A-10 Warthog to be retired by USAF (maybe)

[Loachman]

If we're to follow the current buttons and bows and all things historical trend, then tac hel should return to its home in the Army, and maritime air (both rotary and fixed wing) should return to the senior service.

Oh, please, please, please.

 

[Zoomie]

I think VERY highly of the USAF in particular some F-15E and F-18 types

Sorry - can't have you diving into this topic without the atypical army.ca comment of "stay in your lane as you obviously have no clue to which you speak"

Hopefully you're no longer misunderstanding how I feel on this matter.

I understand that you appreciate very much the continuing RCAF support that was given to deployed forces throughout the mission to CDAG and Afghanistan.  You obviously appreciate the sacrifices that our aircrew have made alongside our brethren in green.  You understand that the same "useless c*nts" are the same people that provided the tac-hel, CP, tactical airlift, C2ISR, etc to the mission.

 

[WingsofFury]

Could F35 sustain that type of damage? Could an Apache?

Doubt it. But the Brylcream boys like the whiz bang no matter the cost.

From the article...

the damage had not affected the flight control surfaces or the (landing) gear

And to this point...

I say again, update the cockpit and put in new comms. Hell, Canada should buy the plans, it seems like an easy plane to build and be lot more useful to the Canadian Army than what the F35 will ever be.

I don't know why you think that CAS can't happen from a platform like the Hornet, Strike Eagle, or even the F-35.  With the advancement of JDAMS and targeting systems it's a lot more efficient than having something low and slow over extremely hostile environments.

I just read your comments about our Hornet pilots...and I'm giving my head a shake.

Perhaps if you knew that our CF-18's didn't even have the capability to provide you with CAS in Afghanistan due to politics and the delay of the IMP you would reconsider your words.

 

[FSTO]

Very broad brush stroke.  Lots of "low and slow" type flying out of the Wing I'm at.  :2c:

Agree, that is why I said "To me". As Navy man I appreciate the contributions of our maritime air. It just seems to me that the decision makers in most Air Forces are from the fighter community and therefore a focus on their community vice helicopters, cargo, MPA and CAS.

 

[Journeyman]

Sorry - can't have you diving into this topic without the atypical army.ca comment of "stay in your lane as you obviously have no clue to which you speak"

On a couple of Ops, we had USN FA-18 support.  Yes, the air support goes into one CAOC bucket for planning, and it was just coincidental that the Navy happened to be supporting their sailors on the ground, but their fast-air seems to have a much better concept of "team"  -- or maybe it just seemed that way because they showed up. 

But then, I was there; how could I possibly know 'of which I speak.'

 

[Loachman]

the continuing RCAF support that was given to deployed forces throughout the mission to CDAG and Afghanistan.

What "RCAF" support was given "throughout the mission to ... Afghanistan"?

The aircraft and personnel in theatre belonged to CEFCOM, for one, and Air Command was not renamed until August 2011, by which time the only thing that the CF had going on over there was the pack-up job.

 

[Journeyman]

What "RCAF" support was given "throughout the mission to ... Afghanistan"?

Splitting hairs and not really contributing.....but thanks for playing along 


Yes, perhaps I have some anger issues here.

Maybe the lesson is next time Canada commits to a war, the entire CAF should be involved.  If the addition of CF-18s could have facilitated even one less Canadian ramp ceremony, I think it would have been worth the intolerable situation of a fighter-pilot having dusty boots. 

Of course, we'll never know.

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's another platform to conjure with:  AW 609

This mini-Osprey roughly combines a King Air 350 (MC/UC-12) with a CH-146 Griffin (2 crew + 9 pax or max usable load of 2.5 tonnes) and with the range of a CH-147F.

Low and Slow.  Vertical Take Off and Land.  Ships.  FOBs. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Splitting hairs and not really contributing.....but thanks for playing along 


Yes, perhaps I have some anger issues here.

Maybe the lesson is next time Canada commits to a war, the entire CAF should be involved.  If the addition of CF-18s could have facilitated even one less Canadian ramp ceremony, I think it would have been worth the intolerable situation of a fighter-pilot having dusty boots. 

Of course, we'll never know.

I suspect the next time will be far sooner than many expect.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Agree, that is why I said "To me". As Navy man I appreciate the contributions of our maritime air. It just seems to me that the decision makers in most Air Forces are from the fighter community and therefore a focus on their community vice helicopters, cargo, MPA and CAS.

Fighters are the pretty, sexy end for sure.  I have no input or knowledge of why our 18s weren't part of the moving parts in the sandbox and don't like to throw out a WAG on that aspect.  Doubt the facts can't be put into type on here, regardless of what they are.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Alright ladies, enough of the hen party.

The thread is about the A-10. Back on track please.

---Staff---

 

[observor 69]

Info from the PBS Newshour with video, transcript of interview and some very interesting commentary:

‘Beloved’ A-10 Warthog aircraft may not survive Pentagon attack

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/budget-cuts-could-ground-unstoppable-warthog-aircraft/

 

[FAL]

I thought the A-10 was gone years ago, glad to see its still in service (despite being on the chopping block). Nothing like the sound of that minigun ripping apart mortar positions to brighten your day.

Maxigun?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The price of NOT retiring the A-10?

Defense News

Yea, temper tantrums, Congress should call them on that just to see what happens  ;D

 

[McG]

Looks like the A-10 supporters are getting their defence together.

Critics accuse Air Force of manipulating data to support A-10 retirement
Dan Sagalyn
PBS News
22 May 2014

Over the past five months, Air Force leaders have pointed to one key fact while advocating for their controversial decision to retire the A-10 Warthog, an aircraft specifically designed to provide support to ground troops. The service’s top leaders say the vast majority of so-called “close air support” missions conducted in Afghanistan since 2006 have been flown by a variety of aircraft that are not A-10s. Specifically, the leaders say that the 80 percent of these missions conducted by aircraft other than the Warthog shows that a variety of aircraft can do the critical mission of reinforcing ground forces with firepower from the air.

However, a number of observers challenge the Air Force’s claim that 80 percent of close air support missions are really conducted by non-A-10 planes. These observers assert that the service has deliberately manipulated the data to support its case.

The plan to retire the A-10 has sparked a firestorm of criticism from members of Congress, A-10 pilots and airmen whose job is to embed with ground forces and call in air strikes.

In fact, Congress is well on the way to rejecting the Air Force’s plans. The House of Representatives passed legislation Thursday, rejecting sending the A-10s to the boneyard. The Senate is expected to do the same.

The Air Force says it can save $4.2 billion over the next five years by retiring the fleet of 350 A-10s. The savings would be plowed into other aircraft that can perform a variety of missions, including close air support.

And, in making the case to retire the A-10, the one number that comes up time and again at congressional hearings is this: 80 percent.

“Eighty percent of what we have done in close air support in Afghanistan has been by aircraft other than A-10,” Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James told the House Armed Services Committee in March.

Building on this statement, Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welsh has said, “We’ve flown a number of close air support missions with multiple airplanes,” including the B-1 bomber, F-15E, and F-16.

Also included in the 80 percent are FA-18s, Reaper and Predator drones, along with AC-130s gun ships and AV-8Bs.

The PBS NewsHour asked the Air Force about the basis for the 80 percent figure. The NewsHour shared the Air Force answers with A-10 supporters and those who advocate retiring the aircraft. The complete exchange can be viewed in the document linked here.

“This is a classic case of using numbers as propaganda for some bureaucratic position.”“This 80 percent number is a total fabrication,” said Pierre Sprey, one of the key designers of the A-10 in the 1960s and 1970s. Sprey has recently been lobbying Congress to save the aircraft. “This is a classic case of using numbers as propaganda for some bureaucratic position.”

Among the data the Air Force provided was a breakdown of the number close air support sorties flown between 2010 to 1014: 121,653. Also included was the number of sorties with at least one weapon released: 8,691.

Sprey notes that of the 121,653 close air support missions conducted, “93 percent of them never drop a weapon.” Sprey says the Air Force is “counting a whole lot of fluff.”

“The Air Force is counting these missions or these activities in a way that biases strongly against the A-10,” said Winslow Wheeler, a former congressional staffer with more than three decades of experience working for both Democrats and Republicans. Wheeler is now with the Project On Government Oversight, a non-profit watchdog organization.

The Air Force is “not counting sorties where actual munitions delivery actually occurs,” he said. And they are “not distinguishing” between bombing fixed points on the ground from 20,000 feet and supporting troops that are moving while under fire from an enemy in close proximity. Wheeler said it is in situations like this “that really count” and where the A-10 outperforms all other aircraft.

…

More here:  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/critics-accuse-air-force-manipulating-data-support-10-retirement/

 

[CougarKing]

The death knell of the A-10?

Defense News

House Appropriators Easily Kill Measure to Save A-10 Fleet
Jun. 10, 2014 - 11:38AM  |  By JOHN T. BENNETT 

WASHINGTON — US House appropriators on Tuesday killed an amendment that would have kept alive the Air Force’s A-10 fleet, becoming the first defense panel to endorse the service’s cost-cutting plan.

The House Appropriations Committee broke with the House and Senate Armed Services committees, which last month used budgetary cuts from elsewhere in the Pentagon’s budget to keep the A-10s flying for one more year.

The amendment to keep the A-10, offered by Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., was shot down via a show of hands, with 13 members voting for it and 23 voting to kill it.

(...EDITED)

 

[CougarKing]

Seems the A-10 is safe for now...

House Spending Bill Blocks A-10 Retirement
Jun. 20, 2014
By BRIAN EVERSTINE


The US House of Representatives on Thursday evening, during deliberation on the fiscal 2015 defense spending bill, voted to block the US Air Force’s plan to cut the entire A-10 fleet.

The chamber approved the an amendment, offered by Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., that would prohibit the Defense Department from using money to divest, retire, transfer or place in storage any A-10 aircraft, along with blocking the department from preparing to cut any of the aircraft.

The vote is the latest in a monthslong battle between the Defense Department and Congress on the future of the aging, popular aircraft. The Air Force has said it would save about $3.7 billion by cutting all 283 of the attack aircraft.

The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its markup of the authorization bill, also prohibits the retirement of the A-10, along with plans to cut any Airborne Warning and Control Aircraft.

The House on Thursday also approved an amendment from Rep. Jon Runyan, R-N.J., that blocks any funds from being used to cut KC-10 Extender refueling aircraft. The service has said it would need to cut all KC-10s if forced to make extensive budget cuts under continued sequestration.


Defense News

 

[FSTO]

Why don't they cut the B1's and B2's instead? The manned bomber is about as useful as a battleship these days

 

[MilEME09]

Why don't they cut the B1's and B2's instead? The manned bomber is about as useful as a battleship these days

The B1 is already schedules to be retired around 2018, the B2 they wont retire until the B3 program delivers aircraft. I would also say battleships still have their use, however the design of the battleship did not advance with the times. Take for example the new Electromagnetic cannon the US navy is developing. A Nuclear powered battleship with a few of those could hit Moscow from the Black sea with accuracy.

 

[midget-boyd91]

Why retire them at all? I'm far from an expert at military procurement, but if the A-10 has shown it's worth to the degree it has... then why retire something that is working so well?
It would not be unheard of to keep it around or simply update it:

C-130 Hercules: First flight 1954. Currently in production as the "New" C-130J Super Hercules
CH-47 Chinook: First flight 1964. Currently in production
CH-53: First flight 1964.  Currently in production as the "New" CH-53K for the USMC
AH-1 Cobra: First flight 1965. Currently in production as AH-1Z Viper