Cold War-era 'Warthog' plane targeted for retirement amid budget cuts

[Zorro]

The A-10 Thunderbolt II, a snub-nosed ground-attack plane nicknamed the "Warthog," is the latest aircraft to find its way onto the Pentagon's endangered weapons list.

Outfitted with a seven-barrel Gatling gun the size of a Volkswagen Beetle in its nose, the Cold War-era plane has a reputation for tearing apart armored tanks and clearing the way for troops on the ground with its massive 30-millimeter rounds of ammunition.

But the unsightly plane has been in the cross hairs of Pentagon officials in recent years. The Air Force — better known for aerial dogfights and dropping GPS-guided bombs — would rather invest its diminishing funds elsewhere. With billions of dollars in budget cuts and a possible second round of sequestration looming, the military faces tough decisions: keep funding proven planes of the past or invest in high-tech 21st-century weapons.

The Pentagon has yet to release its latest budget or officially signal that the Warthogs are on a kill list. But last month, the Air Force disclosed that eliminating the fleet of 326 aircraft would save it about $3.5 billion over five years.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-endangered-warthog-a10-20131120,0,355220.story

[MrScorpio]

1. This is going to upset the US Army the most

They love that plane.

[Decaffeinated]

8. Correct...

Amazing to see those guys work...

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

2. This is one wild looking aircraft.

I recall participating in a Civil War reenactment in Gettysburg in 1995 and a flight of these planes, probably Air National Guard, flew low over the battle site, making three passes. It was weird, a huge cry went up from each side. Following, everyone was arguing whose planes were they, General Lee's or General Meade's. Real life surrealism.

[ragemage]

3. dumb move

So they want to “retire” the entire fleet of A-10s, one of the toughest planes that support ground troops and is a proven fighter, so they can invest in other weapons systems (such as their favorite F35).
Do you really think the F35 can fly if you blow off part of its wing or damage an engine? The Warthog can keep flying if that happens. Less reliance on electronics and gadgetry.
We need more of the A-10 type planes/drones then fancy “multi-role” aircraft that have yet to see combat or tested in anything close to combat conditions.

Of course the real solution is to stop getting into wars and situations that make us use drones and other planes. Stop being the policemen of the world.

[gopiscrap]

47. welcome to DU

[chknltl]

49. Wow, interesting post.

I learned quite a bit from it, thanks. Welcome to the Democratic Underground MiltonASowell

[Cali_Democrat]

51. It appears as though Milton has gone the way of the Dodo bird

[chknltl]

53. Was it my breath?

Ok so what was up? I thought he had an interesting response and truth be told I was looking forward to further discussion with the guy.

[Boom Sound 416]

4. Just picture a drone

With a chain gun on the front of it.

There's your new A-10

[Ranchemp.]

5. During the cold war,

the Soviets greatly feared this tank killer, it's a tough weapons platform, can take a lot of battlefield damage and keep on doing it's job, so, I don't understand why the AF would want to retire a proven system for some high tech aircraft that can probably be easily brought down.

[JHB]

37. Part Air Force culture, part overemphasis on "multirole"

From the Op article:

As good as the A-10 is in close-air support, the military classifies it as a single-role aircraft. That's the problem. Going forward, the Air Force has said it wants to rid itself of one-mission planes in favor of a fleet of multi-role aircraft. These jack-of-all-trades aircraft can blast apart enemies on the ground and in the sky.

The A-10 can't dogfight. It's not stealthy. It's not supersonic.

"The Air Force never wanted the A-10, and they've been trying to get rid of it for years," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a website for military policy research. "They are manly men and they want jets that shoot down other jets — even though the last time they had an ace was Vietnam."
***
The idea is that <the A-10's replacement, the F-35 fighter> can take off and land on runways and aircraft carriers, as well as hover like a helicopter. No single fighter aircraft has had all those capabilities. And it is expensive. At $35,200, the F-35's cost per flying hour is twice as much as the A-10's, according to the Government Accountability Office. Though few believe the F-35 will ultimately be able to provide close-air support as well as the A-10, the F-35 certainly falls under the Air Force's definition of "multi-role."

Therein lies the dilemma, said Todd Harrison, a defense analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C. If budgets are going to be cut severely, where are the cuts going to come from: expensive new weapons that can carry out more missions, or aging, less-complex weapons?

Not to mention: can the F-35 really do the job, or is it so bloated and gold-plated from all the things it's supposed to be able to do that it's mediocre at the things it'll actually be doing?

But it's fresh money for contractors, not just a spare parts and update program.
Add that to the fact that it's an Air Force plane doing an Army job, and you see what it's up against.

[Aristus]

6. As a tanker, I have a certain affection and respect for the "tanker's friend", the Warthog.

But it's time for it to go. It was intended to increase an American ground-force advantage in a hypothetical slugging match with Soviet forces in Europe. A battle in which the US would almost certainly be outnumbered in all respects: troops, artillery, and especially tanks. The Warthog's mission was to blast as many Soviet tanks as possible, opening up the field for the US's tanks; larger and faster than Soviet-made tanks, but far fewer in number, and carrying fewer main-gun rounds.

Whenever my tank unit would head into the field for live-fire exercises, we'd see Warthogs from a nearby Air Force base making practice runs at an adjacent range. They would fly low over the field and fire a burst of training rounds from the Gatling gun. The buzz-saw sound it made was blood-curdling, and I was always glad the thing was on our side.

But the long-expected Soviet drive into Western Europe never materialized. The Cold War ended. And the enemies we face today don't have tanks in any appreciable numbers. So it's time to retire the Warthog.

The tankers you served salute you.

[zipplewrath]

24. Tanks are next

Truth is, the day of the tank is coming to an end. At least in the sense of a tank meant to combat another tank. We don't really attack tanks with tanks anymore, we use aircraft. Tanks are becoming mobile artillary and don't need the same size, speed, or armor.

In some ways you're right about the A-10. It's role as a tank killer isn't all that useful. We have many ways to kill a tank, and not that many tanks to kill. I do wonder though if it could not be configured to be an excellent ground support/attack aircraft by merely modifying it to handle all of the weapons that Apache's currently have. The A-10 has better defenses than an Apache and I believe has better range too.

[Aristus]

26. That's an interesting idea.

And I think it has merit.

And best of all: "We have many ways to kill a tank, and not that many tanks to kill." - Very true.

[bluedeathray]

7. Still deployed. Still busting Taliban ass.

Why can't they cut the F-35?

[tina tron]

11. Last I checked, the Taliban don't have tanks

But rah rah anyway, right?

[Aristus]

12. The Taliban would occasionally capture tanks from the Soviets during their war then.

But since most of the Taliban didn't have any mechanical skills, the tanks would break down quickly and then be abandoned.

I don't think any of our tanks have been captured.

So you're almost certainly right about that. We definitely don't need the Warthog to fight the Taliban.

[bluedeathray]

15. You don't know what you're talking about.

Not only do the Taliban use hardened emplacements that are difficult for small arms to penetrate. But they move quick and possess medium and heavy arms that a "Tank Buster" is very effective at killing.

And check your attitude the next time the Taliban cut off a girls nose, splash her with acid, or shoot her in the face.

rah rah my butt. War is hell, but you don't fight to lose.

[Aristus]

19. Wow. That was rather vicious of you. And completely unnecessary.

I think the post you're replying to was not being dismissive of the Taliban, but rather emphasizing the 'rah-rah' "patriotic" notion that we need to keep expensive weapons-systems rolling off the assembly lines and into the arsenal long after they've outlived their useful purpose.

I read the post. It in no way ignored, diminished or celebrated the depredations of the Taliban. Turning off the computer for a while and taking some time to cool off would do us all some good.

[bluedeathray]

25. I think you're mis-analyzing the post

And missed the intent of the poster. I believe I read a distinct anti-war sentiment in his/her words.

I could be wrong, and am open to discussion. But the poster wrote that the A-10 was unnecessary because the Taliban doesn't have tanks... rah rah.

Anti war sentiment is fine. I'm all for it. But being covered by an effective weapon platform gives Infantry Platoon leaders the "warm and fuzzies".

IMHO, the reasons WHY we're here is a separate discussion.

[NuclearDem]

28. Wow, I didn't realize being in favor of retiring the A10 was tantamount to supporting the Taliban

[bluedeathray]

33. I was responding to the rah rah aspect of the reply

Not the efficacy of the platform. Nor it's association with the enemy.

And it's either asinine, or disingenuous, to say that a weapon can only kill one thing.

Come on!

[NeoGreen]

39. I'm sorry...

...but I have to agree with Aristus that you came down a bit hard on a DU'er with only 29 posts.

I guess I saw missing "sarcasm" brackets on the Rah Rah elements of Tina Trons post.
And I did not see anything in the post that suggested that A-10's are effective only for tanks.

Maybe I'm wrong, but your response seemed harsh to me too.

[bluedeathray]

50. Please allow me to apologize

If my response seemed harsh, or hypercritical. Perhaps I read too much into your post. Perhaps I'm just too tired of fighting in a foreign land.

In any case, I feel our purpose here is to discuss, not smack down. If I was too stringent in my response, I ask you to forgive me, and allow a little slack for my situation.

I'll try better in the future. Welcome to DU. It's a great place.

*edited for spelling.

[tech3149]

9. If I had to choose one aircraft to keep

It's the A10. It's not just cost effective and reliable, but probably best suited to the potential missions right now and in the future.
We don't need overly complex, expensive boondoggles like the F-22and F-35 to fight an enemy we no longer have.
Seriously, if there was one weapon system that was worth the price since WW 2 it's the A10.

[Ranchemp.]

10. Bravo.

One of the most formidable ground support/tank killing weapons platform ever designed and built, it's a combat proven aircraft and it's a dumb move to retire it.

[Aristus]

13. See my post above.

The Warthog's mission was against waves of thousands and thousands of Soviet tanks crashing into Western Europe.

In today's high-intensity, close-combat, urban warfare settings, the Warthog is worse than useless.

[bluedeathray]

17. You are wrong.

I'm in Kabul at this moment looking at video proof that the A-10 is still an effective platform in terms of combat firepower, and cost.

I'm not about to endanger my clearance by offering proof, but take my word for it. They fly daily.

*edited for spelling

[Aristus]

21. Then it's time to come home from Kabul.

We've no business there.

I know that will probably anger you; and I respect that. No one likes feeling like they've been lied to. No one likes feeling like they've been had, especially if they're risking their lives in the process.

We never had any plausible mission in Afganistan. Osama Bin Laden was right where I said he would be, five or six years before we finally got him: in Pakistan.

[bluedeathray]

31. Man, it's PAST time to come home

I heartily agree with your statement about our involvement with Afghanistan. I don't feel anger about your words. You're right.

Eisenhower was right. And whoever said "War is Hell" was right. This is my third war and NONE of them have improved the situation of anyone in the world outside of the MIC.

The plausibility of our mission in Afghanistan is debatable, IMHO. Certain strategic gains that could potentially help the world were being considered. But we had ample CIA and SOCOM guys on the ground to cover those POSSIBILITIES. No way can any kind of a reasonable case be made for this level of involvement.

Nor can a case be made for extended American presence. BTW, the meeting to discuss that between the Tribal Elders starts tomorrow. Say a prayer... Oh, and you didn't hear that from me.

But if you have/had any association with the military or any operations, then you know the importance of letting the guy doing the work pick his tools (within reason). The A-10 should stay.

[Aristus]

32. Thank you for your post.

Come home soon...

I was a tanker back in the day, including the Gulf in 1991; we had good reason to love the Warthog.

But IMO, it's time for it to go. And I don't think we should sacrifice it in order to fund much more expensive boondoggles like the F-35. We should reduce all of our Cold War-era weapon systems, and concentrate on building a workable, equitable America.

[bluedeathray]

34. Thank you for your insight. nt

[Chan790]

41. "In today's high-intensity, close-combat..."

but so by-and-large are the weapons systems they're keeping in favor of the A-10.

We have no need for a fifth-generation stealth tactical dogfighter designed specifically to combat other fifth-generation tactical dogfighers in air-to-air combat. There's one other country on Earth with the means and budget to produce such a plane...and the Cold War is over.

[Posteritatis]

54. That and you need to knock out about half the aircraft before it feels uncomfortable

"Doesn't feel inclined to be shot down" is not a quality a lot of more complex aircraft will likely have.

[PeoViejo]

60. Another feature of the A-10 is that it is extremely quiet at low speed

they would pass over the facility where I worked at treetop level. You wouldn't even hear them until they were just about overhead, long after they could have made a firing run.

[bluedigger]

14. The Air Force always hated the Warthog.

Congress forced them to buy it, and they put as many as they could straight into the AF Reserve, as I recall. Ground support aircraft aren't sexy enough for fighter jocks - they want to dogfight other fighters, not blow up shit on the ground. No surprise that the Warthog is an endangered species now. Too bad - it was one of the most effective weapons systems we had, dollar for dollar.

[Blue_Tires]

16. It was fun to use in Battlefield 3...

Too bad the Frogfoot pisses all over it in the game...

[lastlib]

18. I got targeted by one. Damn scary.

On a much-needed vacation. Driving down an empty country road near a military base one morning maybe an hour after sunrise, just taking life easy, and enjoying the beautiful country. Then I hear this screaming sound, and I thought my poor car was coming apart! I pulled it off the road, and opened the door to get out to see what was wrong, shaking like a leaf, and then I see this Warthog climbing back into the sky just a few hundred feet above me. He had used me for a practice attack run! I nearly crapped my pants!

yeah, damn scary!

[bobclark86]

20. Tough as nails...

Flew home.


Flew home. (That's the front of the wing)

Every Gulf War (I and II) and Afghanistan vet I know swears by these big ugly bastards. The pilot sits in a titanium bath tub. Everything is redundant several times over.


The gun

You want to save money? Refurbish these things and get rid of your "pointy-nosed Mach snots" the F-35, which will probably explode if it hits a pigeon.

Can anyone tell me why we need so many stealth aircraft? It's not like we're going to war with China or anything...

[A HERETIC I AM]

57. They built the aircraft AROUND the gun!

Only military aircraft built that had its nose gear offset to accommodate a weapon.

[grahamhgreen]

22. Dammit! We need more P-38's, too (poster):

Last edited Wed Nov 20, 2013, 08:52 PM - Edit history (1)

[Puzzledtraveller]

23. I was a Crash Fire and Rescue Firefighter in the Air Force

A-10 was my favorite. B1 least favorite.

[NuclearDem]

29. Good God, don't let any of the Bones pilots hear you say that.

When I was deployed to Al Udeid, my squadron HQ was right by the runway, and we'd feel the hardened structures those buildings were shake when a B1 would activate its afterburners on take off.

[Puzzledtraveller]

38. They are fun to watch

They did their training sorties at night and would start in the evening, a frequent alarm was smoke in cockpit, and I swear it seemed it was always around 3am. I got to where I found myself waking up around that time naturally because it was so common. In the summer it was not so bad, in the fall and winter it was miserable. We would roll out, sometimes I would be on a P-15 turret. 30 mile per hour wind and about 20 below zero riding out on the flight line when these B1's would act up. I still enjoyed it though looking back.

This is the P-15, you had a head set and pilots style helmet you would wear if you were on the turret. At Ellsworth in winter you had to keep your eyes shielded as the intense cold and wind could essentially freeze them.

[MicaelS]

35. I'd rather get rid of the B-1s before the A-10.

Get rid of the F-35, too.

[Turbineguy]

27. The biggest problem with this plane

is it makes the newer ones look so expensive.

[NuclearDem]

30. Incredibly bad idea.

The A10 is one of the better CAS aircraft out there. It's not a role anything new coming out of R&D would be able to fill.

[catnhatnh]

36. Killing the Warthog is strike three...

US could hold air superiority over 95 percent of the planet just by continuing to build B52s, UH1D, and A10s. Average costs are $73million, $5million and $20million respectively so for about the cost of a single F35 ($335million) you could have three each of the above and a nice stock of spare parts...

[clffrdjk]

42. They can't be made anymore.

The machinery does not exist to make factory new B-52's or A-10's we scrapped them decades ago. I wish it weren't so but that's the way it is.

[JHB]

40. Here's an idea: get rid of the B-1 instead

There's a big, expensive craft for which there are alternative aircraft for its missions.

[IDemo]

43. They're a major part of the local air guard's mission

The Warts are as familiar a sight in the air around here as the golden eagles. Hard for me to get wistful with any military reduction, but this one may hurt a lot of folks around here if it comes to pass.

[chknltl]

48. Does it still use depleted uranium rounds?

That has been my sole complaint against this aircraft.

[PeoViejo]

55. The Gau-8 can fire other types of 30mm Ammunition

http://www.atk.com/products-services/gau-8a-ammunition-30-mm/

[chknltl]

56. Yes, I knew it could but i am concerned about the DU rounds

I still think the "Warthog" is a magnificent bird, the Thunderbolt of our era. That said, those depleted uranium rounds are nasty in that they are the gift that keeps on giving but not in a good way.

[PeoViejo]

58. That's an issue with the command structure

not the weapon system.

The DU rounds could be purged from the supply chain and there would still be a useful weapons platform left.

[chknltl]

59. I fully agree

Count me in as a supporter of this weapons platform but as an avid/rabid concerned citizen when it comes to the use of DU rounds on anything by any weapon system.

[Gothmog]

52. The Air Force wanted to get rid of the A-10 before the first Gulf War

I remember that there was talk of getting rid of the A-10 before the first Gulf War but the effectiveness of the A-10 changed the minds of key members in Congress. I think that the A-10 is a better plane than the F-35 and other more expensive platforms