Air Force selling out Army
Capt Taylor Bye, A-10 pilot extraordinaire
Far be it from me to stir up an inter-service brouhaha, but in this case the headline wrote itself. Pesky damn headlines. The Air Force’s deepest, most unrequited long-desired dream – dumping the A-10s the Army depends on – is finally starting to come true.
We all knew the Ar Force insisted that the F-35 can do close air support just as well as the A-10 does. After all, it’s the most lethal airplane in existence, they say, and do anything, they say, and is worth all those billions, they say. That it can’t loiter more than a couple of minutes is no big deal, they say. Or that it carries less than 20% of the ammo of an A-10 doesn’t matter, they say. It’s the wunderflugzeug of the 21st century!
Well, the dirty little secret is out.
At a Senate hearing in 2016, Michael Gilmore … “On page 2, it says the F-35A will rely primarily upon the F-22 for air superiority and will assume the current F-16 role as the low end of the USAF high-low fighter mix strategy and the A-10 role,”
Nice – apparently an F-35 needs an F-22 to protect itself? But, in the immortal words of St. Ron Popeil: “But wait, there’s more! ”
However, according to the Project on Government Oversight, a non-partisan watchdog group, the Air Force seems to be de-emphasizing close-air-support training for F-35 pilots.
Although other US military branches also conduct close-air-support missions with other aircraft, none of them have specialized platforms like the A-10, and the Air Force is the only branch specifically assigned to “furnish close combat and logistical air support” to the Army.
According to POGO, the Air Force characterized close air support as a secondary mission for F-35 pilots across its active duty, National Guard, and reserve components, meaning they have to be familiar but not proficient with it.
Further, according to the Air Force’s most recent F-35 training memorandum, which was issued in October and applies to training in 2023 and 2024, F-35 pilots are not required to fly any actual or simulated CAS training missions.
“Just to drive home the point: No F-35 pilot of any experience level in any component of the Air Force is required to fly a single close air support training mission in 2023 or 2024,” Dan Grazier, senior defense policy fellow for POGO, wrote in the report. (Emphasis added – Ed.)
The Air Force is acting like a petulant child: they don’t want the A-10, but let the Army try to take the program over, and the Air Force would stamp its widdle feetsies and probably pee on the floor. Guess we have to hope some of the existing pilots remember their training, as it sure looks like the Air Force is intent on aging that particular skill set out of existence. Nice double dealing, AF.
Category: "Teh Stoopid", "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", Air Force, Army
So….let me get this straight……
The Chair Farce wants to dump the A10…..
But they DON’T want the Army to pick it up…….
WTF!?
Of course, if they won’t do it then nobody can– so there!
That’s how Leftists feel about protecting people, too.
Make the Air Force the Army Air Force again.
There’s an alternative, Senior Chief. Who has the second largest air force in the world?
The US Navy.
You Started It!!!!
🤭🫡😁😉😎
I don’t think the A10 is carrier rated or is ASW capable. Therefore the Navy would be confused by it.
‘Sall right, ASW confuses most people.
It is kind of like an Ex-wanting the engagement ring back I guess. The Air Force split from the Army and got the lawyers to say only they could fly fixed wing aircraft. Then when they wouldn’t do ISR for the Army, it got modified to say Fixed Wing with armaments. Now once again they are trying to stop supporting the Army and they will have to go back to court to either remind the Air Force of their obligation or finally get the planes, and set the coordinating altitude to 3,000!!!
The next thing they will fight over is ADA/IAMD. In every other country ADA belongs to the Air Force.
In some countries ADA is their own branch of military or under a Civil/ Homeland Defense branch. The Soviets carried them that way for 50 years until after they went away and then got folded into the Air Force.
Check out the old Key West Agreement. The Air Force does not want anyone to have air assets but themselves. The Army is supposed to be totally dependent on the AF for everything but helicopter air assets pretty much.
That is correct. However, roles and missions have changed since 1947, and the Air Force would gladly give up the CAS mission if they could.
However, if they have to keep it they will insist on doing it their way.
Don’t forget, this impacts the Marines as well… their getting rid of the Hornet slowly, and the Cobra is not the most modern war fighting machine on the planet…
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2022/05/10/heres-how-marine-air-power-will-shift-with-the-corps-2022-aviation-plan/
Is there a reason Marines could not fly Apaches?
So many jokes, but the reality is they tried and passed up on the Apache because the Cobra has so many commonalities with the old Iroquois/UH-1 Huey and was easier and cheaper to operate and maintain within their logistics system.
Also, the Apache was designed to be a Cross FLOT tank killer, while the Cobra was designed for Close Combat Assault/CAS.
Over the years most Army attack and assault helicopters have flown off carriers, to include Little Birds, Apaches, KWs, Blackhawks, etc.
Last time the USAF phased out the CAS mission, they had to borrow the A-1 Skyraider from the Navy. And then bought the -D variant of the Navy’s A-7 Corsair II. All to have a CAS capability.
But now there are no multiple aircraft projects like we saw in the 1950s and 1960s, only the F-35 which started out in 1987 as a Harrier replacement.
Well we do have all of this slow moving stuff that we sell to other countries still available!!
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39302/the-air-force-finally-has-its-first-new-at-6e-wolverine-light-attack-aircraft
or this:
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/08/02/how-l3harris-created-us-special-operators-new-plane-to-hunt-and-strike-terrorists/
The staunch A-10 defenders in Congress like John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, Martha McSally to name a few are out of the way now. They were a serious thorn in the Air Force’s backside. Any attempts to retire the A-10 was met w/ fierce resistance and threats to slash funding to key air force programs. If you can’t beat them, then just wait them out.
The Air Force folks still think they won World War 2 with “airpower”.
Memo to zoomies: WW2, like -all- wars, are won by Infantry, siezing and holding the enemy’s dirt. Y’all are there to help in that endeavor.
Sadly, no one in DC seems to understand that, anymore.
Spot on ‘Mail. Shades of the 1948 Key West Agreement, rearing its ugly head. A tool box needs an assortment of tools to get the job done, and the most expensive, shiniest, and latest is not always the best tool to use. Wanna bet that the Flags that were pushing the F35 have them a nice paying gig in the supply chain for that aircraft?
Boots on the ground.
My dad was career USAF (1941-1968), served in WWII, Korea, and Viet of the Nam, but stayed firmly rooted as Army Air Corps. His mantra (and I quote): “No war was ever won by air power. I spent 27 years bombing places till the rubble bounced, but until there’s some poor buck-ass private holding that hill, it’s not over”. Here ended the lesson.
The Serbs might disagree with you.
We still had to send in ground troops to take and hold the ground.
And some are still there.
Zoomies get really mad when we ground types point that out to them too.
A hard analysis of WW2 in Europe will show that strategic bombing really was not all that much more efficient in destroying enemy infrastructure than the RAF night carpet bombing was. And some targets such as Ploesti, they never really could get at. The USAAF still dropped lots of bombs well outside their target areas when they went after their targets.
Read the Bomber Mafia for a very interesting breakdown of precision bombing and why LeMay switched it up for Japan.
Depending on what source you read, the Norden Bombsight program was almost as expensive if not more so than the Manhattan Project. The B-29 program was the most expensive weapons system of the war at something like $3B.
The Norden turned out to be essentially useless, and the concept of precision day bombing it underpinned led to the 8th Air Force alone suffering more KIA than the entire Marine Corps…
Why fix something that isn’t broken?? Nickels to dimes, the A-Holes who want to dump the A-10 probaly have stocks in the company that makes the F-35.
The A-10 is an Infantryman’s best friend.
Good luck getting the F-35 to go slow enough to stay on / near station while delivering consistent and continuous pain.
It cannot. Loiter time, what is that?
Even though it pains me to do so I will take all of the A10s off their hands. I will then start a contracting company to sell CAS to the Army. We will then let the free market decide. If Joe wants reliable scunion he can call me. If he wants the F35 he can call the Air Force.
What else would they do? They are too dangerous to give away or sell to any but the closest allies who likely wouldn’t want them anyway.
Tough call on picking a favorite TV commercial
by Ron Popeil’s RONCO.
Mr. Microphone?
Pocket Fisherman?
Or…..
Hair in a Can !!!
I was kind of partial to the rotisserie cooker he was selling in the 90’s. Set it and forget it!
They still sell that garbage and it is the same price.
It’s way past time for the Army to tear up the Key West Agreement and take over the A-10 and the CAS mission for itself.
The zoomies juat want to concentrate on two main missions. Air superiority and strategic bombing. I have no issue with either of those, but they do not support boots on the ground like the A-10 did / does.
Saying the F35 can do close air support is like saying the B52 can do close in carpet bombing of troops in combat. Yeah it can but it is awkward and inefficient and at times impossible. Saying it has the potential without actually having a single example of having accomplished it is merely pencil whipping.
The best way to replace the A-10 is to design another A-10 with all the mods and improvements that technology can provide.
As to the F35 needing air support or air cover, so did the A-10.
I was in the USAF. Last duty station was MBAFB. A-10s. The pilots that I interacted with loved that damn thing. I’m sure dogfighting is fun and all that stuff but I’d rather be hosing tanks and other stuff with 30mm depleted uranium. Screw that high altitude stuff.
I once attended a presentation by fighter pilots. After the F15 and F16 folks had spoken, much dick waving, the A10 guy spoke up.
Those folks get impressed by five kills, that most will never achieve. I get 5 or 10 on each pass. They fly. We kill. (There was more)
Game set match.
The Army could’ve bought the Air Force out of the A-10 20 years ago.
Back in 2003, GEN Merrill McPeak published an Op-Ed in the Washington Post which basically said ‘I told you so’, and he revealed that just after Desert Storm he approached the Chief of Staff of the Army and offered to trade the entire A-10 program for the Patriot System.
Army doctrine at the time did not include attack helos as part of CAS, partly due to the 1947 Key West Agreement, but mainly because we wanted to use the Apaches to do Deep Attacks at night. Even when we did start supporting ground troops we called it CCA (Close Combat Attack), and we had to retrain pilots to do it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/06/05/leave-the-flying-to-us/4ab40e23-5038-4749-9b2a-d58977b8a33a/
Keep in mind that a deal between the two Service Chiefs would have meant modifying the Key West Agreement, and the Army would have had a case for POMing funds for the A-10 program in their budget, since they now had a new mission and role to fulfill.
McPeak isn’t the most popular CSAF ever, and he has controversial views of what aerospace power can do, but even in the late ’90s he saw that there would be a completely new set of missions for the Air Force, and they would be pushing CAS down to the bottom of the list.
Take a look at the Air War in Ukraine. Trustworthy numbers are hard to find, but neither side has established air superiority except for specific period in specific areas thanks to integrated air defense missile and radar systems that aircraft like the SU-25 and A-10 are particularly vulnerable to and the F-22/35 were specifically designed to defeat…https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2023/01/25/air-defense-upgrades-not-f-16s-are
There is no better feeling in the world after being in a protracted firefight than hearing over the radio “birds one mike out” followed shortly after by brrrrrrrrrrrttt, firefight over.
“they have to be familiar but not proficient with it.”
That’s very reassuring.
see also:
C7/Caribou
Sherpa
C27
Army needs intra-theater fixed wing cargo aircraft. Air Force won’t provide so Army procures their own.
Air Force has a hissy fit, gets Congress involved, takes over the program.
And kills short haul fixed wing intra-theater airlift