"U.S. Air Force Threatens To Mouthball F-16s To Keep..." Topic

… The A-10 Flying.

"The House Armed Services Committee inserted $683 USD million into the 2016 defense bill to stop the Air Force from retiring the A-10 Warthog.

However, Air Force leaders said the service will have to mothball F-16s and delay the deployment of the F-35 in response to the move by the committee.

Service leaders have said for years the Air Force can no longer afford the A-10. The service said it needs to dedicate resources and manning toward the F-35. Congress has since pushed back saying the service must keep the close-air-support aircraft.

U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, explained that the aircraft's historic and recent combat performances require that it serve a longer life span…"
Full article here
link

There is no real substitute for the A-10 …. and that is the heart of the problem. The U.S. Air Force may want planes in the air but the soldiers on the ground do need air to ground air support, and an F-35 flying at 10,000 feet in the air is not going to provide it as well as someone who is closer to the ground.

Amicalement
Armand

Think of all the money that could be freed up if they cancelled the F-35.

That'd let them develop the FA/XX a bit sooner, I should think.

Since 95%+ of combat air sorties, other than perhaps recon missions, appear to be air-to-ground attacks, the move makes a lot of sense.

A current UK article on the F-35:

'New US fighter jet on course to becoming ‘one of history's biggest white elephants'

link

May want to update the headline :)

:) Hadn't noticed that.

Maybe mothballing a few Air Force generals would solve the problem.

Maybe not having Congress butt their noses into operational decisions would help. But that makes far too much sense….

As cool as I think the A-10 is, I really don't know how it fits into today's national security needs. Why shouldn't we believe the Air Force when it states that the A-10 is redundant, obsolete, and expensive to keep flying? My guess is that there are a multitude of new systems, such a, other fixed wing aircraft, Apaches, and UAVs that can better cover the A-10s role.

Except all those other systems don't cover the role. It would be nice if the military worked like you are thinking mandt2, but it doesn't. 2 big issues are at play that trump national security needs. 1) The air force is run by a group of ex-fighter pilots. They really could care less about other valuable air-force tasks. Boring or beneath them. However, they strongly oppose anyone else who has more interest (say the army in the ground support role) taking their turf. 2) Money. The defense contractors want the F-35. It is a guaranteed, sexy, big profit. The A-10 might be capable, far more capable than the F-35, but it isn't sexy and offers a far smaller profit margin. Said generals always retire within a period of time and are looking forward to the new job the defense industry offers.

Yep, none can perform the role of the A-10 as effectively, or cheaply.

That is a catchy title.

Seems to me the British should consider purchasing the Rafale for their carriers, instead.

"The defense contractors want the F-35"

So do quite a few allies of the US – in fact they have invested heavily in F-35 (and some of them are key enablers in the programme). Ditching it now would be regarded as "unhelpful" in quite a few of them. Especially those building carriers who have an intention (declared or not) to embark F-35B

"Yep, none can perform the role of the A-10 as effectively, or cheaply. That is a catchy title."

Also dead wrong. To be even remotely viable going forward, the A-10 needs substantial upgrades. Plus, its getting old and its maintenance costs are only going up. And bomb hauling is actually done better by certain other types.

delay the deployment of the F-35

I wouldn't worry about that, the F-35 program is doing plenty of that on it's own.

Mako

That is the really funny thing for the British – they can't buy the Rafale or any other plane for their carriers. The carriers do / will not have cats and traps – they can only operate fixed wing aircraft with VSTOL capability. They have no other option but the F35B – no matter how expensive or how late, there is no plan B. If the plug is pulled on the F35 Britain will have spent billions and billions on aircraft carriers that will not be able to operate fixed wing aircraft. Ah ha ha! And you thought US defense procurement was crap!

As a British taxpayer I am now going to curl up in a ball in the corner and whimper………

Doesn't America have about 3 billion F-16s? I'm sure they can mothball a few

Mako,

As Durrati says, the Labour government of the day locked us into the F-35B plan with no alternative. Virtually everyone in the Armed Forces at the time pointed out that a fleet-sized carrier with STOVL aircraft is a ludicrous concept, though they were convinced that F-35B was cheaper than F-35C (or any other option) once the cost of cats and traps was factored in. The military considerations of range/capability were a very long way down their list of priorities.

To compound this, they decided that a nuclear-powered carrier was A Bad Thing, m'kay, even though we already have nuclear SSNs & SSBNs… A nuclear powerplant produces lots of steam for cats – a gas-turbine powerplant not so much… So they had the great idea that the carriers would be fitted 'for but not with' the USN's proposed electromagnetic cats & traps…

When the Coalition government came into power in 2010 they immediately ordered a review of all other options (F-35C, F-18, Rafale, navalised Typhoon…), though all required cats and traps that would be ruinously expensive to fit (added to they fact that the electromagnetic cats that could 'theoretically' be fitted to the QE Class don't yet work). This review itself cost bloody millions…

Jemima – you point out the political alignment of the governments involved. Do you think this is an issue? As this is not by any means the first such massive in British defense procurement with stupidities occurring under both major parties aegis.I sort of now assumed that there is something systemically incompetent about defense procurement outside of who happens to sit in the Minister for Defense chair at any give time. The decisions made over the aircraft carriers for instance have been so obviously wrongheaded that anyone that was getting half way decent advice I would have thought would not have made them. Or were ministers getting good advice and just choosing to make obviously wrong decisions?