Any decision on the A-10 retirement yet?

[fulcrum1]

Of all people, Mr. Stark you would be the one to know that one size does not fit all, and in fact, different weapon systems are needed for different situations.

[Check Six]

Although Moseley works for LM the A-10 has been discussed here before and I suggest you read up here to take a look at some of the reasons why the A-10 is becoming irrelevant:

http://www.arcforums...pic=267719&st=0

Note: This topic is about an article the first page, gets a little messy on pages 2 and 3, and then gets VERY in depth on pages 4 and 5. Read the whole thing though.

Again Moseley did not leave the USAF on good terms, however the current USAF Chief of Staff who was talking about retiring the A-10 in the first place (this time around) is a former A-10 driver... So he understands the limitations.

Just finished reading the thread.

Very good points were brought up.

Probably the most significant/convincing post in that thread:

Waco, on 21 August 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

It sure does. Most of the "much more today" is further justification for accepting the phase out of the A-10 in favor of other budgetary priorities. If you work your way back to page one of this thread, you'll see plenty of folks arguing the A-10s 30mm, ability to get down low-slow, put eyeballs on target, and loiter in a target area for an extended time are the main reasons for keeping the 'Hog. Of course, that's not the way CAS is done any more, not even by the A-10. All these whiz bang toys that bring the 'Hog up to C-model standard are designed to improve its connectivity, better network the aircraft into battlefield SA and C2 tools, carry much improved/modern targeting pods, and increase its ability to use smart and standoff munitions. In short, the C-model upgrades help give the A-10 a bunch of capabilities that other fighters have had for a long time, and bring it up to speed for the modern CAS battle.

Reality can be rather uncomfortable at times.

[Tony Stark]

I love me some AC-130, but the restrictions placed on that angel of death makes it a pipe dream even within sof these days. Conventional forces in a tic? Name one time in the last five its been used. Even the stingers are getting rolled up in the same mission set the spectres are being used for. Might as well put the gun in a cop because the only howitzers firing are those with the excal rounds on the ground.

And Hogs have equally bad restrictions. Those mobile tactical SAMs like the SA-11 are a b!tch.

Oh, btw, you'd better let the Marines know those KC-130J Harvest Hawk gunships are a pipe dream and weren't at all used since 2011.

Also, the CAS provided by the F-14 in OIF is a different beast that I don't think has been declass yet.

And the A-10 wasn't the perfect platform then for that classified CAS mission because...

Waco, on 21 August 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

It sure does. Most of the "much more today" is further justification for accepting the phase out of the A-10 in favor of other budgetary priorities. If you work your way back to page one of this thread, you'll see plenty of folks arguing the A-10s 30mm, ability to get down low-slow, put eyeballs on target, and loiter in a target area for an extended time are the main reasons for keeping the 'Hog. Of course, that's not the way CAS is done any more, not even by the A-10. All these whiz bang toys that bring the 'Hog up to C-model standard are designed to improve its connectivity, better network the aircraft into battlefield SA and C2 tools, carry much improved/modern targeting pods, and increase its ability to use smart and standoff munitions. In short, the C-model upgrades help give the A-10 a bunch of capabilities that other fighters have had for a long time, and bring it up to speed for the modern CAS battle.

So if budgets are shrinking, and the A-10 is limited to roles that can - and have - been performed by others for years now....

Of all people, Mr. Stark you would be the one to know that one size does not fit all, and in fact, different weapon systems are needed for different situations.

And older, less capable and survivable weapon systems get replaced by better ones.

[fulcrum1]

And Hogs have equally bad restrictions. Those mobile tactical SAMs like the SA-11 are a b!tch.

Contested airspace is a different animal and it's yet to be seen what and how a linear battlefield would unfold and how certain weapon systems would be employed. We'll see in a couple months when they start training again with those scenarios.

Oh, btw, you'd better let the Marines know those KC-130J Harvest Hawk gunships are a pipe dream and weren't at all used since 2011.

They were, and did a great job of lum, trash hauling out of Helmand, and helping the ANSF two years ago. Great concept and from what I understand the Marines did it on the cheap. They did provide CAS on occasion, but that wasn't how they were utilized and most of the bombs painted on the side were not from CAS missions.

So if budgets are shrinking, and the A-10 is limited to roles that can - and have - been performed by others for years now...

I've been playing devil's advocate most of the time. There isn't a perfect CAS platform, each weapon system provides a different package that JTACs and FACs use to coordinate what is needed when, where, and how in uncontested airspace.

[GEH737]

"So the whole A-X program opened up in '67, the RFPs sent out in 1970 and the fly-off between '72 and '73."

The Air Force didn't embrace the A-X competition. It's underlying mission was to prove that the Air Force could mange a new weapons systems procurement after the fiscal woes that were plaguing the C-5 and F-15 in the late 60's / early 70's.

[Tony Stark]

Ugh. And I thought the mourning over the Tomcat's retirement was bad.

[GEH737]

I personally don't see it as much of a mourning thing - as the political motivations seem pretty apparent. The Air Force wants the F-35 - no sweat. Wouldn't it seem prudent to wait until you've got them on the ramp and thoroughly tested first? It was the same argument Gen. Horner made to us at England AFB back in 1989. He wanted to make the F-16 the next Close Air Support aircraft - and more importantly, it was in production. The A-10 has certainly proved its worth, and there will be a day when it makes its final flight. Until then, why ground it if you don't have a replacement lined up and ready to go?

[-Neu-]

Alright three points.

First, it seems as if its some fundamental truth that the AF has "always hated the A-10" and much more broadly "never wanted to do CAS." Rather than go into it myself, the Elements of Power Blog has had a long running series that basically completely debunks that myth. You can see it here:

Part 1: “CAS Was More Important to the Flyboys When the Air Force Was Part of the Army”

Part 2: Not so good old days

Part 3: Vietnam and the Rise of the No AF CAS Myth/

Part 4: Origins of the A-X program

Part 5: The Evolution of the A-10 program

Part 6: A-10s Forever?

Part 7: Sourcing the AF Hates the A-10 Nonsense

Its pretty comprehensive and makes it pretty clear the AF institutionally has been behind the A-10. Much of the criticism comes from the "Defence reformers" like James Fallows' group back in the early 1980s.

As to the A-10's current situation, there has been three main arguments for: It is more survivable than other aircraft, and brings a unique weapons load. (the third not discussed is CSAR, which actually might be the most viable.)

Survivability is likely the A-10's biggest factor behindits replacement. Even during the First Gulf War, the A-10's survivability wasn't all that stellar... accounting for 6 out of the 13 USAF aircraft shot down by AD (though operating in a difficult environment) The movement towards medium to high altitude strikes in the 1990s was a direct result of the efficacy of low altitude missile systems like the SA-6, 13 and 16 during the gulf war. Since then there has been significantly better systems fielded like the SA-22, 24 and the upcoming Morfey.

As Waco pointed out, the C model upgrades were installed to allow the A-10 to operate more like other aircraft carrying out CAS. Low altitude was essential back in the 1970s to accurately identify and prosecute targets, especially in CAS... not so much in the era of Wide area surveillance systems, drones, networked information and improved mounted sensors.

However the main rationale most people suggest is that the A-10 brings a unique weapon to the fold: the Gau-8. Certainly the weapon is impressive, but developments in munitions have made it replaceable. The last decade in particular has witnessed the development of a whole new generation of cheap, lightweight highly accurate rockets, bombs and sub-munitions that can replicate the GAU-8's effects. A list includes:

Hydra-70 Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System

Hydra-70 Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket

Direct Attack Guided Rocket,

Laser Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket,

GBU-53/B Small diameter bomb II,

GBU-44/B Viper Strike

AGM-176 Griffin

That's just off the top of my head. I know there are at least a half dozen more projects that are under development or newly introduced. All of these have Sub-1 meter CEPs, are light weight, can be guided (often by a man on the ground) and designed to be inexpensive. That's not to say that these systems replace having a cannon mounted on an aircraft. Rather the question is whether the AF should incur the added cost of maintaining one system because of a 30mm cannon, when we have 20mm and 25mm cannons in service, as well as newer and more accurate guided munitions that can replicate those larger effects.

There are other rationales for keeping the A-10 (longer loiter and CSAR) but in the end the AF decided to cut the fleet and spend its money on recapitalization. Given the average age of the USAF's combat aircraft is over 24 years, and the A-10 is one of the oldest at 28, it made sense for the aircraft to be replaced (especially given how the recent upgrades will increase its CPFH). Certainly the A-10 was/is a unique and effective weapon, however the battlefield has changed in the past 40 years and technology has progressed.

Edited December 7, 2013 by -Neu-

[Check Six]

Ugh. And I thought the mourning over the Tomcat's retirement was bad.

Agreed.

The F-14 Tomcat was the future of U.S. Naval aviation when I started model building back in 1971. Being a former Navy brat, I had access to Oceana NAS and Mira Mar NAS.

During the mid to late '70's, I used to visit the corner of a hangar (Facing away from the flightline NAS Mira Mar) and view the wreckage's of at least two F-14's and an F-4.

And I spent hours and hours at the fire station building area (At NAS Mira Mar) watching the flightline. What's interesting is that when someone inquired what we're (Two 12/13/14 Y.O. boys) doing there and where does my dad work, they always seemed awe-struck when I told them he's stationed at Ballast Point on a submarine (USS Haddo). I even scored a couple of patches because my dad was a 'bubblehead' !

I even got to meet my Navy pilot hero 'Duke' Cunningham. At the time he was still a Top Gun instructor.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Ugh. And I thought the mourning over the Tomcat's retirement was bad.

A-10 will make the Tomcat's passing look like a brief second of melancholy

I even got to meet my Navy pilot hero 'Duke' Cunningham. At the time he was still a Top Gun instructor.

I sold Duke a pack of smokes once, no wait -- I sold Duke for a pack of smokes.

Edited December 7, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[Check Six]

Alright three points.

First, it seems as if its some fundamental truth that the AF has "always hated the A-10" and much more broadly "never wanted to do CAS." Rather than go into it myself, the Elements of Power Blog has had a long running series that basically completely debunks that myth. You can see it here:

Part 1: "CAS Was More Important to the Flyboys When the Air Force Was Part of the Army"

Part 2: Not so good old days

Part 3: Vietnam and the Rise of the No AF CAS Myth/

Part 4: Origins of the A-X program

Part 5: The Evolution of the A-10 program

Part 6: A-10s Forever?

Part 7: Sourcing the AF Hates the A-10 Nonsense

Its pretty comprehensive and makes it pretty clear the AF institutionally has been behind the A-10. Much of the criticism comes from the "Defence reformers" like James Fallows' group back in the early 1980s.

As to the A-10's current situation, there has been three main arguments for: It is more survivable than other aircraft, and brings a unique weapons load. (the third not discussed is CSAR, which actually might be the most viable.)

Survivability is likely the A-10's biggest factor behindits replacement. Even during the First Gulf War, the A-10's survivability wasn't all that stellar... accounting for 6 out of the 13 USAF aircraft shot down by AD (though operating in a difficult environment) The movement towards medium to high altitude strikes in the 1990s was a direct result of the efficacy of low altitude missile systems like the SA-6, 13 and 16 during the gulf war. Since then there has been significantly better systems fielded like the SA-22, 24 and the upcoming Morfey.

Moreover there is less of a need for low altitude operations. Weapons have changed (see next section) and sensors have dramatically improved. The A-10 was designed before the emergence of systems like LANTIRN and other electro optical sensors in the 1980s. Low altitude was essential back then to accurately identify and prosecute targets, especially in CAS. That has been changing significantly in part due to the C4ISR revolution of the past 20 years. Wide area surveillance systems, drones, networked information and improved organically mounted sensors really reduce the need for aircraft to fly low and expose themselves risky situations.

However the main rationale most people suggest is that the A-10 brings a unique weapon to the fold: the Gau-8. Certainly the weapon is impressive, but developments in munitions have made it replaceable. The last decade in particular has witnessed the development of a whole new generation of cheap, lightweight highly accurate rockets, bombs and sub-munitions that can replicate the GAU-8's effects. A list includes:

Hydra-70 Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System

Hydra-70 Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket

Direct Attack Guided Rocket,

Laser Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket,

GBU-53/B Small diameter bomb II,

GBU-44/B Viper Strike

AGM-176 Griffin

That's just off the top of my head. I know there are at least a half dozen more projects that are under development or newly introduced. All of these have Sub-1 meter CEPs, are light weight, can be guided (often by a soldier on the ground) and designed to be inexpensive. That's not to say that these systems replace having a cannon mounted on an aircraft. Rather the question is whether the AF should incur the added cost of maintaining one system because of a 30mm cannon, when we have 20mm and 25mm cannons in service, as well as newer and more accurate guided munitions that can replicate those larger effects.

There are other rationales for keeping the A-10 (longer loiter and CSAR) but in the end the AF decided to cut the fleet and spend its money on recapitalization. Given the average age of the USAF's combat aircraft is over 24 years, and the A-10 is one of the oldest at 28, it made sense for the aircraft to be replaced (especially given how the recent upgrades will increase its CPFH). Certainly the A-10 was/is a unique and effective weapon, however the battlefield has changed in the past 40 years and technology has progressed.

Good points you bring up.

The bottom line is as long as CAS is not compromised (Whatever the reasonable definition of CAS is) .

Here's my fantasy CAS idea/theory:

An a/c that loiters and carries mini Tomahawk-type munitions that is a CBU for both anti-personnel or anti-vehicle/light-med armor that has a range of 161km.

Ground forces call in CAS and gives local info to loitering a/c.

A/c receives request and info; dials in info to munitions; munitions are launched; munitions finds target and goes boom; threat eliminated.

[TaiidanTomcat]

(Whatever the reasonable definition of CAS is) .

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

[fulcrum1]

First, it seems as if its some fundamental truth that the AF has "always hated the A-10" and much more broadly "never wanted to do CAS." Rather than go into it myself, the Elements of Power Blog has had a long running series that basically completely debunks that myth. You can see it here:

Might want to find other sources, I found 4-5 quick errors glancing through it and quit reading. CAS wasn't a priority or they would train on it, they didn't and the start of OEF things were dicey. Of course things are different now having their hand forced by the nature of the conflict we got ourselves into.

[Tony Stark]

CAS wasn't a priority or they would train on it, they didn't and the start of OEF things were dicey.

Sigh. For those just tuning in...

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=267719&view=findpost&p=2538261

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=267719&view=findpost&p=2538318

[fulcrum1]

Sigh. For those just tuning in...

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=267719&view=findpost&p=2538261

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=267719&view=findpost&p=2538318

....and what does that have to do with the AF training on CAS? Those Strike Eagle, Viper, and Bone pilots were doing stuff for the first time in '02. This isn't an argument about C2 and joint ops planning.

[Check Six]

http://www.fas.org/i...od/jp3_09_3.pdf

Holy smokes!

True to typical U.S. Government bureaucracy: 275 pages !

Thanks for sharing the link. I have some reading to do!

[Check Six]

I sold Duke a pack of smokes once, no wait -- I sold Duke for a pack of smokes.

O.K.; I give up.

I don't get your point.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Holy smokes!

True to typical U.S. Government bureaucracy: 275 pages !

Thanks for sharing the link. I have some reading to do!

Your welcome but the reason it is long is because CAS is not an easy task, its complex and must be universally understood and applied, and getting it wrong means the death of friendlies sometimes even by direct effect. Its also one of the reasons the A-10 is looking obsolete, there is still a cabal of people out there who think the A-10 flies at tree top level and acquires and differentiates targets/friendlies using the old mark I eyeball while straffing with guns. And we don't use A-10s like that. They are beholden to the same rules that other aircraft are with the JTAC doctrine. So whether a JATC/FAC/FO is calling in a B-52, Apache, Harrier, F-14 (What is dead, may never die), F-16s And A-10s its all called in the same way. And the current ROEs have the JTAC calling all the plays and the pilots dropping when they are told to.

We don't fly A-10s like A-10s anymore. We fly them like slower F-16s with more gas and slower speed. and it should be a rule of warfare that "If you have them in gun range, you're in missile range"

O.K.; I give up.

I don't get your point.

He was imprisoned for bribery

[Murph]

I personally don't see it as much of a mourning thing - as the political motivations seem pretty apparent. The A-10 has certainly proved its worth, and there will be a day when it makes its final flight. Until then, why ground it if you don't have a replacement lined up and ready to go?

The political motivations certainly are apparent as Congress fights to keep weapon systems purely because they're based in their districts. The Air Force (and the other services) are literally preparing 4 or 5 different budgets every year because the political leaders have failed abjectly in their responsibility to pass a budget and now sequestration is the guiding principle. Sort of. No matter how they slice it, the Air Force is facing cuts, the only question is how deep they will be. At the same time they have their hands tied by politicians who are all for saving money from the defense budget, as long as the money saved does not come out of their district. There are other systems that the USAF might want to cut before the A-10, want to guess why they can't?

Regards,

Murph

[Check Six]

Your welcome but the reason it is long is because CAS is not an easy task, its complex and must be universally understood and applied, and getting it wrong means the death of friendlies sometimes even by direct effect. Its also one of the reasons the A-10 is looking obsolete, there is still a cabal of people out there who think the A-10 flies at tree top level and acquires and differentiates targets/friendlies using the old mark I eyeball while straffing with guns. And we don't use A-10s like that. They are beholden to the same rules that other aircraft are with the JTAC doctrine. So whether a JATC/FAC/FO is calling in a B-52, Apache, Harrier, F-14 (What is dead, may never die), F-16s And A-10s its all called in the same way. And the current ROEs have the JTAC calling all the plays and the pilots dropping when they are told to.

We don't fly A-10s like A-10s anymore. We fly them like slower F-16s with more gas and slower speed. and it should be a rule of warfare that "If you have them in gun range, you're in missile range"

He was imprisoned for bribery

That's what changed my tune regarding the A-10: "We don't fly A-10s like A-10s anymore. We fly them like slower F-16s with more gas and slower speed."

I figured you were referring to his corruption charges.

Duke represented my district during his political career. I moved up to Idaho in '99 and his world began to crumble down in '02/'03.

The real damning evidence against him was the 'How much do you want to bribe me' cost list. He hand wrote it on his own stationary!

[TaiidanTomcat]

The political motivations certainly are apparent as Congress fights to keep weapon systems purely because they're based in their districts. The Air Force (and the other services) are literally preparing 4 or 5 different budgets every year because the political leaders have failed abjectly in their responsibility to pass a budget and now sequestration is the guiding principle. Sort of. No matter how they slice it, the Air Force is facing cuts, the only question is how deep they will be. At the same time they have their hands tied by politicians who are all for saving money from the defense budget, as long as the money saved does not come out of their district. There are other systems that the USAF might want to cut before the A-10, want to guess why they can't?

Regards,

Murph

Well said.

[TaiidanTomcat]

The political motivations certainly are apparent as Congress fights to keep weapon systems purely because they're based in their districts. The Air Force (and the other services) are literally preparing 4 or 5 different budgets every year because the political leaders have failed abjectly in their responsibility to pass a budget and now sequestration is the guiding principle. Sort of. No matter how they slice it, the Air Force is facing cuts, the only question is how deep they will be. At the same time they have their hands tied by politicians who are all for saving money from the defense budget, as long as the money saved does not come out of their district. There are other systems that the USAF might want to cut before the A-10, want to guess why they can't?

Regards,

Murph

Murph called it easily:

Lawmakers in both the House and Senate are planning legislation to block the Air Force’s plans to retire the A-10.

The announcement comes during a week of contentious dialogue between the Air Force and Congress, with lawmakers alleging that the service is breaking the law by cutting back A-10 flying hours and by inflating its estimate of savings possible by retiring the A-10. Air Force officials say they are frustrated with lawmakers’ offbase claims that the service does not care about the close air support mission, or about the lives of service members on the ground whom the A-10 protects.

“The comment I’ve heard that somehow the Air Force is walking away from close air support I must admit frustrates me,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday. “We have battlefield airmen in our Air Force who live, train, fight and die shoulder-to-shoulder with soldiers and Marines on the battlefield. ... CAS is not an afterthought for us. It never has been. It’s not an aircraft, it’s our mission and we’ll continue to do it better than anyone on Earth.”

But that is not enough for a vocal group of lawmakers,

led by Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., who say that cutting the A-10 would put troops’ lives at risk and that the Air Force has not sufficiently thought out or made the case for the Warthog’s retirement.

“Our most solemn obligation when we send our troops into harm’s way is to ensure that they have the best support possible,” Ayotte said Thursday. “Ask any solder which aircraft provides the best close air support, and they’ll tell you that the proven aircraft is the A-10.”

Ayotte, along with Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C.; and Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said they will craft and support amendments to the fiscal 2015 National Defense Authorization Act to block the cuts. Reps. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., and Ron Barber, D-Ariz., said they will support companion legislation in the House.

“We’re going to do away with the finest close air support platform in history, and we are then going to have some kind of nebulous idea of a replacement with an airplane that costs at least 10 times as much, with the F-35? That’s ridiculous,” McCain said. “That’s absolutely ridiculous.”

Ayotte said the committee is looking for cost offsets in the Defense Department budget to protect the A-10.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140410/NEWS05/304100060/Lawmakers-readying-legislation-block-10-cuts

Take that General! We don't need your decades of expertise, we have hyperbole on our side!!

[Check Six]

Pure politics and nothing else .

And one of my own F'ing Senators is part of it as well .

[SERNAK]

Though I do not agree with the specific aircraft's withdrawal from the US arsenal, my advice would be - if they have decided to withdraw them - to sell them to another country. It's a shame to see this aircraft being grounded forever.

[Moose135]

Who would buy a 30-year-old, single role aircraft today? At least out of countries we would want to do business with?