A-10 being retired?

[Cherrybomber13]

Seriously, I know the A-10 Fleet is old but what will replace it, and not the F-35 I hope.

The U.S. Air Force is planning to retire all 350 of its A-10 attack planes, blaming budget cuts and the slow-flying jet's trouble surviving against the most sophisticated enemy air defenses.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/1ebff9bfa4df

[L2Driver]

The last I read, 200 sets of new wings were produced to extend the service life of the Hog out to 2028+.

[Cherrybomber13]

L2Driver,
I was under the same impression. I thought that was a big deal for them to extend the service life.

We are in the process of requesting one for the museum as several have popped up on the surplus markets. The Connecticut Air Guard flies the A-10.

[Ken]

I don't think there's much new we can say here that hasn't been said already since the 80's. Col John Boyd played a large role in the birth of the A-10, F-15, and F-16. If you have not read the book "Boyd" by Coram, my opinion is that it's a must-read.

The short stereotype version is that the AF has traditionally been run by the "fighter mafia" (although we are finally seeing some change). These guys looked down their snout at airplanes like the A-10 as not glitzy enough and as wasting budget dollars when something nicer could be had. The A-10 was on its way to the chopping block with the fall of the USSR and its success in Desert Storm 1991 turned that around. At least once since this most recent call, there was another call to can the A-10. Interestingly, each time this comes up, the Army says, "Give it to us, we love it" and the AF decides to keep the jet in order to keep the Army's fixed-wing quota as low as possible. Many millions have been spent developing various mods, including the A-10C. There is a big effort that's been going within AMARC since 2005ish to rebuild all new wing sets to make the A-10 last. Pilots love it, troops love it, and it works.

Of course politicians never consider money already spent nor do they seem to consider the dollars it takes to shut down a program under one label and transfer it to another (like the Army getting the A-10 - the taxpayers still have to put gas in 'em); seems like leaving things alone would be cheaper in the long run. It makes my head hurt.

So, is the A-10 the answer to a war with China? I doubt it. But it does seem to be an effective platform for so much of what we do around the world ... and it's here today, paid for, and invested in to last for many years. I don't have the security clearance to know what the worst threats are out in the world or how likely we are to face them, but, common sense tells me there's a better budgetary path if we look for it. Cutting the egregious waste from what we already do would be a fine start.

Ken

[jtramo]

They are talking about retiring the entire fleet! Then the low cost Hog fleets duties will be replaced by what? Fighters? The dodo bird billion dollar baby F-turdy-five?

Politicians=dumb.

[dc8jet]

Cherrybomber the CT ANG has not flown the A-10 since 2008.

[whistlingdeath77]

L2Driver,
I was under the same impression. I thought that was a big deal for them to extend the service life.

We are in the process of requesting one for the museum as several have popped up on the surplus markets. The Connecticut Air Guard flies the A-10.

Drew, the 103rd lost their a-10s that were based out of Bradley in Windsor locks,ct. Brac was the reason and the last ct. A-10 sortie took place on dec. 28th 2007. They now have the Lear 35a bizjet. Yippie

[Warbirdnerd]

Everytime the Air Force starts making noise about retireing the Warthog, the Army and Marine Corps offer to take them over...

In August 2013, Congress and a National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force were still looking at the proposal to cut A-10 numbers down to 246 aircraft, as well as others. The Air Force has been trying to replace the A-10 with a multi-role fighter that can cover more area and have a wider mission set for some time. The F-35, and even the MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle, are seen as having the multi-role ability and modern sensors to fill the Warthog's missions of destroying vehicles and providing close-air support. A-10 pilots have been vocal about the aircraft's superiority in its field and its frequent request, sometimes by name, by ground commanders. One lesser-known function of the A-10 is escorting helicopters on combat search and rescue missions. Some believe that an A-10 that can perform this low-altitude, long-loiter time task and take ground fire is superior to an F-35 performing that job. The Thunderbolt II is armored and can take hits, while the F-35 is not protected enough and cannot afford to be replaced if shot down. If the F-35 must do combat search and rescue, it will have a 360 degree distributed aperture infrared system that the A-10 does not. Furthermore, the two planes have different primary armaments. The F-35 relies on deploying guided bombs and missiles, which can be vulnerable to jamming, while the A-10's 30 mm cannon is immune to electronic warfare. The A-10 can destroy 14 targets per mission, while the F-35 cannot. Air Force officials have stated publicly that the F-35 will not duplicate the A-10's missions, but they do need a multi-role aircraft and it has a longer range. Air Combat Command has said it should not be about which newer weapon systems must replicate the exact capabilities of older systems, but how many new systems will be needed to address future capabilities. The Air Force has not ruled out replacing the A-10 with another light attack aircraft to maintain numbers and mass firepower with the advantage of being able to integrate next-generation sensors.[89]

As part of the U.S. Air Force's FY 2015 budget, the service is considering retiring the entire A-10 Thunderbolt II fleet and other single-mission aircraft to prioritize multi-mission aircraft and keep future procurements on track. While the service has previously considered cutting squadrons, cutting an entire fleet with its infrastructure support is seen as the only way to gain major savings. The Pentagon and active Air Force have tried to retire the single-mission platform for years. While Congressional resistance has previously saved the A-10, budget realities may finally defeat the aircraft. Members of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve argue that moving A-10s from the active Air Force use to their control completely would achieve savings while still keeping them in the Air Force inventory. Half of the fleet is already under National Guard control. The U.S. Army has expressed their dissatisfaction with the process of replacing the aircraft they call on for close-air support. The Army has shown interest in obtaining A-10 jets themselves if the Air Force retires them

[51fixer]

They are talking about retiring the entire fleet! Then the low cost Hog fleets duties will be replaced by what? Fighters? The dodo bird billion dollar baby F-turdy-five?

Politicians=dumb.

One of the realities of today's fighting environments is that we station Attack Aircraft in an orbit with a tanker and as requests for support come is the distance to be traveled came be hundreds of miles. The A-10 can't travel at the speeds the Fighters can, whether it's FA-18, F-16 or F-15. This leaves the troops with a greater exposure in a hostile situation while waiting for the support.
a-10 would require multiple staging areas with multiple support tankers across a combat theatre while the fighters can be staged at a central point or fewer staging areas are needed with the fighters.
They can't replace the close support capabilities of the A-10 but changes in the combat arena and support of Combat dictate changes in the tactics and equipment.
I wish they would mothball them instead of retire. That way if the near future requires their use they are at least available. We throw away technology and equipment with no regard for what comes next year or 5 years down the road.

[Cherrybomber13]

Flew Sorry

Cherrybomber the CT ANG has not flown the A-10 since 2008.

[Cherrybomber13]

I grew up with A-10's down at Martin's Airport in Essex Md. The MD Guard used to come over our house it seems like constantly. Would see then screaming down the Patapsco River and Chesapeake Bay as well. Love the sound of the Fans! I agree with 51, mothball them dont scrap them. I seem to remember that battleships had no relevance and they took them out of mothballs several times.

[jtramo]

They are talking about retiring the entire fleet! Then the low cost Hog fleets duties will be replaced by what? Fighters? The dodo bird billion dollar baby F-turdy-five?

Politicians=dumb.

One of the realities of today's fighting environments is that we station Attack Aircraft in an orbit with a tanker and as requests for support come is the distance to be traveled came be hundreds of miles. The A-10 can't travel at the speeds the Fighters can, whether it's FA-18, F-16 or F-15. This leaves the troops with a greater exposure in a hostile situation while waiting for the support.
a-10 would require multiple staging areas with multiple support tankers across a combat theatre while the fighters can be staged at a central point or fewer staging areas are needed with the fighters.
They can't replace the close support capabilities of the A-10 but changes in the combat arena and support of Combat dictate changes in the tactics and equipment.
I wish they would mothball them instead of retire. That way if the near future requires their use they are at least available. We throw away technology and equipment with no regard for what comes next year or 5 years down the road.

Idk I read a few other studies about how (even being slow) the A-10 is right for the job 95% of the time. Currently, it's not one aircraft or the other. We need someone in fast, then they are sent. We need someone to provide support for more then a few minutes then A-10s it is. There isn't exposure. If we went fighter only the exposure would happen soon after they leave to tanker up. Also then we are killing our aging fleet of fighter bombers with close air support wear and tear.

This is why they are even entertaining turboprop attack close air support to supplement the fast movers and Hogs.

Hopefully this gets squashed by common sense.

[SaxMan]

Back in the early 90s, an Air Force general (Can't remember his name) offered to swap the A-10s to the Army in exchange for the Army's Patriot Missile systems. It seemed to be a smart trade off: Army gets close support planes that it needs for its mission, Air Force gets air defense assets for its mission. However, others in the Air Force did not want the Army have a fixed-wing capability and the Army didn't want to give up their prize Patriots (which were in the spotlight after Desert Storm).

I understand the AF's argument that it cannot afford the luxury of mission-specific airplanes in an era of shrinking budgets, but multi-role aircraft tend to always come up short in the close support role. If history is any kind of precursor, there is always going to be the need for the close support role that can only be handled by planes that go low and slow. Look what happened in Korea: The AF had their F-80s, F-84 and F-86s, but it ended up being the prop-driven P-51 that did the heavy lifting in the close support role. Then, in Vietnam, despite having Phantoms and Super Sabres, among others, in the inventory, the Air Force had to go and acquire a (god forbid) prop-driven Navy plane, the Skyraider for the close support role. For the last 30 some odd years, the USAF finally has the right tool for the job and they keep trying to push it aside at every opportunity, only for it to make a comeback.

+1 on the MD ANG A-10s. I was out by Martin State a couple months back and got to see the A-10s taking off and flying about.

[davidwomacks]

Citing budget issues they are replacing 350 A-10s which are paid for F-35 which aren't. Yea that makes alot of sense????

[davidwomacks]

They are talking about retiring the entire fleet! Then the low cost Hog fleets duties will be replaced by what? Fighters? The dodo bird billion dollar baby F-turdy-five?

Politicians=dumb.

One of the realities of today's fighting environments is that we station Attack Aircraft in an orbit with a tanker and as requests for support come is the distance to be traveled came be hundreds of miles. The A-10 can't travel at the speeds the Fighters can, whether it's FA-18, F-16 or F-15. This leaves the troops with a greater exposure in a hostile situation while waiting for the support.
a-10 would require multiple staging areas with multiple support tankers across a combat theatre while the fighters can be staged at a central point or fewer staging areas are needed with the fighters.
They can't replace the close support capabilities of the A-10 but changes in the combat arena and support of Combat dictate changes in the tactics and equipment.
I wish they would mothball them instead of retire. That way if the near future requires their use they are at least available. We throw away technology and equipment with no regard for what comes next year or 5 years down the road.

Idk I read a few other studies about how (even being slow) the A-10 is right for the job 95% of the time. Currently, it's not one aircraft or the other. We need someone in fast, then they are sent. We need someone to provide support for more then a few minutes then A-10s it is. There isn't exposure. If we went fighter only the exposure would happen soon after they leave to tanker up. Also then we are killing our aging fleet of fighter bombers with close air support wear and tear.

This is why they are even entertaining turboprop attack close air support to supplement the fast movers and Hogs.

Hopefully this gets squashed by common sense.

What they should do is build new tuboprop skyraiders haha