A-10 Warthogs from Air Force”

The Army? Really?

Or the Army top brass and the Pentagon’s SES civilian overseers of the Army?

Let’s hear the opinion of the ordinary enlisted groundpounders on this.

“It will be four years before F-35 is available”

And even when notionally ‘available’, the F-35 will be too rare, too expensive and too fragile to risk anywhere in the low level trashfire environment.

A-10s have regularly absorbed dozens of high caliber AAA cannon hits and have nevertheless completed their mission and returned their pilots safely home. The F-35 is unlikely to be able to soak up even one such hit in many areas of the airframe without a total loss. A big and extremely hot engine with unarmored fuel tanks wrapped around the outside is not a recipe for survivability.

Let’s see… A Major General says that it is treason to advocate for the A-10. Then we hear that the idea of taking over the A-10 is not even a topic of discussion.

Might there be a link? Is it possible the topic doesn’t arise because your career and maybe your freedom are at stake if you broach the topic?

And even if you set aside the threat against you if you do discuss keeping the A-10 in some manner, it should be clear why the Army has little to no interest in taking over the A-10.

The Air Force has as at least part of its reason for dumping the A-10 the need to use the people who maintain the A-10 for the F-35. So if the Army took the A-10 into its own inventory it would be coming without anyone to maintain it — and probably without anyone to fly them. No way is the Air Force going to cooperate with a transfer by sending the necessary support people and structure to the Army.

So the Army would receive aircraft which it would pretty much immediately have to mothball because the administration is hostile to the transfer and would sabotage it.

The upshot is that it would be asinine for the Army to take the A-10s under the current political and administrative regime since they would be non-functional. To take the Army disinterest in receiving the A-10 as an indication that the A-10 should not be retained would be silly at best.

Understand, I’m not attempting to make the argument that the A-10 should be retained, I accept that I don’t have the expertise to know. I’m arguing that a report that the Army has no interest in taking the A-10 should not be taken as a viable argument that the A-10 should not be retained — or even that the A-10 and its attendant support personnel and structures/inventories should not be transferred to the Army.

And you’d have to get manning autorizations and new MOS for the CSS folks and the pilots…

The first time GIs die because close air support to the standard that would have been supplied by the A10 is not available, the generals will have some interesting questions to answer.

Army taking the A-10s is the very definition of a dumba** idea.

AC-130s, Apaches and Kiowas are all MUCH better than the A-10 at conducting Close Combat Attack (the Army’s useful CAS doctrine) than the Warthog. When we have to destroy Warsaw Pact T-62s in Czechoslovakia, we can then bring back the A-10. Until then, however, the A-10 needs to die.

The F-35 will not be able to fire its gun until 2017, because of problems, I have read.
I also understand that the “A” model (Air Force model) is the only one that will have an internal gun system. The capacity of the system makes it useless anyway.

Iceman; YOU!! You are still dangerous.…but you can be my wingman any time.

Maverick; Bullshit Iceman.…you can be MINE.

Most A-10 pilots love flying the warthog!

Army’s rejection of Warhog has much to do with integrating fix wing with rotary wing aircraft in a CAB and upgrading legacy Warthog, pilot training school base and accepting a costly unit and Depot maintenance burden. There is no certainty that Congress looking for bill payers would not cut the flying hour program causing the grounding of the RW and FWd assets.

You speak to much sense — remember we live in the ODumbo a States of America these days

“I’m sure the Air Force feels the same way.” On what planet does this guy live?

They say that now, but if one happens to be in the area they will love it if it save some soldiers butts they will be grateful. With the cuts happening to DOD, all of the branches of the military are feeling the pinch of defense cuts. If the Army didn’t have to worry about the cuts, they would have the money to support the A-10…same with the Marines. The fighters have their jobs to do and the attack planes have their job to do. When they combined their tasks the now do a fair job at doing both tasks…not a great job.

Folks, I apologize for the mistake. It was a simple oversight and has been corrected. I actually did an entire story comparing the F-35 and A-10 guns: http://​defensetech​.org/​2​0​1​5​/​0​1​/​0​2​/​a​-​t​a​l​e​-​o​f​-​t​w​o-g

The Air Farce has been treating CAS as a unwanted stepchild for decades: this has nothing to do with Obama, and making it about Obama is just taking the lives of our troops and making them into political hay. Disgusting.

They do not have a replacement in mind. They joke about the F-35 taking the role, instead, as if that is funny.

My thoughts as well..what is CAS?

McHugh is a civilian appointed by the white house, right? That appears to be synonymous with screw the armed forces on the ground. The abominations on the white house staff didn’t leave enough in the Army or AF budget to fund the best ground support weapon in the AF arsenal. So what if the high flier, super expensive aircraft, hotshot pilots kill us groundpounders with “friendly fire” because the high-flier weapons systems are just plain incapable of providing as effective ground support as an A-10, it’s no skin off the flyboys’ noses.

Bad move. As a Desert Storm veteran, I personally saw what the A-10 could do from my M1A1 Abrams tank. If I were Secretary of the Army, I would jump on taking the A-10 program. This represents the best close air support we’ve ever designed.

Every time the AF budget forces tough decisions, I hear from guys who have never been in the Air Force, or in any service at senior levels where you get an understanding of budget prioritization and tradeoffs based on operational and strategic risk. These guys make wild suggestions to get rid of the Air Force, or have the Army fly A-10s. Fine for an emotional reaction, but when you evaluate the cost of a fleet of A-10s, there’s pilot initial qual training, upgrade training, continuation training, evaluation, equipment, and personnel scheduling. There’s aircraft parts not being made anymore…which means big bucks, there’s a logistics system to distribute parts to the bases where the fleet is based…there’s tanker support requests (and you pay for that too) to get that A-10 anywhere other than CONUS. Maintenance crews, tools, equipment, training programs, safety programs. Range times, airspace considerations, and MORE. It’s expensive, and it’s a LOT more than kicking the tires and strapping on the jet. The emotional bloviating and oversimplification is fun, but the reason the senior leaders from ALL services agree, is they understand the complexity of the big picture.

MORE: pilot weapons quals, weapon procurement (the A-10 carries Mk 82/83/84, AGM 65/66, GBU 8/12/38, BLU 27, JDAMS, LAU 68, AN/AAQ-28 Litening pod, SUU 25 and more), weapons load-outs, storage, and certifications. Classified facilities. SADL/L16 network loads, Operational C2 coord mechanisms (to drop bombs beyond the FSCL, you’ll be coording release authority through the AOC, JFACC, and often higher). It’s a bigger, costlier headache than the Army wants.

Army Secretary John McHugh said no, wonder if he talked to the ground troops as to what they want, not the high ranking civilians or the Generals but the guys who really fight the ground war

Ten to one he didn’t

Incorrect if you recall the F-35B is a VSTOL aircaft. It can operate in places the A-10 cannot.

Your perspective is interesting and much appreciated.

Personally, I admit that I do not know if the A-10 should be retained. What I do know is that I don’t trust the very politicized upper ranks of our military.

Every time I see Admiral Kirby on TV I see an administration shill. The PC level demanded from those folk in order to get and keep their jobs appears to be sufficiently high that they can’t be trusted to give us straight talk.

Add to that the devotion to a program I’m not sure is really going to pay off (the F-35) and the added fact that one of the reasons the A-10 is slated for retirement is that they want to shift the support resources to the F-35 and my distrust level goes higher.

Maybe dumping the A-10 is the right thing to do. I don’t know. What I do know is that I don’t trust the folk who are telling me that the A-10 should go.

Of course the Generals of the Army will say this.
Going with the flow, don’t rock the boat, don’t make waves don’t you see.
Why tick off the Air Force by stating the real feelings.
Politics and the Military go hand in hand.

The A-10 is not sea borne carrier capable.
The Navy won’t fly it.
The Marines will not use it.

Well, There was that battle in Iraq between ground forces and the Apaches.
Did not go well.

I agree our senior leadership has become very careful and often political with their language. I also agree the F35 is not and will never be an effective CAS platform. I have only two options I would consider…release the AC-130 for support to conventional ground forces and build more of them…and, either restart the A-10 line or a similar slow and tough, relatively simple airplane to build an actual replacement for the A-10. First one is cheaper/more feasible. 2nd is a new start.

“That’s an Air Force mission as it should be and I’m sure the Air Force feels the same way,”
Actually the Air Force has tried for decades to get rid of this mission. They do NOT like close air support plain and simple. They do/did it because it allowed them to up their budget and helps justify their continued existence so they can keep flying their fighters and after that their bombers.

Keep the A-10. No other platform has the capabilities of A-10. CAS and loiter.

The A-10 is over 40 years old! It was designed for the European Theatre to combat the massive 4 to 1 tank ratio in favor of the then WARSAW PACT against the NATO ALLIANCE during the COLD WAR. There’s plenty of weaponry in the American military arsenal that can handle any tank threat.

The AF doesn’t want the plane because they have the new one coming on line shortly. It’s a new platform, more expensive to buy, and surely more expensive to maintain. The Army doesn’t want it because they want to up grade their choppers. The Marines would take them I’m sure, as it does a far better job with close ground support. The Navy really doesn’t have a place for them, don’t think the land on carriers. The end result will be that the AF will most likely get their way and then regret that they got rid of the plane. Generals in DC haven’t a clue was what goes on in the field, all they do is look at papers and stats. They don’t look at the troops on the ground, after all that’s the job of the Army and the Marines, which they really don’t give a crap about. Odd that Congress rejected the proposal previously, but they still keep hammering away and a dead issue. But as one dude asked here, drop the A10, and what replace’s it?? Ya, that’s what I figured, NO ANSWER!!

Unfortunately our military leaders are politicians and not great military leaders. Imagine what Patton would say about this. The A-10 should have always been an Army asset, controlled and deployed completely by the Army.

The Air Force is in the unenviable position of having to make cuts. Historically, the Air Force will choose the ‘fast movers’, latest, greatest most technologically advanced programs and cut the not-so-sexy ground support and transport mission. It is the job of Defense and increasingly, of the Congress to provide necessary oversight to prevent programming mistakes. It is also the job of the other service chiefs to insure their services can rely on needed capability. The current politically inspired ‘get along, go along’ attitudes insures comity but, too often at the expense of the mission and ultimately, the lives of the Marines, soldiers and sailors on the front line.

Close Air Support

I just don’t understand how that would help. They cost what they cost, and the DoD budget isn’t getting bigger to pay more for them as they age. So do you think the Army would be willing to cut a brigade to pay for them?

For Secretary James: Ma’am, please go to Afghanistan to an outpost under Taliban attack, and while you are desperately trying to stay alive, think about your comment “…so to me, close air support is not a plane, it’s a mission.”

You will want to hear the reassuring growl of a GAU-8 and the whine of two TF-34s in the only fixed wing aircraft in the world that is identified with CAS…instead of the silence from a B-1 somewhere or an F-35 that just aborted because the helmet went Tango Uniform.

That would make the most sense. This could be added to their Harrier group. I just think that this is another group of policy wonks similar to those who in decades before eliminated the spy network to satellite based spying. Most have no real experience in the real world but are gifted at writing position/policy papers.

As much as I disagree with the Secretary of the Army, I can’t say I blame him. If they were to accept the A-10 the cost alone will probably require that they give up other assets. And let’s face it, if your primary purpose to to capture and hold real estate, would it be a smart decision to give up Infantry or Special Forces Units in exchange for an aircraft that will require them establish a Selection and Training Program for all its crew (Pilot, Maintenance, Ordinance, Ground Crew, Logistics, etc.), a new Logistical chain for all its parts and ordinance, adaptation of specialized support equipment, Rebuilding and/or Restructuring Airfields to accommodate its capabilities, Creation of new Units and Chains of Command to accommodate its mission, etc.

This is especially a problem during a time when they are downsizing their Combat Force along with everyone else. As far as the Marine Corps adopting the A-10, they would be hard-pressed to do so since it is not a carrier-ready combat aircraft. I do hope that the USAF reconsider getting rid of these even if they were to relegate them to National Guard or Reserve units.

While I know you are being facetious about the P-47, I suspect that something like the Douglas A-1 Skyraider (or more so the A2D Skyshark with same turboprop as C-130J), would be adequate for chasing after characters like Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army in central Africa.

The real traitors are the spineless and bullying generals who are thinking first and foremost about politics, and not at all about supporting our troops on the ground.

There is some overlap of capability between the A-10 and those other aircraft you mention. The notion that the combined overlap of those, and other machines, will be as effective is just wrong. A definite performance niche is left open. Also, for 40 years I have been listening to arguments about the A-10 vulnerability in the low/slow envelope. I say the A-10 survivability is much better than the AC-130 and the helicopters because of its structural design, relative agility, and firepower. It is valuable for those reasons until something new fills the niche. It is surely not invulnerable, but useful.

I was there in the beginning of the A-10, in the program office, responsible for all support. The corporate Air Force didn’t ever like the Warthog, or want the CAS mission. The hog is ugly, slow, and everything a modern fighter isn’t. Let me say that again. The CAS mission cannot be done any near as well by any other aircraft as the A-10 as efficiently and effectively. Only those who have flown it, and those on the ground that have needed it, and me.… love that aircraft.
Retired Colonel, USAF.

That was deep strike, not close support. Really bad choice of missions for the Apache, but hey live and learn. But by that same token, the A-10 was sent against the Republican Guard in Iraq I and failed miserably with far more losses than the fragile, unarmored F-16. In Iraq II, an A-10 was the only aircraft lost to missile defenses when it got toasted by a Roland. It was also unable to support troops in sandstorms, unlike virtually every other aircraft that could drop JDAMs. For that matter the A-10 sucked over Kosovo as well, being completely unable to locate targets. And in the last few years, what has been the big push for the A-10? Giving it a pod so it can find and attack from altitude like a F-15E or F-16 with JDAMs and LGBs!

Strange the head of NATO yesterday said the arrival of A-10s was a real boost for defense seems Obama’s appointees put his wish list over what troops need.

Seems the liberal propaganda media wont report this to cover for him.

This all very simple if, as a prior commenter said, the Air Force is required to transfer everything A-10. Money, planes, crews, maintenance, support equipment. It’s called a functional transfer. Then the Army couldn’t reject the deal. CONGRESS needs to make that happen, because the administrative (including the Bushies before now) didn’t do it either.

When I was a cadet I attended one of those firepower demonstrations that included the concept of the F-16 as a CAS platform. This must have been in the summer of 1987. It FAILED!!! There were tractor trailer sized range markers number 1 (extreme left), 2 (middle) and 3(extreme right) on an open field with lots of blown up old cargo trucks and tanks, etc. The Announcer stated our troops were between posts 1 & 2 and the enemy force is between posts 2 & 3. In came the fast mover and the next thing I saw was the ground erupting between posts 2 & 3. The explosions continue to post 2 and knocking it down and continued to about half-way between what had been post 2 and post 1. Therefore the front edge of both the friendly and enemy forces would have been destroyed by USAF CAS. I’m pretty sure they practiced this drill several times before putting on the show and on the big day — disaster. I remember putting my finger down the barrel of an A-10’s main cannon at the air station near Norfolk in the early 1980’s as a young Boy Scout. That was a USN A-10 for anti-sub patrol’s along the Eastern Seaboard. But I’ve seen then in action from the range to the field and it is comforting to hear the sound of the engines fly past and the roar of its cannons. They are great against an unsophisticated enemy force and greatly feared by the same.

The Army Secretary sounds like he had his arm twisted. To get the A-10s would also require getting funding and manpower to operate them, but no good soldier would unquestioningly surrender the CAS mission to the Air Force, and no good bureaucrat would surrender any chance for money and manpower to another service.

The specter of a major war against Russia within the next 5 years looms. In WWII the U.S. Army had inferior tanks in Europe although in large numbers. The difference maker against an able foe was the first Thunderbolt.
The F-35 is a disaster and not at all suited for close combat. Stealth is irrelevant unless someone invents the Romulan cloaking device. The person with a shoulder fired missle is going to see the aircraft.
A plane that can take a hit is required.
If budgetary issues are in play reduce the F-35 budget since that plane will likely prove a strategic failure and possibly contribute to losing the next major war. Reliance on the F-35 instead of he other currently more capable aircraft will make the US more vulnerable. The F-35 threatens national security. The A-10 strengthens it.

You know the Air Force Command is nothing but a bunch of worthless pieces of shit. in the Sixties they bitched and complained about the Army conducting attack missions with an un-appreciated and un-sung aircraft the OV-1 Mohawk. The Mohawk was an aircraft that my father flew and had told me stories about the Air Force’s cry baby persona that took his and others jobs away and had to be re-classed. The role of air to ground attack belongs to the Army or Marines and I know that there are some pissed off Warrant Officers out there that were looking forward to re-classing into the A-10. Leave it to the F u c k i n g idiots in office that never served in a line unit…

So stealth is irrelevant unless you’re completely invisible? What sort of bizarre logic is this? Ever hear of radar?

What other more capable aircraft? The F-35 is first and foremost designed to replace the F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8 and generally speaking it is superior to those aircraft. It wasn’t designed to be another A-10.

In the “next major war” the A-10 won’t be worth its weight in scrap metal unless you have the air cover and SEAD to enable it to provide CAS, not to mention more dangerous battlefield air interdiction.

So you want to take maintainers from the low, slow, boots-on-the-ground as well as pilot-beloved airplane that is low cost yet battle tested and extremely reliable airplane and move them to the new, flashier F-35 that has seen 3 major cost overruns, timetable pushback, and is expected to be in service as early as 2015 when we are supposed to be leaving most active combat zones?

I was in the Army at one time so this sounds absolutely like something the military would do.

Your last sentence there pretty much described any modern fighter. What do you think a F-16 is? Even two engines doesn’t dramatically change the picture. It all depends on *what* hits you and *where*.

The A-10 has to have that armor because it is going low and slow. If you’re flying the F-35 low and slow over the battlefield something is wrong.

Armor is great but it still won’t be enough depending on what’s shooting back at you. Iraqi air defenses in 1991 or 2003 were far from the most capable and their crews weren’t very well trained. The A-10 was also operating in an environment where F-15s are providing air-cover, F-4s or F-16s are performing SEAD, and EF-111s or EA-6s are providing jamming support.

It is not just the gun. It is the amazing maneuverability the Hog has at low altitude and low air speed. A-10 pilots can hit their targets because they can see their targets. And their targets can see them. Flying ability actually matters in a plane like that.

Flying at 30,000 feet is a pretty lame way to use a good ground attack aircraft.

If Congress won’t give the Air Force extra funds for the A-10 why does anybody think they’ll conjure them up for the Army?

That money is needed for “Americans in waiting” or some other boondoggle.

USN A-10s for anti-sub patrol? What?

There was a number of turboprop aircraft would have been useful for light attack and observation in Afghanistan. Yet by the time the procurement system actually got something like that moving we were getting ready to leave!

Even the Army should be able to fork over $400 million bucks a year to maintain an effective CAS capability. If you let me set the Fire Support Coordination Line where the Corps Area of Operations starts, we’re done and the Air Force can have a nice day, may we never meet again. Just call what you are doing “interdiction”, just don’t ever call it “battlefield air interdiction” so that no one gets the wrong idea that the United States Air Force ever comes close to a battlefield again. Then you can talk all the smack you want about risks and tradeoffs. Just make sure you buy lots of fuel tankers, ’cause it is long way from home where you’re goin’.

NATO was really risk-adverse in Kosovo and avoided flying down in the weeds. Part of the wonderful nature of peacekeeping operations in a region where everybody hates everybody else (including the peacekeepers) and has access to warehouses full of Warsaw Pact military grade equipment. There was a significant threat from modern MANPADS such as the SA-16 which are very unlikely to be fooled by flares.

See my comments above — but just for the record, why would I waste a perfectly good A-10 to drop JDAMs ? Just remember that you ain’t coming 100 miles near my Forward Line of Troops. If you haven’t busted all the bunkers with your ineffective “shock and awe” tactics, you’re done. Do we understand done yet ?

I’ll give you one week to gain air superiority. One week. After that, just go home, because you’ve designed an Air Force that can do nothing else.

Something like the A-10 is a specialized aircraft with certain capabilities you’re only going to get with such a specialized aircraft.

Funny — I thought Saddam sent off his whole Air Force to Iran in 1991 to keep them from getting butchered by the US Air Force. So what were the F-15s doing ? And how far forward does the Air Force think it needs to do SEAD missions ? I you are poking holes in the air defense coverage so you can go long, that doesn’t count. Neither do B-52 strikes from 500 feet AGL.

The Kosovo war was the only time in my life that I have been truly ashamed of my country’s use of military force. To stand off at ranges where you don’t even know what you are shooting at, sure to cause the maximum collateral damage, and the bad guys can just play rope a dope and hide in the woods and towns while you are mostly concerned with avoiding battle casualties is the most chicken way to fight imaginable. Even this administration has not stooped that low in Libya and Syria.

AC-130, right, only in peacetime with no enemy shooting back

and “they” say the A-10 is vulnerable hahahahaha

I certainly wouldn’t want to be in a AC130 in a shooting war

It’s easy, just get rid of a few fat air farce generalli’s and their bloated staffs and they’ll have plenty of money for the A-10

they might also have to squeeze really really hard and shut down a golf course-oh my, the humanity!

This plane would be perfect for the Marines; if they could/would make a navalized version with folding wings and a tailhook.….

this is obvious that the decision makers want to please their future employers — defense contractors, who happen to make millions on spare parts, but billions on untested new designs that never come in on budget.

The F-35 isn’t worth it’s weight right now and may never be combat ready. Tell me why the F-35 is more capable in close ground support than the A-10. You don’t need stealth in close ground support. Your enemy can see you and fire shoulder launched missiles at you. Plus the F-18 Growler can jam the radar from above.
The F-35 is not a capable ground attack plane. And let’s face it the F-35 may never be combat ready.

The all F-35 Air Force will lose on a week. Although maybe they’ll comvince our enemies not to attack such an expensive and beautiful plane. Really the logic of the military should be to replace all weapons and troops with F-35s. Using the argents of some people here. Soldiers are outdated. The M-1 Abrams tank is outdated. An M-16 is outdated. Artillery is outdated. Replace all of it with as many $220million F-35s as will bankrupt the government. Never mind hat the F-35 helmet which is $500k per, makes the pilots sick and goes out from time to time leaving no HUD. Never mind that currently cannot fire a weapon of any kind and may never be able to. Never mind that it cannot yet fly off a carrier reliably and may never. Never mind that it is not allowed to fly in bad weather and may never. Never mind that it’s underpowered and is more fragile than current aircraft. Make it replace all other elements of the military.
You’ll see who leaves the country first when a real war approaches. Grounding of our other aircraft in favor of the F-35 will have the same effect on our enemies as our current President. It will embolden them.

The Army is mothballing their Kiowa’s, so they are no longer part of the CAS equation.

What is the target and what AA threats are in the area? What about enemy aircraft? Not all missions are the same.

And what about all of the missions that involve destroying ground targets that are not CAS? Strike and battlefield air interdiction missions for example. What’s going to do those without the F-35? Our current F-16s are getting old. The F-15E is limited in numbers. The A-10 would be great to keep but we need the F-35 so of course the Air Force is viciously defending it. Look what happened to F-22 production despite the many years they spent fighting for it.

Critics said the F-22 would never be combat ready, I’m sure they’ve said it about the F-14, F-15, and F/A-18. There is not some huge problem preventing it from eventually becoming combat ready, it’s primarily a matter of software.

What are you even talking about? Nobody suggested the F-35 replace tanks or artillery or soldiers. It was designed around replacing three aircraft, the F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8. Replacing the A-10 is a role it has been shoehorned into more-or-less by default.

Everybody and their mother has a different price figure for the F-35. You say $220 million, the Air Force says $100 million, Lockheed claims they’ll get it down to $85 million, a half dozen different government agencies have different numbers, crazy anti-military activists have their own absurd figures.

The cost overruns and delays that have occured are downright shameful but that doesn’t change the need for the aircraft. Ultimately we expect all of that government oversight to ensure costs are under control and that it does what it is supposed to do. If that cannot be done what is the solution? Nobody is coming up with any valid alternatives to the thing.

The problems with the HMD are fixed or on their way to being fixed as of more recent reports. Cannot fire a weapon of any kind? It has already launched AMRAAMs and dropped JDAMs so that’s untrue. It has already landed and taken off from a carrier despite the doomsayers. It will eventually be cleared to fly in bad weather. You say “may never” but that thinking can apply to anything hasn’t been done. So is the solution not to work on anything new because of “may never”?

Underpowered? Compared to a F-22 yes. Not compared to a F-16 or F/A-18 with typical combat load. When you load an aircraft up with weapons, fuel, targeting pods, and so forth that all has a penalty on performance. Yes a F-16 in a very light configuration with no external stores other than two missiles on the wingtips is a better performer than the F-35. Of course in the real world it tends to carry a whole lot more than that. More fragile than current aircraft? What are you comparing it to? Yes it would be relatively fragile compared to the A-10, but when you compare it to one of our fighters it is pretty similar.

Remember the Air Force was going to keep the A-10 until this current budgetary mess. Now they’re in the position of sacrificing it to preserve ongoing programs. Bureaucrats are bureaucrats but ultimately the money has to come from somewhere and where should that be?

F-15 scored a lot of kills during GW1 doing their job, which led so many aircraft to try and flee to Iran. Some types of AA like the ZSU-23–4 Shilka or SA-8 can be quite far forward. The A-10 was able to do its job because all of those other aircraft did and were doing their jobs. I’m not certain what point you’re trying to make here.

But imagine the horror if any of our services were left without an excess number of flag officers? Stuff might actually get done. Although I wouldn’t trust the current POTUS choosing who to fire and keep.

I’d rather be in an F-15 than an F-35. The common figure for the F-35 Is over $200 million per plane. Any other figures are bogus. It would be better to rework existing F-35s to get them combat ready and save the budget for other initiatives. Keep some budget to maintain he A-10 fleet. Develop more combat worthy drones. Expand the capability of the F18-G the Growler for use in other aircraft. Look at a wholistic approach of flocks of drones commanded by a manned fighter command plane. Look at light attack fighters that can be produced en mass. The F-35 was a failure 10 years ago and exists to keep companies with voters and lobbyists in business. Yes we need more advance airborne weapons platforms. But not more F-35s.

The Army barely has a pot to piss in now — no way they could afford to assume this mission if they wanted to. The A-10 needs to stay, be further upgraded — and the F-35 terminated.

There is no replacement for the “A-10 Warthog”!! I am a former U.S. Marine and I can’t tell you how many times they saved the day. I agree the “A-10″ strikes fear in the hearts of the bad guys and I also agree, no fast mover came do what the A-10 can. As a Marine, with boots on the ground the A-10 in stiles Pride and a confidence that it is hard to explain. It adds a whole new meaning to words close air support. The money that is spent to keep them flying is well worth it; the American and Coalition forces in field depend greatly on the impact the A-10 has on the bad guys!

Yup, the Hog sucked so bad in Kosovo… I guess that’s why one of the top NATO commanders said the arrival of an additional squadron of Hogs marked the turning point in the air war.

And the B-52 was designed to nuke Moscow — does that mean it can’t do anything else? Design does not equal capability.

And, by your logic, there is plenty of weaponry in the DoD that can handle an air threat. Does that mean we should keep one fighter that can engage aircraft and retire the rest? ‘Cause we could save a ton of money that way…

I think the A-10 Warthog could be very useful in Europe the way Putin is playing up, surely Britain, Germany, Holland, Belgium could use them if trouble really breaks out, after all this is becoming like the Cold War.

Why do people like you always have to go to the Obama line. You can’t think of nothing else?

I never really cared too much for that Barack Hussein Obama guy. I voted McCain-Palin, even though I’m a registered Independent voter. But, after all these years of you Repubthugs Obama-bashing, now, I say
PRAISE OBAMA, OBAMA IS GOD OBAMA IS GREAT.….
Can’t you give the “ODumbo” garbage a REST.…????

Darn, Brendan, where were you recently, when Brian Williams and Bill O’Really? needed you?.…
GOOD MAN.

Maybe one day you will write a post that actually contributes to a discussion versus just emotional bashing.
The USAF has already cut hundreds of F-15 and F-16 acft, deactivated airlift squadrons, and cut flying hours. With the current budget constraints and an aging tactical fleet (F-15, F-16, and A-10) what would you cut in order to replace that aging fleet? What is your real suggestions? The F-35 is not being purchased just to replace the A-10, but to replace the legacy fleet. The A-10 mission is being transferred to that acft, the F-35. I may not agree with it, but that is what is happening.

The USMC will replace their F/A-18A/B and AV-8B acft with the F-35B and perform CAS with it as well. As will the USN with the F-35C.

BTW — golf courses are run with non appropriated funds.

I think it’s a very dumb idea to get rid of the A-10 Warthog, it’s not replaceable.

army has their own CAS assets but they can not own planes

It’s not an issue of hand me downs.

It’s much more complicated than just the Sec Army saying the Army doesn’t want the A10.

In the highly political nature of the Pentagon, if the Army stating it wanted the A10 would start a branch war with all the resulting bad blood, resource/attention divergence and most important risk predicting what Congress might actually do. E.G. giving the Army A10’s without pilots, maintainers and budget is not feasible but saying that aloud would make the Air Force feel threatened. The Air Force would respond with a counter proposal. That might be to put Army helicopter ownership at risk. Proposing that airborne forces belong to the Air Force, a resurgence of the effort to control all UAV’s, attempting to take the air defense mission from the Army or some other initiative that would cause a back and forth that would lead to who knows where.

Further the Army traditionally avoids conflict with the other branches even to its own detriment. The Army did not make much of a case after the Corps copyrighted and forbade other branches from using its camo pattern for the first time in our history and after half a century of using Army developed patterns that the Army shared? This started the camo wars. Look how quiet the Army was after the USAF stole the C2J intratheatre lift plane (an Army program), promised to fly the plane for the Army and then mothballed the fleet two years after it got it?

Ask the question of those more interested in bare bones capability and the answer would be very different.

Jeff — what are some examples of “hand me downs”? I’ve seen this myth often repeated but never supported.

From boots to helmet and everything in between we hardly use the same equipment anymore. Even when the Marines leverage another branch’s contract, the equipment is procured brand new for the Corps and often with its markings on it. It’s not that the Marines get the other branches old equipment but that they spend less money getting new equipment. Equipment that looks like the same equipment of another branch was always Marine equipment that just got a lot more use and is erroneously characterized on being a “hand me down”. There is no old lady in sneakers stamping used Army equipment with “USMC”.

E.G. The M27 was procured because SAW’s were supposedly unreliable but if you compare the parts and replacement programs of the Army and USMC you’d see the Marines didn’t invest in their old SAWs.

The Corps propaganda is so powerful people who should know better repeat it. It proves the adage, “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”

On the other hand the Marines do stretch dollars farther. They also have the Navy provide a lot of the logistics and costs that don’t reflect in their budget making them even look more frugal.

Don’t forget payload & loiter time…

Guns are absolutely secondary in a fighter. There’s a reason the Warthog has an “A” in front of it.

Two engines do matter when it comes to survivability as well as what and where you’re hit. To say two engines don’t make a dramatic difference is to show one does not understand the environment.

“The A-10 has to have that armor because it is going low and slow.”

No, it the A10 has armor because in the execution of its primary job it’s going to get shot at. There are other planes that have flown low and slow in the execution of their missions and not been as armored because they weren’t expected to be engaged (e.g. B52’s and AC130’s)

“The A-10 was also operating in an environment where F-15s are providing air-cover, F-4s or F-16s are performing SEAD, and EF-111s or EA-6s are providing jamming support.”

Yes and that’s not going to stop though other types of aircraft will be doing it. Who is going to do SEAD for the F35 before the F35 does CAS? ANS: Every aircraft in the USAF inventory that can and maybe even Army helicopters, artillery and other systems.

Very true. It’s much more complicated than just the Sec Army saying the Army doesn’t want the A10.

In the highly political nature of the Pentagon, if the Army stating it wanted the A10 would start a branch war with all the resulting bad blood, resource/attention divergence and most important risk predicting what Congress might actually do. E.G. giving the Army A10’s without pilots, maintainers and budget is not feasible but saying that aloud would make the Air Force feel threatened. The Air Force would respond with a counter proposal. That might be to put Army helicopter ownership at risk. Proposing that airborne forces belong to the Air Force, a resurgence of the effort to control all UAV’s, attempting to take the air defense mission from the Army or some other initiative that would cause a back and forth that would lead to who knows where.

Further the Army traditionally avoids conflict with the other branches even to its own detriment. The Army did not make much of a case after the Corps copyrighted and forbade other branches from using its camo pattern for the first time in our history and after half a century of using Army developed patterns that the Army shared? This started the camo wars. Look how quiet the Army was after the USAF stole the C2J intratheatre lift plane (an Army program), promised to fly the plane for the Army and then mothballed the fleet two years after it got it?

Ask the question of those more interested in bare bones capability and the answer would be very different.

Agree but don’t assume the Sec Army’s position isn’t deeply couched in Pentagon politics. It’s much more complicated than just the Sec Army saying the Army doesn’t want the A10.

In the highly political nature of the Pentagon, if the Army stating it wanted the A10 would start a branch war with all the resulting bad blood, resource/attention divergence and most important risk predicting what Congress might actually do. E.G. giving the Army A10’s without pilots, maintainers and budget is not feasible but saying that aloud would make the Air Force feel threatened. The Air Force would respond with a counter proposal. That might be to put Army helicopter ownership at risk. Proposing that airborne forces belong to the Air Force, a resurgence of the effort to control all UAV’s, attempting to take the air defense mission from the Army or some other initiative that would cause a back and forth that would lead to who knows where.

Further the Army traditionally avoids conflict with the other branches even to its own detriment. The Army did not make much of a case after the Corps copyrighted and forbade other branches from using its camo pattern for the first time in our history and after half a century of using Army developed patterns that the Army shared? This started the camo wars. Look how quiet the Army was after the USAF stole the C2J intratheatre lift plane (an Army program), promised to fly the plane for the Army and then mothballed the fleet two years after it got it?

Ask the question of those more interested in bare bones capability and the answer would be very different. Be careful though, they might be charged with committing treason also…

True!

It’s exactly why the Sec Army made the statement and not a uniformed officer.

Why?

The USAF operates MRAPs. There are armored vehicles like M577’s, M113’s and Strykers the Air Force owns that are maintained by the Army for the Air Force’s use.

Ted — Fixed wing can carry more and stay on station longer than rotary aircraft. They are inherently more efficient in providing CAS. The things helos do better is responsiveness because they belong to the ground commander. That’s not to say the systems aren’t complimentary.

The fact that AC130’s can’t operate during the day, any kind of serious air defense environment and are almost exclusively used to support special operations forces hurts their utility big time unless we can get the enemy to agree to only attack us at night, not bring any advanced air defense systems and only fight SOF. If you could arrange that, stop ISIS from beheading folks while you’re at it.

Joe it is more complicated but it’s not insurmountable. Pilots, maintainers, some USAF schooling support would be critical initially. Funding? The USAF would spend $4 bil to operate the A10 move that over to start (but put on hearing protection to protect yourself from the ear splitting wailing)

The Army does have logistics system to distribute parts to the bases where the fleet is based, safety programs, ranges, airspace considerations, classified facilities and more. (we even have bunches of troops who maintain turbine engines…)

There IS an issue of pilot training, maintenance crews etc. but this isn’t insurmountable. Branches often send servicemembers to other branch schools for basic skill training. There would absolutely be some overlap at first and the Army could eventually assign warrants to fly A10’s which would be a cost cutting measure.

The biggest obstacle would be the obstructionism the USAF would engage in to make the initiative fail. I would recommend the Army rely on the Navy and Marines to improve its capabilities to avoid the obstruction and instill a more conducive CAS culture in fledgling Army fixed wing pilots.

BTW, anything past the FSCL isn’t CAS.

It’s not simple or easy to stand up a new capability. No one was complaining when the branches stood up their own UAV programs (after the Air Force failed in keeping them centralized).

Maybe, but let’s move the pilots, maintainers and $4bil the Air Force said it would take to operate the plane for the next several years.

Yes but it’s much more complicated than just the Sec Army saying the Army doesn’t want the A10.

In the highly political nature of the Pentagon, if the Army stating it wanted the A10 would start a branch war with all the resulting bad blood, resource/attention divergence and most important risk predicting what Congress might actually do. E.G. giving the Army A10’s without pilots, maintainers and budget is not feasible but saying that aloud would make the Air Force feel threatened. The Air Force would respond with a counter proposal. That might be to put Army helicopter ownership at risk. Proposing that airborne forces belong to the Air Force, a resurgence of the effort to control all UAV’s, attempting to take the air defense mission from the Army or some other initiative that would cause a back and forth that would lead to who knows where.

Further the Army traditionally avoids conflict with the other branches even to its own detriment. The Army did not make much of a case after the Corps copyrighted and forbade other branches from using its camo pattern for the first time in our history and after half a century of using Army developed patterns that the Army shared? This started the camo wars. Look how quiet the Army was after the USAF stole the C2J intratheatre lift plane (an Army program), promised to fly the plane for the Army and then mothballed the fleet two years after it got it?

Ask the question of those more interested in bare bones capability and the answer would be very different.

The Air Force doesn’t need extra funds for the A10. It needs funds for the F35. Cut the number of F35’s or give the whole A10 mission, infrastructure and funding to the Army and then make your case on how you can’t do your other missions without more F35’s.

Don’t penalize the Army /Marines by providing less adequate CAS to get a new toy.

Yes, but at every turn they cut the A10 more…

It’s much more complicated than just the Sec Army saying the Army doesn’t want the A10.

In the highly political nature of the Pentagon, if the Army stating it wanted the A10 would start a branch war with all the resulting bad blood, resource/attention divergence and most important risk predicting what Congress might actually do. E.G. giving the Army A10’s without pilots, maintainers and budget is not feasible but saying that aloud would make the Air Force feel threatened. The Air Force would respond with a counter proposal. That might be to put Army helicopter ownership at risk. Proposing that airborne forces belong to the Air Force, a resurgence of the effort to control all UAV’s, attempting to take the air defense mission from the Army or some other initiative that would cause a back and forth that would lead to who knows where.

Further the Army traditionally avoids conflict with the other branches even to its own detriment. The Army did not make much of a case after the Corps copyrighted and forbade other branches from using its camo pattern for the first time in our history and after half a century of using Army developed patterns that the Army shared? This started the camo wars. Look how quiet the Army was after the USAF stole the C2J intratheatre lift plane (an Army program), promised to fly the plane for the Army and then mothballed the fleet two years after it got it?

Ask the question of those more interested in bare bones capability and the answer would be very different.

Outside of the cockpit & engines(partial), the A-10 is not armored. What it has is structural redundancy. What it has is flight control system redundancy. What it has is complete rudder and horizontal stabilizer redundancy. This makes it able to dish out damage, and take damage. If one throws modern MANPAD defense on it as the Apache AH-64 has, no one would be claiming that the A-10 is “obsolete”.

If anything is “obsolete” it is the Apache AH-64 which costs far more(we could have 2 or 3 A-10s for every AH-64 we have bought), carries a miniscule load, has a miniscule radius of operations, has just as large of a RADAR signature, and cannot loiter on the scene due to its load limitations. But, it can hover so slightly useful in spec ops. While Apache’s can withstand small arms fire, it certainly does not have redundant structure, or flight controls. Why MANPAD’s and RPG’s along with ground fire can easily take down helos. Single point failures such at rotor systems are Achilles heels for all helicopters. Do you see congress trying to retire and ground the thousand or so Ah-64’s to save money? No. Why is that? Because they are not part of the Air Force budget.

All Helos in every major conflict since Afghanistan have fared just fine against small arms fire, but as soon as semi modern defenses were encountered were quickly grounded.

PS. No one, at least no rational person is saying A-10 can work without air superiority or at least parity. For every F-15E, one can purchase and fly 5 A-10’s.

You miss the point. If the asset is not funded, then there is no money to transfer. The Army would have to come up with it.

Name those every turns.

What is your suggestion to cut?

Too bad the USMC chose the AV-8 and the A-10 you describe does not exist.

Maybe the Army was silent on the C-27 (after the initial hub bub) because silently they knew they might have had to make the same decision. BTW I agree the USAF should have passed on the C-27J and let the Army operate them.

The offering up the Army as a wounded child who keeps to themselves sounds a bit self serving. They bellow when they feel the need to.

So it is the officers and not the administration and Congressforcreatong the fiscal mess?

Um, ok.…..

So it is the USAF to blame for hanging the Marines out to dry? Really? The USMC decision years ago to pursue the AV-8 and more recently the F-35 has no bearing or responsibility?

The F-35 is not a toy. It is the replacement for the majority of the U.S. tactical fleet.…yes, that includes the other services. The USMC and the USN both have long planned to use the F-35 for CAS but wveryone gives them a pass and rants against the USAF.

Take the flippin’ blinders off.

onebookisgood — true

But the Army knows the Apache will be there and doesn’t have top be requested 48 hours beforehand from the air commander hence the heavy investment in attk helos by the Army

Reread what you wrote. Why would the Army have to come up for an asset it doesn’t own?

Same ones you mentioned above. You don’t think those cuts were just fighters do you?

E.G. Nearly half of Air Force’s planned F-15C Eagle cuts could come from overseas (“planned” is the key word)

Buried at the end of the article… “The base last year also said goodbye to 21 A-10s — the last remaining “Warthogs” in Europe — as part of Air Force cutbacks to meet tougher budget limits and a new defense strategy shifting focus away from Europe to the Asia-Pacific region.”

“The service’s fiscal 2015 force structure adjustments call for the reduction of 24 A-10s overseas. Those are based at Osan Air Base in South Korea, according to Stefanik.“
http://​www​.stripes​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​n​e​a​r​l​y​-​h​a​l​f​-​o​f​-​a​i​r​-fo

The Army wasn’t exactly quiet. http://​www​.dodbuzz​.com/​2​0​1​2​/​0​1​/​1​3​/​a​r​m​y​-​a​i​r​-​f​o​rce–http://​www​.dodbuzz​.com/​2​0​1​2​/​0​4​/​2​4​/​f​a​r​-​f​r​o​m​-​d​c​-​bathttp://​www​.dodbuzz​.com/​2​0​1​2​/​0​3​/​0​9​/​c​s​a​-​p​r​a​i​s​e​s​-​doo

After the Air Force made the decision about the C27J the Army was never asked…

Not self serving, it’s an accurate description. Now “wounded child” is hyperbole. It is more like the stoic parent that will do without. You should remember where you came from.

Please cite examples about the Army “bellowing” about another branch infringing on its role? Please… (cricket, cricket, cricket…)

The Marines are making a mistake with the F35 but it’s their service. The Harrier is quite understandable considering the conditions that the USMC operates under while conducting amphib ops. That same environment leads to the F35 but the cost is just ridiculous.

That said, the Air Force still maintains primary responsibility for providing CAS for the services. Taking the Marines for task over CAS is like taking them to task for Air Supremacy also. Nice tactic to avoid one’s responsibilities which is what the USAF traditionally does when it comes to CAS.

Put on the flippin’ big boy pants…

It’s downright stupid to cut a program like the F-35 at the stage it’s in now. We don’t need a repeat of what happened to the F-22. As the article above demonstrates the Army doesn’t want to foot the bill for the A-10 either so good luck with that idea.

This “new toy” is necessary for the future of American tactical airpower.

Despite your blind hatred of the Air Force this is a money problem.

The weakness of your argument is demonstrated by the extreme lengths you have to go to make it.

The USAF wanted 750 F22’s and bought 187, a cut of 75%. The USAF is getting 1,763 F35’s down from 1,767, a .1% drop. http://​fas​.org/​s​g​p​/​c​r​s​/​w​e​a​p​o​n​s​/​R​L​3​0​5​6​3​.​pdf

You might as well fall back to the Air Force’s discredited argument that we have to mothball the A10 now because we’re short maintainers.

There’s no blind hatred of the Air Force here (a blatant lie to provoke sympathy from the ignorant). The Air Force has as many selfless patriots as any branch but it also has an institutional culture that fails to support other branches as well as it should. and as it has promised. Don’t get mad we are on to the game. Take the blinders off and recognize what the Air Force brass has done and is doing.

It’s not just a money problem…

Of course it matters to some extent which varies depending on the threat, location of hit, configuration of the engines, and other factors. Two engines will get your A-10 back to base if a burst of 23mm tears through one. Yet chances are having two engines on your F/A-18 won’t matter in the slightest if that SA-11 hits.

The A-10 might get shot at doing its job? I never thought of that Major Obvious. Of course its job revolves around flying low and destroying AFVs and whatever on the ground needs to be blown up. It should also be rather obvious that an A-10’s mission killing AFVs and providing CAS is quite a different one from a B-52 flying above the tree tops with a nuclear payload for some target in the Soviet Union!

“That’s not going to stop”? Why do you think I’m saying it?! It only works as part of a team. Thousands of A-10s wouldn’t matter against a real enemy if we don’t have those fighters and other aircraft you complain about so much.

The AH-64 is also operating closer to the front, in the hands of an trained crew is more survivable against advanced weapon systems, and has superior all-weather and night capability among other things. Radar signature isn’t as important when you’re hovering 10 feet above the ground and popping up over some trees just long enough to launch a Hellfire.

Costs to buy an aircraft and to operate it are different things entirely. Maybe you could have bought two or three A-10As for the cost of one AH-64A but you couldn’t operate them for the cost of operating one AH-64A.

The AH-64 doesn’t have the armor of the A-10 but it still has more systems redundancy than you give it credit for. For a helicopter it is very survivable, but fixed-wing and rotary-wing are different beasts entirely.

Also the AH-64 is still in production unlike the A-10, a major upgrade is underway, it’s more important than before because oh the retirement of the OH-58 and failure to produce a successor, etc.

And so we are back to the eternal conflict of who should be in charge of the air support…

“The A-10 might get shot at doing its job? I never thought of that Major Obvious.”

Sometimes one needs the obvious to smack one in the head when one says ridiculously ignorant things like “Even two engines doesn’t dramatically change the picture.”

“It only works as part of a team.” It’s only a team if the players show up to play their specific roles. If the Air Force gets it way the best sacker in the league will be benched and loses a critical component of the “team”, Mr. Obvious…

BTW, you continue to engage in creating strawmen or put words in my mouth to support your now pathetic position. I’ve got nothing against fighters or even other aircraft in the Air Force inventory. I’ve nothing against airmen. I’m livid over the Air Force’s senior leadership lack of ethical behavior in the matter of the A10, the C27J and its historical obstructionism of any Army effort to procure aircraft to do very specific missions to facilitate ground power and simultaneously half azzing the missions it has promised to support.

Your blindness and lack of concern speak more to your biased, irresponsible or willfully ignorant pattern of behavior and is a perfect symbol for the Air Force’s behavior in the matter. You do more for my case by speaking than I ever could.

So the “solution” is to cut more F-15s and F-16s and the F-35 which is going to replace many of them?

Two engines doesn’t dramatically change the picture for a modern FIGHTER. An attack aircraft, especially one where speed isn’t that important (like the A-10), can afford to devote a lot of weight to armor. This is very important for them because they have all of the “trash-fire” to worry about. The engines on the A-10 are widely spaced and well armored. The engines on the F/A-18 aren’t. The A-10 is flying where the MANPADS and gun based AA systems are, the F/A-18 has to worry about larger missiles in which avionics and performance will do far more to protect against than armor.

The Air Force has a lot of other jobs to worry about too and only so much funding to work with. Other aircraft can do CAS, just not always as well as the A-10 depending on the situation. Hence why their sights are on the A-10.

You completely ignore all of the cuts that have occurred to the F-15 and F-16 fleets in recent years. So where the hell is the money to keep the A-10 without retiring other aircraft or cutting ongoing procurement?

I didn’t say that. Are you offering?

Cutting some F35’s would create a lot of budget room or give the A10 with its support and funding to the Army for the short term. Let the Army worry about it after that. If you’re right you can always say, “we told you so” vs. doing the same thing we have with the same results and issues we’ve done since the Air Force became independent.

Yes those are the F-35 figures for now, but risking cutting more and setting us on a slope which leads to more and more cuts isn’t wise.

It’s entirely a money problem. Some of it may have to do where that money is being spent, but it still comes down to money.

“We” aren’t back there. I never left.

You guys think a .1% slope is dangerous.

I agree that money is an issue. Just like money is one of the two reasons the USAF maintains a stranglehold on the CAS mission. The other is to spite the Army.

(Remember the C27J, the Mohawk, the armed O-1, the Caribou and the resistance to the Army flying A4’s, F5’s, T37’s or Fiat G.91’s. Of course this is all just a coincidence to you.)

Apache was grounded in IRAQ 1991 and nearly all of its targets/missions were given over to the A-10. That right there tells one and all what the Army/Air Force actually think about its survivability.

Attack helos are great for counter insurgency operations. Great for keeping a riotous population in check who do not have anything larger than maybe a 50cal gun. Great for house to house clean up. Against armored divisions or even semi modern air defenses? Useless. Proven in Afghanistan(Russian)/IRAQ I, Kosovo, IRAQ II. Do attack helos have their place? Of course they do. They can do many missions that fixed wing cannot even dream of doing. But at what cost? This whole discussion really comes down to $$$ after all.

PS. Apache can’t quote “hover 10 feet off the ground and popping up and over some trees just long enough to launch a hellfire”, because it already ran out of fuel and had to go back to base.

PPS. We do not even Have any AH-64A’s in service anymore.

No, the asset Is the A-10. The e tire issue is there is no money allocated for the A-10. If that is so, there is no billions to transfer to the Army to operate the A-10. The Army will have to juggle its budget to fund the A-10. What will they be willing to give up to do so? Currently it appears nothing.

The A10 is funded. The Air Force wants to move the funds to support the F35. Congress keeps telling it it can’t.

Don’t be angry that your service does not want the A-10.

LOL!

The Sec Army doesn’t want the A10, the Army hasn’t spoken…

If the CO says, “we’re going to do a 40 mile road march today” it doesn’t mean his company wants to.

give them to a private contractor like Air America or Air Continental to do the CAS like they did in IndoChina

When was the AH-64 grounded in Desert Storm? As far as I know it wasn’t. The AH-64 performed quite well, it wasn’t perfect but but nothing is.

Attack helos live or die based on their situational awareness and their use of terrain. That said, they can be a devastating weapon, particularly against armor. The AH-64D and AH-64E are among the Army’s premier tank-killing systems.

Apache has respectable endurance for a helicopter, if it runs out of fuel by the time it gets to the target area there was some very poor planning involved.

There is a place and a reason for both the A-10 and AH-64.

Yet another seat shiner making crass decisions. The old Warthog got me out of a pickle a few times, more so than the Apache.
Any boot on the ground knows and respects it, even the bad guys would die to have it! OK most have but thats another story.

Oh Strawman, you are a funny guy. So the lead civilian of the US Army said it wasn’t a consideration as the Army slashes, I mean reorganizes it’s aviation and you say the Army hasn’t spoken. Sounds like the Army has as it works for the Secretary of the Army. Also, if it’s not even a topic of casual conversation, then it’s senior Army leadership that does not want to take the jets over either.

Funny?

So I guess the whole Air Force wants to get rid of and supports the decision of Sec USAF to mothball the A10?

That’s why the deputy of Air Combat Command had to say Airmen talking to Congress about why we should keep the A10 are “committing treason”…

Amen Brother

The A10 and the USMC are a perfect fit. The extreme short field capabilities of this unique airframe would allow operation from highways in a over the beach AO with all the loiter capability they could want.

————–>“The US Army like all the services think newer is better and unwilling to accept handouts like the A-10″

They were willing to cancel procuring the AH-56 because the Airforce pressured them to rely on the A-10.

———>“even though it makes perfect sense to have the A-10 Warthog as they can be the perfect tactical ground support aircraft because of their loiter capability and ability to destroy enemy armor”

Are the Soviets going to be invading the Fulda gap anytime soon? There are other platforms that loiter better.

——–> “maybe the US Air Force should give the A-10 to the US Marines as this would better than the F-35B.”

No offense but this is a very thoughtless comment. Marines had 3 decades to procure the A-10. Instead, they chose the lighter skinned AV8B which has had an incredible CAS record! What platform is specifically designed to replace the Av8B and with more capabilities? Thats right! The F-35B.

———–> “Additionally, the US should consider selling the A-10 Warthog to Ukraine.”

Why? So we can watch Ukrainian pilots get blown out of the sky by the latest Russian SAMS and MANPADS design to kill the A-10?

——–> “Who in the Army did he confer with or better yet what was the payoff he received for this position. Close air support is an Army mission ask our Apache crews”

CAS is both an Army and Air force responsibility. Even if the Army was able to field their own planes, A-10s would still face the chop block. Too much money for too many limitations.

——–> “The A10 serves in that role and fully loaded can carry significantly heavier ordinance load on a highly survivable platform.”

Against a modern Russian or Chinese made SAM or MANPAD, its no longer a highly survivable platform and all that load out capabilities won’t matter.

You Mr Secretary have to say more than a simple position because they urged you to espouse it. Who did you ask????

Try $103 million per F-35B AND dropping! It might be more in cost, but, you get way more for it. The A-10 only flies in non contested airspace and relies on the F-16s and F-15s to pacify A-A and conduct SEAD. Plus, fast movers are doing the A-10s job anyway these days with PGMS and when it comes to A-10c, the armored bird rarely flies tree top level anymore. It uses PGMs at high altitude just like the fast movers. So we got F-16s and F-15E’s now doing the A-10s job while the A-10 is doing the F-16s strike job. The only time A-10s ever go tree top level is to strafe arabs on camels which is great visual moral but at $30 a round, hardily justifies the A-10. Its overkill! There are better platforms that can conduct COIN missions better for less and nothing is a sure replacement for attack choppers. There really isn’t much left the A-10 does that there isn’t another platform that can’t do it as well or better. Unless the Soviets are going to be invading Western Europe with massive heavy armor..

If anyone doubts the value of the current A-10 inventory, then let’s offer them for a scrap-rate price to any overseas buyer, with the package to include engines, spare parts, support equipment and full access to as much GAU-8 ammunition they can carry away. Let’s see what happens. FMS efforts while the A-10 was in production stumbled on export restrictions on the DU ammunition, but with Iran about to follow Pakistan down the nuclear path, those considerations may no longer apply.

That would make zero sense. The A-10 cannot deploy as the AV-8 as the A-10 can only operate from land bases. The AV-8 and F/A-18s the USMC has can operate from ships. Plus owning all A-10s would take the USMC out of its comfort zone and be responsible for CAS for all services and allies.

The USMC has never expressed interest in the A-10. The chose the AV-8 for a reason.

And if that is so, the legacy fleet just gets older while its replacement sits in political limbo and all the while the money meter is running.

A-10 is funded through FY 2015. Last I heard there is no budget request for the A-10 in FY 2016.

If sequestration remains in place past 2016, other acft on the chopping block include the F-15C (all of them), the U-2s, the KC-10s, 10 Block 40 Global Hawks and upgrades to the Block 30 variants (Global Hawk is supposed to replace the U-2s), some E-3s, etc. Another airframe without budget request for FY 2016 is the EC-130H Compass Call. The budget also request authorization to retire 10 more F-15Cs.

The Army is looking at potentially 70K personnel cuts if sequestration remains. They simply cannot afford the A-10 either.

“Last I heard there is no budget request for the A-10 in FY 2016.”

There was no budget request to operate the A10 in 2015…

You’re playing semantics. You confuse USAF requests with what their budget is. Congress tells them what to spend money on. If you’re right and there is no money for the A10, how can the USAF claim it will save $4bil by mothballing the A10? How do you save money you don’t have?

You guys talk out both sides of your face as it suits you to achieve your goals. This is why it’s so hard to have an honest debate about the A10 and CAS.

Not taking anyone to task, merely pointing out how all the bashing is in one direction. USAF is not relinquishing its responsibility. It is dealing with reality of the situation. I may not agree with it, but the choice is going forward with recapitalization of the tacair fleet or dragging the process out even further. What will that do to F-35 costs? How much more money to we spend on the existing fleet for SLEP, avionic upgrades, airframe upgrades, etc while the replacement is on drip feed? As it is projected full up production is less than 100 acft per year. Compared to the F-15, F16, F/A-18 buys this is painfully slow.

With the advent of the Joint Air Component Commander, the USMC and USN are part of the mix that includes air supremacy, CAS, interdiction/strike, and SEAD (not primary responsibility, but part of the equation nonetheless). Looking past it by saying it is their service is shortsighted. If the USN/USMC are going into a contested area without the benefit of close land based assets (the A-10 being a short ranged system) then they are responsible for CAS along with all the other missions. As the USN and USMC spend large sums of funds dedicated to such a scenario, they must feel it is more than just a nice capability to have and that the F/A-18 and F-35 are good enough to support it.

My big boy pants are on.

Kinda getting ahead of the game by comparing the F-22 final purchase to the F-35 as the end numbers for the F-22 are well known (and not a USAF decision to stop when program did) and the F-35 is just starting. The USAF only purchased the F-22 the administrations and congress allowed it to. Even after the USSR folded the USAF stated the desired ratio for replacing the F-15 was 1.5 :1 versus 1:1. The F-22 was dropped incrementally from 750 to around 450 to 350 to 246 to the final number. It seemed every time a new administration or congress came on board the number went down.

Who knows, the future could bring a substantial decrease in the F-35 purchase as it will take 17–20 years to buy them all according to current production projections.

“Not taking anyone to task, merely pointing out how all the bashing is in one direction.”

Do you read what you write?

“With the advent of the Joint Air Component Commander, the USMC and USN are part of the mix that includes air supremacy, CAS, interdiction/strike, and SEAD (not primary responsibility, but part of the equation nonetheless). Looking past it by saying it is their service is shortsighted. If the USN/USMC are going into a contested area without the benefit of close land based assets (the A-10 being a short ranged system) then they are responsible for CAS along with all the other missions.”

No, you aren’t trying to take anyone to task. (facepalm)

To further illuminate your disingenuous debating efforts, above you want to hold the USMC responsible for not choosing the A10 over the Harrier e.g. “The USMC decision years ago to pursue the AV-8 and more recently the F-35 has no bearing or responsibility?” Yet on military​.com you answer your own accusation…

“sw614 • 4 hours ago USMC has never wanted the A-10 and has not expressed interest now. The A-10 cannot operate from carriers or the amphibs which would limit its utility to the USMC. That is why the chose the AV-8 years ago, more flexibility in deployment.” http://​www​.military​.com/​d​a​i​l​y​-​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​1​5​/​0​3​/​0​2​/​air

You guys talk out both sides of your face as it suits you to achieve your goals. This is why it’s so hard to have an honest debate about the A10 and CAS.

Who has primary responsibility for providing CAS for the services?
Who flies the A10?
Who’s trying to mothball the A10?
Who has blocked the Army from developing an armed fixed wing capability for CAS?

You’re whining about the USAF being held to standard and being responsible for its actions.

You obviously don’t know what wearing “big boy pants” means. http://​english​.stackexchange​.com/​q​u​e​s​t​i​o​n​s​/​7​4​7​73/

Uh, you kind of need to address your comments to William. He’s the one that equated the comparatively potential miniscule cuts to the F35 program to keep the A10 flying with the savaging the F22 took.

I didn’t expect you to though. You guys are notorious for not holding anti-A10 arguments to any standard of truth.

Idiots, they would get a budget to go with it and it would put them into the jet business, which they have never been in. Wow, just wow, is all I can say.

Being the Army doesn’t want them, nor does the Air Force. Just hand them over to me.….……Then I’ll contract them out for outlandish prices. That ought to give the Air Force a hard on.

I hope when my grandson comes of age he doesn’t go Army like I did. By then the A-10 will likely be in the boneyard and the Russian SU25 Frogfoot (an A-10 clone) will in all over hostile territory.
Trained as an Army pilot and I’d rather take fire from a manpad in an A-10 than from an SA 400 in a f-35.

Me too! If the AF doesn’t want to do CAS fine. They should not be ‘forced’ to do their mission. Forcing anyone to do their job usually results in a poorly executed job.

By saying this (I’m not taking away from the Hog Drivers or the Hog Maintainers who are true believers in their mission.

Way back in the early 80’s the Army had looked into the possibility of taking over the A-10 fleet from the Air Force. I was a Shinook air crewman up in Washington (Ft Lewis) and they were doing some flight testing to see if the Army could utilize them. While on a flight one afternoon flying over the trees I saw two of these A-10s come up out of the tree line, it was specrtacular! They were spitting tree branches out all over the place, simply awesome. For some reason after the Army did its testing the Air Force decided that they were going to breath new life into the A-10 program. If the Army had procured them then there wouldn’t be a discussion about putting them down now as the Army would keep them flying much like the CH-47 Shinook which has seen the chopping block more times than any other aircraft in our inventory, yet there they are still flying our guys in and out of some of the hottest spots on the planet. Just like the CH-47, the A-10 may be old but whenever our guys see them overhead they are greatly appreciated.

I always love reading your shiite, it’s both informed and entertaining :)
it’s what keeps me coming back, thank you

not to mention the fact that the Air Force has their own SpecOps and the Army has a small flt of fixed wing such as the C-12. and wasn’t the Air Force once the Army Air Corps?

The OV-1 Mohawk, by Grumman, was similar to the A-10 only built in late 50’s early 60’s. It had numerous capabilities and was twin turbo prop, low, slow and quiet. Air Force was jealous of its capabilities of support so they used the old 1940’s agreement that the Army could not have tactical fixed wing aircraft. Used in VN for infra-red and visual photo and was nothing but great. Now it is mothballed in US but still active in Argentina and proves its worth. A-10 has the speed to get there, do its job, protect its crew and hang over target. Operates out of less improved fields and is reliable as to maintenance. Someone is getting paid off to buy the 35 which has yet to be proven. Marines should have them for good reason

Why does it always seem that the ‘ultimate user/ beneficiary’ of the Warthog, I.e. the troop on the ground, never seems to be in a position to testify as to the A-10’s efficacy and the concommitant love of the aircraft by the folks on the ground. We had ‘Puff’ and Smokey and other low-slow air support in Vietnam and it was very effective. If I were a cynic, I’d say that there is a whole new array of ultra-expensive futuristic, costly to maintain, cost-overrun prone aircraft now and into the indefinite future… probably when the Pentagon budget FINALLY eats up 101% of the U.S. GDP. So, in a word, forget the ground-pounder, forget that B-52s and Hueys are still airworthy 50, 60+ years later. What a twisted shame.

Why does it always seem that the ‘ultimate user/ beneficiary’ of the Warthog, I.e. the troop on the ground, never seems to be in a position to testify as to the A-10’s efficacy and the concommitant love of the aircraft by the folks on the ground. We had ‘Puff’ and Smokey and other low-slow air support in Vietnam and it was very effective. If I were a cynic, I’d say that there is a whole new array of ultra-expensive futuristic, costly to maintain, cost-overrun prone aircraft now and into the indefinite future.

Give them to the Marines. I was a door gunner in Vietnam and my Marine squadron would have loved to have these flying fortress for cover. I know the grunts would love to have them now. The Marine Corps would take full advantage of their abilities.

A clear sign that you’re just another internet commando, aside from the nonsense about the Army thinking of taking over the A-10 in the early 80’s, is your repetitive misspelling of “Chinook”.

Heavy training/testing of A-10’s st Ft Lewis during the period you cited would be in conjunction with what was known as the provisional 9th Air Cavalry Brigade, refining JAATT operations, in support of the development of TTPs of the 9th Infantry Division (Motorized/HTTB)

Fast movers just can’t get the job done. Down and dirty with the A10 is what is needed. But, the AF would rather fund some crazy expensive “General Approved” aircraft. Too bad the Army wasn’t allowed to take over the Wart Hogs. Or better yet, give them to the Marine Corp. Realistically update the fleet.

$4B is still low balling the costs of transfer. Then you still have weapon procurement costs etc. it just does not sound like the Army is willing to foot the bill even with a $4$ over few years kicker.

Because the cuts in maintenance etc are what saves the billions. When Congress says you can have only X number of people and operate with Y budget, you can’t just run a deficit as a service to keep the lights on. ESP when you have to fund an aging fleet of aircraft that have to continue doing a job

Maybe if you were not being you, we can all have an honest debate.

Again, if you were not you and actually been in aviation operations, maybe then we could have a grown up debate

Just like your arguments for the AF not aiding the Army, lack of truth

So then what should get cut?

So you are just angry the AF became independent?

It’s not low balling. It’s the Air Force’s number.

Remains to be seen what the Army will/won’t do as far as re-prioritizing programs. It’s not an issue right now. Doesn’t mean there can’t be significant change once the role is granted.

Could see Apaches get put in reserve because of less need. Maybe even cancelling future scout helo programs.

Big-Dean, sir, you may think that by referring to the United States Air Force with the use of slang terms makes you look big, but in reality shows how little in mind you are.

Yes, the classic you have to be in aviation to understand.…

(vs. holding each other responsible for changing the narrative when it’s not convenient anymore)

The fact you can’t correct another of the fraternity says it all.

No not at all. Nice try at changing the subject.

Here’s ONE solution.… http://​breakingdefense​.com/​2​0​1​4​/​0​8​/​d​o​i​n​g​-​t​h​e​-​m​ath

BTW, he’s a pilot so you can’t pull the “you don’t understand” canard.

Why on earth should the Army have been flying A-4s, F-5s, G.91s or any similar aircraft? The Air Force was certainly right in their reaction to that. The Army was on a path that would have led to progressively larger and more complex fixed-wing attack aircraft. By today they’d probably be planning on acquiring the F-35B.

Maybe you think we should have gone that direction but it means a whole lot of questions. What about when the Army looks beyond CAS to BAI and other missions which would be considered the domain of the Air Force? Can we justify the existence of the Marine Corps as a separate branch when organic fixed-wing air is no longer unique to them?

I am in favor of the US Army adopting the A-10 because of its armament does the job. Allowing the Army Warrant officers pilot status on a fixed wing aircraft would be the right thing to do. Other countries used Enlisted pilots in WW2 and the USSR used female pilots who did an outstanding job but were all but forgotten until only recently. I am all for the A-10 to be adopted as the war on terrorism will always need airprower over ground power and the A-10 deserves to assist .

I would like to see the Texas Air National Guard get these wonderful close air support jets. As an armor tanker we always revered the Wart Hog Drivers as heroes and I believe the would make a grand statement to anyone thinking of crossing the border with out permission.

I think this James broad needs to talk to the pilots and the people who’s lives have been saved by the A-10 before she goes of on a rant like that.

If it can’t fly from a ship, the Marines don’t want it. It doesn’t fit their core mission.

Why? Because we were dissatisfied with the USAF’s commitment to CAS and were right to do so considering this occurred right before Vietnam and how the record demonstrates how woefully unprepared the Air Force was in providing CAS.

You’re being ridiculous. It’s like saying the Army should be concerned because the Air Force sends people to airborne school and is establishing a forced entry capability or whining about Air Force security forces going to Ranger school and assuming the Army’s infantry mission.

The Army would acquire the F35? RFLMAO, we learned our lesson with Comanche.

The Army already has numerous capabilities to do BAI with a variety of weapon systems ranging from MLRS to long distance raids. That said, it’s not the Army’s primary focus nor the reason any of these planes were looked at. The mission is CAS.

It’s absurd to assume because a service has a weapon they are going to use it to perform another branch’s mission. These aircraft can engage in air to aor (so can the Apache). It doesn’t mean the Army wants to do the air superiority mission or the Air Force wants to do offensive ops or convoy security because they own armored vehicles and MRAPs.

You paranoia exemplifies why the Air Force is so obstructionist when it comes to allowing the Army to own or operate fixed wing but you can’t see it as you accuse others of picking on the poor Air Force.

the didn’t ask the grunts on the ground, did they? They ask the senior officers who have forgotten what it’s like to be pinned down by an overwhelming force opposing them, or else, those senior officers have never been in combat.

What a load of crap! Decisions are being made affecting the lives of troops on the ground without appropriate input from the military. Yes, you MIGHT save 4 billion dollars but what is the anticipated cost of the replacement? Is there even a plan for a comparable platform? Yes, it’s true…the A-10 is a venerable aircraft but so is the B-52. The A-10 is a proven, effective and hardy weapon worthy of upgrade and retention in our arsenal. If I remember correctly there was talk of mothballing them prior to Iraq 1…the rest is history!

What about the Marines? They have Slower flying helicopters, a little less lethal. They are already in a ground support role. Heck, give them to the Ukrainians or our NATO allies.

So far the F-35 has been underwhelming & a expensive boat anchor.

The Hog carries twice the ordnance load of a SU-25, on 11 pylons. Its main gun can carry 1350 rounds of 30 mm ammo, with the rate of fire controlled by the pilot. It has a titanium tub to protect the pilot. No helicopter can match it for firepower & speed.

M60 Tank

The problem is the Air Force has forgotten that the entire military is there to support the infantry and make his task less deadly. Everyone wants the sexy missions that lead to movie deals and the look of being the coolest kid on earth. The truth is as a line infantry RTO over several deployments with the 173 ABCT what I learned the hard way is fighter bombers take to long to drop bombs (usually twenty minutes of being on station and that’s with a long argument with the pilot that the on ground commander is in charge). Heavy bombers cannot strafe and help chase squirters. Neither of these save the boot on the ground. They would if we were fighting world war II but sadly we are fighting a land maneuver war with no need for a strategic bombing campaign that must be protected by its own air support. The boots on the ground that aren’t able to get support from an AC-130 are the ones that will suffer. But once again it doesn’t make for excellent recruitment videos or sexy stories you support the infantry. When we reel the top brass back to the proper way of thought that the base of the military is the infantryman, those riflemen and their comrades are fated to continue to be improperly supported cannon fodder

In 1961 Marine Commandant Gen Shoup decided to upgrade Marine M48 tanks instead of acquiring M60’ds like the Army was. The Marines postponed that decision and adopted the latest (brand new) M60’s on 1977. Marines Under Armor: The Marine Corps and the Armored Fighting Vehicle, 1916 — 2000. p160-161. 174–175

One can’t blame the Army or “hand me downs” for the Marine Corps postponing adoption of a new weapon system and then later changing their mind to get the same system as brand new issued directly to the Marines. This is the same story behind the M1 Garand and why the Marines were equipped with it after the Army was. The Marines themselves postponed the decision. This is all within the Corps purview and their right. Shifting the blame isn’t.

You said you knew everything because you were attached to an aviation unit once upon a time. Or is that just the Army talking.

You trying to shut people down is exactly why there cannot be a logical debate. And if you want further evidence of your lacking abilities, you just want to ignore everything the A-10 community has developed because its AF.

Just because you failed at being an officer working in the joint environment, doesn’t mean other people are like you. If you are so blinded by your hatred of another service, then you are just sad. But hey Strawman, you keep being you. It’s entertaining for some people

Just trying to understand why you are like you are.

What is YOUR solution.

Then make us understand how it is smart to fly very old fighter airframes across the entire DOD

So you and your cronies are dissatisfied with AF support in CAS? Why didn’t you bring this up with your superiors and within the TACs/AAGS?

I was assigned to the 333 TFTS at Davis-Monthan in 1975 just as the A10’s were coming into the USAF. While I was just a lowly enlisted puke, I had the honor of getting to work with the Operational Test and Evaluation team (test pilots), and got to see all what that old girl was capable of doing. Of all the aircraft I worked with in the service, the Warthog was, and has always been, my favorite. One of the missions of the US Air Force is to provide close support for the combat troops. I doubt there is any other aircraft that can do it as well. If you have a job to do, you do it with the best tools at your disposal. Having had a taste of combat, something most support personnel rarely do, I understand a little bit of what the ground troops have to go through. Frankly I’m tired of the way in which those who are sent into combat, no matter which branch of service, seem to be treated, in that the higher ups seem to think that substandard equipment and insufficient support is good enough for the soldiers who are putting their lives on the line. Personally I believe that we should leave it up to the combat troops to decide whether they want the A10 or not. I’m pretty sure I know what that answer would be.

You all understand there is a unmanned replacement like the Reaper for the A-10 up and coming. Remote controlled is the new and cost effect option. They have an even greater hang time then a piloted aircraft. no user fatigue, no time delay difference then that of a manned aircraft. And of coarse less needed support personnel.

I’ve got nothing but affection for the A10 community. What specifically am I ignoring from them?

Failed? LOL, seems you’ve shot your wad and are just engaging in personal attacks now. I bet you’re a great leader, if you are one…

Hate the Air Force? Not at all. My issues are pretty specific. Strawman building?

Read a little history, you’ll figure it out.

Start with the Rand Study the Air Force commissioned “Army-Air Force Relations: The Close Air Support Issue” by Alfred Goldberg, Donald Smith

I think the author has something there. But eventually the A10 will stop flying and we’ll start the whole ugly CAS cycle again. A lasting solution would be for the Air Force to stop obstructing the Army from owning armed fixed wing CAS aircraft and light intratheatre lift.

BTW you do know the A10 isn’t a fighter right? Or are you creating the strawman that the A10 means the F35 can’t be fielded? If so read the article again, s l o w l y.

Cronies? How professional of you? Wonder what commissioning source taught you that or was it learned in a particular service? You don’t reflect well on them I’m sure.

The issue has. Can’t be fixed on the inside. We have about 50 years of history demonstrating that. Are you new to the historical controversy of CAS?

Ck out USAF Rand Study “Army-Air Force Relations: The Close Air Support Issue” by Alfred Goldberg, Donald Smith for starters.

The A10 has seen a lot of use since the First Gulf War. It’s Old and Tired, not to mention worn out. The problem as I see it is NO ONE thought about it getting old, tired, and worn out and planning for it’s replacement or restarting the production line. The A10 is a purpose built Weapon System, Close Air Support. The Fighters that will replace it are Swiss Army Knifes; they do everything. How well they do everything depends the Original design. Well, they are Fighter Jets first and everything else is added on to the primary mission.
Saddling the Army or even the Corps with a fleet of worn out Birds because of it’s Mission is destined to fail without sending the maintainers as well. Without their present maintainers knowledge they will never get off the ground again.
The Air Force Loves it’s Fighters. They look Sexy. They go really fast. The A10 isn’t and doesn’t.

The Army does not have “CAS assets.” Attack helicopters–at least by Army doctrine–do not perform CAS. They either perform an aerial version of what ground maneuver units do, or they provide fire support. But they have neither the payload nor the loiter time to provide close air support.

The Air Force has never liked the CAS mission, especially not if it means an aircraft devoted to do it and nothing else. And Army Aviation, which can’t get out of its own way in either doctrine development or aircraft RD&A, wouldn’t know what to do with the A-10.

“We do it with the greatest of reluctance. It’s a budgetary matter,” James said of the recommendation to retire the plane. “Every aircraft eventually gives way to the next generation.”

Tell that to the thousands of people flying, crewing, and maintaining the B-52.

I have to agree with keeping the A-10 in active service, perfect ground support platform. This argument from the Air Force is weak if not lame, after all they are keeping the B-52 flying!!

Let’s get all the current Army, Army Reserve, and Nat’l Guard infantry battalion commanders in a room and ask them to vote on whether the A-10 should be retained and supported in the US military organization — Air Force asset, Army asset, MC asset, whatever. Anyone are to guess what the vote might be? 90 percent to keep it? 95 percent? 99 percent? The civilian Secretaries who blather on about the “mission” of close air support don’t have a clue. The B-1B Lancer as a CAS provider? Total bullshit.

That’s the problem with the military, civilians controlling what equipment is used or needed. Most of the tested equipment come from their next of the woods so they push for it. The real military has little to no say.

The real problem with the transfer of the A-10 to the Army is End Strength. The Air Force is willing to give up the aircraft, but not the people to maintain and fly them. Each service has a finite number of personnel allowed. Nowadays, this “End Strength”, is barely enough for the current jobs; adding a new job that would take a few thousand personnel, just cannot be handled by the Army.

Part 1: The Air Force first looked at retiring the A-10 in the late 1980’s early 1990’s. It stated the demise of the Soviet Union eliminated the need for the A-10’s anti-armor mission. It stated that it would upgrade the A-7 to take on the A-10’s CAS role. At that time, Congress informed the Air Force that it could give up the A-10 if it so desired, but it was not going to get an upgraded A-7 to replace it. Furthermore, it informed the Air Force that if it gave up the A-10 it would also give up the CAS mission. The Army considered taking on that role, and the A-10, and was pondering maintenance/sustainment costs. The Marines rejected the A-10 outright as it was not Carrier capable without extensive modification.

Part 2: Fast forward to Desert Storm where the A-10 demonstrated its worth and unique capabilities. The Air Force back-peddled, stated it had never had any intention of dumping the A-10 and instead began a massive A-10 upgrade program. I can tell you from personal observation, that there is not another aircraft in the inventory, short of rotary wing assets, that have the ability to deliver a constant, massive blow on a target. A four ship A-10 CAP was hitting the target every 15 seconds or so, a similar 4 ship F-16 CAP was rolling in on the target every 60 seconds, and with less accuracy. That 45 seconds makes a big difference to a patrol pinned down and requesting help to break contact, and precision delivery counts in a “danger close” call for support. And yes, I have observed a B-1B performing a CAS mission. That was a single aircraft sitting above FL220 and dropping a single JDAM that missed the target due to the extreme terrain profile — the JTAC waved off the second pass. While CAS is a mission, it requires a specialized aircraft to be performed effectively.

Ok with this banter about the drones. Half the fierceness of the A-10 is that it strikes fear through the sound of its onstation presence. Combat is more about breaking the will of the other side than anything. Everyone who has been on a foot patrol in Kunar province or Nouristan can tell you your never getting a drone to drop a bomb or provide good air support as our pilots have forgotten linear distance doesn’t always take into account for elevation. Let COP Keating be a lesson remembered well the on ground command is who orders the bombs when and where. If that had been followed we would never have lost as many as we did there.

The A-10 can take more damage then the F16 the F-18 and the F-15 that was porvien doing the first grulf war.
A single B2 lost becouse of some water in the electicale connector how many billion of doller lost with one B2 Crash if you start to use F-16 or F-18 how many aircraft are we going to lost that will be in the billion of doller.
The milatary budget could be cut if they start thinking about the small thing and don’t charge thing just becouse new.

http://​www​.usatoday​.com/​s​t​o​r​y​/​n​e​w​s​/​n​a​t​i​o​n​/​2​0​1​5​/02

Using one an incident of friendly fire to support keeping the A-10 when it has killed more friendly troops than other aircraft is probably not the best strategy.

I usually do not comment on much . However I was in the Army for 31 years . Most of the time we had the A10 flying overhead. I do not remember ever having a friendly fire incident with one. Plus it seemed like the commo and air support planing was quick and accurate with them. Few thing stop a unit quicker than a friendly fire incident. When I was active the argument was if you don’t want it the Army would love it. I just loved knowing if was overhead it was ours, in the seventies , eighties, ninties and through 2009. But we also loved being able to tell it face to face eye to eye that you have the right target. It was a grunts best friend, night or day. I just hate to see it go.

The Marine Corps is the logical destination for them. The marines routinely do more with less. Improvise Adapt And Overcome. Semper Fidelis

It already happened. Has everyone forgotten BEngazi. We could have had A10’s there in two hours or less, courtesy Southern Command. Never got the order to move from STATE. We are being disarmed from Washington. RE: ALL THOSE BATTLE TESTED RETIRED GENERALS. ( Not to forget the decimation of half the nueclear sub fleet commanders.

Bottomline: it appears its time for the Army to get its attack helicopters out of the strike business and back into that originally planned CAS role. A role which the USAF would be glad to give up — if only the Army continues its ceasefire on using CAS to leverage itself back into combat fixed wings. (That generation of Army is now safely dead isn’t it?)

Close. Its more — “I thought your attack helicopters were supposed to do CAS not strike missions.” or “Why did the old Army guard (including in Congress) keep trying to horn in on USAF territory of fixed wings and strike? Forget those WWII Army glory day command structures.”

Of course Joint Forces are a lot more Joint teamwork nowadays. The Army now gets USAF strikes on the targets the Army wants hit and with the type and level of damage requested — pretty much all the time and on time.

Also partially as result of vastly improved accuracy and timeliness on damage assessment of USAF strikes. As late as the end of Vietnam, USAF strikes were not always as effective as planned yet strikes were reported as if the plan could not fail. No good “eyes on target” after strikes many times.

Attack helicopters can do CAS. If they stop doing air superiority and strike missions (independent of troop positions and often deeper).

Why aren’t army attack helicopters doing CAS? Because they have been doing stuff the USAF does better (hitting bridges, bunkers etc ahead of troops, doing air to air with enemy helicopters). That is what Army is talking about changing from what I gather. Back to CAS helicopters.

Exactly. Past Army was deploying those helicopters into USAF mission areas as part of the long running struggle to regain WWII roles (strike etc) instead of doing CAS. Now that the old retired but politically active guard of Army traditions from WWII era is dead politics is allowing modern Army leaders to return those copter to troop support.

The problem with A-10s is cost of new construction (if that happened) and operational costs of older A-10s. Cheaper and more numerous helicopters can simply be in more places and apply force with a more delicate touch from more angles when needed. Its not a logistics or cost nightmare to multiple helicopters to one spot. Over 700 Army Apache alone. And the Marines often operate one of their hundreds of Cobras and Vipers nearby.

Individually helicopters are not a match for A-10 firepower but its not as distant as was implied.
1350 rounds versus 1200 rounds of 30mm isn’t that great a difference if you aren’t killing lots of armor. Helicopters have a slight advantage when that 30mm needs to be used carefully near friendlies or in urban areas. A-10 goes slow and loiters but not quite like helicopter.

Apache copters have pretty good pilot armor if not a titanium tub able to stop the super heavy caliber anti-aircraft machine guns. But then helicopters are supposed to evade that heavier fire by staying low and leaving air-to-air to the USAF. And I think the engines of Apaches are actually slightly better protected than A-10 engines which are treated more like disposable redundant accessories to flight.

And as friendly to bare minimum fields as the A-10 is — it cannot land in a small clearing at a short but safe distance behind battle lines to save fuel and then wait forever for the enemy action to resume. (Actually not that great an idea for attack helicopters but it can be done if helpful.)

So there are some tradeoffs between A-10s and attack helicopters. But helicopters win based on cost, total fleet firepower (600–700 Apaches & stack of Marine Vipers), and not being simply ancient for maintenance and operation purposes. More than equal to 16–32 A-10s for CAS if not killing tanks on demand (not too shabby there).

But yeah if your point is that once disabled the helicopters are much bigger death traps in most circumstances — even lots of Apache pilots would agree.

PS speed & CAS are a conflicting mix.

Yes being 2–2.5 faster than Apache lets you get to undefended positions faster from the same start. But then 700+ copters means there is a much higher chance that you are already there or nearby versus 16–32 flyable A-10s. As does ability to land in forward encampment areas or even rough clearings.

Once you get there the stall speed of the A-10 of 130 mph is a disadvantage to accurate sustained and timely fire compared to low speed hover for Apache. Yes we all know that A10 can briefly stall during fire then recovery. But the word “briefly” needs to be compared to “sustained indefinitely” for the Apache (not wise but possible if needed).

Yes the Army was always happy to see A-10s. But I suspect that they often would have preferred the Apache support.

The one nasty vulnerability I kept overhearing about attack helicopters over the A-10 was vulnerability to RPG when on the ground or hovering at low altitudes outside secured areas. A definite operational issue. But one that can probably be alleviated with some doctrinal change and invention. A-10s commonly move too fast and high for RPG and never land outside secured areas unless shot down.

Or so I hear. Not there or current on live action. But the issues as I hear them seem reasonable.

Also you do remember than ability to drop lots of heavy ordinance near or on top of friendlies is NOT a preferred option?

Its a last ditch call when you can’t get enough firepower from aircraft guns and missiles or the CAS aircraft ran out of ammo for guns. The not enough part is usually because only one A-10 can respond. If multiple helicopters respond they have more guns and ammo than single A-10. Maybe enough to avoid the “drop bombs 100 feet from my position” call.

Yeah helicopters are bit more vulnerable to ground fire if maybe less so to missile batteries due to hiding behind terrain.. But then there are a lot more helicopters (700+).

On the other hand, compared to AC130, several A-10s have died to low altitude threats during actual CAS missions within the last 10–15 years. AC130 are simply out of range from normal ground troops except when said troops encroach on its takeoff and landing area. Yes A-10s flew lots of missions between those loses. Good aircraft when it must do its secondary CAS mission. AC130 can wait much longer for enemy to appear but usually fewer of them in theatre than even A-10s. AC-130 can’t fill the role by itself like A-10 when its numbers were up.

AC130 are vulnerable to high altitude missiles which the A-10 can often hide from. However high altitude missiles are usually NOT present as a threat after strike aircraft shred air defenses in the area of planned AC130 operations. Like essentially all of last Middle Eastern and Afghan War action.

beause the President tells them what to think.…way to be partisan on an issue that doesn’t need it.

Give them to Israel. They will use them to great effect against terrorists, I mean “insurgents” or “militants.”

I’m always amazed at those who forget the lessons of the past. Many of our military leaders believe everything must be done with F-16,F-35, F-15, F-22, etc. Will they ever learn that certain CAS will always an aircraft similar to the P-47, A1 and A-10. Yes, we need Fighters,and bombers but not to the exclusion of a dedicated CAS aircraft. Why was the P-47, A-1 and A-10 so successful in their jobs? Because they had tremendous firepower, could loiter for a long time and could take significant punishment and survive to fight another day. Develop a new CAS aircraft that can at least do the job of the A-10. So far you keep offering us F-35’s, T-6’s, Scoirpions and light training aircraft as possible alternatives . We know that the f-35 and these other aircraft can hope to replace the A-10. They just will not work for this part of the CAS mission. Wake up before its too late folks.

Would love to see it in the Corps… great respect for that plane.….

The A10 was built for one thing close air support. I noticed none of the General or spokespersons have VietNam experience. I was a lead officer on the bed down. Now why was the A10 was built? Very simple the USAF realize in VietNam that it really did not have a fighter truly capable of giving the Army the type of support it needed. Fast movers can carry all types of weapons but the all suffer from the same thing, they can not stay in the area long and are not their best at low altitude. The USAF was forced to use a Navy aircraft the A1E for close in ground support. The comment about using a F16, F15, F35 or a B1 for the mission is insane. Just compare the per hour flying cost and the amount of time they can stay on target compared to the A10. The USAF leaders have always had it in for the A10. As a USAF Gereral once told me it does not have aF in front of it.

*required

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