DOD aims to scrap A-10 to keep F-35 alive in new budget

[n2doc]

One of the most effective combat aircraft gets pushed aside for one yet to serve.

by Sean Gallagher - Feb 24 2014, 4:06pm EST

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is unveiling the Pentagon’s proposed budget today—a budget that will dramatically scale back the size of the military. But in order to save the most sacred of cows in its ongoing modernization efforts, the Pentagon is proposing the elimination of what has arguably been the most effective combat aircraft in the Air Force’s inventory: the A-10 Thunderbolt II.

Known for its survivability, the A-10 is capable of flying with half a wing, one tail fin, one elevator, and one engine torn off. It’s also cheaper to fly and can fly more frequent missions than the aircraft that the Air Force proposes to replace it with: the F-35. But because of its low glamor and low-tech nature, the A-10 is assigned largely to Air National Guard squadrons these days. So with the Department of Defense now planning to re-shuffle the roles of reserve and Guard units in a shrinking fighting force, the A-10s are an easy target for the budget knife. The Air Force announced in January that it would eliminate a third of the existing A-10s in its inventory—102 aircraft—with the remainder to go when the F-35 finally arrives for service. The new plan will retire the entire A-10 fleet.

The A-10 was originally built in the early 1970s, and it was designed to combat Soviet tank columns with its enormous seven-barrel 30-millimeter Gatling-gun cannon. Known for its pugnacious looks as the “Warthog,” the A-10 could also carry a variety of guided and unguided weapons, and it proved its usefulness against a wide range of enemies while flying close air support for troops in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Air Force reported that the 60 A-10s that flew in Iraq had an 86 percent mission success rate.

Today, there are two arguments for cutting the A-10. The first argument from the Air Force is that in an era of shrinking budgets and pared-down ambitions, the military needs a more flexible, multi-role aircraft to do more jobs—not an airplane that's perfect for a smaller number of them. But considering the troubles that the F-35 has faced and the fact that not a single squadron of any of the variants of the F-35 has yet to be fielded, the wisdom of the Pentagon’s aircraft calculus is open to debate.

more
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/dod-aims-to-scrap-a-10-to-keep-f-35-alive-in-new-budget/

[jsr]

1. Truly idiotic

but perfectly predictable.

[Laelth]

2. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[librechik]

3. well of course anything sensible is out of the question

my hubby think we've been taken over by "the commies" who are working 24/7 to destroy the country.

Except for the commies part, I have to agree.

[Recursion]

4. Best airplane the US ever produced, except maybe the B-17

It would be a shame to see the warthogs go.

[loli phabay]

19. yeah i gotta say as ugly as they are they look beautiful when you see them come in to support

still not as pretty though as a spitfire.

[arcane1]

29. Please mister, please don't play B-17!

Sorry

[DrDan]

45. lets not leave out the C-130 as a potential best

[TxVietVet]

5. There is no money in promoting and keeping a warplane that works.

Simple enough. What the MIC wants, it usually gets. The F-35 is the new toy that doesn't work. Hasn't yet. Can't fly it in bad weather, the last I heard. WTF.

[Recursion]

7. At least it's better than the Osprey. Hopefully.

"Boys, the Pentagon decided we aren't killing enough Marines, so we made a plane with a gun that only fires backwards, when the hatch is open..."

[arcane1]

30. It works perfectly.

If by "works" you mean "absorbs endless funds without the burden of producing results" then it's a success story

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. I think the term you're looking for is "corporatist fascism"

It's humiliating that this is happening on our watch.

[Enthusiast]

43. Wouldn't the relatively low stall speed

capable Warthog make for a better close air support plane than an F-35? Seems to me it would.

[Lost_Count]

6. Love that plane...

Always thought that A-10 pilot has to be one of the best jobs in the military...

Throw in a badass JTAC (joint terminal attack controller) and amazing things happen.

[Recursion]

8. Dangerous as shit, as far as flyboy jobs go

Up at about 200 feet, well within RPG/stinger range, with a plane that flies so slow it will actually stall if you fire the main gun long enough.

I love those warthogs and their drivers...

[Lost_Count]

13. Probably more satisfying too...

[cali]

9. wonder why. Not.

[hobbit709]

10. Typical. Scrap something that works and get something that doesn't.

It's the Microsoft business model.

[appal_jack]

11. k&r

I actually think that the A-10 is a good looking plane, but I'm a form follows function type of guy.

An acquaintance who served in Afghanistan told me that the Taliban there knew the sound of A-10's and feared them more than any other aircraft that we fielded.

-app

[neverforget]

12. I can't imagine an F35 on the deck providing close air

support to the grunts on the ground. Or the Pentagon risking one.....

[atreides1]

14. It won't be

The cutting of the ground forces that would require that support, won't be there to support!

[Aristus]

15. As an ex-tanker, I love the A-10.

It is truly the 'tanker's friend'.

We could certainly make more use of it than the F-35. Even with the diminishing possibilities of having to face tank columns thousands-strong any time in the future.

Scrapping the A-10 is a bad idea...

[malthaussen]

16. It's a good thing we don't really need a military.

Seriously, some of the choices they've been making are idiotic.

-- Mal

[Lasher]

17. The Air Force wants to replace the A-10, the F-16, and some F/A-18s with three F-35 variants.

And yet, neither the F-16 nor the F/A-18 is mentioned in the linked article. Shouldn't that aspect be part of the discussion?

[Savannahmann]

25. The airforce is replacing some, the Navy and Marines the other

The Navy is planning on replacing their F/A 18's for the carrier varient of the F-35. The Marines are replacing their F/A-18s for the VSTOL varient. That way it can land vertically, or take off if it isn't carrying any weapons, vertically.

The Air Force wants to replace the F-16 and A-10 with the airplane.

Because the new plane is sexy, or something.

Notice that the one they want to replace everything with is less capable than the ones they are replacing. It can't carry as many bombs as the F/A 18. Can't fly as far. Costs much more, and so far, doesn't actually work. But they look modern, and are more stealthy which is important when you are doing close air support, or something.

If only the design of firearms was as "advanced". By now guns would look incredibly scary, cost a bloody fortune, and the bullet would drop to the ground about a yard after it left the barrel. Oh, and the gun would break after six or so shots. We could probably save tens of thousands of lives that way.

[Lasher]

40. This is a good conversation to have.

I've read up a little on the issue but I'm no expert. F-35 proponents say we need a more multi-purpose platform where components can be shared, and that the A-10 is not suitable for some retrofits we'll want in the future.

If we don't keep modernizing, we're not going to have unchallenged air superiority forever. For example, China has stolen our F-22 and F-35 blueprints and they're been building stealth fighters - not very good ones it appears so far, but I'm thinking about the future.

OTOH we have the F-22 for air superiority and the F-35's capabilities would not be as substantial for that purpose. And although the F-35's multi-purpose platform is supposed to make the plane more cost effective, I'm seeing that argument pretty much dismantled in this thread, at least insofar as an A-10 replacement is concerned.

First and foremost we need to cut military spending. It's hard not to like the Warthog and you A-10 proponents make a compelling argument, but I'm still making up my mind.

[clffrdjk]

46. Remember we cut the F-22's down to a handful

And now the F-35 is getting damn close to the price of a F-22

[Gothmog]

18. This is a bad decision

The warthog is a very effective aircraft

[CFLDem]

20. We a ruled by morans.

[Egalitarian Thug]

21. If they were interested in reducing costs and increasing effectiveness, they should

scrap the Air Force. It's nothing but an appendix, left over from turf wars from over half a century ago. Just think how much we would save if we eliminated the whole thing.

Every branch except the Army has it's own equipment and runs it's own air operations, and the only reason the Army doesn't is that Congress took their fixed-wing aircraft away to justify creating the Air Force.

[Octafish]

22. Trillion Dollar Toy

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/news/local/1-trillion-fighter-plane-project-likely-to-be-mo-1/nMy5q/

We could remake the planet, let alone the nation, with a trillion bucks, but nooooo...

[Enthusiast]

44. It's about the dumbest possible use of the money.

[Erose999]

23. I've heard that they're propping up the F35 because although the F18 is adequate in its current role

for the near future, they aren't making F18 airframes any more, and the cost of retooling to make more F18's would be more than making F35's.

But getting rid of the A10 at this juncture would be a critical blunder. I mean given the type of warfare we're going to be involved in in future conflicts (CoIn, 3rd world interventions, and peacekeeping etc) the high tech stuff is just pointless. The need for air-superiority dogfights mostly ended with the cold war.

[loli phabay]

24. yup you basically want a flying tank, ie spooky. wonder if older style prop aircraft would work

would love to see typhoons even if its a pipedream.

[Savannahmann]

27. The A-1 Skyraider was still in use in Viet-Nam

And loved by the troops. It could do what jets could not, loiter over the area, and provide fire support for a long time. The jets could fly in, drop bombs, and then hurry back before they ran out of gas.

In Korea, the best close air support plane was....... (drumroll) The F-4U Corsair left over from World War II. Not just prop driven, but radial engine which was obsolete according to the experts.

[SQUEE]

41. Bring back the SPAD!!!

The Super Tucano has proven to be quite good at low intensity counter insurgency roles, prop driven aircraft offer long loiter times and the ability for slow, precise target acquisition. Just not as sexy as a carbon fiber stealth low IR signature toy for the fighter Mafia running the AF...

[Erose999]

28. I read somewhere that the prop driven A1 Skyraider had the most sorties on any airframe used in 'Nam

[Pretzel_Warrior]

26. what a misleading BS title

they are getting rid of A10 tank killer plane considering the types of wars we are fighting generally don't involve tanks. they are also getting rid of U2 spy plane and DELAYING taking any more of the expensive F35's.

I love it how even when Obama's team is cutting significantly the Pentagon budget people here still find things to complain about.

[Erose999]

31. The A10 isn't just a tank buster. Its one of the best aircraft we have for close air support. The

high and fast flyers like the F18 and F35 just don't have the hangtime that the A10 does. Its low and slow, but its also maneuverable and precise so it can adapt and hit several targets in one pass.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

32. so what? It's old and outdated. I'd much rather bring to bear 21st century technology against

enemies.

People crying and whining about this are not using critical thinking skills.

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. Nice idea, except for the fact we don't have ANY F-35s in service

But we are assured they'll be ready Real Soon Now...

I'm reminded from an exchange recounted (in Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers", IIRC)
by a German-speaking GI that occurred in early 1945 as US troops were moving into western Germany.
It went something like this:

German kid to GI: "Our tanks are better!"

GI: "Where are they?"

Thing is, the kid was right- the German tanks were better. But the Nazis couldn't
get them produced in quantity, so the Wehrmacht ended up getting swarmed by Shermans
produced in wholesale lots.

The finest weapon in the world is useless if you don't have it when you need it.

[Erose999]

35. Except the A10 is not outdated. Especially considering that our future conflicts will most likely be

against forces completely lacking air capabilities and fielding only outdated Russian armor and Toyota pickup trucks.

I see no need for the F35 except as a welfare package for defense contractors and GOP congressmen.

[Lurks Often]

36. It remains the most effective close air support aircraft in US service

it carries everything it needs to, including the most current air to ground guided missiles, can loiter for long periods of time and is far less expensive to maintain and operate then the F-15, F-16, F-18 & F-35.

It's being removed from the budget because the Air Force fighter clique does not want the aircraft, they want the faster, shinier F-35 and want the money from cutting the A-10 to go into the F-35 budget.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. If we don't need a tank-killer because we aren't killing tanks

why do we need an air superiority fighter if we aren't fighting large national air forces?

Not that you can promise/prognosticate that such things won't happen in the future.

[Bandit]

42. Speaking as an old time Army Grunt

The best close air support was from huey gunships, or cobras. None of the fixed wing aircraft of the time could do what the gun ships could do. I am talking about close support in heavy jungle. Close enough to look into the pilot's eyes, and damn glad they were there.

[MrScorpio]

33. This is really going to piss off US Soldiers.

They love that old bucket of bolts.

[amandabeech]

39. The A-10 supports ground troops, which are Army or maybe Marines,

but it is in the Air Force inventory.

Perhaps the whole A-10 fleet should be turned over to the Army.

I've read a few things about the split between the Army and its Air Force branch after WWII, but it seems that the Air Force now doesn't want what the Army does want--ground support aircraft.

Perhaps the post-WWII agreement should be amended to allow the Army to take care of its own ground support aircraft and the Air Force to carry on with its blue-sky missions.