• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

In Defense Bill, Congress Rejects Bid to Retire A-10s, F-15Es

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Fossil
Reaction score
42,728
Points
1,160
Stay of execution...


In Defense Bill, Congress Rejects Bid to Retire A-10s, F-15Es​


Lawmakers resolving differences in the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization bill want to stop cuts to the Air Force’s combat fleet by blocking scores of planned divestments of aging A-10 and F-15E fighters.

The bill, unveiled Dec. 7, rejects the Air Force plan to retire all 162 A-10s still flying along with 21 F-15Es in 2026. If passed into law, the measure would limit divestments this fiscal year to just 59 A-10s and no F-15Es.

Also in the measure, Congress would redirect $250 million from future upgrades to the F-35 fighter and instead use it to supplement spare parts purchases.

The annual defense policy bill is considered must-pass legislation. The House passed its version in September and the Senate followed in October. Negotiations since produced the resulting 3,000-page bipartisan, bicameral conference bill, which is expected to move through both chambers in the coming weeks.

Known generally as the NDAA, the annual defense measure authorizes spending, sets policy, and directs actions, including reports, studies, research, and more. It is separate and distinct from the Defense Appropriations bill, which actually funds the department.

Lawmakers have used the NDAA to block Air Force divestment in the past, particularly for the A-10. Air Force officials acknowledge the Thunderbolt II was invaluable during the Global War on Terror but say it is poorly suited for high-end conflict in contested airspace. But lawmakers are pushing back, protecting bases with A-10 squadrons and arguing the Air Force is too eager to drop a still useful airframe.

 
The USAF has been trying to get rid of the A-10s for ages but Congress won’t let them.

Personally, I’m a fan of them…😁
 
Stay of execution...


In Defense Bill, Congress Rejects Bid to Retire A-10s, F-15Es​


Lawmakers resolving differences in the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization bill want to stop cuts to the Air Force’s combat fleet by blocking scores of planned divestments of aging A-10 and F-15E fighters.

The bill, unveiled Dec. 7, rejects the Air Force plan to retire all 162 A-10s still flying along with 21 F-15Es in 2026. If passed into law, the measure would limit divestments this fiscal year to just 59 A-10s and no F-15Es.

Also in the measure, Congress would redirect $250 million from future upgrades to the F-35 fighter and instead use it to supplement spare parts purchases.

The annual defense policy bill is considered must-pass legislation. The House passed its version in September and the Senate followed in October. Negotiations since produced the resulting 3,000-page bipartisan, bicameral conference bill, which is expected to move through both chambers in the coming weeks.

Known generally as the NDAA, the annual defense measure authorizes spending, sets policy, and directs actions, including reports, studies, research, and more. It is separate and distinct from the Defense Appropriations bill, which actually funds the department.

Lawmakers have used the NDAA to block Air Force divestment in the past, particularly for the A-10. Air Force officials acknowledge the Thunderbolt II was invaluable during the Global War on Terror but say it is poorly suited for high-end conflict in contested airspace. But lawmakers are pushing back, protecting bases with A-10 squadrons and arguing the Air Force is too eager to drop a still useful airframe.

Interesting.
So the USAAF puts forward a proposal to retire some planes in order to save money and to allocate the savings into procuring more F35's.

Sounds similar to the proposal that I had suggested with the RCAF proposing the retirement of the Snowbirds and to re-allocate the money into increasing our number of fighter pilots being trained overseas and reassigning the snowbird aircrews to other RCAF squadrons that might be short of staff.
 
Interesting.
So the USAAF puts forward a proposal to retire some planes in order to save money and to allocate the savings into procuring more F35's.

Sounds similar to the proposal that I had suggested with the RCAF proposing the retirement of the Snowbirds and to re-allocate the money into increasing our number of fighter pilots being trained overseas and reassigning the snowbird aircrews to other RCAF squadrons that might be short of staff.
There is minimal availability of fighter training overseas. Other nations have also reduced capacity.
 
There is minimal availability of fighter training overseas. Other nations have also reduced capacity.
I've read that we've placed fighter pilots with both the Italian and Finnish air forces recently, approximately 6 at a time.
 
There is minimal availability of fighter training overseas. Other nations have also reduced capacity.
 
The USAF has been trying to get rid of the A-10s for ages but Congress won’t let them.

Personally, I’m a fan of them…😁
I love em to and recall them overflying Div HQ in RV 81 at low level at 0600 or so.

Magnificent aircraft but some are long in the tooth I am guessing.

What is the actual role of it now?
 
I don't understand the logic of getting rid of A-10s and buying new prop-driven aircraft to stooge around low intensity battlefield skies.

"Armament: One 30mm GAU-8/A seven-barrel Gatling gun; up to 16,000 pounds (7,200 kilograms) of mixed ordnance on eight under-wing and three under-fuselage pylon stations, including 500 pound (225 kilograms) Mk-82 and 2,000 pounds (900 kilograms) Mk-84 series low/high drag bombs, incendiary cluster bombs, combined effects munitions, mine dispensing munitions, AGM-65 Maverick missiles, laser-/GPS-guided bombs, unguided and laser-guided 2.75-inch (6.99 centimeters) rockets; infrared countermeasure flares; electronic countermeasure chaff; jammer pods; illumination flares and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles."




If there are places that Cropdusters and BeechKings and helicopters can fly safely then surely the A-10 can still find skies in which to operate.

Not to mention this business of back stopping GBAD-CUAS systems.
 
I don't understand the logic of getting rid of A-10s and buying new prop-driven aircraft to stooge around low intensity battlefield skies.
Age (youngest A-10's are almost 42 years old)? Operating cost? Possibly outdated electronics that are difficult/costly to upgrade?

The above is just spit-balling as I have no informed idea, but from what I can tell the USAF has been talking about getting rid of the A-10's for at least 10 years spanning 4 Presidencies (both parties) so I multiple sets of USAF leadership seem to be in agreement on the issue. Who am I to argue?
 
Age (youngest A-10's are almost 42 years old)? Operating cost? Possibly outdated electronics that are difficult/costly to upgrade?

The above is just spit-balling as I have no informed idea, but from what I can tell the USAF has been talking about getting rid of the A-10's for at least 10 years spanning 4 Presidencies (both parties) so I multiple sets of USAF leadership seem to be in agreement on the issue. Who am I to argue?

To which I would respond B-52 (1962 for the youngest - 63 years old), C-5B (36), B-1B (37).
Now cruising at 30,000 ft is different than hard turns on the deck so one thing is not like the other.
But if the platform still has its uses perhaps it can be refitted if need be.

Same as you. Just trying to understand why this debate seems perennial.
 
Back
Top