McCain weighs in on the A-10 debate

[Hajo]

The Fw 190 and Ju 88 were excellent multi purpose aircraft.

Me210   and 410 come to mind.  Both highly inadequate.

[PR3D4TOR]

This is just nonsense.  The age of a plane has nothing to do with the ability to support it.  The newest B-52H was built in 1962, but continued upgrades will keep them flying to 2040.

"The A-10 Aircraft Structural Integrity Program began with the initial A-10 OEM development contract, with the definition of materials and processes, design analyses, component and full scale testing, and data collection and analysis on an aircraft by aircraft basis, to validate analyses and accurately predict fatigue damage for the optimization of inspection intervals and maximization of aircraft availability. The A-10 OEM Team continues to be a key member of the A-10 ASIP Team, providing loads and structures analysis, performing full scale and component testing, developing structural reinforcements and non-destructive inspection techniques to prevent structural failure, analyzing manufacturing methods for aircraft improvements and providing overall weapons system expertise for the support of the warfighter."

The is no reason why the A-10 cannot be supported, as long as there is deemed a need for them.

There's a significant difference between the B-52 and A-10. The A-10 is subjected to high G-loads and was originally designed for a service life of only 4000 flight hours. That has been extended to 8000 hours, but these hours are quickly being used up. The Plan is to extend it further to 18,000 hours to allow the Hog to serve into the 2020's by giving it new wings. However, at some point it will be more expensive to extend the service life than building a new plane. Most of the 716 A-10's that were produced have already been retired, and scrounged for parts to keep the last remaining 173 planes flying.

Call it nonsense if you like, but it won't change the fact that most A-10's are already in the graveyard, and the days, or rather hours, are numbered (literally) for the last few remaining.

[PR3D4TOR]

Me210   and 410 come to mind.  Both highly inadequate.

Both are the same aircraft, and the 410 version did ok as a fast bomber and bomber interceptor. Not quite as successful as the Mosquito, another good multipurpose aircraft.

[PR3D4TOR]

Oh, and of those 173 still in service only 54 are in active duty. The rest are in the reserve or National Guard.

[Zimme83]

F-35 can still not provide much CAS except against a low tech enemy like in A-stan. If we talk about a full scale armored warfare its no way near as good in the CAS/tank buster role as the A-10.

[Skuzzy]

There's a significant difference between the B-52 and A-10. The A-10 is subjected to high G-loads and was originally designed for a service life of only 4000 flight hours. That has been extended to 8000 hours, but these hours are quickly being used up. The Plan is to extend it further to 18,000 hours to allow the Hog to serve into the 2020's by giving it new wings. However, at some point it will be more expensive to extend the service life than building a new plane. Most of the 716 A-10's that were produced have already been retired, and scrounged for parts to keep the last remaining 173 planes flying.

Call it nonsense if you like, but it won't change the fact that most A-10's are already in the graveyard, and the days, or rather hours, are numbered (literally) for the last few remaining.

(Image removed from quote.)

I will not get into the wing loading differences between the two planes.  That has nothing to do with sustainability.

The ones in the graveyard are a choice.  It is not that they cannot be sustained.  Most of the total B52 fleet is also in a graveyard, by choice.

There is no engineering or technical reason why a plane cannot be sustained indefinitely.  Everything can be replaced.  It is a matter of choice as to whether to do it or not.

Production shut down 30 years ago, the company no longer exists and the people who worked on it are retired or dead

This is absolutely nonsense as the reason why any plane cannot be sustained.  If that reason was true, the B-52, could not be flying today, given the B52 production shut down 63 years ago.

[Karnak]

Both are the same aircraft, and the 410 version did ok as a fast bomber and bomber interceptor. Not quite as successful as the Mosquito, another good multipurpose aircraft.

"not quite as successful" is an interesting way of saying not nearly a success, unlike the very successful Mosquito.

[Widewing]

So bottom line:

almost every other force does CAS without it

And, they suffer for it.

The bottom line is saving lives.

In Vietnam when real close air support was required, the preferred aircraft were the Spad and Sandy (Skyraider). Why? Low speed target acquisition, compact maneuvering, vast and diverse ordnance load-out and loiter time. No jet was able to perform that role as well. Even the Air Force conceded that when they ordered the aircraft.

Some believe that the A-10 is too vulnerable to air attack. Any aircraft flying a strike profile faces increased vulnerability. Typically armed with a pair of all aspect AIM-9s (as required), it presents a danger to all aircraft within the missile's envelop. Flying at tree top level, and highly maneuverable, many missile radars struggle to maintain lock on the Warthog. The A-10's low IR signature, along with effective countermeasures, makes it a challenge for IR seeker weapons. Killing an A-10 is far from a slam dunk. It was engineered to operate over what was deemed the most dangerous environment they could anticipate; facing a massive Soviet/Warsaw Pact attack through the Fulda Gap with air superiority unlikely.

The IAF should consider the A10.. Boeing wants to sell refurbished A-10s abroad.....

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/06/16/boeing-looks-to-sell-retired-a-10-warthogs-abroad/

[Serenity]

I'm noticing a trend: If you have any recent combat experience at ALL, you wholeheartedly support maintaining the A-10, and think there is no real REPLACEMENT for the A-10. If you've never been closer to combat than the computer, or your role in the military is entirely about numbers and you've forgotten what combat was like, then you say can it. I wonder which side I have more faith in...

[Gman]

I wouldn't be alive today if not for if not for the A-10.  My children would be fatherless if the F-35 had been there instead.

This is really what it's all about IMO.  And until a replacement system or strategy can ensure the above, the A10 should stay.  As Widewing said as well, it's really about saving lives, which is what the CAS mission is truly all about.

What Skuzzy said regarding their being a need, I agree as well, and believe there will always be a need, so long as there are guys with small arms out there who are the enemy, and so long as terrain exists they can use as cover.  Which isn't ever going to go away, not on this earth. 

So again, until an A10 analogue or replacement system comes along which can do what it does better, getting rid of it would be one of the greatest blunders in DOD history.  Especially now, the prospect of future combat is only intensifying for the USA and its allies.

[Butcher]

The Air Force is trying to reinvent the CAS mission in an era of smart weapons.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-eyes-new-era-close-air-support

The airforce is trying to find a way to enter the modern era; do you remember a place called "Vietnam"? Our airforce thought it was a great idea to stick modern missiles on F-4's without a gun because the missiles were the way of the future.
Lets just ask some of the Phantom pilots how that worked out for them... I recall we had to invent a fighter weapons school because of it. Now lets just take a look at the airforce's attempt to replace the A-10...... With a plane that can't do half of what the A-10 can do.... Lets see how that will turn out. Problem with modern technology is you can't "teach" someone common sense. Here's a prime example of someone with no common sense using technology:


The air forces idea to remove the "Gun" proved to be ineffective in Vietnam, imagine this - we still had WW2 pilots flying in Vietnam, one can only imagine what they were saying about the F-4's inability to shoot down Mig's because the missiles were ineffective. Strategic bombing might be a good argument in whether it worked or not, however Combat Air Support has been a standard since World War 2 as Dog fighters have become. Take a look at the F-16, we learned from our mistakes in the Vietnam war and made a perfect Dogfighter that just happens to be able to perform many roles aside of it.

I agree with many of the statements here: Leave the F-16 in its multi-role configuration, Allow F-15's and F/A 18s to escort (along with F-16s) fact of the matter is: If top pilots are saying the F-35 is worthless to dogfight, you are going to be sure that its going to rely on the F-16's and F-15's to cover its own ass, but why even bother with the F-35 at that point? It might be useful here and there; but if its going to rely on OTHER aircraft to do a job its suppose to do; you might as well just keep the A-10 around along with upgrading the fleet.

I have no interest in the F-35, because its not a final product - hell at one point it couldn't even land on carriers because of a design flaw. Until the final product is made and I see a true evaluation I really don't care for it; for now they need to continue the A-10 into service until something can actually "replace" it entirely.

[bangsbox]

The A-10 is not longer a viable platform against a modern opponent. Low and slow simply isn't survivable anymore. It's still great for COIN, but not much else. If we build an air force designed to fight goat herders in some 'stan, we'll lose if confronted by another world power. We need aircraft that can win against what the Chinese and other world powers have coming off the line 20 years from now.

doesnt this line of thought make attack helicopters a waste too??

[DaveBB]

I'm noticing a trend: If you have any recent combat experience at ALL, you wholeheartedly support maintaining the A-10, and think there is no real REPLACEMENT for the A-10. If you've never been closer to combat than the computer, or your role in the military is entirely about numbers and you've forgotten what combat was like, then you say can it. I wonder which side I have more faith in...

Attack helicopters.  The British upgraded the Apache and used them with resounding success in Afghanistan. 

[Ack-Ack]

I'm talking about post D-Day.

More were shot down by AA fire during ground attack missions than Luftwaffe fighters.

[craz07]

the a10 is a low speed low altitude fighter is all i know, how good it turns out to be on the battlefield is something i think people, actuallly fighting in combat, would be able to tell the truth about the nature of the beast