A-10 Being Retired

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2012/01/airforce-5-a10-squadrons-cut-013012

Saw this in AF times and it kinda ruined my day. Unfortunately this is the reality in todays times

Edited January 30, 2012 by smnwrx

Man, those A-10Cs are doing a perfect job, air-superiority given (and to ensure that there are plenty of other assets available).

 

It is beyond me, how a "budget-focus on the F-35" (323 billion $, most expansive defence program ever) can become lucrative by shutting down those "old" few A-10s. Really, that stinks ...

Guess someone needed to make some big money by selling technology that is neither wanted, nor needed, nor adequate in any current and foreseeable conflict.

 

I don't love the smell of bribe in the morning ... (or any other time of the day).

I don't get this... The A-10 is the best CAS aircraft out there. It's not an Air to Air fighter. So why do all these people keep trying to compare it to one?

“Is the F-35 going to be as good a close-air support platform as an A-10? I don’t think anybody believes that,” he said, “But is the A-10 going to be the air-to-air platform that the F-35 is going to be?

I don't see any aircraft replacing the A-10 in what it can do.

Thanks HogDriver for that citation - the more I thought about it, the more it bugged me .. with that kind of "logic", one can justify almost everything:

“Is the F-35 going to be as good a close-air support platform as an A-10? I don’t think anybody believes that,” he said, “But is the A-10 going to be the air-to-air platform that the F-35 is going to be?"

Okay, so create some far-fetched demand that is unjustified and unrealistic, and then apply those demands to the "other thing" (here the A-10).

Mmhmm.. let's think - how about the desperate need for more [colorful appearance]s in the Afghan sky?

"Is the [red balloon] going to be as good a close-air support platform as an A-10? I don’t think anybody believes that. But is the A-10 going to be the [colorful appearance] that the [red balloon] is going to be?"

Lol??? But really, how the F is another (overly expansive) air-dominance-fighter with "some" ground-attack capabilities contributing to actual (current) real-world conflicts in any other way than a colored (red) balloon?

(given that the A-10s and Apaches stay there)

 

Dear citizens of the U.S. - I am afraid you just paid way too much, for something as effective as a red balloon ;)

 

Really, this might sound exaggerated and ridiculous, but for me it is way too much "salesman" in those speeches. With that line of argumentation, you can sell almost everything.

How about a Space-Battle Station?

The A-10 can't fight in space!

Oh yes, "Space Battle" might be the future!

Is the "Space Battle"-feature actually needed?

Nooooo!

 

So let's calm down and be more efficient: provide the things that are needed, when they are needed.

Everything else is speculation, and there are no limits to that.

(except once people might stop paying for it willingly)

It seems so short sighted... I'm sure they'll be regretting this decision in the not-to-distant future. :/

Man, those A-10Cs are doing a perfect job, air-superiority given (and to ensure that there are plenty of other assets available).

 

It is beyond me, how a "budget-focus on the F-35" (323 billion $, most expansive defence program ever) can become lucrative by shutting down those "old" few A-10s. Really, that stinks ...

Guess someone needed to make some big money by selling technology that is neither wanted, nor needed, nor adequate in any current and foreseeable conflict.

 

I don't love the smell of bribe in the morning ... (or any other time of the day).

A10's (not C models) had complete freedom air-superiority-wise, over Yugoslavia, yet, they did almost nothing. A10, including C models is the weapon system of the past and needs to be replaced. Presently, A10's are good against low tech opponent such as Taliban and Al Kaida. Same goes for Su-25 (T, SM ....) airplane.

How old are those aieframes..??

How much flying hours has those A10s had.. ??

How much flying hours can they get out of them before they are not airworthy..?? REF that F-15 stunt..

How much spare parts can they get out of them.?

 

They would probabaly mothball those that are near their limit.... If they have any brains

Presently, A10's are good against low tech opponent such as Taliban and Al Kaida.

 

Exactly why we should keep it. :P

 

Well, then again, just because they're getting rid of a few squadrons doesn't mean the fleet is done for. After all, they're re-winging a bunch of them to extend the lifespan for another 20+ years.

 

It seems like come hell or high water, there's always a trusty old side arm that the USAF decides it's worth keeping around because it fits a role so well... just look at the herk's and buffs.

I don't get this... The A-10 is the best CAS aircraft out there. It's not an Air to Air fighter. So why do all these people keep trying to compare it to one?

 

That's not what they're doing though.

 

The answer lies in reading the whole quotation:

“Is the F-35 going to be as good a close-air support platform as an A-10? I don’t think anybody believes that,” he said, “But is the A-10 going to be the air-to-air platform that the F-35 is going to be? So again, the Air Force is trying to get as much multimission capability into the limited number of platforms it’s going to have.”

 

It's fairly simple really, and can be illustrated by a simple list:

 

OLD:

200 Fighters

200 Strikers

200 Bombers

Result: 600 planes, with 200 available for each role.

 

NEW:

200 Fighter-Bombers

Result: 200 planes, with 200 available for each role.

 

THAT is what he is getting at. Now, whether it really is sane to get proper value out of that for the warfighter, I dunno. But it's not exactly a novel concept - a classic previous application was the drive towards use of multi-role aircraft in the navy; though at that time the driving motivation was the limited hangar space onboard a ship. If you can only have X amount of aircraft with you no matter what, multi-role becomes a lot more interesting. If you then end up in a situation where you have to downsize your armed forces, going multi-role becomes a way to retain most of your capabilities - sure, the example above can't put up 600 planes at the same time, but then again, that's the budget cuts for you, but at least you won't find yourself with, say, 100/50/50 at a time when you really need your 200 fighters.

 

Similarly, a multirole won't be able to be "the best" at everything. It can be made very good, but probably not the "best". However, that's the price you pay when you need to cut your number of airframes and don't also want to cut all your capabilities.

Edited January 31, 2012 by EtherealN

The only aircraft capable of replacing the Hawg is another Hawg.

Not true.

 

The only aircraft (in US invenotory) capable of doing exactly the same thing the Hog does, sure. But you can still offer effective CAS with other aircraft, rainging from the cheaper turboprop COIN aircraft and up to stuff like F-16's, Strike Eagles etcetera etcetera. The Hog's "big deal" is that gun - you get loiter capabilities through aerial refueling (and of course, turboprops also offer substantial loiter capability), but such a gun isn't critical to performing CAS.

Yes, I would generally rather think into the direction of light-weight and cheap turbo-prop CAS planes like the AT-6B. I would guess they could do the current job of the A-10C sufficiently well and how many Tucanos (?) do you get for the price of one A-10C?

 

The days of the mach 2 jet-fleets are gone or fading imho.

Edited January 31, 2012 by SNAFU

Not just a question of how many airframes you get (this is of course offset by their reduced value in the tankbusting role) - the big deal is how much they cost to fly. Keeping jets flying to be on-call is really expensive. The same with turboprops is still expensive - but not quite as bad.

 

(As an aside, one reason why strafing is often less effective with some fighters, beyond just the smaller calibre guns or lower rates of fire, is that their guns are often angled slightly upwards due to their intended role in BFM. This makes it much more hazardous to dive in for a strafing pass. But when conditions allow, a 23mm weapon shooting HEI is not a good day for an infantryman, even if it isn't quite as mean as a 30mm doing the same. :) Sort of like the difference between a 5.56 and 7.62 - assuming identical velocities - even if the former will have a bit less stopping power than the latter, it's still not something you ignore. :P )

Not true.

 

The only aircraft (in US invenotory) capable of doing exactly the same thing the Hog does, sure. But you can still offer effective CAS with other aircraft, rainging from the cheaper turboprop COIN aircraft and up to stuff like F-16's, Strike Eagles etcetera etcetera. The Hog's "big deal" is that gun - you get loiter capabilities through aerial refueling (and of course, turboprops also offer substantial loiter capability), but such a gun isn't critical to performing CAS.

 

Sorry, but I'm not buying what you're selling. :smilewink: An F-16, F-15 or turboprop etc. is not going to provide the same level of CAS to friendly troops on the ground, or strike as much fear into the enemy as an A-10 overhead.

 

re the gun:

 

"It is the ideal weapon for supporting U.S. troops in close contact with the enemy because the 30 mm rounds are much less likely to injure friendly forces than a smart bomb, Ruehl said.

 

"It is an awesome gun and I personally believe the most destructive gun ever mounted on an aircraft in the history of mankind," Quote from retired Air Force Col. Steve Ruehl.

Perhaps you should read what I wrote more carefully? ;)

 

 

"It is the ideal weapon for supporting U.S. troops in close contact with the enemy because the 30 mm rounds are much less likely to injure friendly forces than a smart bomb, Ruehl said.

 

Differs from 20 and 23 millimetre weapons... how? ;)

 

"It is an awesome gun and I personally believe the most destructive gun ever mounted on an aircraft in the history of mankind," Quote from retired Air Force Col. Steve Ruehl.

 

So? ;)

 

Other countries, and indeed other arms of the US Armed Forces, make do without that gun. It's good, but it's meant for plinking tanks, and it's associated aircraft has a lot of associated problems - not aonly airframe age, but also the fact that this is the ONLY thing it can do. (Though sure, the Charlies can drop PGM's from up high, but tell me how that differs from pretty much any other aircraft in US inventory?)

Edited January 31, 2012 by EtherealN

The A-10 offers alot more than 30mm of death, it offers high probabilty of survival, I'm sure those A-10A pilots in Kosovo were glad they were in a titanium bathtub when the Serb's started firing Strelas at them. Cheap CAS Tucanos are OK against cavemen but not for use against anyone with decent kit.

But that is the point, isn't it? The "cavemen" are what the A-10 is largely getting used for nowadays, and they're standing at having to cut costs and replace ageing airframes.

 

I'm not saying that there's another plane that offers exactly the same thing, in fact I'm explicitly saying that none does! But if you are faced with the reality of having to cut down, the first thing that has to go is the specialized platforms. Indeed, my own country has now gone as far with that as to have only one combat aircraft, developed specifically for this in order to allow lower expenditures. If we hadn't gone that route, we would have stood the risk where we needed 200 planes for an air superiority role, but had only 100 - because the rest of the budget was eaten by dedicated CAS and Bombers.

 

Of course, it's all fine and say "spend what you have to spend", but I'd point out that at the time when we were making those cuts, we were in about the same shape with public finances as the US is today, with skyrocketing debt etcetera. Cutting expenditures and making the armed forces more dollar-efficient (so to speak) was one of the ways we saved ourselves and allowed us to be (almost) untouched by the current sovereign debt crisis in europe.

Edited January 31, 2012 by EtherealN

Tucanos may have their place, but that place is very limited. They certainly not a valid alternative to the A-10A/C. Sure the last 2 wars have been against cavemen but their the exception and not the rule.

But the A-10's aren't being replaced "by the tucanos". They're being replaced by two aircraft: the tucano for the very limited COIN role, and the F-35 for the CAS role.

 

You can keep a LOT of Tucanos flying at the price of a single A-10 for those cases when you need the COIN stuff, and for the more pure CAS and related stuff you have the 35's which, in the same package, also offer CAP, Interdiction and Strike capabilities.

 

To my mind, the USAF has a sort of weird fascination with having specialized aircraft for everything - and this is all well and good when you have the money for that. But the simple fact is that since around '81 the US hasn't had that money - it has been keeping this up on credit. The cost is a part of the combat capabilities, but what is the alternative? Between the F-22, the F-35, and a smattering of small-number specialized aircraft, it's not like the USAF becomes impotent. :P (Remember: the specialized aircraft numbers for each role will still outnumber the total airforces of most countries on the planet!)

Edited January 31, 2012 by EtherealN

The F-35 can never fill the role of the A-10 against large amounts of armour.

... I'm sure those A-10A pilots in Kosovo were glad they were in a titanium bathtub when the Serb's started firing Strelas at them.

A-10's over (parts of?) Kosovo very seldom flew below 15 000 feet. Igla's and Strela's could not reach them.

In fact it will probably do better than the A-10 in that scenario, thanks to the sensor suite, sensor fusion, tactical awareness and new munitions potentially enabling it to engage multiple targets in one pass.

 

The F-35 can never fill the role of the A-10 against large amounts of armour.

The F-35 can never fill the role of the A-10 against large amounts of armour.

 

"Large amounts of armour" would be met with more than A-10's.

Also, did you somehow get the idea that A-10's would suddenly cease to exist? ;)

 

Active numbers is being cut. Big deal? Big deal compared to what alternatives?

In fact it will probably do better than the A-10 in that scenario, thanks to the sensor suite, sensor fusion, tactical awareness and new munitions potentially enabling it to engage multiple targets in one pass.

 

Yes and no....you're right that the F-35, in theory, will be able to engage multiple targets in one pass...the difference is in that one pass all of it's ordinance will be expended. Her weapons load compared to an A-10 is extremely small. Her loiter time will be terrible, she has very limited internal fuel and once you start hanging external tanks there goes the stealth aspect.

 

Having worked on A-10s for almost 17 years now of course I'm sad that some squadrons and air frames are going away....but I knew the A-10s wouldn't be around forever and i also know I won't finish my USAF career on A-10s...I worked with many crew chiefs in the 90s who's "loved" aircraft retired (F-111 & F-4s specifically).

 

Could an F-35 survive in the arena that the A-10 was originally designed for, low and slow...of course not...will she survive at altitude with all her nice advanced avionics....I'm sure she will...

I'll take that argument and continue it with the vague scenario of 'lots of armor' :D

 

The F-35 can probably strike more armor than an A-10 in the same amount of time, given turn-around times.

The F-35 can strike armor where the A-10 cannot. Sure, less weapons to keep stealthy, but on the other hand, the A-10 couldn't go there.

The F-35 can probably discover armor where an A-10 can't.

The F-35 might not quite need absolute air superiority to do this job. At minimum it should be able to self-escort.

The F-35 can depart the field of battle post-haste.

 

For scenarios requiring a lot of loiter time, I agree with you, there's no real substitute for the A-10, though UAVs are starting to eat away at that.