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

[SupersonicMax]

I work with Marine Harrier and Cobra pilots and they are the ones that actually brought this argument about the B model. Marine JSF could easily be employed from carriers in pretty much any theatre.

For your last point, that's why you have a JFC: he can dictate what the focus of he operation is and what he expects from his subordinate commanders.  If/when ground troops cross the line or are engaged, I would fully expect that necessary assets be diverted and made available to support them. 

The key word is necessary.  The perceived necessity of a ground commander may not be what he actually needs or what is the best for the operation. Blindly giving them what they want without analyzing what they need would be detrimental to the overall operation/campaign when assets that could be interdicting or doing strike recce are orbiting overhead under-utilized.  All that so the guys on the ground can feel[/] safer? 

 

[Baz]

I work with Marine Harrier and Cobra pilots and they are the ones that actually brought this argument about the B model. Marine JSF could easily be employed from carriers in pretty much any theatre.

For your last point, that's why you have a JFC: he can dictate what the focus of he operation is and what he expects from his subordinate commanders.  If/when ground troops cross the line or are engaged, I would fully expect that necessary assets be diverted and made available to support them. 

The key word is necessary.  The perceived necessity of a ground commander may not be what he actually needs or what is the best for the operation. Blindly giving them what they want without analyzing what they need would be detrimental to the overall operation/campaign when assets that could be interdicting or doing strike recce are orbiting overhead under-utilized.  All that so the guys on the ground can feel[/] safer?

Except when the carrier is pushed out to blue water... and I too have worked with Marines and gator drivers. I also worked with A USN Hornet pilot who was on the JSF test team... so we have different feedback from different points of view...

The USMC wanted a Harrier replacement, for good reason, and it is a requirement for the UK, who is the major partner.  I'll buy the idea it should have been a separate aircraft; I'll buy even the carrier version should have been different; there are some good indications the USN would have preferred Super Hornets rather than sinking money into JSF (cause they have to find money for helicopters, ships, subs as well).  It was the USAF that wanted the other services into their plan.

Do you honestly believe there is not interservice politics going on in operations?  I've watched Air Forces diverting land and maritime support for their precious strike plan more than once.

The Air Forces are continuously trying to divert funds from other Joint Forces, even in operations, with the promise they can deliver the strategic effect at low cost and risk.  Unfortunately the result has been lots of Operational and Tactical success leading to strategic failures.

You'll have to forgive me if I say I don't need to be taught the role of the JFC, but I did write a published letter to CFAWC bemoaning the lack of full understanding of Joint air power within the RCAF.

Although I wish I had spent my career in Naval Air, I had to put up with the RCAF slowly destroying my community, and given that I admit I'm biased based on my experiences (in the Army reserves, Air Force, and at sea).  But so are you...

 

[Loachman]

I had to put up with the RCAF slowly destroying my community

And I, mine.

 

[larry Strong]

Junkers Ju-87 Stuka, the original flying artillery - was a great psychological weapon  - but by 1940 it had pretty much had its day, especially against western militaries.  It flew in the east for the a bit longer, terrorizing civilians.

Actually the Ju87 flew combat missions until at least 4 May 1945. 1012 aircraft were built in 1944, which is very close to 20% of the 5709 aircraft built. By this time they were mainly configured for two roles: The antitank version Ju 87G-1, and the Ju 87D-7/8 a nocturnal ground attack aircraft.

The last recorded Ju 87 night ground attack mission on the western front was flown by NSGr 1 on 4 May 1945 - over German territory......

As a point of interest Obrest Rudel made his last tank hunting flight in the early morning of 8 May 1945 but turned back empty handed. IIRC he was flying a FW 190......will have to check that out.

It is estimated that probably no more than 200 German Stukas surrendered in May 1945, after the usual search for ammunition they were all destroyed....I don't know if this number includes Axis aircraft.


There is one partially converted Ju 87D at the RAF Battle of Britain Museum and one Ju 87B-2/trop owned by the Experimental Aircraft Association of Wisconsin.


Cheers
Larry

 

[Kirkhill]

Hmm. Interesting Larry.  I was under the impression that all the Stukas went east.  Of course by 1945 the Eastern Front was on the Elbe, west of Denmark.

Thanks for that.

 

[larry Strong]

Nachtschlachtgruppen NSGr. These are the NSGr's that were equipped with the Ju 87 night bomber:

NSGr 1:
Ju 87 from Aug 1943; 3 Staffeln. Operational Eastern front until Aug 1944, then in the West until May 1945.

NSGr 2:
Ju 87 from February 1944; 4 Staffeln. Operational on the eastern front until September 1944, then in the West (except 1 Staffeln remaining in the East) until April 1945.

NSGr 4:
Ju 87 from August 1944; 3 Staffeln. Operational over South-eastern Europe. 2 newly formed Staffeln transferred to the West late 1944.

NSGr 8:
Ju 87 from May 1944; 2 Staffeln only. Operational in Finland until Sept 1944, then Norway. In Jan 1945 transferred to the Oder front, Berlin area.

NSGr 9:
Ju 87 from May 1944; 3 Staffeln. Operational in Northern Italy until capitulation.

NSGr 10:
Ju 87 from Oct 1944; 2 Staffeln only. Operational in the Balkans area.

From autumn 1944 onwards most of the Ju 87-equipped night ground attack/harassment units were deployed against the Western allies. The main reason was the lack of conventional bombers and a shortage of fuel. The Ju87 was able to carry an effective bomb load over the enemies hinterland on one engine, was more maneuverable and could fly lower if necessary.


Sorry for going off topic...

Cheers
Larry

 

[a_majoor]

Quite the interesting discussion. The USMC has internalized a lesson learned as far back as the Great War: you need your own assets so you always have control of them. The Royal Flying Corps (Forerunner of the RAF) saw several other British "Air Forces" created (such as the Fleet Air Arm) for precicely the same reason, and air forces on all sides during the Great War struggled with the idea of close ground support (both from a technical point of view and a larger "is this the job we want to do" POV). In the end, the British did develop "Contact Patrol" fighters (armoured ground attack aircraft) and the Germans had a formidable stable of ground attack machines, including some twin engined aircraft carrying early 20mm automatic cannon as a means to hunt tanks; so this is actually an old debate.

Of course even in the 1914-1918 period, fighter pilots received much better "press" and this has influenced a lot of how civilians (and politicians) tend to think of air power.

The A-10 may well be the last dedicated ground attack aircraft, because technologies have evolved and the role is passing into history. Ever increasing surface to air capabilities are making it far more dangerous to actually come close to the target, Russian Spetsnaz operators essentially cleared the sky of Ukrainian Air Force SU-25's with late generation MANPADS and our air forces routinely operate as if ISIS or the Taliban was fully capable of dominating low altitude airspace. From the attackers POV, we have all kinds of tools to deal out death and destruction from a great distance, from UAV and UCAV's to glide bombs with ranges of 40+ miles to guided missiles with equally long ranges (BRIMESTONE is similar to Hellfire in size and effect but can be launched at targets 30km away from a fighter, and at the other end we have long range strike weapons ranging from Storm Shadow to SLAM to Cruise Missiles)

Going the other way, extended range artillery like 155mm Excalibur rounds, 120mm self guided mortar bombs, extended range FOG-M and even man portable UCAVS like the "Switchblade" (can fly 10 km and deliver a 40mm HE warhead) provide a lot of the utility that "bomb trucks" do, meaning that the Joint commander has more options of where to put his aircraft without necessarily leaving the PBI hanging out to dry. Of course it is always nice to think that there are even *more* ways and means of death and destruction at my back, so CF-35's are certainly not to be dismissed out of hand (and if the effect comes in the form of a glide bomb whispering overhead rather than the roar of an A-10's engines as it sets up for a gun run, I'm good with that).

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't recall the date, but it was pretty early on. They took the siren off the Stuka as it had become ineffective, for terror, and it also hampered aerodynamics and speed.

Just some UFI.

 

[CougarKing]

It seems like McCain and the other A-10 advocates in Congress won out, for now...

Defence Aerospace

A-10 Retirement Deferred Until At Least 2022
(Source: Tucson News Now; posted Feb 02, 2016)

TUCSON, AZ --- The A-10 attack jets that fly out of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base won't be retired until 2022at the earliest.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter on Tuesday, Feb. 2 announced funding for the A-10 will be included in the Obama Administration's 2017 budget request, which will be released Feb. 9.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[CougarKing]

General Welsh just can't catch a break from Senator McCain... (Full video of the Senate hearing at the link below)

Defense News

McCain slams USAF chief Welsh on A-10 effectiveness

Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, lit into Air Force leadership on Thursday, saying the service was ignoring the facts about the effectiveness of the A-10 “Warthog.”

McCain slammed Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force Chief of Staff, saying the general was being “disingenuous” and that his answers were “embarrassing.”

The exchange became heated, with McCain repeatedly interrupting Welsh before finally cutting the conversation off by saying “Enough general, OK?”

(...SNIPPED)

 

[CougarKing]

The replacement lineup for the A-10 includes the Super Tucano, AT-6 and T-X Scorpion.

Aviationist

Here are the aircraft that could replace the A-10 Warthog in the CAS mission
Mar 14 2016

The U.S. Air Force has launched a study to find the A-10 Thunderbolt II replacement.

Given the U.S. Air Force plan to retire its A-10 fleet in 2022, the service has recently announced that has launched a study aimed to find a Hog replacement in the close air support (CAS) role.

(...SNIPPED)

(...SNIPPED)

One aircraft that could fulfill the mission is the Embraer A-29 Super Tucano. Recently delivered to the reborn Afghan Air Force and already in service with other ten air arms around the world, this propeller-driven aeroplane is a valuable close air support platform thanks to the chance to outfit its airframe with a wide variety of bombs and machine guns.

Another turboprop plane that could be chosen to replace the A-10 is the Beechcraft AT-6.

This aircraft is a derivative of the USAF T-6 Texan II trainer tailored for the CAS role: in fact, like the Super Tucano, the AT-6 can carry a wide variety of weapons under its wings.

Moreover both the aircraft can be armed with the Raytheon AGM-176 Griffin missile. Designed around a small warhead, this weapon is a precision low-collateral damage missile that makes the A-29 and the AT-6 very effective also in irregular warfare scenarios.

The Textron AirLand Scorpion could perform the CAS mission too. The Scorpion as A-10 replacement would offer high-end capabilities: in fact this plane is not only a tactical strike aircraft for irregular warfare, border and maritime patrol but also an ISR (intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance) platform able to perform air defense operations.


(...SNIPPED)

 

[cupper]

But where else are you going to find an aircraft that can have the literal crap blown out of it and still make it back to fly another day?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Nothing like the full Warthog but for some roles the OV-10 Bronco?

USAF studies OV-10 for CAS, IW roles in theater

...
http://www.janes.com/article/58735/usaf-studies-ov-10-for-cas-iw-roles-in-theater

More:
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/legends-of-vietnam-broncos-tale-5802093/

Cf. WW II Luftwaffe:

1) FOCKE WULF Fw 189 Uhu http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw189-specifications.html

2) Henschel Hs 129--A-10 precursor? http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hs129.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[YZT580]

The A2 belongs there as well.  If memory serves they soldiered on right into the 80's

 

[Old Sweat]

I might have missed something, but the Bronco was flown by airborne FACs to mark targets and then control armed aircraft. It replaced the L19 which we used as an artillery AOP aircraft for many, many years, and as far as I know was not used as a FAC platform.

It is not even remotely comparable to an A10, except that both have wings and a pilot.

 

[a_majoor]

So much "back to the future".

There was a turboprop version of the Skyraider developed in the late 1960's, and a turboprop conversion of the P-51 Mustang as well. The only thing missing now is a turboprop revival of the Typhoon fighter bomber, which was also a pretty formidable aircraft back in the day:

 

[CougarKing]

A drawdown beginning soon?

Defense News

Air Force Clarifies A-10 Retirement Plans
Lara Seligman, Defense News 3:22 p.m. EDT March 17, 2016


WASHINGTON — Amid some confusion over when the Air Force will retire the A-10 attack plane, top service officials this week clarified the plan to start drawing down Warthog squadrons in fiscal 2018.

Comments from Defense Secretary Ash Carter in early February seemed to indicate the Air Force would postpone divesting the A-10 until fiscal 2022. In a speech previewing the budget release, Carter noted commanders' demand for the A-10 and other fourth-generation aircraft in the fight against the Islamic State.

“The budget defers the A-10’s final retirement until 2022, replacing it with F-35s on a squadron-by-squadron basis so we’ll always have enough aircraft for today’s conflict,” Carter said Feb. 2.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Privateer]

Verdict pending on fate of Vietnam-era light attack plane [OV-10 Bronco]

source: http://www.stripes.com/news/verdict-pending-on-fate-of-vietnam-era-light-attack-plane-1.399690

excerpt:

The U.S. military is considering whether a Vietnam-era propeller-driven airplane could be useful in the fight against the Islamic State, after what appeared to be a successful trial run last year.

Two OV-10 Broncos were deployed for barely three months last summer and fall as part of the international coalition battling Islamic State militants in the region, according to the U.S. Central Command.

 

[CougarKing]

The A-10 replacement program's official name: A-X.

Defense News

Air Force Moving Forward With A-10 Replacement Option
Lara Seligman, Defense News 6:25 p.m. EDT April 7, 2016


WASHINGTON — The Air Force is moving forward with a key step in developing a dedicated close-air support plane to replace the A-10 Warthog, a top general said Thursday.

“My requirements guys are in the process of building a draft requirements document for a follow-on CAS airplane,” Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, the deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, said. “It’s interesting work that at some point we’ll be able to talk with you a little bit more.”

Defining the requirement is the first concrete step toward potentially developing a replacement A-10 for the close-air support mission, often dubbed A-X. The Air Force has been studying the idea of a procuring single-role A-X for at least a year now, hosting a joint-service summit in March, 2015, to work out options for the close-air support, or CAS, mission.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[CougarKing]

A10 supporters arm themselves with legislation:

Defense News

House Legislation Restricts A-10 Retirement
Lara Seligman, Defense News 6:46 p.m. EDT April 25, 2016


WASHINGTON – Congress waded back into the debate over the Air Force’s A-10 retirement plans today, unveiling House legislation that would restrict funds for the service to move ahead with sunsetting the attack plane.

In his markup of the defense policy bill, House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry prohibits the Air Force for using FY17 funds to retire, prepare to retire, or place in storage any A-10 aircraft, which primarily conduct close-air support. The legislation would also mandate the Air Force maintain a minimum of of 171 A-10s designated as primary mission aircraft inventory.

(...SNIPPED)