On Occasion Stupid People Do Not Triumph

[MIflyer]

But it is increasingly rare. Here is one of the better ideas to avoid the edicts of Five Sided Ft. Fumble On the Potomac

From Avweb:

"Despite repeated attempts by Air Force brass to retire it, the A-10 Warthog is getting a billion-dollar lease on life. Boeing announced last week it had started delivering the first 50 of 112 sets of new wings for the close air support platform. The new wings will extend the life of the aircraft by 10,000 hours. In 2019, the company finished supplying wings for 173 Warthogs and two weeks later the Air Force announced it needed another 112, enough for the rest of the fleet of 281 with three spare sets. Boeing had to pull the tooling out of storage to build the wings."

"The Air Force wants the Warthog dropped from inventory, saying the 50-year-old design won't survive a fight with modern adversaries in a contested environment. It wants F-35s to fill the close air support role. But Congress has overruled the generals and authorized the new wings in a bid to keep the flying machine gun in action for another 20 years. Boeing's just happy to have the work. "The A-10 serves a critical role for the Air Force and Boeing is proud to extend our legacy of supporting the Thunderbolt and its mission," Dan Gillian, vice president of U.S. Government Services for Boeing Global Services, said in a statement. "In partnership with the Air Force and our established supply base, we have started full rate production and are actively supporting the customer's installation schedule."

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This sounds very political. I believe this program is being done at Hill AFB.

What I find funny is "In 2019, the company finished supplying wings for 173 Warthogs and two weeks later the Air Force announced it needed another 112, enough for the rest of the fleet of 281 with three spare sets"

But yet,,,

"The Air Force wants the Warthog dropped from inventory, saying the 50-year-old design won't survive a fight with modern adversaries in a contested environment. It wants F-35s to fill the close air support role. But Congress has overruled the generals and authorized the new wings in a bid to keep the flying machine gun in action for another 20 years."

 

[SaparotRob]

Is the A-10 something the U.S. Army wants?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Is the A-10 something the U.S. Army wants?

I doubt it

 

[at6]

There is no good replacement for the A-10. If the military wants to get rid of it, give it the Ukrainians. They would know what to do with it.

 

[Steve Hnz]

They already have/had Su-25s which I believe were very vulnerable given that the Russians had air superiority. How the influx of US/Nato SAMs has redressed that balance since the early days of the war & how many Su-25s the Ukrainians have left is anybodies guess now but getting up to speed on donated A-10s would be a lengthy process I'd imagine, maybe for the next time.
In response to

Is the A-10 something the U.S. Army wants?

I believe it is the US Army that keeps the A-10 alive through pressure on Congress.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I've seen no evidence, at least in official channels that the Army currently wants or needs the A-10 to stick around. If anything could see some folks wanting to get their hands on the money allocated for this modification.

 

[MiG Killer]

I've seen no evidence, at least in official channels that the Army currently wants or needs the A-10 to stick around. If anything could see some folks wanting to get their hands on the money allocated for this modification.

Not sure how I got here! I have never "threaded" before. I was interested to find if anyone is still playing "Mustangs and Messerschmitts" besides me? I used to play it weekly in Salt Lake City before I moved to Montana. No one here plays. I have a cabinet with about 450 planes (1/72) made exclusively for this game. Anyone care to discuss the game?

 

[Steve Hnz]

If anything could see some folks wanting to get their hands on the money allocated for this modification.

I've seen nothing in any aviation media, official or otherwise to support this insinuation, though after years of reading of procurement issues in the USA I'm not prepared to argue against it. Going back to the abortive attempts the USF have made to modify F-16s with GPU-5 cannon in an attempt to rid themselves of the A-10, I struggle to believe that it would have survived in the face of the USAFs antipathy to it without some powerful allies in the halls of power, most likely the US Army,

 

[MIflyer]

The argument was that the A-10 was much more vulnerable to getting hit than was the F-16 in the environment in 1980's Europe. While it probably would survive there would be no time to repair it before the Soviet Drag Race To the Rhine was over. There was serious talk in DC about transferring the A-10 to the US Army. I heard two Army guys talking on the Metro one morning, "It only has one seat! We can't use that!"
Then came Desert Storm. Stormin' Norman called for every A-10 he could get and when that war was over the A-10 proved to be hardly any less vulnerable than the F-16 and probably even more valuable overall. When you consider that we are operating drones that are cruising at not much over 100 kts, it is hard to see how the A-10 is too vulnerable.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,
Just wanted to add a note based on my 30 some odd years working as a defense contractor. In reality when talking about what some organizations "wants" there is no such thing as "The Army", "The Navy", "The Coast Guard" or "The Department of Defense". Every subgroup has its own desires, perceived needs, and planned approach to try and attain them. And, while the parent organization may "adjudicate" an "official line", those can frequently change in a heartbeat (as I believe the Army did with the procurement of MRAPS not so long ago).

PF

PS. In my office a few jobs ago, I used to have a cartoon of a Hydra with the body labeled "US Navy", but each head labeled for the various "plank holders" we had to work with on the project (such as "NAVSEA", "OPNAV", the "Navy Labs", the "Tech Warrant Holders", etc. Each head needed to be fed, and each head had a mind of its own, but you couldn't point to any one of them as the sole voice of the Navy.

 

[MIflyer]

For decades now the favored approach in DC has been The Big Program. The more needs met and people satisfied, the bigger the program and the harder it is to cancel or even scale back. This occurred with the F-111 and C-5A, both of which were scaled back significantly when flaws became apparent. This also happened with the F-22 and the new USAF long range rescue copter.

The all time winner was the Space Shuttle, which was supposed to replace everything else by the simple expedient of a national policy requiring all competitors to go out of business long before the Shuttle even attained full capability.

And so it is with the F-35. If there are no alternatives for CAS then you HAVE to buy the F-35.

 

[GTX]

"The Air Force wants the Warthog dropped from inventory, saying the 50-year-old design won't survive a fight with modern adversaries in a contested environment. It wants F-35s to fill the close air support role. But Congress has overruled the generals and authorized the new wings in a bid to keep the flying machine gun in action for another 20 years."

The fanaticism for the A-10 is mind-numbing. I wish someone would do a video of it to the song "Let it go".

I did this image years ago to sum up the situation:

And I would also say that people all too often mistakenly think that the Close in CAS means the platform delivering weapons has to be close to the action - e.g. gun runs. In reality, the Close is in reference to how close the enemy are to the friendly forces. Thus with appropriate precision weapons and targeting data, CAS can be handled by multiple systems including artillery, strategic bombers etc.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The fanaticism for the A-10 is mind-numbing. I wish someone would do a video of it to the song "Let it go".

I did this image years ago to sum up the situation:


And I would also say that people all too often mistakenly think that the Close in CAS means the platform delivering weapons has to be close to the action - e.g. gun runs. In reality, the Close is in reference to how close the enemy are to the friendly forces. Thus with appropriate precision weapons and targeting data, CAS can be handled by multiple systems including artillery, strategic bombers etc.

Agree 100%

I see CAS in the same light as some hold on to VR air to air combat. Between aircraft like the F-35, UAVs and advanced weapons integration, folks have to look at CAS in a different light.

 

[Snautzer01]

I think before long ground troops will launch their own case in schwarms of drones. All those kids playing war thunder will do very well and it will be much cheaper. I can see drones attack where as 2 soldiers id a target multiple drones wiil kill it. I do not mean those big beast drones just the little fast ones like an extended handgranate or morter.

 

[ThomasP]

re why the A-10 Warthog is still in service "Best WW2 plane for Ukraine today?"

 

[FLYBOYJ]

re why the A-10 Warthog is still in service "Best WW2 plane for Ukraine today?"

Yeah, it performed extremely well in GW 1 and subsequent, but look at the jump in technology since GW 1, let alone when the aircraft first entered service. Between UAVs and aircraft that can integrate with other weapon systems, I think the day of this type of aircraft is numbered, especially if it was forced to operate in contested airspace. Don't forget the use of helicopters that can perform CAS as well and can be operated in forward areas with no runways.

 

[ThomasP]

I agree with the sentiment that IF only one type of aircraft can be purchased then it should be the F-35. I think the Army general who said what is in quotes in my post would agree also.

I also agree that technology has changed significantly to where it would probably make the A-10 a very effective (but also very short lived) CAS platform in a modern high intensity war.

But I would also have to say that the Army is well aware of this, and yet they still insist on keeping the A-10 if possible. Part of it, I think, is the ability of the A-10 to be updated with the same stand-off weapons as the F-35. Part of it is that the Army is planning for the majority of wars they figure they will be fighting in the near future.

Incidentally, the Army made a serious offer to take responsibility for A-10 operations, and/or funding for the SLEP. I do not know how the details of reasoning that followed this offer worked out.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I agree with the sentiment that IF only one type of aircraft can be purchased then it should be the F-35. I think the Army general who said what is in quotes in my post would agree also.

I also agree that technology has changed significantly to where it would probably make the A-10 a very effective (but also very short lived) CAS platform in a modern high intensity war.

But I would also have to say that the Army is well aware of this, and yet they still insist on keeping the A-10 if possible. Part of it, I think, is the ability of the A-10 to be updated with the same stand-off weapons as the F-35. Part of it is that the Army is planning for the majority of wars they figure they will be fighting in the near future.

Incidentally, the Army made a serious offer to take responsibility for A-10 operations, and/or funding for the SLEP. I do not know how the details of reasoning that followed this offer worked out.

As PFVA63 said earlier - "the Army," specifically who?

There would be issues with the Army taking responsibility for A-10 operations as AF personnel would still be required to operate them. This little known policy may get in the way although it centered around tactical transport.

Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ThomasP]

Thanks for the reference to the agreement. I know the Air Force is considered responsible for most fixed wing aircraft, but I do not know how responsibility for the OV-1 Mohawk and OV-10 Bronco worked out in the end. I know (I think ) that during the Vietnam War and for some time after the 2 platforms were the responsibility of the Army. I think the Army was looking to operate the A-10 under a similar reasoning - they even suggested changing the designation to OA-10.

I am not familiar with what combat capable fixed wing aircraft the Army currently operates - are there any?