Don't know whether this is the place for it, but I read lots of scuttlebutt today from angry infantry guys about the A-10 being phased out in favor of new-fangled concept planes like the F-35.

Curious whether this group has any opinions. Any A-10 drivers out there? Any F-35 lovers? Any former ground pounders who had their bacon saved by the trusty Warthog?

I'm in no position to comment. Just curious about your thoughts.

A-10 ain't glamorous.....
But damn effective.

lc

I don't have any military service, but as a taxpayer, I prefer the 12 million dollar A-10 to the 150 million dollar F-35. I understand that money buys technology, but it seems our current military mission has changed to hunting embedded insurgents rather than confronting militarized nations. Can we build an A-10 for 20 million with better avionics?

Not only should the HOG not be phased out, (USAF almost did it years ago) they should have another production run!
To be replaced by the F-35? I think it cost way too much and will be too fragile to be used as dedicated close air support. I don't think the F-35 would do as good a job, either. We have A-10s stationed nearby at Moody AFB and I would hate to not see them in the air anymore.

Ok, you asked so there is my opinion...

Just two weeks ago I had the privilage of flying with the Air Force pilot who has logged the most hours ever in an A-10 (now retired). His custom license plate even read "A-10 Prof". He was one of two CFI's that helped me get my tail wheel endorsement. He was such a great guy and I had so many quesitons, so I will summarize it for you....."the A-10 is awesome" !

I heard a rumor the Army was talking about taking them over and flying them themselves the last time the AF threatened to phase them out. Anyone know anything about that?

Venerable old bird,still doing the job. Personally,
I'd hate to see it go.

I find it very hard to believe that the F35 would be able to tolerate the rigors and rough life of low level, heavy ground support.

Remember Viet Nam? Weren't F4s supposed to supply the heavy ground support? Isn't this the reason the A10 was designed? Sounds like the academics repeating history's failures to me.

RanchPilot wrote:I heard a rumor the Army was talking about taking them over and flying them themselves the last time the AF threatened to phase them out. Anyone know anything about that?

In the past 40+ years the Army has been kicked in the teeth a few times when it comes to getting their own CAS platform.

Back in the 60's, the OV-1 Mohawk was originally designed as a CAS platform so that the Army could protect it's own. The Air Force raised a stink, and the Army was not allowed to arm the Mohawk.

When I was in during the 80's, the Army once again evaluated some light platforms, something between your classic COIN and a full blown CAS aircraft. The Air Force lobbied to have all testing ceased.

I've heard the story about the Army taking over the A-10's before, but I'm not sure that was an official stance, political posturing or an urban legend.

The only thing the Army can arm has to have something spinning on top.

I read something today (Pop Mechanics I think) about yet another retrofit and upgrade program for the B-52. Still hanging in there and doing the job after 50+ years... good on you old BUFF.

Then there's the old airline pilot's saying about when they retire the very last 747, a DC-3 will fly out to the boneyard to pick up the crew. (I really hope they actually make that come true when the time comes for the Jumbo) Good on you, old gooneybird.

The same kind of feeling came over me when I saw this thread about the F-35 obsoleting the A-10. It would seem doubtful to me that an ultra high-tech moneybag with vectoring rectum and more computers than Microsoft would be able to do the Close Air Support job as well as the Warthog. Sometimes you just need to provide simple, heavy, blunt force trauma to a problem. Surgeons are wonderful, but sometimes you need a big ugly thug.

All a moot point for the moment as the F-35 program continues to encounter further production delays due to developmental growing pains and associated cost overruns. Not surprising given the scale and complexity of the project. Realize that F-35 production encompasses three variants - A model for Air Force, B model for the Marine Corps STOVL capability and C model for Navy carriers.

It's not as simple a question as should the A-10 get replaced by the F-35 - ultimately A-10, F-15, F-16, F-18 and AV-8B will be replaced by F-35. Eventually they'll have to be replaced by something and F-35 represents the pinnacle of manned tactical aviation - and it very well be the last manned tactical platform to make it into production, time will tell on that one. I've flown the sim and the capes are astounding. From a logistics and training perspective a degree of commonality between branches and missions makes sense.

Like it or not niche capability platforms are no longer viable, now more than ever given our budgetary constraints a platform has to be multi-role. The budget that was just rolled out chops even more Air Force and Marine Corps tac-air squadrons, I didn't notice if the Navy is progged to lose any but I wouldn't be surprised. With fewer squadrons and jets on the line the ones we do have need to be capable of handling a little bit of everything. The question of what compromises are made with the multi-role approach is a good one but it's water under the bridge at this point.

Given how tight things are at the moment I wouldn't expect to see much of the hardware currently on the line go away too soon. With the full production schedule for F-35 still an unknown at this point DC is scrambling to build a plan to extend most of the current programs to bridge the gap. Dig around in the news and you see that we recently bought the UKs entire inventory of Harriers and spare parts. Not to fly them, just to have the spares on hand to keep that program going well beyond when they expected to shut it down.

The U-2 just got extended as well, formal end date is a little fuzzy but it'll be something around 2025. That'll have the B-52 and U-2 programs pushing 75 years of service if they actually go that long. I expect that if we ever get the budget under control again we'll see a renewed push to replace them before then, but nonetheless that's what they're budgeting for now.

As for the A-10, it does have a cool gun but it's too damn slow. They'll tell you that it's hardened and can take the hits but it becomes a chicken or the egg question - if you're going to overfly the enemy that slow you better be hardened or you won't be around long for long. My vote for premier CAS platform goes to the Harrier, but then I admit I'm a little biased.

/ramble off/

Vick wrote:Like it or not niche capability platforms are no longer viable, now more than ever given our budgetary constraints a platform has to be multi-role.

As for the A-10, it does have a cool gun but it's too damn slow. They'll tell you that it's hardened and can take the hits but it becomes a chicken or the egg question - if you're going to overfly the enemy that slow you better be hardened or you won't be around long for long.

Although the Air Force just awarded a contract for the Tucano in their LAS program which seems to indicate that a One Aircraft Fits All philosophy, well... doesn't. To me, that seems to be a step backwards in equipment capability. Eventually they will see a gap between the Tucano and F-35 and try to fill it, manned or not.

Great discussion. I love this website!

It is an awesome thing too hear the snaps of hundreds of rounds coming over your head followed soon after by the throaty hummm of the rounds going off, and then the a-10's engine noise as he jinks away (yes, it happens in that exact order from the ground).

I seriously disagree that a weapon system can be made that can do an good job of every roll. Some missions will be given a "good enough" and I suspect the ground support mission will be one of them.

I am all for the retirement of A-10. Its survivability against modern threats gets worse by the day. As the number of pilots available continues to nosedive, we simply cannot afford to throw our people at the danger the way we did in Vietnam. A-10 is the remnant of the era when men were men and the fertility ratio in America was more than 3.

Replacement of A-10 mission with F-35, however, is not cost effective. Most likely the old F-15E are going to deliver the SDBs and JDAMs for the foreseable future.

Note that LAS is even worse than A-10. It's a small, single engine platform with poor armor. Honestly I do not see it going anywhere at all in our service. It is going to remain a token force, if not cancelled altogether.

I see A-10 CAS mission being gradually taken over by attack helicopters and strike UAVs.

Here is an article from today's Military Times online, If correct there will be a drawdown of 6 total USAF squadrons, the A-10's in units that recently converted from the F-16 bearing the brunt of the retirements. Of the six I believe it says one F-16, and an F-15 training squadron.

The USAF for better or worse have tried to retire the A-10 before. It was almost gone prior to the First Gulf War, but that was a no go idea then. The Army did threaten to lobby hard to take control of the aircraft if the USAF did retire it.

The A-10 is still a very survivable aircraft, but is slow, and does not have all the latest gee whiz electronic wonders (but it has been upgraded). I think the long and the short is they want money for continuing efforts with the F-35, and the dinero has to come from somewhere.

As far as the light attack COIN aircraft that has been in the news lately, 3-5 years ago, during the height of the recent conflicts, their was support in some circles for the turbo prop Super Tucano, or the AT-6 from Beech. It was envisioned as having 100ish airframes to outfit USAF units, as well as training units for those fledgling Air Forces out there that we are supporting. That was never popular with the "Fighter Mafia" as it is called in the Air Force. The requirement is now just for enough to provide for a training here in the U.S. to support these other developing Air Forces (Afghanistan/Iraq), plus onward sales to these countries.

Interesting times. Things do evolve, aircraft do get tired and worn out. But I think this has more to do with dollars than actual obsolescence.

http://www.military.com/news/article/af ... ESRC=eb.nl

RanchPilot wrote:I heard a rumor the Army was talking about taking them over and flying them themselves the last time the AF threatened to phase them out. Anyone know anything about that?

Venerable old bird,still doing the job. Personally,
I'd hate to see it go.

The A-10...

...was orginally intended for the Army...which is were it belongs. But the Air Force made a big stink about the Army flying "jet" aircraft. The program went to the Air Force long ago.

As for technoloy I remember a quote by Gen. Al Haig when he was commander of NATO forces back in the late 70's/early 80's. The cold war was still very hot. The U.S. and the Soviet Union were continuously engaged in a battle to maintain superiority....especially in Europe.

Then as now the U.S. Air Force was procuring ever more technologically advanced/expensive fighter aircrat in smaller numbers, while the Soviet Bloc nations built far more cheaper/ less sophisticated fighers. As a result NATO/U.S. fighters in Europe were outnumbered by over 3 to 1. Gen. Haig was asked....how will the U.S./NATO forces stand up against the Soviets with their superior number of fighters?

Gen. Haig answered......"one on one we win." "Two on one we win." "Three on one? Well....I don't know."

Food for thought.

Bob
p.s. Gen. Haig went on to become Sec. of State during the first Reagan term. The day Pres. Reagan was shot, Sec. Haig burst into the White House and famously said to the waiting press......"I am in charge now." Of course constitutionally he was wrong. But those were scary moments for our nation.

."I am in charge now." Of course constitutionally he was wrong. But those were scary moments for our nation.

Just a tenny bit to Al's defense.....
NOBODY else (including the VP) was stepping up amid all of the ongoing terminal confusion, and SOMEBODY needed to 'step up'.....
Of course Al could have/should have thought a little more before he spoke, but I believe his intentions were good.
Of course the media, who always hated 'Vietnam Al', pilloried him.

Such things make life interesting,
lc

Headoutdaplane wrote:It is an awesome thing too hear the snaps of hundreds of rounds coming over your head followed soon after by the throaty hummm of the rounds going off, and then the a-10's engine noise as he jinks away (yes, it happens in that exact order from the ground).

Would be interesting to hear an audio clip of this, anyone know of any?

Mark J

marcusofcotton wrote:

Headoutdaplane wrote:It is an awesome thing too hear the snaps of hundreds of rounds coming over your head followed soon after by the throaty hummm of the rounds going off, and then the a-10's engine noise as he jinks away (yes, it happens in that exact order from the ground).

Would be interesting to hear an audio clip of this, anyone know of any?

Mark J

You can pretty well imitate it if you burp really loud as an airbus flies by

Go to u-tube punch in A-10. Plan on waisting hours watching a wounderful aircraft in action.
My two personal favorets P-51 and the A-10.
46tcrft.
ps. where at in mn?