Warthog survives
Chief Tango sends us an Associated Press link that announces that the A-10 Thunderbolt, lovingly called the Warthog, will be around for longer than we thought it would a year or two ago;
In the 2018 Pentagon budget plan sent to Congress this week, the Air Force proposed to keep all 283 A-10s flying for the foreseeable future.
Three years ago, the Pentagon proposed scrapping the fleet for what it estimated would be $3.5 billion in savings over five years. Congress said no.
The following year, the military tried again but said the retirement would not be final until 2019. Congress again said no.
Last year, officials backed away a bit further, indicating retirement was still the best option but that it could be put off until 2022.
Now the retirement push is over, and the Warthog’s future appears secure.
“The world has changed,” said Maj. Gen. James F. Martin Jr., the Air Force budget deputy, in explaining decisions to keep aircraft once deemed expendable.
No, the world didn’t change. What changed was the political climate. The Air Force thought by dumping the A-10, they’d have more money at the cost of American lives on the field of battle. The Pentagon is now focused on winning the war against the evil losers instead of the domestic social climate. There is nothing in the pipeline that can replace the A-10 to provide security for ground forces.
Two years ago, Major General James Post, Vice Commander of Air Combat Command, told junior officers that “if anyone accuses me of saying this, I will deny it . . . anyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason.”
Last year the GAO scolded the Air Force for not planning to replace the A-10. Back then I wrote ” 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.”
So, yeah, the political world changed.
Brrrrt on.
Category: Big Pentagon
The adults are now in charge.
Good.
Excellent, API!!
Can you make one with a scene from Sesame Street?
“Hey Ernie, hey brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt”.
Bwahahahaha! ^+10. Nicely done
I still remember, since I took a picture of it of the 1st A-10 I saw in the transient alert area on the ramp at Cannon AFB in 1977….it was a beauty and then seeing them working that 30mm at Melrose Range, I called it flying desert parting farting…I’m sure over the decades since, grunts have added other nom de guerres to that sound.
I want one.
BRRRRT!
Our local ANG here in Maryland still has them. It’s been one rumor after another about will it, won’t it. If more of the gilded morons in congress had time in the military, they’d stop this nonsensical interference in what they have no concept of.
Trim some of the stupidity and social uplift, and you won’t have to cut into the evil, meanspirited military! Eeeek! Violence! I just dropped my pearls!
In a way, the USAF is right. The A-10 airframes are old enough they need replacement, either with new production or a new ground-attack aircraft.
Problem is, new production isn’t planned. And the proposed “replacement” – the F-35 in a ground-attack role – simply doesn’t appear capable of doing the job adequately.
So that means that we need to keep the A-10 for likely at least another several years, if not a decade or more. It also means that the USAF leadership needs to get it’s act together and figure out a workable long-term fix for the issue. If that means scaling back the F-35 program and starting a new effort to develop a ground-attack aircraft capable of taking the A-10’s place, so be it.
Not only not planned, but I read that the tooling to make the plane has long since been scrapped. Makes it REAL tough to build new ones – I don’t think anyone wants to fly in a 3D printed plane.
I was thinking the same thing.
The GAO’s report is correct in saying that there should be a plan in place to replace the A-10, just as there should be a plan to replace every piece of equipment at some point in time.
In order to replace something for something better (which should be the goal) you first have to have plan to replace it.
My concern was, is and will remain that the A-10 is one of the most inexpensive planes per flying hour in the US arsenal. It is beloved by pilots and troops on the ground. If we are looking to save money then planes like the F-35 are not the answer. (And that doesn’t address the performance and combat capabilities.)
Build a better A-10, not a less capable but “sexier” aircraft.
Hey, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Bell, and whoever the hell else still makes flying machines! Want a new contract? You have one year to get an assembly line turning out new-model A-10s. First one to deliver gets paid. Go.
If only the acquisition process was that simple.
“Amehd, praise Allah and blow up those American Pig Dog Infidels”
“Yes, Abdullah, I will kill those Infidels”
“Wait, Amehd. Whats that noise”?
Brrrrrrrrrrrrrpppppppppppppppp
The military aviation community does not want to face the truth that newer, better and more secure drones are the way ahead. They don’t want the 19 year old computer nerd replacing Goose and Maverick on the battlefield.
So we stick with Cold War relics that are decades beyond their service life but still work great.
Can’t we do both?
Um, no. I hope you are being sarcastic.
I recall the fields of Herefordshire used as the low flying training ground in the early 1980’s. My bright blue Beetle was “shot up” as I drove down the valley following the Wye. The kids were ecstatic and I loved that plane.