"Airmen at odds with Air Force brass over future of ..." Topic

…beloved A-10 plane.

"The Defense Department decision to retire an Air Force plane built specifically to support ground forces has ignited a firestorm of criticism from the airmen whose job is to embed with Army ground forces and spot enemy targets. Meanwhile, one top Air Force commander is defending his service's decision to eliminate the A-10 Warthog, despite acknowledging the aircraft's value.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in February announced his intention to retire 343 Warthogs, saying the aircraft "is a 40-year-old single-purpose airplane originally designed to kill enemy tanks on a Cold War battlefield. It cannot survive or operate effectively where there are more advanced aircraft or air defenses."

The military commander responsible for ensuring that the Air Force is prepared and capable of winning future wars said the move was unfortunate, but unavoidable in a tightening fiscal environment…"

Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

"Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in February announced his intention to retire 343 Warthogs, saying the aircraft 'is a 40-year-old single-purpose airplane originally designed to kill enemy tanks on a Cold War battlefield. It cannot survive or operate effectively where there are more advanced aircraft or air defenses'.".

I thought that wasn't going to be an issue for us, with the F-22 and F-35 fighters.

So, which is it?

Will we have air-superiority, or not?

If not, why are we paying $200 USD+ mil a copy for them?

I suspect our "esteemed" Defense Secretary shall go down in history as one of the worst, ever.

Why would the USMC want them?

More importantly (and the flaw in any argument to the effect of "give them to the Army/USMC"), how does the USMC intend to afford them?

They cannot survive in a First World missile and triple A environment. They are an aging, expensive to maintain airframe that is wonderful for low threat environments but simply too old to face a world full of S-300's or equivalent.
All the air superiority in the world can't help if a missile can reach up and swat you.

They are far more survivable than the F-35, and cost a lot less too.

One needs to consider the economics of warfare, along with the tactics.

Doesn't make sense to use a $200 USD mil jet for mud moving.

The A-10 can survive at least some missile hits, and enemy groundfire.

I suspect the carbon fiber F-35 "Coot" cannot.

When do those in the "ivory towers" ever listen to the guys on the cutting edge getting their hands dirty ?

Retiring the A-10 Early Puts Troops' Lives at Risk

"When we send our troops into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation to ensure they have the very best support possible so they can accomplish their missions and return home safely.

This is certainly true when it comes to close air support (CAS) aircraft, which provide ground troops with the decisive firepower they need when they are engaged in close contact with the enemy.

Ask any soldier which aircraft provides the best CAS, and they'll tell you it's the combat-proven A-10…"

Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

They cannot survive in a First World missile and triple A environment. They are an aging, expensive to maintain airframe that is wonderful for low threat environments but simply too old to face a world full of S-300's or equivalent.

And who other than the Chinese and Russians has a first world missile and triple A environment?

A Boeing 747 festooned with radar deflectors is a stealth aircraft in most parts of the world becuase there is no air defence, let alone first world.

And most countries that do have Air Defences operate ancient SA-2/-3/-6 systems that were completely obsolete by 1982.

Even large countries like Turkey operate very subpar systems ala Nike Hercules, Rapier and i-Hawk. Even most of Europe doesn't have first world air defences.

Or Egypt which still has a massive air defence force – it's nearly all SA-3 and SA-6 with small numbers of Patriots, iHawks, SA-17 and ground based AMRAAM.

S300s have not proliferated and whatever minor acquisitions have been made by some countries is too small and negligible to withstand a US assault.

The A-10 operated over Iraq and Serbia, both of whom had the type of air defences that can be realistically expected.

In fact the Iraqi AD system in 1991 is still the most modern one the US and co have faced and that was mainly obsolete by 1991 with limited medium to high altitude capability.

And it's still more modern than Syrian, North Korean or Iranian AD, all of which are basically frozen in 1976.

Oh and F-35 and F-22 are screwed against China or Russia who can use tactical ballistic missiles to destroy airfields and who are developing stealth aircraft that can shoot down very non-stealthy air refuelling tankers.

how does the USMC intend to afford them?

easy you take the money that the air force would have gotten to do the job and give it to the USMC and the Army.

They cannot survive in a First World missile and triple A environment. They are an aging, expensive to maintain airframe that is wonderful for low threat environments but simply too old to face a world full of S-300's or equivalent.
All the air superiority in the world can't help if a missile can reach up and swat you.

But yet they keep building these and plan on keeping them:

talk about an east target.

Uh, different mission, different environment. And, BTW, the A-10 wasn't that hot back in the day when it came to surviving AAA. Early studies showed that for any kind of mission behind the FEBA, A-10s needed a full up SEAD mission to clear the way. Face it, its an old, limited, one-trick pony that is getting expensive to keep around. (God in Heaven, there is SO much idiot nostalgia wrapped around this old bird that's it pathetic….)

Again, why would the USMC want them? How would they operate off ships?

Unfortunately, as my buddies in the ADA used to say … If is flys … it dies …

Air Force Plan To Get Rid Of A-10s Runs Into Opposition

"It's often called the military's ugliest aircraft, a snub-nosed tank of a plane that's nicknamed "Warthog" for its appearance and ferocity. The A-10 Thunderbolt II has been the Air Force's equivalent of an in-the-trenches grunt for almost 40 years: heavily armed and armored, designed to fly low and take out the enemy at close range.

But now, after the plane's career has spanned from the Cold War to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon has proposed retiring the fleet as part of across-the-board cuts in defense spending. Getting rid of the remaining 283 planes would save $3.7 USD billion over five years, Defense Department officials say, and allow the Air Force to bring in more sophisticated aircraft, such as the F-35 Lightning II, to provide what is called close air support.

Supporters of the A-10 have launched an aggressive campaign to save an aircraft that they say is unlike any other in the history of American aviation, and they rallied Thursday on Capitol Hill to make their case…"
Full article here.
link

Amicalement
Armand

Early studies showed that for any kind of mission behind the FEBA, A-10s needed a full up SEAD mission to clear the way.

As would an F-16 or F/A-18 or F-15E or whatever.

It's why the US operates a large fleet of SEAD aircraft (EA-6B, E/A-18G, F-16CJ and in the past F-4G and F-111).

And A-10s did operate behind the FEBA over Serbia and Iraq with no casualties over Serbia and only limited casualties in Iraq (but then casualties were sustained by F-16s/F/A-18s/Tornados/F-14s etc etc in 1991).

The air defences faced in 1991 are rare these days. Not many countries have air defences at all.

And the wars the US is most likely to fight are going to be against low tech opponents in which case an A-10 is far more useful than an F-16 or F/A-18, let alone a completely useless F-15C/D or F-22.*

*F-15C/D and F-22 are useless in most wars because number of countries operating fighter aircraft is falling.

Not saying F-22 isn't needed – the small fleet is adequate as part of reserve WW3 force and as part of deterrent.

"I suspect our "esteemed" Defense Secretary shall go down in history as one of the worst, ever."

I can think of a worse one.

MISSION PROFILE, ThomasHobbes. The slow, low A-10 is a heckava lot more vulnerable than the fast movers (like the 15/16/18). Plus, to repeat, its an old bird with ever increasing maintenance costs with a limited mission. Get over it, people. The A-10s day is OVER…..

It might come as a surprise to some, but the RAF also eventually replaced Spitfires.

MISSION PROFILE, ThomasHobbes. The slow, low A-10 is a heckava lot more vulnerable than the fast movers (like the 15/16/18). Plus, to repeat, its an old bird with ever increasing maintenance costs with a limited mission. Get over it, people. The A-10s day is OVER…..

Given max speed of SAM is Mach 3+, faster speed of 15/-16/18 is irrelevant especially when they're loaded up with ordnance which degrades speed and performance.

And some SAMs are quoted at Mach 4-6 (e.g. Patriot is Mach 5, S300 variants come in at Mach 6).

A fast mover can try to outmaneouvre a SAM but is liable to warp it's airframe and flying surfaces to the point where the aircraft needs to be scrapped (this happened to some Iranian F-4s in 1980-88).

The fast mover would also probably have to jettison ordnance to get the performance necessary to avoid the missile.

In any case it's a mission kill as the plane can't perform the mission.

The best solution to SAM threat is still SEAD/DEAD.

Oh and A-10s aren't meant to be punching through enemy AD and neither are F-15/16/18s. That's been the job of now retired F-117, B-2 and cruise missiles.

The F-35 will also give some ability in this area.

As for maintenance, the USAF wants to keep equally old one trick pony F-15C/Ds to 2030+, ancient B-52s, ancient KC-135s (KC-46 doesn't come even close to replacing all of these) etc. Most of the F-16s are antiques too (they're meant to serve to 2030).

Finally next war will probably be against another low tech opponent (aka low hanging fruit). The US and co don't do war against opponents with advanced capabilities (which are mainly their Arab and Asian allies).

In that case the F-22s and F-15C/Ds will sit out the conflict (again).

Personally I think the best replacement for the A-10 is another A-10. But I doubt the military industrial complex could build it in an efficient manner.

The A-10 retirement IMO is part of the USAF distancing itself from the Army support role and to make the F-35 buy more concrete.

It's retired C-27s too (after stealing them from the Army) and is planning to slash MC-12 numbers.

Retiring the F-35 gets away from ground support and also shores up F-35 buy as USAF focuses on high end warfare and not on COIN.

The USAF has openly stated it's goals are high end warfare against high end opponents (in this case only China and Russia come even close to this).

To be frank it seems to me this is just an excuse to avoid supporting ground operations and is wishful thinking.

It's a return to the failed 1950s doctrine of air power.

After all how many times in the last 70 years has the USAF gone to war against low tech opponents and how many times has it gone against high tech opponents?