GAO scolds Air Force on plan to scrap A-10
Poetrooper sends us a link to a report by the Government Accountability Office entitled “Better Information Needed to Support Air Force A-10 and Other Future Divestment Decisions” in which the agency scolds the Air Force for it’s lack of a plan to replace close air support capabilities of the A-10 Thunderbolt when they finally scrap the program;
[T]he Air Force has not established clear requirements for the missions the A-10 performs, and in the absence of these requirements, has not fully identified the capacity or capability gaps that could result from the A-10 divestment. Without a clear understanding of the capability or capacity gaps and risks that could result from A-10 divestment, it is also unclear how effective or necessary the Air Force’s and the department’s mitigation strategies will be. For example, although the Air Force has several efforts underway to generally mitigate the loss of capabilities that would result from A-10 divestment, it has not identified how or if it will replace the A-10’s role in combat search and rescue missions. Depending on the specific mitigation strategy chosen, the Air Force may have to address a number of different secondary impacts that could affect its ability to execute existing missions. The A-10 is one example of a challenge DOD could continue to face as it balances current needs against investing in the future force to replace aging systems.
The report says that the Air Force hasn’t discussed the issue with A-10 pilots or crews to fill the gap that, if they had their way, would already exist. The Air Force is pinning it’s hopes on the F-35 which won’t even be able to engage in close air support for at least five more years. Of course, the problem rests with the politicians who only want to save money without a thought for how it would affect the ability of the military to fight and win wars.
Category: Air Force
Just a few minutes ago I read that the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOTE…I used to work there) slammed the F35 yet again. I can’t find the link now).
They asked some guy named Charles Yeager about the F-22 and the F-35. I quote “Waste of Money”. I may lean toward taking his opinion.
That’s a big speech for Chuck. Pretty much covers it though!
And the F-22, too????
It shoots down F-15s at like 5 or 6 (at the time) to 1, doesn’t it?
Being more effective isn’t necessarily the only consideration. You also have to be able to afford to buy enough of them to actually fight a war and win.
The unit cost of the F-15E in 1998 was $31.1M each. That translates to a hair over $46M today.
The unit cost of a F22 in 2006 was assessed at somewhere between $178M and $361M each. That translates to between $211.8M and $429.5M each in today’s dollars.
That means each F22 costs as much as somewhere between 4.6 and 9.3 F15s. Yeah, it’s better – but is it THAT MUCH better?
I’ve heard anecdotes of Red Flag exercises in the late 1970s, when the F-15 was still fairly new. One-on-one, it took out any Soviet fighter. But make it one-on-four, and it took out one or two – and then got nailed by one of the other enemy aircraft.
If memory serves, we were outnumbered by the Warsaw Pact by more than 4 to 1 at the time in Europe in terms of tactical aircraft. You do the math.
A great weapons system that you cannot afford to buy in sufficient quantity to be useful is nothing but a technology demonstration.
What the hell is wrong with Spitfires, P-57s and P-51s? They cost a whole lot less, they’re highly maneuverable, and they take less time to build and roll off the assembly line. Ask any pilot who flew one. There are still some alive, aren’t there?
Some guy named Charles Yeager…
Here ya go.
http://www.collingsfoundation.org/aircrafts/north-american-tf-51d-mustang/
Given how many F-15s have been built compared to how many F-22s have been built, that’s a pretty silly comparison.
The B-18 was 1/3 the price of the B-17, but the latter was a better bomber. The War Department bought Bolos until actual war broke out, then they started buying Fortresses.
Well if it works and isn’t broken hit it with a claw hammer till it needs to be replaced. I can see the Chair Force finding a way to mechanically retire the A-10 to advance the F-35.
*Yawn* “Chair Force”
Good one. Lame.
Perhaps Air Force LLC.
For the corporation it is.
But it’s so UGLY.
It isn’t sleek and shiny.
It’s too utilitarian.
The Air Farce is not utilitarian. They’re all astronauts! They’re all going to fly X-Wing fighters and show up at air shows!
I need a safe space now.
I’m pretty sure any grunt, tanker or marine who is under fire on a battlefield would say it’s the most beautiful thing he’s ever seen. 😉
And ditto for the A-10s uglier big sister, the AC-130. She’s so godawful ugly they only let her out at night. 🙂
They’re ugly as a busted blister, but they sing like angels!
Those of us that have had our lives saved by Puff the Magic Dragon can never find fault in her. Oh, what a blessed sound she made to us ground pounders. Muffled sound of “Get some, MF” could be heard from the foxholes.
Absolutely.
Any plane you can literally fly by wire is a better plane than one jammed full of tech gear.
That, and fly remote-controlled aircraft.
“The Air Force has not established clear requirements for the missions the A-10 performs…) So what planet have the GAO personnel been on for the last 30 plus years? Why ask just the Air Force anyway. Ask the Army and Marine troops as well, who’s lives it has saved. They can tell you first hand what mission it performs. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it or throw it away. The B-52 is still flying, so just keep updating the A-10 and let it do its job which no other aircraft in the inventory can do or do nearly as well. Dumb ass bureaucrats.
But, but…… The BUFF is a bomber. I guess the Air Force figures they have to keep a few of them around.
The A-10 doesn’t fit into the kick the tires and light the fires mentality of the fighter mafia.
To put this in perspective, the Secretary of the Air Force had people working diligently an a plan to accommodate transgenders but when it came to planning the A-10’s replacement, that was not a priority. Okie-dokie.
Bingo. All about priorities. (And I better get back to work. Out here.)
This. Always This.
All branches are guilty of pandering to liberal agendas. Let’s not act like it’s exclusive to the USAF.
I wonder how many of those espousing the scrapping of the A-10 have gotten bribes (*OOPS*, campaign donations and cushy post-retirement job offers) from the producers of “The Flying FUBAR” (*OOPS*, the F-35)?
Weren’t the B1s, B2s and all those other low number B’s supposed to replace the B52?
It seems that platform is fitting in nicely with all of the newer toys with no one trying to retire it. Why does the Air Force continue to bitch about the A10??
I don’t know B-1 numbers, but it’s hard to picture 20 B-2s replacing hundreds of B-52s; and I betcha more top brass has flown B-52s (nuclear capable, one leg of the nuclear deterrent triangle for years, SAC mainstay back in the day) than A-10s. Tactical air force has always been a good way to shot down by some ground pounder on the other side, and it doesn’t seem to be a career enhancement, but I’m off in the cheap seats so I could be out lunch there.
And, yes, the B-1 was suppose to replace the B-52, during the Carter administration I think; but there were “issues.”
Re: “Why does the Air Force continue to bitch about the A10??”
Because it aint cool. AF pilots spend much of their time dick waving about who flies the coolest jet and those that don’t suck. A10’s are hind teat in the fighter community — right there with Trash Haulers (130’s, 141’s, 17’s). Trash Haulers get a break though cause they get the Airline jobs easier.
I agree. I’ve read previously that the Air Force wants out of the close air support mission. There was talk of the A-10 being transitioned to Army Aviation a few years ago. She may be old, she may be ugly, she may be slow, but call in a 9 line and watch the old girl roll in with that 30mm canon farting turning enemy armor into Swiss cheese!!!! Not to mention the 8 tons of mixed ordnance death and destruction it can also bring to the big dance.
And she has the stamina to stick around till the end of the dance. F35? Not so much. One song and she has to go sit.
Give the A10s to the Army and Marines. Give the tilt wing monstrosities to the AF to retire.
If the USAF can’t figure out how to come up with requirements for the A-10’s replacement then the CAS mission should be given back to the Army – along with the A-10’s portion of the USAF budget for equipment and personnel.
Then offer A-10 crews and maintenance/service personnel the opportunity to transfer to the Army at their present grades.
It’s one thing for the USAF to say they don’t want the A-10 but for them to say that they don’t want anyone else to have it either seems bizarre to me.
The Marines have their own CAS for a reason.
Hell, if I was the King of the Universe we’d make the Air Force part of the Army again, at least the tactical air force.
Let the USAF consist of strategic bombers, ICBMs, Air Mobility Command, Air Defense Command and Space Command and put the tactical units under the control of the Army.
Search and Rescue should also be an Army function unless it’s over water in which case it should be a Navy function.
Hey, you’re forgetting the Navy and Marines! They have pilots, too, y’know!
I agree, turn the whole program over to the Army and revive the Army Air Corps, and to the Navy/Marines, ditto. Have them retrofitted for carrier launches and landings, too.
Um, Ex-PH2, not to quibble, but I believe the appropriate term is Naval Aviator. They get a little pissy if you call them pilots.
Pffft! When I was down at NAS NATTU Pensacola, there were NAVAIRCADS and MARAIRCADS. If you asked them what they were, they said ‘student pilots’ or ‘pilots in training’.
Of course, that was back in the Dark Ages, so that might have had something to do with it.
Hear! Hear!
Was stationed at NAS Transient Serving Line in ’65.
I think the Navy/Marines have the AV8 Harrier for their CAS.
The AV8’s have a distinctive “shrieking” sound when they take off. When I was in A-Stan in 2003 the call sign for AV-8’s was “Nightmare.” 😉
AV 8 are Marines, no Navy.
Here you go, courtesy of the Smithsonian Channel on YouTube. The obvious question is, if they (Da Brass) don’t like it, why did they start the program in the first place?
https://youtu.be/pBIORL_0h-8
Here’s a rather nice amateur video of a Stratofortress taking off at RAF Faircourt.
https://youtu.be/03XbV5iPvQY
I used to live right under the normal takeoff path of a SAC base with a B52 wing. Loved hearing that sound, especially during generations.
Here’s a clip from ‘Strategic Air Command’ (Jimmy Stewart), of a B-36 taking off. That is one sleek, pretty plane. 6 turning and 4 burning.
https://youtu.be/VGjyH2ulsCk
LOVE that movie!! They don’t make ’em like they used to. Most movies made in the last 10-20 years are so lame and unimaginative.
Grew up in a SAC household, Dad (LtCol D) was B-52 nav/EW. Came up through B-17’s, 24’s, 29’s, 36’s and retired in 68. Only time I saw him cry was when DM started cutting up 52’s.
Back in the day when I was in advanced training at Ft. Bliss, our barracks was under the takeoff pattern of those B-36’s coming out of Biggs AFB. It got to where the rumble and roar of those beasts coming over at all hours almost helped me to sleep at night. What bothered me was the occasional B-47 shrieking as it roared over us as we slept. It’s too bad that the reverberating sound of the 36 can’t be reproduced anymore, at least to any real decimal level. One night while watching a movie in a theater in Misawa, the unmistakable sound of a 36 was heard and became louder and louder. The theater emptied and my buddies from Bliss all knew what it was. We went outside to watch a 36 come in, TDY as it was. The local folks had never seen anything like it and seemed astonished. Simple pleasures, but they all count towards making those young years the good years.
To stop the Commie Hordes from coming through the Fulda Gap.
Now that the Fulda Gap is just another pretty valley in central Germany and the Commie Hordes can’t even keep the lights on in their own barracks, the USAF wants to dump the A-10 for something sexy and cool (and something that will funnel millions of $$ of sweet, sweet taxpayer cash to their BFFs at Lockeed, General Dynamics and all the other high-tech companies that will profit from whatever high-speed boondoggle-on-wings the USAF falls in love with next.)
To both appease the army, and maintain air force control of fixed wing CAS assets/missions/budgets.
The late Col Avery Kay was considered the father of the A-10:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/a-10-avery-kay-funeral-flyby/index.html
I like the comment, “The A10 is basically a gun with an airplane attached.”
And we will improve this aircraft how? I don’t think it’s broke so don’t fix it.
Of course, the problem rests with the politicians who only want to save money without a thought for how it would affect the ability of the military to fight and win wars.
This argument doesn’t track for me.
The A-10 is one of the lowest airplanes in regards to cost per flight hour.
A-10C: $5,944 per hour.
F-35A $28,455 per hour
F-22 $33,538 per hour
F-15 $24,140 per hour
FA-18F $10,507 per hour
(source: http://www.businessinsider.com/price-military-aircraft-per-flight-hour-2016-8# )
So where are the savings?
I think it is more likely that the brass (as it were) likes shiny new things and work under the motto of “if we aren’t spending money in the budget this year, they will cut our budget next year.” Politicians, on the other hand, sees shiny things as job programs for their states and or districts.
This very well may be about money, but it sure as heck isn’t about saving money.
They should never get rid of the A-10, beyond a doubt the best CAS aircraft ever built. There is no cooler sound than one of those babies screaming thru the air firing that wonderful nose cannon! I have never seen another aircraft with that kind of manuverability!! Just retrofit them with their new wiz bang technology and keep them in the air, or else give them to the Army!!
Just my $0.02. I know, I’ve been quite for a bit, works been busy. Anyhow…
I’ve said it a few times in previous threads about the A-10. The problem could be easily solved, if KISS’d it and booted out all of the politics and money grubbers. Take the original design reqs for the A-10, up-date them to take advantage of modern materials science, (especially metallurgy, advanced composites/ceramics); sensor and other electronic technology, (i.e. not using the mavericks as makeshift night vision pods like they did in Desert Storm, though that has been semi fixed); Update the fire control/computers, comms gear, and systems integration with modern advances, and make them plug and play with an eye towords easy modernization; KEEP THE GUN but upgrade the bathtub; improve the engines to make them even more durable but more fuel efficient to allow even better loiter time.
Then release the damn thing for bit. Make it a hard and fast dead line for the prototype and build, with stiff penalties for going over budget and time.
Again just my $0.02 but if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, just modernize the platform and concept.
Also I don’t care what the perfumed fighter jocks in the puzzle palace say the Warthog, Specter/Spooky, and BUFF are DAMN sexy in my opinion. Gun so powerful it could stall the damn plane if your not careful. 105 Howitzer on a flying platform and enough precision to put lead in every square inch of a football field. Bird that can carry enough munitions to almost single handily give just about anyone a bad day and flow by the grandchildren/great grand children of her original crews. What’s not to Like?
-Ish
Preaching to the choir, Ish.
Seems this issue comes up regularly. I admit I may have missed the money shot re the A10, but has there ever been a commander of Grunts on the Ground, or Grunts themselves (I’m talking Infantry, regardless of service branch), who advocate replacement of the A10 for something newer/shinier/prettier? From the accolades I have read, those with a dog in the fight sing the praises of the A10. If the proof is in the pudding, if these men and women believe the A10 is the best possible aircraft for their support, why make a change? Might I suggest it is b/c the senior membership of the Air Force (and others) are embryonic civil servants or greasing the skids for employment by defense contractors or similar reason that will be of financial benefit to them? Maybe follow the money? Kinda like that beast, the B52, 60+ years old and takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin. Update the A10, keeping it current, let’s move on. The Grunts on the Ground, those whose opinion I most respect b/c it’s their safety on the line, have had their say and I respect what they have to say. If it can be shown the A10 is obsolete and can be replaced at a cost that justifies the replacement, do so. If not, move on.