Doing The Math: Saving A-10s By Cutting F-35s

[unhappycamper]

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/08/doing-the-math-saving-a-10s-by-cutting-f-35s-2/



In this article, one of the Air Force’s own, longtime Breaking Defense contributor Lt. Col. Dan Ward, runs the numbers on his service’s plan to scrap the beloved A-10 Warthog and – now that Congress has thoroughly rejected the idea – suggests an alternative: a modest trim to the massive F-35 program might just save the entire A-10 fleet. – the editors.

Doing The Math: Saving A-10s By Cutting F-35s
By Lt. Col. Dan Ward on August 12, 2014 at 2:38 PM

In February 2014, Secretary of Defense Hagel briefed that retiring the A-10 fleet would save $3.5 billion over five years. That equals a savings of $700 million per year, not exactly chump change. A few months later, in April, the Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Mark Welsh, actually bumped the estimate up by exactly $700 million, to $4.2 billion. This means either the A-10’s annual operating expenses went up by 20% to $840 million per year, or the new savings is calculated over six years instead of five. Either way, the intended message was unambiguous: Air Force leadership did some math and made a logical decision. Retiring the A-10 fleet will save a lot of money, and these days saving money is a necessity, not an option.

But in June, the House of Representatives voted to prevent the Air Force from retiring the Warthog, leading Air Force Secretary Deborah James to ask where they want to find the money instead.

It’s a great question and one worth answering. Are there other, perhaps better ways to come up with $4.2 billion in savings? Where else could the Air Force look? One alternative is the Joint Strike Fighter, often described as the most expensive weapons system in history. Let’s do a little math here – but don’t worry, I’ll keep it as painless as possible.

Aerial refueling of F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters at Eglin AFB, Fla.

Suppose one were to trim $4.2 billion from the JSF program. What sort of impact would that have? According to the Government Accountability Office, acquisition funding for the Joint Strike Fighter averages “$12.6 billion annually through 2037,” and “total U.S. investment is nearing $400 billion to develop and procure 2,457 aircraft through 2037.” It turns out $4.2 billion is approximately one percent of the total $400 billion JSF investment, which seems like a tolerable reduction.

--




We have spent at least $200 billion building these things; around 107 have already been delivered. What a bargain.

[ladjf]

1. I'm no military expert. But, it seems to me that the A-10 is the perfect weapon to deal with

the type of situation we face with ISIS and throughout the middle East. They can fly low and slow, killing everything in their
sight.

[unhappycamper]

2. Yes, but

I would rather NOT send US war planes to bomb people.

Anywhere.

[ladjf]

4. The A-10 is primarily a strafe specialist, ideal for long columns

of light vehicles such as trucks and troop carriers.

But, from an ethical point of view, you are correct to oppose sending warplanes to kill people.

My thought about the A-10 is that it seems a lot cheaper and more effective than sending in supersonic jets that mainly air to ground missiles at about $ 75 grand a pop. That's a lot of money to take on a pickup truck.

[Gothmog]

3. Keep the warthog