USAF to Retire A-10 Warthog

[realbinky]

There were some pictures of an A-10 that took a metric sload of damage and rounds and returned to base anyway. Parts were torn to shreds. The COOLEST part of this plane is that if the cannon fires for more than a few seconds per burst, the recoil can STOP the plane. Even though that ugly thing is basically armored engines with a stick.

[Boutte]

I read that they were going to F-15's in the ground support role instead. Sounds like good way to get rid of F-15's.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Boutte: I read that they were going to F-15's in the ground support role instead. Sounds like good way to get rid of F-15's.

ROFLMAO!

Seriously. The A-10 is by far the best ground support aircraft worldwide. Replacing it with F-15 or something similar is like saying: "Hey guys, don't you think the M-16 is overaged? We better replace it with LAWs then and make them standard issue for every grunt."

When I was TAD to Elmendorf in the late 80's they had a wing of A-10's there (not sure who they were gonna use them against in Alaska) they are awesome birds, and I think that if the Zoomies ground them the Army will want to pick them up..and that will piss the zoomies off...they don't like any one having air power but them....but since we are headed towards a more integrated/Joint ops type of world, I think it will be easier for the army to make a case for own air power.

Warthog we love ya

as for the big E's DU worries let me say this about that.....

[Rimjaw]

Got this from SFTT:

A-10 Retirement Move Threatens Troop Security Just when you thought the U.S. military services had finally learned the value of operating and fighting together, the Air Force has come up with a boneheaded, selfish and destructive plan whose impact will lessen overall U.S. combat power. I’m referring, of course, to the Air Force’s decision to retire its entire fleet of A-10 “Warthog” close-air-support aircraft. News reports reveal that in early April, Maj. Gen. David A. Deptula, Director of Plans and Programs at Air Combat Command headquarters, drafted a memo to justify the decommissioning of the A-10 fleet. There are eight active-duty A-10 squadrons in the service today, down from 18 in 1991. Deptula’s memo sets the stage for the retirement of those remaining squadrons as early as 2004. Unlike its swept-wing, supersonic cousins, the A-10 was built specifically to fly low to the ground in support of field ground troops. The A-10s delivered a combat soldier’s most precious commodity – time. That commodity translates into the ability to advance, or simply to survive. Disregarding its unconventional appearance, the A-10 is considered one of the most effective weapons systems of both the 1991 Persian Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom this spring. While equipped with jet engines, the Warthog is specifically designed to loiter over the battlefield for prolonged periods in support of ground troops. Its fuselage and cockpit are heavily armored to withstand enemy ground fire. And it is an aircraft built particularly around a gun – the 30-mm. GAU-8/A Gatling cannon that can fire 3,900 rounds of tank-piercing ammunition per minute – that strikes terror in the hearts of the enemy. The Warthog can also drop bombs, with desired precision. Just ask the Iraqi troops who faced the Warthog’s killing power two months ago. Writing in The New York Times on May 27, military aviation expert Robert T. Coram noted that “Iraqi prisoners interrogated after the war said the aircraft they feared most were the A-10 and the ancient B-52 bomber.” Even more incredible is the timing of the Air Force decision to kill off the A-10. Coram revealed that Deptula’s memo appeared even as a group of A-10s were saving a 3rd Infantry Division unit from an Iraqi counterattack: “The United States Army had arrived at a Tigris River bridge on the edge of Baghdad to find Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers positioned at the other end. A deadly crossfire ensued. A call for help went out, and despite heavy clouds and fog, down the river came two A-10s at an altitude of less than 1,000 feet, spitting out a mix of armor-piercing and explosive bullets at the rate of 3,900 rounds per minute. The Iraqi resistance was obliterated. This was a classic case of ‘close air support.’ ” So why would the Air Force want to terminate such a successful and battle-tested aircraft? Coram, author of an excellent biography of the late military visionary Col. John Boyd, noted that this reflects the Air Force’s historic prejudice against close-air support missions (and fighter aircraft as a whole) in favor of long-range bombers. The move also reaffirms the Air Force fetish with high technology – and weapons sales. From the F-16 “Falcon” to the advanced F-22 “Raptor,” the Air Force has never seen an aircraft it liked unless that aircraft could be loaded up with as many “gold-plated” systems as possible. Retaining the A-10 is obviously not an Air Force priority: Building as many high-tech F/A-22s, at $252 million per copy, or F-35 joint strike fighters, with an estimated unit cost of approximately $40 million, is the top priority. And what does the Air Force propose to bring in as a replacement for the A-10 in close air support? Historically, the Air Force has attempted to use the F-16 fighter jet as a close air support aircraft. However, in the 1991 Gulf War and in the Balkans, the Air Force couldn't allow the F-16 to fly below 10,000 feet due to its vulnerability to anti-aircraft guns and missiles, not to mention its inability to loiter over the battlefield. Its ability to protect ground troops was seriously limited by those factors. Now, the Air Force argues that the incoming F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will suffice as a replacement aircraft for the A-10. However, that aircraft reportedly is as vulnerable to ground fire as the F-16, casting doubt as to whether the generals will ever allow it to operate low enough to do a sufficient job. (And why not use Army attack helicopters such as the AH-64 Apache? As combat experience in Iraq confirmed, helicopters can’t fill that requirement since their ability to carry sufficient fuel and armament is compromised by a limited speed and weight capacity. However agile they may be, they cannot do the same job. The modern helicopter has proven too fragile for intense combat operations.) Whether the A-10s are continued to be flown by the Air Force, or – as proposed by some experts, turned over to the Army or Marines – the Warthog remains the single jet aircraft designed to effectively and reliably support ground troops. Until a battle-proven replacement is provided, the A-10s should continue in service. The absence of such a proven weapons system can only put American troops fighting in future conflicts in serious danger.

F-16s doing CAS missions? The Viper may be one of the most agile jets ever but its even more fragile than the F-15.

Just wanted to say, that the A-10 is basicly the modern version of the A1 Skyraider, another wonderfull close air support platform that was retired before its time.

I sincerely hope that the Army picks them up if the Air farce doesnt want them. This guy Deptula sounds like a desk flying bean counter who never in his life got his uniform dirty on the ground.

[Rimjaw]

Originally posted by MagiK: When I was TAD to Elmendorf in the late 80's they had a wing of A-10's there (not sure who they were gonna use them against in Alaska) they are awesome birds, and I think that if the Zoomies ground them the Army will want to pick them up..and that will piss the zoomies off...they don't like any one having air power but them....but since we are headed towards a more integrated/Joint ops type of world, I think it will be easier for the army to make a case for own air power. Warthog we love ya

Unfortunately, the 1947 Key West agreement btw the USAF and US Army prohibits US Army fixed wing aircraft over a certain wieght limit. And the Hog is probably way over this limit.

[Night Stalker]

Yet another case of sacraficing the troops to politics. Ever since the Army Air Corps spintered off, they've been trying to cut all ties to the Army. Yet, while they own the CAS mission (they'd love to get rid of it) they can't. They also don't want to yield any of their precious air space to the Army. The 1947 agreement was all about politics, this proposed abandonment of the A-10 is politics.

Frikkin Zoomies! Glass eyed techno junkies. They do their job quite well, but their bugeting practices are questionable. Of course there is a dangerous trend over all services to lean towards technical solutions over training and quality proven equipment. Technology contracts are hard numbers that impress Congressmen while training is a soft number.

So who said a 1947 agreement has to be writ in stone and unchangeable?
Change the friggin agreement or better yet, just have the grunts unilaterally decide to do away with it..what are the zoomies gonna do? Start a bar fight?

[Rimjaw]

Or give it to the Marines. They could then do away with that widow-maker the Harrier and use the A-10 instead. Though they are probably not interested in an aircraft without VTOL capabilities.