A-10 Being Retired

[Snoopy]

As someone who has worked on or around the A-10 for almost 20 years I still believe it's a great aircraft for the type of conflicts we've seen the past 13 years and would have a use in future conflicts. The F-111 was also retired before its time. It happens.

 

But that being said I'm not going to argue for or against with google/wiki experts. All these opinions by individuals that the closest they've gotten to an A-10 is at an air show but what matters is those of us working or have seen the aircraft in true combat situation and, the truth of the matter that the army prefers the A-10 for CAS and how it'll effect troops on the ground.

 

What sucks the most for all involved in the A-10 is the jobs that will be lost. Thousands of jobs to include military, civil service and contractors will lose their job. Many made choices to work A-10 projects because the airframe life was 2028 with talk less than 2 years ago pushing it closer to 2040.

 

Oh well, guess if rumors hold true I'll be managing a flight line full of vacuums aka lawn darts soon.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Snoopy

[NineLine]

It's all about the other end - US tax payer's money, but that's not on me to comment being non US citizen.

 

Which is the reasoning behind the cuts, to save US tax payer money, we can all armchair quarterback what they are doing in Washington, but realistically I wouldnt want the job, I cant balance my own account... my wife wanted to make cuts to my x55 fund, but I vetoed it :P

[NineLine]

I am sure it all looks good on paper with the people with the suits on. All my points were that if it did get retired, the military would adapt with what it has available... I havent even got to see one at an air show... so that makes me the worst of the "individuals".

 

As someone who has worked on or around the A-10 for almost 20 years I still believe it's a great aircraft for the type of conflicts we've seen the past 13 years and would have a use in future conflicts. The F-111 was also retired before its time. It happens.

 

But that being said I'm not going to argue for or against with google/wiki experts. All these opinions by individuals that the closest they've gotten to an A-10 is at an air show but what matters is those of us working or have seen the aircraft in true combat situation and, the truth of the matter that the army prefers the A-10 for CAS and how it'll effect troops on the ground.

 

What sucks the most for all involved in the A-10 is the jobs that will be lost. Thousands of jobs to include military, civil service and contractors will lose their job. Many made choices to work A-10 projects because the airframe life was 2028 with talk less than 2 years ago pushing it closer to 2040.

 

Oh well, guess if rumors hold true I'll be managing a flight line full of vacuums aka lawn darts soon.

[VincentLaw]

Which is the reasoning behind the cuts, to save US tax payer money

Either this involves a complicated analysis of operating cost per flight hour, targets destroyed per flight hour, and reaction time to target... Or something like: If we don't get X amount of money by X date we will have to delay the F-35! The F-35 can hit ground targets too, so let's cut funds for the A-10 and say we are "saving money" even though the F-35 is (As far as I can tell) less cost effective. I would like to believe that it is the former.

[NineLine]

Either this involves a complicated analysis of operating cost per flight hour, targets destroyed per flight hour, and reaction time to target... Or something like: If we don't get X amount of money by X date we will have to delay the F-35! The F-35 can hit ground targets too, so let's cut funds for the A-10 and say we are "saving money" even though the F-35 is (As far as I can tell) less cost effective. I would like to believe that it is the former.

 

 

I'm not arguing one way or the other, just expressing my understanding of their reasoning...

[tflash]

 

But that being said I'm not going to argue for or against with google/wiki experts. All these opinions by individuals that the closest they've gotten to an A-10 is at an air show but what matters is those of us working or have seen the aircraft in true combat situation and, the truth of the matter that the army prefers the A-10 for CAS and how it'll effect troops on the ground.

 

.

 

Well this is simply the forum of a computer game so you will have to do with Google/wiki experts such as me. I think this forum is manned with people who have in general great admiration for the warthog ans find it a pity that their beloved sim aircraft is being withdrawn. And Yes we can sympathise with the loss of jobs and careers this entails.

This doesn't mean however that the DoD' s reasoning is irrational. We are all able to discuss the motives mr. Hagel brought to the public, that is the whole point of public statements.

[danilop]

There is one possible and very rational reasoning behind this decision and that is export sales. You cannot sell $130 million worth of high tech weaponry if you don't use it yourself.

 

http://trade.gov/nei/

 

So there you go.

Edited February 25, 2014 by danilop

[HiJack]

The F-35 flies over and all the targets just pops :D No need to go low.

[pyromaniac4002]

There is one possible and very rational reasoning behind this decision and that is export sales. You cannot sell $130 million worth of high tech weaponry if you don't use it yourself.

 

http://trade.gov/nei/

 

So there you go.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Very few air forces have the same responsibilities as the USAF. If you're buying planes for the Netherlands, you probably wouldn't expect to have to deal with supporting a 13 year long fight in Afghanistan. The name of the game becomes flexibility to respond to anything that might arise with the limited resources you have. For the USAF it's entirely likely that over the course of a decade or two there will be such incidents where CAS is priority #1, so it makes more sense to have specialized aircraft like the A-10 because it fulfills that role so much better.

 

If the USAF held on to a couple Warthogs at the expense of a few F-35s, I don't think anyone in the export market is going to look at that as a sign of the F-35 being "bad." Besides, anyone who is buying it already has 130 million reasons to buy something else. Watching the USAF decrease its procurement is pretty insignificant compared to whatever got them invested in the aircraft to begin with.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Very few air forces have the same responsibilities as the USAF.

Every Airforce in the world has the same responsibilities. The difference is that our military/industrial complex is so powerful, it makes us believe that we have some divine responsibilities, for which, of course we have to spend billions of dollars buying stuff that they sell. Worst of all, we don't even have money to buy stuff, so we print the money.

 

F-35 is fine airplane and i like it. But I sure can not believe that we are going to spend money that we don't have to buy 2400 of it!? Yet, just few months ago, just before Christmas, we cut unemployment benefits to millions of unemployed workers ...

 

Talking about A-10, it is time to retire that thing. Read the A-10's over Kosovo and you will see why.

Edited February 26, 2014 by =4c= Hajduk Veljko

[quyes]

The following is strictly my opinion.

 

As good as the A10C is at CAS it's INITIAL design is to perform CAS against a traditional armed force (infantry, light, and heavy armor), without "smart" weapons, at low altitudes to avoid a heavy AA defense network.

 

Recent conflicts, starting with Dessert Storm, have demonstrated that these conditions are not likely to be applicable in the future. The more likely scenario is that CAS will be performed against infantry and light vehicles only, if there's a need to take out armor it can be done with the vast array of laser guided munitions or guided missiles that now exists, and is most likely to be performed from mid to high altitude in an environment where air superiority has been established.

 

CAS against infantry and light vehicles requires explosive rounds (not DU armor piercing) and maybe some explosive ordnance (IE bombs). Other aircraft such as the F15, F16, F18 have all proven in combat that they are more than capable at meeting these needs going forward. Additionally, and of course arguably, the F35 and F22 are also anticipated to be able to fulfill these needs as well. Since these 5 aircraft are needed for other rolls that the A10 can't complete that would give them priority in an ever shrinking budget.

 

The only thing an A10 can do that the others can't is kill a tank with it's gun, but there's no reason that I can think of as to why you would need to deploy that very specific tactic. After all this tactic was designed prior to guided missiles and bombs. This means that the military can cut some cost without loosing operational capability by eliminating the A10. While I'll be disappointed at the demise of the operational A10, it's probably a good decision overall.

 

Similar arguments were made when the F14 was phased out, I was also sad to see that one go. Like the A10 and it's gun, the Tomcat was designed with the Phoenix missiles in mind. The concern expressed by many F14 supporters was that the USAF's ability to maintain air superiority without a long range guided air to air missile would be hindered. This was a concern that never came to fruition.

[Scrim]

Which other jet in their inventory can carry such a diverse, large payload, with the same long loitering time?

 

Guided munitions doesn't make tank busting cannons obsolete. There are, and will be plenty of times when flying high and dropping LGBs. That won't fly in a war where you can't guarantee that the bulk of the enemy's advanced AAA and mobile SAM systems have been knocked out and can't be replaced.

 

Let's face it, the USAF is ruled by the fighter mafia to the extent that getting assigned to nukes puts staff officer careers on hold. They tried to retire the A-10A before the Gulf war, only to see every single argument against it crumble to dust along with the tanks, APCs and IFVs of Iraqi army at the hands of A-10 pilots. 20 years later the dust has settled, and there are enough new toys around to try the same thing again.

 

Just some rhetorical questions: LGBs existed during the Gulf war, and the A-10s still knocked out more tanks. How did that make sense?

 

If the A-10 indeed is obsolete, then how come the Marine Corps and Army, who are the ones calling for its help during conventional wars and benefit directly from what it is unique in bringing to the fight, protest so loudly that the latter had threatened to fly them themselves if the USAF makes true on its threat to retire the A-10 fleet?

Edited February 26, 2014 by Scrim

[AlpineYoda]

As someone who has worked on or around the A-10 for almost 20 years I still believe it's a great aircraft for the type of conflicts we've seen the past 13 years and would have a use in future conflicts. The F-111 was also retired before its time. It happens.

 

But that being said I'm not going to argue for or against with google/wiki experts. All these opinions by individuals that the closest they've gotten to an A-10 is at an air show but what matters is those of us working or have seen the aircraft in true combat situation and, the truth of the matter that the army prefers the A-10 for CAS and how it'll effect troops on the ground.

 

What sucks the most for all involved in the A-10 is the jobs that will be lost. Thousands of jobs to include military, civil service and contractors will lose their job. Many made choices to work A-10 projects because the airframe life was 2028 with talk less than 2 years ago pushing it closer to 2040.

 

Oh well, guess if rumors hold true I'll be managing a flight line full of vacuums aka lawn darts soon.

 

I disagree. "What sucks the most for all involved" is the Army and Marine lives that will be lost. Google or YouTube the incident where a bunch of ground guys are literally running through an orchard, pursued by Taliban or AQ and a pair of A10s is orbiting overhead, talking on the radio to the ground, and GAU'ing everything they are cleared hot to hit. (I think someone even recently made a DCS mission out of this.)

 

Please tell me how an F35 with 181 rounds of 25mm and a few bombs at 30,000 feet would have kept those guys alive like the Hawg drivers did.

 

The Army or Marines should ask for all the A10s.

Edited February 27, 2014 by AlpineYoda

[javelina1]

The Army or Marines should ask for all the A10s.

 

Exactly, let 'em have them all! :thumbup:

[AlpineYoda]

I can't imagine there is anyone on this forum that hasn't seen this video, but here it is just in case.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_8XexZ5kwQ

 

If an Apache was in the area, it could have done this. An F22, F35, F15, F16, B2, or B52 (which has had a 60 year service life, given its unique role) could not have done the job like this A10 and his wingman.

[PFunk1606688187]

I can't imagine there is anyone on this forum that hasn't seen this video, but here it is just in case.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_8XexZ5kwQ

 

If an Apache was in the area, it could have done this. An F22, F35, F15, F16, B2, or B52 (which has had a 60 year service life, given its unique role) could not have done the job like this A10 and his wingman.

 

But you don't get it. There won't be any boots on the ground like this anytime soon, or so they're saying. :music_whistling:

[AlpineYoda]

Whoops, I forgot about that. Then why have an Army?

[Lao Fei Mao]

I think DOD couldn't be that stupid. IMHO, the A-10 series are indeed obsolete for future war, though it had its glory days in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that's a asymmetric warfare. As the tech develops, especially the long-range radar and laser intercept, send a A-10 or Su-25 like jets to behind enemy line means a suicide mission. If a CAS needed, send a X-47 to drop some smart bombs might be the best choice.

[dumgrunt]

Thats pretty backwards logic right there. The a-10 was specifically designed to fly low and slow using terrain masking. A 300/300 profile was the basis for a HIGH intensity conventional conflict in Europe. Last I checked radars (with a couple of exceptions) cant see behind terrain or over the horizon, nor can lasers be employed out side of LOS, hence the a-10 would come into its own. Also erroneous is that the a-10 is t survivable in the modern battle field, IAD has improved yes, but so has ECM, other counter measures and SEAD tactics and munitions. In fact the most likely scenario for a conventional war involving the US is the Korean peninsular/ east or south china sea. Frankly I think one starting would invariably lead to the other flashing. Firstly is whether this would lead to a sustained ground war, which arguably it would not, but if it did, CAS would be fundamental to success. The PLA has immature tactics and technology but massive human and material resources. Hence the a-10 would be both survivable and fill a vital niche.

 

Frankly I think the US administration is done with COIN deployments for a while, and will look towards "black" rather than "green" solutions. Africa is a case in point. Not withstanding naval diplomacy of course.

 

To be honest I don't think it would be a bad thing if army aviation took over the fleet. We had our rotary wing assets transfered from the RAAF to the Army in the late 80's and despite some teething problems it is working very well now. Never under estimate the negative impact inter service pissing contests can have on effectiveness.

[Lao Fei Mao]

No, as far as I know, PLA has very mature tech of radars and missiles and even EMP, absolutely at the same level of US's counterparts. If there is a war between China and US, I bet the A-10 becomes totally useless. What China weakness is stealth and anti-stealth tech, fairly immature, so F-35 or X-47 or JASSM might have their relatively superiority on china's territorial sky.

[Darkwolf]

Well - let's put it that way.

US got no cash left. Need to remove a plane from inventory.

 

What would you take other than A10?

 

I'm no expert, but I bet that list of what F16/F18/(maybe F35 someday) can do that A10 can't do is really long. list of what A10 can do that other can't....small to inexistant ?

 

I can understand the DoD move on this.

[Kaktus29]

battlefield is becoming much faster and much information rich, ..meaning stealth, fast attack, quick re positioning of forces, supercruise, all those things will determine much more in a battle than what A-10 was intended for-to stay on a battlefield where small arms fire would tear A-10 apart but A-10 would still come back.. today wars and future wars will be less CAS intensive, since hitting supply lines will do the trick much more than CAS will.. if you can hit the supply depots, ammo supply, HQ strikes.. the rest doesn't stand a chance with an army that has all those still up and running..

 

so i see the point in removing this slow, visible on radar animal and saving that money for other things-F-35 for one..

[Scrim]

Except that is exactly the same old nonsense generalisations and unbased assumptions that's been spouted by the same people for decades now. And it's still to come true.

 

When the repeater rifle was finished, did that make bayonets obsolete? No, and the difference between a repeater rifle and a bayonet is mind blowing compared to the difference between an A-10C and an F-35.

 

Do the sensors of the F-35 have X-ray vision that enables it to send a Maverick through clouds against tanks? Oh right, it doesn't. Oh right, it can't even carry air-to-ground missiles without breaking its stealth, now can it? It only has 2 internal pylons, which is all it can use if it's to maintain stealth. So in essence, for CAS it can only carry very little if it is to remain in stealth, at the expense of air-to-air weapons to defend itself, and in case of a relatively low cloud cover, it will RTB because it can't see anything. What this means is that not only the A-10C, but other already existing planes, like the F-16 and F-15E are better suited for CAS. The only even remotely superior quality of the F-35 would be sensors, and if you're familiar with the transition from the A-10A to the A-10C, you won't argue that any of those sensors or sensors of equal capability can't be used on upgraded A-10s, F-16s, F-15s, etc.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Scrim

[danilop]

...

 

so i see the point in removing this slow, visible on radar animal...

 

There is already pretty potent SEAD arsenal in USAF which is used to suppress RADAR targeting of A10 or any other airplane doing CAS . So basically you always want to send CAS sortie (and troops) in RADAR free environment. If the other side has RADAR capabilities and modern, last generation missiles you cannot fly CAS without significant losses. Even with F35. Simple as that.

 

Fast CAS is oxymoron. Yes, you could drop JDAMS or other guided munitions fast, but those pesky Talibans won't just pop up from bushes, caves and trenches, to stop pinning down ground forces because there is invisible F35 supercruising at 35.000 feet. You have to loiter low for a while ...

Edited February 28, 2014 by danilop

[PFunk1606688187]

If a CAS needed, send a X-47 to drop some smart bombs might be the best choice.

If it really were that simple then the A-10 would have been obsolete long ago.

 

If the enemy is inside small arms range then what? Ask the Marines to put down their rifles and start digging? What if all the fancy gear gets greased and the JTAC is wounded/unconscious/dead?

 

Guy yelling on the radio "I need a gun run West of the smoke!"

 

UAV Operator says "All I have are JDAMs Sir"

 

Everyone keeps saying it'll be different, but I don't see how mk.1 eyeballs and guns and smoke will ever stop being relevant.

 

so i see the point in removing this slow, visible on radar animal and saving that money for other things-F-35 for one..

 

Then why keep the B-52? They're talking about it being in service til the 2040s pete sake.