USAF wants to mothball A10 fleet for F35s
12-29-2013, 12:51 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Position: A320
Posts: 170
USAF wants to mothball A10 fleet for F35s
Air Force's Beloved 'Warthog' Targeted For Retirement : NPR
Air Force's Beloved 'Warthog' Targeted For Retirement
The U.S. Air Force could retire the A-10 "Warthog," despite support for the plane from infantrymen and pilots. These types of clashes occur whenever the military tries to mothball a weapon.
Staff Sgt. Melanie Norman/U.S. Air Force
Jeff Duford is standing next to an A-10, one of the most beloved planes of all time. It's painted green, a clue that it was designed for a threat that has disappeared — it was built at the height of the Cold War.
"The reason why it's painted this way is because at that time, this airframe was expected to stop Soviet tanks from rolling through Germany," says Duford, curator of the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. "So it's painted to kind of match the terrain that one would find in Central Europe."
But the Air Force is facing some lean years ahead, and efforts to balance the budget now threaten to ground the 343 A-10s — and that has led to a backlash. Defenders of the plane say it can't be retired until the military has a replacement that is just as good at protecting ground troops.
The A-10 saga is a good example of a problem the military faces when it tries to kill any plane, or almost any weapon. With time, the weapon gains a world of supporters, making it very hard to cut the billions the Pentagon needs to save.
The A-10 has a lot of support because it turned out to be well-adapted to new scenarios after the threat of Soviet tanks faded. For example, the A-10 can operate in austere environments — like the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan — because of its unique engine design, Duford says.
The A-10's engines are mounted not in the wings, but high off the ground by the tail section. "They're much less likely to suck in debris that might be on a rough runway," Duford says. "That kind of thing going to a jet engine can destroy the engine."
The plane has a bucketful of other tools that make it a scary weapon, useful for the low-tech fighting in Afghanistan. It's heavily armored, enabling the pilot to get in close without fear of being shot down. Big fat wings let the plane fly low and slow. It also has an amazing nosegun, the GAU-8.
"The A-10 is built around this gun," Duford says. "The gun itself and the ammunition system dominate the whole front half of the aircraft."
This gun is part of the reason experienced infantrymen grow misty-eyed when they recall how this machine saved their bacon. YouTube is full of unauthorized battlefield videos showing the plane unloading nearly 4,000 rounds per minute of armor-piercing bullets that can destroy a tank or level a building.
But despite the support from airmen and infantrymen, Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff, says he has to answer this budget question:
"How do you save dollars that have a 'B' after them, instead of amounts of dollars that have an 'M' after them?"
Welsh needs to save tens of billions of dollars because the Air Force budget is plummeting to earth. He says if he just idles a few planes, he'll still have come up with spare parts for those that remain. But if he mothballs all 343 A-10's, he'll save serious money.
It's not a decision he enjoys making, as Welsh, a former pilot, told Congress earlier this year.
"A-10 was my first fighter," Welsh said. "I love the airplane. I have a thousand hours flying it. It is the best airplane in the world at what it does — it is not the best at a lot of other things."
The A-10 is a single-mission aircraft at a time when multi-mission planes are needed, according to Welsh and others.
But don't say that to A-10 veterans like Pierre Sprey, who helped design the A-10 and other planes, unless you're ready for a fight. He attended a recent conference with other A-10 fans in Washington, D.C.
"I'm here, and I guess a lot of people in this audience are here, because we're outraged by the Air Force's latest attempt to kill the A-10," Sprey said.
To him and many others, the Air Force is giving up on the plane before it has a replacement ready to help protect ground troops. Sprey says this debate is not about trying to keep a popular airframe flying forever.
"What it's really about," he says, "is the future of close air support and, in an even larger sense, the future of real and effective air power."
If the A-10 is retired, it will be a victim of tight budgets, but also of history. The U.S. fleet used to have lots of planes designed for specific tasks, but Jeff Duford of the Air Force Museum says that planes today have to be more flexible.
"More capabilities are being put on single airframes," Duford says. "That does kind of leave open a question about single-use aircraft: what is their place?"
Air Force's Beloved 'Warthog' Targeted For Retirement
The U.S. Air Force could retire the A-10 "Warthog," despite support for the plane from infantrymen and pilots. These types of clashes occur whenever the military tries to mothball a weapon.
Staff Sgt. Melanie Norman/U.S. Air Force
Jeff Duford is standing next to an A-10, one of the most beloved planes of all time. It's painted green, a clue that it was designed for a threat that has disappeared — it was built at the height of the Cold War.
"The reason why it's painted this way is because at that time, this airframe was expected to stop Soviet tanks from rolling through Germany," says Duford, curator of the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. "So it's painted to kind of match the terrain that one would find in Central Europe."
But the Air Force is facing some lean years ahead, and efforts to balance the budget now threaten to ground the 343 A-10s — and that has led to a backlash. Defenders of the plane say it can't be retired until the military has a replacement that is just as good at protecting ground troops.
The A-10 saga is a good example of a problem the military faces when it tries to kill any plane, or almost any weapon. With time, the weapon gains a world of supporters, making it very hard to cut the billions the Pentagon needs to save.
The A-10 has a lot of support because it turned out to be well-adapted to new scenarios after the threat of Soviet tanks faded. For example, the A-10 can operate in austere environments — like the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan — because of its unique engine design, Duford says.
The A-10's engines are mounted not in the wings, but high off the ground by the tail section. "They're much less likely to suck in debris that might be on a rough runway," Duford says. "That kind of thing going to a jet engine can destroy the engine."
The plane has a bucketful of other tools that make it a scary weapon, useful for the low-tech fighting in Afghanistan. It's heavily armored, enabling the pilot to get in close without fear of being shot down. Big fat wings let the plane fly low and slow. It also has an amazing nosegun, the GAU-8.
"The A-10 is built around this gun," Duford says. "The gun itself and the ammunition system dominate the whole front half of the aircraft."
This gun is part of the reason experienced infantrymen grow misty-eyed when they recall how this machine saved their bacon. YouTube is full of unauthorized battlefield videos showing the plane unloading nearly 4,000 rounds per minute of armor-piercing bullets that can destroy a tank or level a building.
But despite the support from airmen and infantrymen, Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff, says he has to answer this budget question:
"How do you save dollars that have a 'B' after them, instead of amounts of dollars that have an 'M' after them?"
Welsh needs to save tens of billions of dollars because the Air Force budget is plummeting to earth. He says if he just idles a few planes, he'll still have come up with spare parts for those that remain. But if he mothballs all 343 A-10's, he'll save serious money.
It's not a decision he enjoys making, as Welsh, a former pilot, told Congress earlier this year.
"A-10 was my first fighter," Welsh said. "I love the airplane. I have a thousand hours flying it. It is the best airplane in the world at what it does — it is not the best at a lot of other things."
The A-10 is a single-mission aircraft at a time when multi-mission planes are needed, according to Welsh and others.
But don't say that to A-10 veterans like Pierre Sprey, who helped design the A-10 and other planes, unless you're ready for a fight. He attended a recent conference with other A-10 fans in Washington, D.C.
"I'm here, and I guess a lot of people in this audience are here, because we're outraged by the Air Force's latest attempt to kill the A-10," Sprey said.
To him and many others, the Air Force is giving up on the plane before it has a replacement ready to help protect ground troops. Sprey says this debate is not about trying to keep a popular airframe flying forever.
"What it's really about," he says, "is the future of close air support and, in an even larger sense, the future of real and effective air power."
If the A-10 is retired, it will be a victim of tight budgets, but also of history. The U.S. fleet used to have lots of planes designed for specific tasks, but Jeff Duford of the Air Force Museum says that planes today have to be more flexible.
"More capabilities are being put on single airframes," Duford says. "That does kind of leave open a question about single-use aircraft: what is their place?"
12-29-2013, 12:54 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Position: A320
Posts: 170
Bill Blocks Air Force from Retiring A-10 Warthog
by KRIS OSBORN on DECEMBER 13, 2013
http://defensetech.org/2013/12/13/bi...-a-10-warthog/
The bipartisan defense budget that passed through the House Thursday includes strict language mandating the Air Force not execute any plans to retire the A-10 Warthog. The legislation specifically blocks the Air Force from spending any money to divest A-10s through calendar year 2014.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh has said the service needs to retired older, single mission aircraft like the A-10 in order to reserve funding for newer aircraft like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is slotted to take over the A-10’s close air support role.
In service since the 70’s, the twin-engine jet aircraft is designed to provide ground troops with close air support by using its armored fuselage for protection, flying low to the ground to track and hit enemies and firing deadly 30mm rotary cannons.
Lawmakers have pushed back against any talk of the A-10’s retirement. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., blocked the nomination of the Air Force secretary, citing her concerns about Air Force’s A-10 plans and Defense Department struggles to bring the Joint Strike Fighter online.
Air Force has not formally made a decision about whether to retire the aircraft. However, Lt. Gen. Charles Davis, Military Deputy for Air Force Acquisition, made clear that budget restrictions have forced the service to consider cutting entire programs to save money.
“Everything that we have is being effected by sequestration right now – satellites, missiles, air frames have already been cut 13 percent. Do you try to retire something so that you get rid of the entire logistics trail and the depot? You can save a lot of money. That is the discussion that is going on right now,” he said.
The potential budget deal that still needs to be approved by the Senate and signed by President Obama would reduce sequestration cuts and add $3 to $7 billion to the Air Force’s budget. However, Davis said the service would not prioritize saving the A-10 and instead listed funding more flying hours and the Joint Strike Fighter program has higher priorities.
Davis did say that technological advances such as sensors and laser-guided weaponry have made it possible for a number of aircraft, such as F-16 fighter jets, to successfully perform close air support. F-16s have regularly provided close air support in Afghanistan, service officials specified.
“F-16 does a wonderful close air support mission. You don’t need to fly slow with a lot of titanium armor with a 30-mm gun just to be able to do close air support. We’ve got B-52s and B-1s doing close air support. The weapons have changed the game,” Davis said.
Furthermore, Davis emphasized that close air support in potential future conflicts will likely require different technologies than are currently needed in Afghanistan today.
“Close air support is not hovering close with a gun anymore. That works great in a situation like Afghanistan — but if you assume that we are not going to fight that way all over the world you are going to do close air support much differently. Your ultimate close air support weapon would be something above the earth with a pinpoint accuracy laser that can pick off a person individually when they get too near our troops and do it repeatedly,” Davis added.
by KRIS OSBORN on DECEMBER 13, 2013
http://defensetech.org/2013/12/13/bi...-a-10-warthog/
The bipartisan defense budget that passed through the House Thursday includes strict language mandating the Air Force not execute any plans to retire the A-10 Warthog. The legislation specifically blocks the Air Force from spending any money to divest A-10s through calendar year 2014.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh has said the service needs to retired older, single mission aircraft like the A-10 in order to reserve funding for newer aircraft like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is slotted to take over the A-10’s close air support role.
In service since the 70’s, the twin-engine jet aircraft is designed to provide ground troops with close air support by using its armored fuselage for protection, flying low to the ground to track and hit enemies and firing deadly 30mm rotary cannons.
Lawmakers have pushed back against any talk of the A-10’s retirement. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., blocked the nomination of the Air Force secretary, citing her concerns about Air Force’s A-10 plans and Defense Department struggles to bring the Joint Strike Fighter online.
Air Force has not formally made a decision about whether to retire the aircraft. However, Lt. Gen. Charles Davis, Military Deputy for Air Force Acquisition, made clear that budget restrictions have forced the service to consider cutting entire programs to save money.
“Everything that we have is being effected by sequestration right now – satellites, missiles, air frames have already been cut 13 percent. Do you try to retire something so that you get rid of the entire logistics trail and the depot? You can save a lot of money. That is the discussion that is going on right now,” he said.
The potential budget deal that still needs to be approved by the Senate and signed by President Obama would reduce sequestration cuts and add $3 to $7 billion to the Air Force’s budget. However, Davis said the service would not prioritize saving the A-10 and instead listed funding more flying hours and the Joint Strike Fighter program has higher priorities.
Davis did say that technological advances such as sensors and laser-guided weaponry have made it possible for a number of aircraft, such as F-16 fighter jets, to successfully perform close air support. F-16s have regularly provided close air support in Afghanistan, service officials specified.
“F-16 does a wonderful close air support mission. You don’t need to fly slow with a lot of titanium armor with a 30-mm gun just to be able to do close air support. We’ve got B-52s and B-1s doing close air support. The weapons have changed the game,” Davis said.
Furthermore, Davis emphasized that close air support in potential future conflicts will likely require different technologies than are currently needed in Afghanistan today.
“Close air support is not hovering close with a gun anymore. That works great in a situation like Afghanistan — but if you assume that we are not going to fight that way all over the world you are going to do close air support much differently. Your ultimate close air support weapon would be something above the earth with a pinpoint accuracy laser that can pick off a person individually when they get too near our troops and do it repeatedly,” Davis added.
12-29-2013, 12:55 PM
#3
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: 7th green
Posts: 4,378
What they meant to say was, "Today's planes have to be built in as many Congressional pork barrel districts as possible." Example: John Boner killed the bill that would have closed the F-35 engine plant in his district that the Air Force DIDN'T WANT.
What a surprise.
What a surprise.
12-29-2013, 01:09 PM
#4
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
I'm pretty sure that was courtesy of some Ohio Congressman or Senators...I'd have to do a little web surfing to find the reference. But in the mean time you can guess where M1 Abrams tanks are manufactured/refurbished....
12-29-2013, 07:05 PM
#6
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
From the Land Down Under
Excellent investigative report from Australia on their view of this disaster.
Very well-done; they did their research.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pteMgYPm1xM
Lockheed
Is
Gonna
Have
To
Notify:
It's
No
Good
It's
Insanity
Very well-done; they did their research.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pteMgYPm1xM
Lockheed
Is
Gonna
Have
To
Notify:
It's
No
Good
It's
Insanity
12-29-2013, 08:35 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Posts: 215
Excellent investigative report from Australia on their view of this disaster.
Very well-done; they did their research.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pteMgYPm1xM
Lockheed
Is
Gonna
Have
To
Notify:
It's
No
Good
It's
Insanity
Very well-done; they did their research.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pteMgYPm1xM
Lockheed
Is
Gonna
Have
To
Notify:
It's
No
Good
It's
Insanity
Is the plan to sell horrible aircraft to other countries to hold them back? Maybe it is intended to make the aircraft sound amazing and then give them junk compared to what else can be had.
It's too bad. The real smart move, in my opinion, would have been to go with the F-15SE. That airframe has paid it's dues and proven it's worth ten fold.
Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
F-15 Silent Eagle for South Korea - YouTube
12-31-2013, 07:55 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 1,385
The F-22 is a single mission a/c and would save more money...
I realize it can drop a JDAM but anyone who's seen it's A-G capability knows it's a joke. The A-10 has more A/A capability than the F-22's A/G capability, and more wartime a/a kills. Merely a puppet show to trick congress into giving the USAF more money.
Iraq and Afghanistan, the two longest and expensive wars in US history...and the F-22 was irrelevant to both.
I realize it can drop a JDAM but anyone who's seen it's A-G capability knows it's a joke. The A-10 has more A/A capability than the F-22's A/G capability, and more wartime a/a kills. Merely a puppet show to trick congress into giving the USAF more money.
Iraq and Afghanistan, the two longest and expensive wars in US history...and the F-22 was irrelevant to both.
12-31-2013, 08:00 AM
#9
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,016
In the grand scheme of national security, those wars are sideshows. We do still need some sort of High capability...but maybe it could be new F-15s? I think the trillion-dollar question is how bad do we need stealth? Also what are the odds that someone will field a stealth-defeating technical breakthrough?
12-31-2013, 08:17 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
In the grand scheme of national security, those wars are sideshows. We do still need some sort of High capability...but maybe it could be new F-15s? I think the trillion-dollar question is how bad do we need stealth? Also what are the odds that someone will field a stealth-defeating technical breakthrough?
Counter-measure created.
Counter-counter measure created.
Etc....
It has been this way since the beginning.
It will not change.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
