A-10 Being Retired.

[XxDaSTaRxx]

I wish people wouldn't listen to everything they find on the internet.

Get off my thread, Time-traveling thread-ruining wizard!

EDIT: And if we go by that....

1) Russia is not invading the Ukraine
2) Ebola doesn't exist
3) ISIS is a branch of the Red Cross that gives away teddy bears

Must I continue?

[mbailey]

First off Im not a fan of retiring it because the costs of keeping them flying is minimal.

But it is a different world and a different tactical environment compared to when the A10 first flew. 1976 is the Year I graduated HS and the year USAF first started fielding them. At the time there were no precision ground support weapons. No drones. No precision artillery. Smart shells for USN ships....ect Some of the shells seek out enemy armor on their own. We have an awful lot of ways to kill tanks now, with high precision, that we didnt have in the '70s. AND support troops on the ground.

We all know the real reason the A10 is going. Im just saying its a different reality now almost 40 years later, not that i agree with it.

Agreed but the weapons system proved itself extremely useful in 91 and (not that I can speak for the veterans on this board who have been cradled under its protection in Iraq) but if there was ever a more viable weapon system that this government needs I can't think of one.  I guess d like to hear some of our vets opinion like A rack that direction or US Ranger.....

[Puma44]

Prior to Desert Shield/Storm, the USAF was actively planning the drawdown and retirement of the Hog.  When it was deployed to the sandbox and started dropping the bad guys like flys there was a renewed appreciation for its unique, purpose built capability.  Other aircraft were tasked to do the same job at times, but just couldn't come close to taking them down like the Hog did.  Additionally, debriefs of captured Iraqi troops revealed that they were terrified when the black cross showed up in the sky.  If they didn't crawl in a hole and disappear, it was certain death when it pointed at them.  Afterwards, the Hog had a new life.

[GhostCDB]

Get off my thread, Time-traveling thread-ruining wizard!

EDIT: And if we go by that....

1) Russia is not invading the Ukraine
2) Ebola doesn't exist
3) ISIS is a branch of the Red Cross that gives away teddy bears

Must I continue?

Like I said, I wish people wouldn't believe everything they read on the internet.

[XxDaSTaRxx]

Like I said, I wish people wouldn't believe everything they read on the internet.

Shoo!

[TonyJoey]

I just think that A-10 (and most 4th gen fighters for that matter) will have a very hard time in a modern IADS environment.

[Puma44]

I just think that A-10 (and most 4th gen fighters for that matter) will have a very hard time in a modern IADS environment.

Maybe, maybe not.  In Iraq, we killed their eyes early on and then had our way with them.  The Hogs ripped them a new one when tasked to do so.

...and on the rare occasion that the camel jocks could hit something, the Hog still came home.

[GScholz]

Here's the F-35's gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKbZj_BW_bA

Fires the same 25mm round as the M242 Bushmaster on the M2/M3 Bradley series.

[DaveBB]

The A-10s did not fair well against manpads.  Two were shot down in the Iraq War invasion from manpads.  It is a new threat environment.

[800nate800]

The 'hog is the reason Muslims don't eat pork! 

[Gman]

I would like to see on paper how the replacement for the A10, the F35, is going to accomplish the same mission with the same survivability.  The number one threat to CAS aircraft is and likely will be for a long time is AAA.  Guns.  Next down that list is Manpads.  Two systems that Stealth and whizzy expensive technologies the F35 will be using won't help much against.  Especially manapds that are optically/laser tracked and targeted.  

I wouldn't argue the point that on the first day of war vs a well equipped enemy, that the F35 is likely to be more survivable in the battle space than the A10.  It's just what comes after that I'm concerned with, after the C3 and enemy's eyes and ears have eaten HARMs and other missiles and are gone or greatly degraded.  In future wars that end up being similar to the wars of Afghanistan and especially Iraq, then having aircraft like the A10 around, which is cheaper, faster to turn around and maintain, and more survivable to the remaining threats of AAA and Manpads - then I think it would be greatly missed.  The F35 doesn't have the loiter time or systems and weapons that are specifically made for the CAS mission, plus it's a very expensive asset to risk down low at those altitudes where even rifle fire is a potential threat/risk, much less dedicated AAA systems.  I'm not saying the F35 won't be a good system for what it's built for, but I don't think anyone ever envisioned it to be taking over the A10's role, so unless the A10 no longer has a role (ha ha), then I don't see how retiring the A10, whatever the costs involved, is a good decision.  Just my opinion.

Regarding $, the Secretary for the Air Force and his top 3 Generals have all said that the A10 program will save them tons in overhead and costs.  The recent numbers are 1% of the 110,000,000,000 of the yearly budget for the AF, and those A10 savings will only be programmed for the first 3 years after it being retired.  Doesn't sound like a pile of money to me, considering the lost capability.

One solution I think that would work great - the Regular Force Army has said it needs to take the AH64 Apaches away from many Guard units due to the budget and cuts and so on.  Ok fine.  Why not replace those lost Guard Apaches with Air Force A10s?  Move them to the Guard, they've already said they would LOVE this idea, and can figure their budget out to do it.  Of course, the Air Force will say they don't need the A10, but they won't want to give it up to the Army either, and lose control of the CAS part of their budget, but I would hope somebody up top would say too bad, you gave it up, now it's going to be used by units more invested in the ground game to begin with.

[DaveBB]

The F-35 will just do what the F/A-18 is doing now, but do it better.  In Iraq, someone is either on the ground designating a target, or a specific building is being targeted.  Same for close air support in Afghanistan.  Unguided bombs are being used far less due to collateral damage (and plain old inaccuracy).  You can drop a guided bomb from 20,000 feet ten miles out if you know what you want to hit. 

[Gman]

What you are describing isn't wrong IMO Dave, it's just that you're describing two completely different missions.  Hitting buildings, fixed targets, and other things that don't move is one thing, close air support is a completely different mission and problem.  I agree, the F35 due to its advanced sensors, fusion of them, as well as the weapons it'll carry should make it better than the current Gen 4.5 fighters in attack missions.  Those missions however are NOT the same thing as close air support.

Also Dave, the A10 already carries and employs the same weapons you're talking about.  On board targeting pods, laser and gps guided bombs, missiles as well with the Mavs, and so on.  CAS isn't always the sort of mission where you can have a troop on the ground designating point targets with a designation unit.  CAS in Afghanistan was much of the time show of force, extremely low overflights as well as strafing runs with the 30mm.  Troops in contact - it isn't just so simple as sitting there holding a beam on your threats, in fact, the whole point of "support" of the CAS acronym is that troops could need HELP due to being suppressed badly themselves as often as not.  

The A10 carries advanced weapons and sensors, and COULD perform the same attack missions as the F35 due to having those weapons and sensors.  Would you want it to be the aircraft you were going to send in to do such things?  No, the F35, F16/15/etc/etc are able to perform that mission better for a number of reasons.  Well, is the reverse not also true regarding the CAS takings for the A10?  The A10 is better for the CAS mission for the same number of reasons that other gen 4.5 and 5 fighters are better at other ground attack missions.  

Some quotes from a recent A10 Article on one of the defense dailies:  The entire article is here:  http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-rationale-for-retiring-the-a-10-warthog-is-bu-1562789528

So why can't the F-16, or eventually the F-35, take up the battlefield interdiction and close air support role if the A-10 was sent to the boneyard? Well they can, and in the case of the F-16 it already does. The difference is that these assets were never optimized for such roles during their multi-role oriented design phase, which ended in a product of compromise by its very nature. The A-10 is unique in that it can get down low, rapidly build situational awareness and begin prosecuting targets much faster than the F-16 can. The F-16 and F-35, even with their incredible avionics (especially in the F-35's case), are not designed to fly down low, under weather if need be, to pick apart the enemy's ground formations, and absorb enemy fire in the process. In fact, many question if the USAF will even risk its $100M+ fragile stealthy F-35s in such a manner at all.

Traditionally, fighters like the F-16, F-15E, and eventually the F-35, strike from medium altitude using precision guided weapons and come down for strafing and show of force runs momentarily, and probably not at all against an enemy with robust air defenses. This remoteness in relation to the battle below means it takes more time for an aircrew to build up a picture of what is going on and who is exactly where, and this added time can mean lives lost.

The A-10 community's ability to get into the CAS fight faster than any other fixed wing close air support platform also stems from its almost laser like focus on this single mission. In comparison, the F-16 and F-15E pilots have to spend a large amount of their dwindling flight training hours for missions other than CAS. The biggest of which is air-to-air combat training which can including radar intercepts and basic fighter maneuvers. This may take up as much as 40% of an F-16 flight crew's regular training time, whereas in the Warthog a pilot's air-to-air training is limited to employing the cannon and AIM-9M/L Sidewinder against low flying aircraft and helicopters alone, something it does extremely well incidentally.

Close air support is a very demanding mission, one where an aircrew's skill set can be rapidly diminished if training is not constant. As the war in Afghanistan winds down, and as US multi-role fighter units go back to their standard training regimens, many of these skills will atrophy. By keeping the A-10 in service, we know that the lessons learned over the last decade and a half of near constant wartime fast jet close air support action will not be lost. In other words, the A-10 community is a kind of close air support brain-trust that has more value than just the capability they offer to battle planners at any given time. This is a gray area of air combat, where knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge in combat operations can be wiped out by creating a "brain-drain" of the communities that are most focused on evolving and safeguarding this unique and demanding skill set. In this case that community is the A-10 community and canning the entire A-10 fleet would result in more than just a close air support brain-drain, it will be brain-execution.

[Rich46yo]

I dont think there is any one answer to what "replaces the A10". The airplane was designed to be a tank killer in a major steel on steel engagement in northern Europe. It did the same job pretty good in the Mideast as well, and showed itself as a good assist to boots on the ground as well wherever it was deployed. Which was a job not envisioned by its designers. The reason being, of course, manpads.

Hit an armored column and run like hell. "Loitering" is something that gets you killed in an A10 against an adversary that has its act together. Luckily we had them mostly flying against ones that didnt and yeah the A10 became the platform of choice to call in and bring on the heat when troops were engaged. It was faster then a Helicopter and could loiter longer. AND it carried a hell of a lot of pain.

But every system meets its end. The A10s mission will be replaced by fast movers, modern ones, FAR more capable artillery, Drones,missiles, and Bombers loitering with smart bombs from 250 lbs to 2,000. And the precision of what they deliver is like something from a sci-fi movie when compared even to Gulf-2.

40 years is a good run for a war plane.

[Ramesis]

I spent 2 yrs working on the F-8K Crusader as an AE with VC-10 on GTMO, I was sad when I heard it had been retired.
However, after seeing what the F-14 Tomcat was doing, I felt a little better!
RAM