USAAF ignores wars lessons

WTF? Keep on track gents or this too shall go into the ether.

GrauGeist said:

Perhaps the server doesn't like chicken?

Click to expand...

It probably prefers bacon.

The only aircraft that can replace the A-10, is another A-10! Pretty much the same as with the famous Buccaneer and Canberra.....

Pheeeww.....think that I saved the thread there!

The A10 fleet is getting old. No matter how many upgrades you do to it, the airframes will be needing lots of expensive work.

Just saying ......

syscom3 said:

The A10 fleet is getting old. No matter how many upgrades you do to it, the airframes will be needing lots of expensive work.

Just saying ......

Click to expand...

That is a valid point.

As an observation, though, the A-10 was a comparatively simple design and built to be rugged. Most airframes would be in their 30's compared to the B-52, which saw it's last airframes manufactured in 1962. This sees the majority of Buffs in service are at least 50 years old.

There were other aircraft that saw extended service like the A4 Skyhawk and the F4 Phantom, but in the A10's case, I believe it could be kept in service by upgrades and periodic upfits for far less than what it would cost to replace them with the F-35.

syscom3 said:

the airframes will be needing lots of expensive work.

Just saying ......

Click to expand...

So apparently does the F35

Marcel said:

So apparently does the F35

Click to expand...

That is a money hole to no end.

I always dreamed about a lighter version of the A-10 with a 20 or 25mm gatling nose cannon instead the massive 30mm to replace the IA-58. Too bad it going to be retired, it is/was the best strafer of the aviation history.

GrauGeist said:

The A-10 is not a machine that should be exported anyway.

Click to expand...

Why not? While the A-10 is a decent design, there is no real advanced technology in it: similar engines can be sourced from several countries, and guns, like the Oerlikon KCA and fUSSR's GSh-6-30А can, with proper ammunition, kill tanks. Comparable avionics can be sourced from a dozen countries (except, probably, for ECM) Nothing in the remainder of the design isn't something that couldn't be done by any aircraft manufacturer that can make aircraft in the 30,000 lb class. Also, there was an attempt to export it when it was fairly new. Thailand came close to buying a few, but nobody else thought it worthwhile. In other words, an aircraft comparable in capabilities could be made by the aviation industries in at least a dozen countries. Of course, the USSR did build the Su-25, which looks a lot like the A-9....

In any case, the A-10 was never meant to do anything more than scouring the earth of anything that walks or crawls. The fact that it has shot down enemy aircraft in battle is simply frosting on the cake.

Let the Air Force have the F-35 and transfer the A-10 fleet to the Army.

Click to expand...

I've got no problem with that, although the Army may not want it.

syscom3 said:

The A10 fleet is getting old. No matter how many upgrades you do to it, the airframes will be needing lots of expensive work.

Just saying ......

Click to expand...

I would think it possible to build replacements, perhaps as an evolutionary improvement, with modest numbers coming off the production lines every year. thats gotts be cheaper than a whole new aircraft with roles that are probabaly questionable as to need. Losing the capability completely is a bad idea

parsifal said:

I would think it possible to build replacements, perhaps as an evolutionary improvement, with modest numbers coming off the production lines every year. thats gotts be cheaper than a whole new aircraft with roles that are probabaly questionable as to need. Losing the capability completely is a bad idea

Click to expand...

That would mean producing all new tooling.

Su-25 still going.

The Basket said:

Su-25 still going.

Click to expand...

Yep. It seems Russia still has their wits about them.

GrauGeist said:

There is a certain merit to having a branch of the service maintaining it's own air assets. Since the Cold War, the USAF has tried to be the all-encompassing air service provider, much like the Luftwaffe did in WWII.

There is no reason why the US Army cannot have it's own assets, like rotary winged aircraft, for example and more importantly, a close ground support aircraft like the A-10. This is not to say the Air Force shouldn't have any, but in the hands of the Army, the A-10 would be far more effective since it's directly relevant to Army operations.

Insisting that the Army shouldn't be allowed to have any takes us back to the Army versus Navy days of the turn of the century. Like a couple of spoiled children arguing over a shiny toy in in the sand box.

They need to get thier heads out of their a$$es and come up for a fresh breath of reality.

Click to expand...

At the Key West Accords, when the USAF became their own branch, they put severe limitations on the Army's use of aircraft - the thinking of the time was that the A-Bomb had made land warfare obsolete and the Army had no bargaining power. The Army had to arm and test choppers after the Korean War in secret for a while; and in Viet Nam, when the Army started using more fixed wing aircraft, the AF raised hell.

When Korea came along and the Army found out how useful Helicopters were, especially for casualty evacuation, they ask for more choppers - the AF bosses used their power to denied the request.

I've often wondered how many guys died in Korea due to the AF's actions?

Congress Forbids Air Force to Scrap A-10 … Next Year Only All bets are off for 2015
from https://medium.com/war-is-boring/696b42c15ce0



The U.S. Air Force will be prohibited from using any money appropriated in the 2014 budget to retire the A-10 Warthog if the National Defense Authorization Act passes Congress and is signed into law.

The flying branch wants to ground all 350 of the low- and slow-flying attack jets in order to divert money into developing new stealth warplanes, but ground troops and legislators value the A-10 for its ability to attack enemy troops in close proximity to U.S. forces.

The act protects the A-10 only in 2014. The Air Force could try again to decommission the plane in 2015.

The Senate is expected to pass its version of the authorization bill on Dec. 19 and the House of Representatives voted on the measure earlier in the month. The only remaining step after Dec. 19 will be for Pres. Barack Obama to sign the authorization into law.

"None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2014 for the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended to make significant changes to manning levels with respect to covered aircraft or to retire, prepare to retire or place in storage a covered aircraft," the NDAA states.

The term "covered aircraft" refers to the A-10 and the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft—which the Air Force is also trying to divest.

The 2014 NDAA also further stipulates that the USAF many not retire or prepare to retire the A-10 until after Dec. 31 2014, which includes the first quarter of the 2015 budget. However, the Air Force would be allowed to get rid of the aircraft the service was already planning to retire before April 9, 2013. That amounts to several dozen of the 350 A-10s.

The cannon-armed Warthog isn't out of the woods yet. The aircraft was never really in danger of being retired in the 2014 budget, as the Air Force was examining proposals to retire the long-serving jet in the administration's 2015 budget.

That being said, the Pentagon is considering multiple budget plans depending on how much money might ultimately be available. The recent two-year spending deal reached between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress gives the Pentagon a little more flexibility—but no final decisions have been made.

What the Air Force decides to do with the A-10 fleet won't be revealed until the 2015 budget proposal rolls out around mid-February 2014. But if the service does propose to send the A-10 to the boneyard, it will surely face fierce resistance in Congress.

I've been retired and mostly out of touch with Army matters but I wonder if they have any desire, or can afford, to take the A-10?