Air Force can’t walk & chew gum
We’ve talked about how the A-10 Thunderbolt is a durable air frame, so durable that even the Air Force can’t shoot it down. Every time that the Air Force tries to rid itself of the close air support aircraft, the world changes and the Warthog proves that it’s irreplaceble on the modern battlefield because it can fly low and slow over the battlefield for a particularly long time while it delivers ordinance to the enemy.
Chief Tango sends us a link to Military.com which gives the Pentagon’s latest vacuous excuse for dumping the aircraft;
In the Pentagon’s most recent effort to argue for the A-10s retirement, the head of the Joint Strike Fighter program, said the failure to start retiring the A-10 has delayed the F-35 because A-10 maintainers haven’t been able to move to the F-35 program.
I guess that’s because the Air Force can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. The A-10 has been in the inventory since the late 70s, how many other aircraft have been added to the force since then without having to suck mechanics away from the A-10 program? And what’s the Navy’s excuse for failing to complete their portion of the Joint Strike Fighter program? They don’t have A-10s.
But the good news is that A-10s have arrived in Iraq to do what they do best to ISIS – ultimately that’s what it’s all about.
Category: Air Force
Its makes me wonder who’s side Air Force brass is on. Mericas or their bank accounts.
Cynic! Bank accounts, of course!
It’s just more of the Air Force brass,near retirement, lobbying for jobs in the civilian sector.
The F-35 is replacing the F-16. They have about a dozen of them at Luke AFB, AZ where pilots will train to fly them. That is where the maintainers are coming from and while it is true that A-10 maintainers will also eventually be crosstrained to the F-35, it is not a high priority yet. The Air Force is lying.
Bill R.: short term, you’re correct. Long term, that’s exactly where the manpower authorizations in the active USAF to support the F-35 are to come from – those currently authorized for the A-10.
Giving those up would force the USAF to cut back in other areas – like maybe their latest new toy (the F-35), which doesn’t really work all that well. And it would force them to keep supporting that “pesky, non-glamorous” close air support role, too. That more than anything else is IMO what the USAF is really trying to do: get rid of the CAS role altogether.
Maybe Congress should just transfer that CAS role to the Army – along with the A-10 airframes, people, and budget authorizations that support them.
I participated in the transition from F-4s to F-16s back in 1982-3. As a squadron transferred its old jets out, we filled out another squadron until we went to school for the F-16. I would assume it’s still the same as Luke has about 10 squadrons. If and when the time comes for the A-10s to do the same, they will be trained as well. While the A-10 is still flying, that is not necessary. The F-35 is under a multiyear contract and the orders will not be filled for many years.
No argument there. And I’m not defending the Air Staff here, either – I think the F-35 is an abomination, and will be an abysmal failure.
But a gradual transition like that doesn’t get rid of the mission right away – or free up extra $$$ to do other things. Getting rid of the A-10 does, while clearing the way for the “wonderful Swiss-Army-knife of aircraft” called the F-35 to “rule the battlefield of the future”. (Yes, that last was sarcasm.)
Plus, it gets rid of an aircraft the USAF never really wanted in the first place – combat effectiveness be damned. Gotta be glamorous and sexy, ya know – “faster higher farther” – regardless of whether that’s of any military utility.
Sarcasm?
I thought you were simply quoting “promotional material”…
You know— those phrases kept in well-worn macro keys beloved by all, (…except those that do the lifting…): clerks in “the 5-sided donut”, contractors’ PR-people, and typists of certain legislators.
Perhaps requiring those making the decisions to accompany their handiwork into the field would put a dint into foolishness.
Or perhaps I’m dreaming and nothing would wake-up these magpies.
I bet old Col Boyd is up there laughing his ass off at the repeated failed attempts to kill his plane. For those of you that have read the book about him,I’d like to imagine this past week there were more than a few Air Farce generals laying on the floor of there Pentigon office frothing at the mouth.
Every time they talk about retiring the A-10 all I hear is constant interruption to the sound of: BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTT!!!!! How rude…
Oh, now, come on! The Air Force was born right after WWII, just like I was. It’s still a sort of baby, if you compare it to the Army (Continental Army), Navy (John Paul Jones), and Marines (Dun’s Tavern).
Like any kid just figuring things out, it likes shiny new toys better than sharpening that old shovel that turns the soil and gets the garden going.
I still think shifting the Warthog over to the Army’s aviation branch will solve the problem and give the Army a good solid support.
After all, what planes were flying in those forward observer groups in Vietnam? O-2A Skymasterss, OV-10 Broncos – stuff like that.
Like I said, the Air Force is like any kid who hasn’t figured out yet that the shiny toys don’t put food on your plate.
If anyone is interested, the CH54 Skycrane was/is probably the ugliest thing ever built. It looks like a starving dragonfly. But it got the job done. Pix are down the page here.
http://www.transchool.lee.army.mil/museum/transportation%20museum/NAMAV1.htm
They still use them PH2, under the designation S-64 and manufactured by Erickson Inc. these days. I saw one a couple of years ago refueling at a lake in Arizona during wildfire season. It made quite a rumble coming up the valley.
I’m surprised the Marines haven’t said “gimme” to the Air Force when it comes to the A10. They managed to work wonders with this castoff from the Army.
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/m50-ontos-the-forgotten-tank-killer/
I’ve kept hearing stories that the Army wanted the A-10s if the Air Force ever decided to ditch them. Served with a guy who’s dad was a CWO in the 80’s. Said his dad had talked about the possibility of the Army taking the A-10s. Imagine some Warrant Officers flying those things? Joes would be lining up around the block to volunteer for Warrant Officer selection.
The purpose of the Air Force is to support the infantry and ground troops. Just because they have a shiny new toy doesn’t detract from that.
That’s why dropping even 100,000 bombs on ISIS won’t work as effectively as boots on the ground.
I see two parts of this:
Someone or Some People are trying to support defense contractors so they can get those post-retirement jobs as “consultants” and the like. (politicians in and out of the military)
Just like in the Army, its “easier” to just cut personnel than it is to cut other things. “The They” are too lazy and/or afraid to make the hard right choices about cuts. (How about the Air Force stop buying new furniture for a whole building because one desk gets damaged, for example?) – Its funny because its true
Not arguing against your larger point but would point out that the Air Force mission is a tad broader than just supporting infantry and ground troops. Well, perhaps a whole lot broader.
Sometimes softening up a target with bombs is the very best first step. In those cases, would you say that the mission of the infantry is to support air operations? 😉
My point being that there is no one size fits all. We need all our assorted toys, and commanders willing and able to deploy them efficiently and effectively.
I don’t disagree with you there.
That’s why we have 4 branches of the armed services (well, 4.5 counting the Coast Guard, badumtish!).
They all have their missions and tasks to do. In some cases, its good to just send a Tomahawk from off the coast. In others dropping a GBU-31. As well, you have boots on the ground to conduct operations. (And if there’s a lonely beach in need of attacking, there are Marines ready to shoot it. double-badumtish!)
Even as a lowly Civil Affairs miscreant, such as I am, my job entailed going out and keeping the civilians out of the way of the combat arms, so they could kill bad guys.
It all comes down to fighting and winning our Nation’s Wars. In this case, those boots on the ground, where ever they are walking, need CAS and that’s what the A-10 is there for. Whether the Air Force likes it or not.
Things like this make me hate the Air Force. The F-35 is a piece of shit. The only reason it is replacing the F-16 is because someone at Lockheed is/was blowing someone at the DOD. They would be better off keeping the F-16 than that useless money pit.
Climb to Glory…You hit that nail head and countersunk it! The Air Force is upside down and backwards. I don’t care if the come up with a Star Wars fighter, it won’t do the job the A-10 has PROVEN it can do. The F-35 hasn’t proven crap yet, except it is too expensive, doesn’t meet expectations thus far, has a software issue which can prove deadly. All in all, it has become a “too far in to stop now”, platform. Personally I believe they should cut their losses and look to a different more realistic platform. A “one tool does all” has only worked a few times. The last one I remember was the F-4 Phantom. The F-4 was realistic though and the costs were reasonable compared to the this new F-35, “pilot killer”.
So let me get this straight, you guys are arguing to keep a 40 year old airframe flying versus changing over to a new airframe. I was USAF 20 years and have worked in the Command & Control field the entire time as well as working the same basic job as a contractor for another 18 years. I have been involved in the changeover of every aircraft the USAF has done since the days of the F-106/F-4. Just as an idea of what the difference between the A-10/F-35. If you are out in the wilds of Afghanistan 200 or so miles from Bagram Ab and the CAS support is on strip alert at Bagram the usual way of operations unless a big ground op is happening. The A-10s scramble and will take approximately 35-40 minutes to get to you the F-35s will be there in about 15-18 minutes. The A–10s can bring about 16000 lbs of bombs the F-35 will bring about 15000 lbs. The A-10s will use about 60% of their unrefueled gas to get there and back the F-35 will use about 35% fuel, less fuel to loiter on station. The A-10 is very vulnerable to anti-air especially manpads the F-35 not much. And should we ever wind up in a war against an Air Force with real fighter aircraft (say China) the F-35 can engage in the air-air arena the A-10 must leave or die. I’m a fan of the A-10 but even an old crusty like myself can see it’s time to put away the A-10. It’s either that or get used to having F-16s as the CAS birds. Which having worked more CAS exercise missions than I can ever count(yes the USAF does practice CAS a lot) that option I think sucks. Hugs and kisses an old crusty USAF NCO.
JD how old is the air frame on a B-52, an A-10 was never intended as a fighter aircraft it’s job is CAS. Give them to the Army and Marines they know what works.
My Pa (LtCol D)and his crew picked up the last B-52 built just before I was born. 1962.
Yup! So you blast some big azz holes in the wings of a A10 even have complete engine burn up and fall off the pilot still flies it home. The F35 nope! Right to the ejection seat by by birdy.$$$
Part of your argument seems to confuse. You say if we keep the A-10, the F-16 does CAS? In Afghanistan I saw a few F-15s doing close support, show of force flybys, etc., but didn’t see an F-16 in my AO.
The F-35 might be “designed” to do all that, but at the end of the day, it has to live up to that hype and actually do it. Plus, at an extremely higher cost than the A-10.
The fact that it is more susceptible to anti-air is an apples and oranges kind of thing. Its going to be flying at a much lower elevation because IT IS doing CAS. Its going to get shot at with all kinds of weapons because it is closer. Its the same reasons helicopters get shot at a lot too, they can’t fly up at 15000 feet to do their job.
As far as the 40-year old frame, well, if its not broke, why fix it?
And the AF doesn’t want the Army / Marines to get the A-10 because then they’d lose budget to go with doing CAS for us. (If we don’t use it, no one can!)
JD: I’d agree with you if the platform in question was well designed for the task at hand. But the USAF (and the defense industry) hasn’t exactly had a stellar track record on that score since the days of John Boyd and the F-15/F-16/A-10.
The USAF has had an obsession with “faster higher farther” since its birth. That’s fine – so long as it contributes to mission effectiveness. But as we found the hard way in Vietnam, “faster higher farther” often is actually counterproductive in combat – where maneuverability and survivability are relatively more important.
The F-35 is not IMO a well-designed aircraft. Rather, it’s a compromise from day 1. That fact will reduce its effectiveness in every role dramatically.
It is not optimized worth a damn for CAS. Due to those same compromises, it is not optimized worth a damn for air-air or strike, either – that’s the main reason why we have the F-22 (well, a handful of them, anyway).
If procured in quantity – and if it’s as big a failure as I believe it will be – the F-35 has the potential to be one of the biggest white elephants in DoD’s history. But it’s the latest “bright shiny object”, so the USAF is hell-bent on having it – even if it means dumping the A-10 without an adequate replacement in the pipeline.
I keep hearing how vulnerable the A-10 is to anti air assets of our enemies. How vulnerable was it in the 80s when it was being built for its original mission which was to stop Soviet armor in West Germany? We are not fighting WW3 yet and we have had total air supremacy in every conflict in the last 30 years or so. Even during Desert Storm there were areas they were not allowed to fly because of missiles, but it was still able to accomplish its mission better than the fast movers.
While JD’s facts are essentially correct, for a close air support aircraft, he failed to give what I consider to be the most important fact – the A-10 has a greater range than the F35. It is almost twice as great which means the A10 can loiter and stay over target longer. It means that while the F35 has to go and refuel, the A10 can sit there in merrily protecting groups.
The other thing that has to be factored in is the cost. The A10 with an older airframe than the F35 costs half as much per flying hour.
I don’t see why people want to kill the A10.
One of my son’s closest friends, a senior at the AF Academy, spent Thanksgiving with us. He told me that he was selected for pilot training (actually his second choice, he wanted to do tach P). I asked him which aircraft he wanted to fly and he said anything except the F35, an unreliable, expensive piece of crap. He would love to fly the A10.
So the elites at the Pentagon and the guys actually flying are NOT on the same page.
BTW, he’s a great kid, hard-working with solid values. He will make a fantastic officer.
That beautiful titanium tubbed heap just keeps on going and the brass and defense contractors can’t find a way to replace its unique capabilities as a death dealer.
Sucks to be them.
Well said. The Warthog is awesome in its awesomeness 🙂
Makes you wonder if America wouldn’t be better served by reverting to the old US Army Air Forces. My (possibly flawed) understanding of history is that Hap Arnold’s primary motivation for creating an independent Air Force was to better focus on the strategic bombardment, nuclear deterrent, and strategic defense missions. Those missions are as valid today as ever, but the Air Force doesn’t seem to focus much on them anymore. B-52s and B-1s seem rather underutilized of late. Granted, they haven’t had many strategic targets to pulverize in a while. And the B-2s seem to be used more for occasional publicity than anything else. Of course, I don’t expect to ever know most of what B-2s do day-to-day, but still… The nuclear deterrent mission is…probably a cheap shot at this point, given recent scandals. And the F-22 seems like a legit world-beating air superiority fighter, but there doesn’t seem to be nearly enough of them to provide a solid wartime air defense of the 50 States, even if they weren’t also being used to cover overseas operations. Otherwise, what does the Air Force do other than provide overnight shipping for the Army? Look at how the USAAF performed in WWII. The 9th Air Force was the hammer to the 1st and 3rd Armies’ anvil that flattened the nazis, while the 8th and 15th Air Forces made sure they couldn’t recover. They delivered the paratroopers and slaughtered the Luftwaffe. They did this using planes selected because they were damn good, never mind who was or wasn’t invested in them, or whether a pilot thought that he could get more tang by claiming to fly an XP-55 than a P-40, B-17, A-26, or C-47. The USAF, on the other hand, can’t be bothered to change the oil in its ICBMs, and wants to dump proven, reliable, effective aircraft in favor of something new, obscenely expensive, and unable to meet a single one of its design expectations. Why? Because the A-10 never fit their narrow idea of “cool,” while the F-35, actual quality be damned, is apparently the ONLY cool thing anymore. And… Read more »
If I was emperor, here’s how I’d handle such things…
Air Force: “Hey, we gotta get rid of the A10. It’s not pretty and sexy enough.”
Me: “Ok. Tell you what. You’re now a strategic force. Give up all your tac air, fighter and ground support to the Army. Y’all can sit in silos from now on where you won’t get in the way, mmmkay?”