A-10 Warthog to be retired by USAF (maybe)

[CougarKing]

The A10 won't be retired for now...

Defense News

Compromise NDAA Blocks A-10 Retirement, OKs White House's Syrian Rebels Plan

WASHINGTON — House and Senate negotiators have agreed on a Pentagon policy measure that blocks A-10 retirements and greenlights plans to arm Syrian rebels, a measure that should hit the House floor this week.

Senior aides from the House and Senate Armed Services committees told reporters Tuesday a compromise 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would clear the military to spend $519 billion (including $19 billion for the Energy Department) in base funds and $63.7 billion for America’s conflict

(...SNIPPED)

 

[tomahawk6]

A-10 article.

http://www.wired.com/2014/12/a10-warthog-isis/

In one famous A-10 incident, Air Force Capt. Kim Campbell was sent to defend Army troops in the early days of the Iraq War in 2003. After firing on Iraqi Republican Guard troops, Campbell took an epic amount of enemy fire. Both hydraulic systems failed, forcing the pilot to switch to “manual reversion,” a mechanical backup that allows limited flight capability. Campbell kept flying for more than hour, safely returning to Kuwait despite being riddled with hundreds of bullet holes and a massive hole in the right horizontal stabilizer.

 

[CougarKing]

The A-10s proving their worth again over Iraq:

Military.com

A-10s Hitting ISIS Targets in Iraq

Dec 17, 2014 | by Richard Sisk
U.S. commanders have been sending A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft in recent weeks to hit ISIS targets in Iraq but not in Syria, Pentagon officials said Thursday.
The use of the A-10s followed the announcement last month by military officials that A-10s had deployed in mid-November to the Middle East in support of Operation Inherent Resolve against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

"While they're there we will maximize their use," an Air Force spokeswoman said at the time.
The A-10 Warthogs have conducted multiple strikes against ISIS in central and northwestern Iraq but have thus far been restricted from flying missions in Syria, the officials said.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[McG]

I wonder if concerns over hostile AD assets are what is keeping the A10 out of Syria.

 

[a_majoor]

I will point out again that the SU-25 (an A-10 analogue) has been effectively swept from the skies of Ukraine by a handful of SPETNAZ operators using or coaching the locals in how to use up to date MANPADS. Ukrainian aircraft were constrained from coming close to the border because the integrated Russian GBAD umbrella can reach over and cover a fairly wide swath of Ukraine as well.

While the A-10 and their pilots could be considered superior to Ukrainian Frogfoots and their pilots, I doubt the difference is so much as to negate the advantages of up to date GBAD. IF ISIS were to get their hands on modern Russian MANPADS and training, I suspect the use of A-10s in Iraq (not to mention Iranian SU-25's) would be tightly restricted.

 

[KevinB]

I suspect that USA countermeasures for MANPADS are superior to Russian, as well as the general Pilot skills.

  My guess is it is more of a Political decision not to commit them at this point

 

[daftandbarmy]

Better hang onto those A-10s. F-35 woes include, apparently, a poor CAS capability:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/newest-u-s-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets.html

 

[CougarKing]

The A-10 opponents in the USAF and US DoD have lost for now...

Weekly Standard

The Warthog Lives!
Happily, the Air Force has failed again in its crusade to kill off a great plane

Excerpt:

(...SNIPPED)

Fortunately, Congress wasn’t gulled, and the latest National Defense Authorization Act forbade the USAF from retiring the A-10. It helped that the politicians fighting for the A-10 included not just McCain but also Sen. Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire, whose husband flew A-10s in Iraq, and Represent-ative Martha McSally, a retired Air Force colonel who herself flew A-10s in combat.

ISIS also played a role in saving the A-10. A single squadron of Warthogs would have been enough to stop the ISIS blitzkrieg into northern Iraq—especially given that during the summer the Islamist force moved in long, vulnerable convoys of pickup trucks. Though it will be harder to dislodge ISIS forces now that they are hiding in Iraq’s towns, the Pentagon has deployed an Indiana National Guard A-10 air wing to Iraq, where it has been in action supporting Kurdish forces.

While the A-10’s supporters have won for now, the underlying problems with the Air Force remain. There’s an argument to be made that if it is institutionally unwilling to take seriously the mission of delivering close air support to American troops, as seems to be the case, then it would make sense to abolish its near-monopoly on fixed-wing aircraft and hand the A-10 over to a resuscitated U.S. Army Air Corps that would be pleased to have it.

(...SNIPPED)

Plus more on their current deployment as part of Operation Inherent Resolve over Iraq:

Defense News

A-10 Performing 11 Percent of Anti-ISIS Sorties
By Aaron Mehta 5:02 a.m. EST January 19, 2015
The A-10 Warthog has performed 11 percent of US Air Force sorties against the Islamic State militant group, also known as ISIS.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[CougarKing]

Preparing the A10 to serve for at least one more generation:

Boeing Roll Call

A-10 Thunderbolt II Gets New Wings, Ensures the Sound of Freedom into 2035

The A-10 Thunderbolt II plays a key role in protecting our troops and it’s about to get a makeover.

The U.S. Air Force’s A-10 Warthog, a twin-engine jet designed for close air support of ground forces, is receiving new wings that will improve mission availability and help save the Air Force an estimated $1.3 billion in maintenance costs over the next 30 years.

In recent months, Boeing was awarded three follow-on orders for a total of 56 replacement wings and is on contract to build up to 242 wings at its plant in Macon, Ga.

The A-10 is known for its excellent maneuverability at low air speeds and altitude, and its ability to deliver weapons with great accuracy. A-10s can loiter near battle areas for extended periods of time and operate under 1,000-foot ceilings and 1.5-mile visibility. With its significant range and short takeoff and landing capability, it is uniquely suited to serve in and out of locations near the front lines.

This makeover will allow the A-10 to continue to protect our troops and to operate into 2035.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[tomahawk6]

Bad news for IS.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Bad news for IS.

Making bad guys pay dearly for bringing knives to a gunfight since 1983  :nod:

 

[CougarKing]

The battle over the A-10's future isn't over:

Defense News

Ayotte Pledges to Oppose A-10 Retirement

WASHINGTON — The US Air Force announced it will try to retire the A-10 Warthog fleet in its fiscal 2016 budget request. And once again, a top member of the Senate Armed Services Committee is rallying opposition to the move.

Just hours after the service unveiled its budget plan, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., released a statement pledging to fight against the retirement of the Warthog.

(...SNIPPED)

Military.com

Air Force Maintains Plans to Retire A-10 in '16 Budget Proposal

Feb 02, 2015 | by Michael Hoffman and Bryant Jordan
Air Force leaders have not backed off their push to retire the A-10 in the Pentagon's fiscal 2016 budget request while the service has significantly boosted its investment in developing a next generation bomber, according to service budget documents.

The Air Force is requesting about $137.8 billion in its fiscal 2016 proposed budget as part of the overall $585 billion the Pentagon has requested for 2016. The $137.8 billion represents a slight budget reduction from the $138.3 the Air Force received in 2015.

Air Force leaders have said the budget has forced the service to balance maintaining the aging fleet while also paying for the development of next generation aircraft like the Long Range Strike Bomber.

Congress has flatly denied the Air Force's previous attempts to retire the A-10 fleet that Air Force leaders have said is necessary in order to free up funding and manning for the introduction of the F-35A.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[cupper]

Ah, the perpetual self licking ice cream cone that is Pentagon vs Congressional budgetary priorities.

 

[KevinB]

Ah, the perpetual self licking ice cream cone that is Pentagon vs Congressional budgetary priorities.

True - but in this case

"Congress has flatly denied the Air Force's previous attempts to retire the A-10 fleet that Air Force leaders have said is necessary in order to free up funding and manning for the introduction of the F-35A."

The plane that really can't do CAS...

  I mean clearly we are in a war with someone that has a first rate offence, and don't need CAS  :

The AirForce's of the world seem to be populated by idiot pilots (nothing against the good pilots [most who fly helo's  ] but it seems like the majority of pilots fancy themselves the current rendition of a Sopwith Camel pilot off to do battle against the Hun in a aerial dogfight man to man.  Very romantic, and I am sure gets chicks at the bar, but about 1% relevant to today's mission criteria.

 

[cupper]

Can you imagine what the Pentagon could do with the same budget, but the autonomy to spend it the way they want to spend it, rather than have to use it to help get some 2 bit politician from Podunk Backwater reelected?

 

[KevinB]

I imagine Napoleon often thought the same things...

Seriously, we live in a democracy - and why there are a number of idiotic things that DoD does, I do not think that the Military on its own should chart its future (the whole checks and balances thing).

 

[cupper]

I imagine Napoleon often thought the same things...

Seriously, we live in a democracy - and why there are a number of idiotic things that DoD does, I do not think that the Military on its own should chart its future (the whole checks and balances thing).

I agree on the checks and balances. But there is so much waste due to every congressman pushing his / her own pet project or agenda. Grant you DoD isn't off the blame hook either.

 

[CougarKing]

Reminds me of the Tarnak Farm friendly fire incident back in 2002 where a US F16 pilot inadvertently bombed 4 Canadian Soldiers in Afghanistan.

Defense News

A-10 warplane tops list for friendly fire deaths

WASHINGTON — The Air Force A-10 attack jet has killed more U.S. troops in friendly fire incidents and more Afghan civilians than any other aircraft flown by the U.S. military, according to data declassified and obtained by USA TODAY.

The close-air-support aircraft has been embroiled in a battle over its survival between hawks on Capitol Hill and the Air Force. To Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others, the jet represents an Air Force commitment to troops engaged in ground combat. To the Pentagon, it's a Cold War relic with no future in a time of tight budgets.

(...SNIPPED)

Since 2001, the A-10 has been involved in four friendly fire incidents that killed 10 U.S. troops. The next highest is the B-1B bomber, which killed five soldiers last year in one incident. Friendly fire deaths are exceptionally rare. There have been 45 total friendly fire incidents out of about 140,000 missions flown by the Air Force, Navy and Marines.

The A-10 is the aircraft responsible for the most civilian deaths in Afghanistan since 2010, when data on those deaths started to be collected. Thirty-five people have been killed compared with 19 killed by the Harrier, data show.

In close-air-support missions in which weapons were dropped in Afghanistan, the A-10 has a slightly lower percentage of civilian casualty incidents per missions flown than B-1 bombers or F-16 fighters. More than 99% of the missions in which warplanes attack enemy ground fighters avoid harm to U.S. troops or civilians.

The Air Force would like to phase out the A-10 by 2019, but pilots still use it. Since August, it has flown 14% of the missions against militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIL.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[tomahawk6]

The so called friendly fire incidents were tragic.But we have seen various forms of this throughout modern warfare.If the guys on the ground arent bombed by their own side they are hit by friendly artillery.Would I discard a system because of these incidents ? No.It is a weapon system that strikes fear in the hearts of the enemy and has been very effective.The pilots,ground controllers and communications have gotten alot better over time.

 

[KevinB]

Several FF deaths have been due to poor or incomplete instructions from Ground Based controllers.

  Also the report is clearly not very complete - as more have died from JDAM's off B-52, and B1B than the A-10 number, which seems to have conveniently been ignored.