A-10 Thunderbolt II and the USAF

Posted here due to political nature involved.

For quite some time (basically since the Cold war ended) the USAF has been trying to scrap the A-10 fleet. Every time they have tried they have met stiff opposition to it as it is an almost flawless aircraft. The USAF has claimed that the aim of scrapping it is to produce cost savings which could then be funneled into other aircraft projects that they say could fill the same role as the A-10, Not so long ago though the ANG (Air National Guard) offered to take over the entire fleet of A-10's claiming that having them under a single command rather then split (Both ANG and USAF operate them) would produce the savings the USAF wants.

In an effort to validate their desire to scrap it the USAF released some 'facts' that apparently showed the A-10 as being the most deadly fixed wing aircraft in the US arsenal when it comes to harming civilians, What they didn't mention was that for the 35 civilians killed in the 5 years proceeding 2014 the A-10 took up 2,700 combat sorties, far more then any other fixed wing aircraft.

The USAF has claimed that any other fixed wing combat aircraft could fill in the role of the A-10 yet when in the real world the Army prefers to call in the A-10 as it can accurately hot the enemy in a timely fashion (It takes a long time to call in a bombing from other aircraft as they so far up they need more time to calculate the attack to prevent friendly casualties), Not to mention can provide CAS to a moving force when other platforms are only as effective against stationary targets.

To me seems like the USAF wants some high flying Shiny fast fighters, Which based on recent conflicts over the last couple decades is not the main platform in use, They hate providing CAS yet wont allow the US Army to take over the A-10 fleet. I can see the actions of the USAF brass getting a lot of soldiers and civilians killed in the years to come..

Thoughts?

 

In my admittedly poor knowledge of the subject. I'd say your right.

I saw an article on "The Warthog Kills More Civilians than Any Other US Aircraft". Looked at the stats that were being quoted and laughed as the headline was made a farce by the same article's statistics.

I have never heard a single complaint about the A10's abilities save that the design was too old. No mention of serious flaws mind you just that it was old.

 

I'm in agreement, time and again the A-10 has Proven itself in the CAS role, feared by those on the receiving end, and beloved by the ground pounders they provide support to, they should just give it to the Army, the Marines have their own fleet of fix-winged aircraft, and it has served them well, why not the Army?

 

USA Today : "A-10 Warplane tops list for friendly fire deaths."

 

True had the single largest amount of deaths out of any aircraft, But also flew more sorties then any other aircraft, And surprise surprise they excluded a large civilian death toll relating to the B-1 from just one year earlier (Apparently they never started keeping casualty statistics on all aircraft until 2010).

In any case based upon total combat sorties flown the A-10 is the second safest aircraft.

http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/air-force-doctored-statistics-about-friendly-fire-and-civilian-deaths-to-get-rid-of-a-10-attack-jet-150213?news=855657
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/02/10/a10-pogo-air-force-statistics-casualties-fratricide/23177501/

 

One should also look at the nature of the sorties. I suspect A-10 ended up going places where more quick decisions were required and more resistance was encountered. Since that article came out the AF has been getting a fair amount of flak for it. (pardon the pun)

 

Just in case lying in the press wasn't enough, here's a story about an Air Force General saying it would be "treason" - his exact word - to tell Congress the truth about the A-10's capabilities:

http://www.govexec.com/defense/2015/02/ig-probes-air-force-2-stars-treason-charge/104826/

He also said “If anyone accuses me of saying this, I will deny it”. Guess we know who the real criminal is.

Like von noobie said, the Air Force brass want more money for shiny new toys like the F-35 and the F-22, which recently completed its first combat sorties after being "fully operational" since 2007, with the US at war the whole time. They also want a new bomber and a new ICBM.

 

The A-10 was always my favorite in the current USAF arsenal. I would think that it probably is one of the most used aircraft in combat situations. So the USAF got its money's worth out of it compared to say the B-1. Replacing it with the new "multipurpose" fighter is a grave mistake. If they think that the A-10 has a high civilian kill ratio, imagine what a low flying, high speed fighter dropping bombs will do? The slow speed, well protected A-10 is perfect for the role it has filled. I think the USAF is only coming up with reasons to get rid of it but as it has been noted, every time they talk about getting rid of it, a conflict comes up where they end up using it (again) and it does superb. It is lower cost compared to it's replacement. But the USAF has always been like this. Always wanted the newer, flashier and technologically advanced weaponry.

 

The elephant in the room is that senior Air Force officers who help a corporation bring a new and incredibly expensive gee-whiz aircraft into development get to step right into an incredibly high paying position at that same corporation when they retire. I don't think anybody believes some nimble new fighter can replace the A-10. It's about the money and the rewards for shifting the money from one system to another.

 

Well for all the faults of congress got to give them a thumbs up for keeping the A-10, Just need to see them force on a modern replacement. When it comes to CAS you can't get high speed multi-role fighters to fill in, Needs a specific slow speed aircraft able to take a lot of punishment, Perhaps limited stealth could be incorporated or even an electronics package amongst some to jam the missiles the USAF is so afraid of.

 

The USAF has been trying to get rid of the A-10 since the late '80's and has been trying to get out of the close air support role since then. There was much talk about retirement prior to Gulf War I and really hasn't abated even though the A-10 proved its worth. Just not a role the modern AF wants.

 

The army did offer to take both the A-10's and the close support role over from the AF at one point but the AF didn't want to give up the slots and money allocated to that function. I seem to recall they didn't really object to handing over the planes and even transfering the pilots and ground crew. The money on the other hand was a deal breaker.

 

Don't get me wrong I've always liked the A-10.

But the issue with the A-10, is that it is an incredibly old airframe: The first production A-10 flew in October 1975, and deliveries to the Air Force commenced in March 1976. In total, 715 airplanes were produced, the last delivered in 1984.

That means, that the youngest airframe is 31 years old. How many other aircraft does the USAAF have flying around with that amount of age?

I agree, however, that this is the kind of aircraft, that is primarily needed, especially considering the kinds of engagements the armed forces have been getting themselves into. I wonder what all the whizz-bang air-superiority fighters get up to when the opposition has been trounced, thrashed, and trashed after the first 48 hours? Coffee and doughnuts at 30,000 feet, and scaring civilian airliners for laughs?

 

B-52, C-130, KC-135, RC-135, EC-135

 

The B-52 and C-130 are quite a bit older and still in service, with the "Hurk's still in production.

The problem is that to replace with a new, updated design would mean a very expensive project in a era where absolute numbers of aircraft are going down. When you could afford say 2,000 combat aircraft, of which say maybe 20% were CAS types, but now can only afford 1,600 you tend to push multi role types. Not a ideal situation, but until you find yourself needing to kill tank or mechanized battalions worth of hard targets, it becomes harder to justify.

If transferring to the ANG works, I'm all for it.

 

Dang it PzJgr, you beat me to the punch!

 

how has the AA defense changed since the 90s?? is the A10 more vulnerable to newer AA weapons than before??

 

They probably could contract one of the major aerospace companies such as Boeing to build new A-10s.

 

Add the C-5 and U-2.

The first flight of the F-15 was the same year as the A-10. The F-16 only two years later - better cancel the Thunderbirds.

 

The A-10 is designed to be able to support troops on the ground. Not do 2 quick passes and leave but to hang around and assist as needed.
Also the A-10 is capable of operating from semi prepared airbases unlike some hi tech fighters.

Has there been another aircraft designed for that role or is it intended that we will rely on drones and helicopters?

All in all the A-10 has a proven record of being relatively cheap, very durable and highly effective. Might as well scrap her.
Feels like we're back to trading old M14's for cool M16's again.