hobbitcid Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 Once again the idea of passing the A-10 to the Army is making its appearance. Interesting review of the history of USAF-US Army agreements on fixed wing support aviation (Key West Agreement) and the claim that the USAf never wanted the warthog in the first place. I think the first time I heard this topic raised was in 92, after the Desert Storm when the concept was floated in QDR. I guess the increased cost of the F-35 makes keeping the A-10 difficult to justify. The question would be, does the Army really want it, and if so can they maintain it. I assume since WOs successfully fly and employ highly complex aircraft such as the AH-64, the MH-60 and the MH-47, they would probably have the ability to fly the A-10 effectively. Not so sure about their ability to maintain multiple squadrons (battalions) of ejection seat equipped fighter and their associated weaponry and targeting systems... Could be fun though... https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/01/22/save_the_a-10__give_it_to_the_army_107047.html 1 1
BB Stacker Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 .....ugh, not this shit again. Will never happen. While you're right I really hope it does happen, because witnessing the cluster of epic proportions that results from having the Army manage their own fixed wing CAS will put this stupid idea to death once and for all. 1
MD Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 Who really cares if it does happen, AF-wise? If you sell your car, do you wonder and worry what the next guy who purchased it does with it? IF this were to happen, the Army will either succeed or fail. That would be on them. Would this be impossible? Im sure there would be some pretty severe growing pains, but Army people have had fixed-wing assets as well as worked on ejection seats and egress systems with the OV-1. Insofar as the extensive weapons suites, that could probably be managed with some growing pains too. Interoperability-wise, handling their own fires short of the FSCL with this, fine. They'd have to play well more with others to do much beyond that. Possible? Anything is possible. Probable? Doubtful, only because like the OP, I heard this during Desert Storm for the first time, and it's reared it's ugly head here and there since. Should it be done? Depends. If the AF doesn't like or want the mission, then they shouldn't half-ass it and short change it at the leadership level. If that's all their going to do, then give/sell/lease/rent it to the customer who wants, IF they want it. Let them do the work the AF HQ-types don't care to fund correctly, take seriously, or want anything to do with. It will either work, or it won't. 1
BitteEinBit Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 ....probably a better idea to give it to the Marines. They'll just have to learn to play well with others...
Winchester Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 Because Marine F-18s in the stack are sooooo much fun...and they know the JFire too! 1
busdriver Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 https://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/09/debunking-close-air-support-myths-part-7.html It's on the internet so it must be true. But there is a ring of truth to it, basically the AF didn't blow off the Army and CAS, rather the Army and AF just weren't really talking. Joint is hard, so we'll just develop the capability to do it ourselves so we don't have to do this Joint crap. Key West means we can't have fixed wing so we'll develop RW attack to facilitate vertical envelopment. Meanwhile the AF focused on nukes and countering the Russian Bear. Given the history of crappy joint integration it sounds convincing to me. I personally would rather see the AF keep the A-10 and give it a modern DRFM jammer; let the B-1 go away to pay for the long range bomber. But as MD said if they Army really wants it and wants to pay for it and the AF is dead set on ditching it, have at it. As for the OP linked article, seems like a bunch of non-expert shell game stupid. 300 of the F-35As will replace A-10s so we save the A-10 and reduce the F-35 buy.... profit! Very internet pundit type logic.
Prozac Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 IF the Army wants it, how about they pay for it, they get OPCON and mother AF uses the Army provided resources to continue to maintain and fly it? Of course, the AF would have to resist the temptation to spend the money an a few more F-35s......uhhh, on second thought, nevermind.
Tulsa Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 As an A-10 guy, you all don't answer the question, where is the money?
BitteEinBit Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) As an A-10 guy, you all don't answer the question, where is the money? We just saved $6B by cutting retirement pay for young retirees....and...and...we're getting ready to save another 25K in personnel costs...and...and...well remember those BRAC cuts we started back in 2005 that were supposed to have huge savings? Well, there is that money too.... Edited January 23, 2014 by BitteEinBit
OverTQ Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 Our average Longbow built in 03 or 04 already has 7,000 hours on them. That is a lot for a RW. Watching the budget lines being drawn (we are losing 2-4 Aviation BDEs), I don't think we have the money for it. This falls into the good idea fairy category with little to no possibility of fruition. Most probable COA is the AF just retires the aircraft and nobody gets it 1
alohacessna Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 Nope, the Army can't afford the A-10... https://live.wsj.com/video/why-the-army-is-slashing-its-chopper-fleet/69AB4C19-203D-4815-BA9D-5E0ECA313397.html?KEYWORDS=army#!69AB4C19-203D-4815-BA9D-5E0ECA313397 The article on WSJ is still locked for subscribers, but the video seems to work for everyone.
Lawman Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 3 CABs on the chopping block.... Fuck yeah let's stand up an aircraft that will require multiple new MOS's not to mention a whole new shitload of infrastructure to support. It'll be operational ready to go in.... Maybe a decade optimistic. If everything goes right we can cut our already overextended Rotory wing assets to the bone so we can fund this boondoggle. This is just dumb every time I hear this rumor/joke out of anybody civ/military/whatever. It's not our job to do CAS. And nobody realizes the monumental shit show it would be to make it our job unless we literally take the entirety of the AF A-10 community and support and just have everybody change uniforms. Even that would be ugly at best.
hobbitcid Posted January 24, 2014 Author Posted January 24, 2014 You guys are right, forget about the A-10 - someone needs to save Army Aviation... https://www.defensenews.com/article/20140123/DEFREG02/301230029 1
Alpharatz Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Interesting article in Feb, 2014 Harper's magazine. "Tunnel Vision" Will the Air Force kill it's most effective weapon? https://harpers.org/archive/2014/02/tunnel-vision-2/ (for subscribers). I have no way of knowing how accurate it is. The author does stray off a bit but otherwise seems to play it pretty straight. The A-10 was always a friendly neighbor (to some people) and the F-16's aren't bad but the F-35's and F-22's are reportedly awfuly noisy for a local ANG unit . How anyone expects to take a 200 Million dollar? airplane down into the weeds is beyond me but the article covers all of that. .............I wonder if the Pegasus will be able to slow down enough...........Pegasus v.s. Hogasus
busdriver Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Our average Longbow built in 03 or 04 already has 7,000 hours on them. I just saw this... HOLY SHIT!
Lawman Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 I just saw this... HOLY SHIT! You think thats crazy, that doesnt even take into account that the majority of the Fleet were originally A models built during the Reagan era that were stripped down and rebuilt as "New" D model birds.
Day Man Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 Hate to break it to ya bro, but if you can fly it... a WO can fly it. They don't make you have those two extra years of college so that you're smart enough to fly fighters. While obviously not quantifiable, it's my opinion that the best pilots in the military are Army WOs because they have the ability to dedicate the most time and effort to the art and science of aviation. More solid evidence as to the superiority of WO aviators over CO aviators is the sheer number of hours that WOs can accrue over a career. Sad news, I know, but the 4000-hour O-6 at your wing, well... he ain't got that much time against a 10,000-hour (or more) CW4/CW5. The majority of these guys/gals eat, sleep and breathe tactical aviation for the majority of their careers without all the distractions associated with being middle-management. "You wanna know why we'll never be as good as the 160th? Two words: Warrant Officers." -Air Force Evaluator Reading comprehension > you
busdriver Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 "You wanna know why we'll never be as good as the 160th? Two words: Warrant Officers." -Air Force Evaluator Sigh, how about they have more money to train. The myth of the 10,000 hour WO just doesn't exist anymore. You want to know why the 160th is good at what they do? Because they are organized and funded to train to their core task, and as an organization they are very good. As individuals, they're human being like the rest of us, they have ding dongs and super stars, they just have the ability to get rid of the ding dongs if they really want to. Furthermore, if you need 10,000 hours to make a tactical expert, your training program sucks ass. 1
Hydrostream Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) In my opinion the warrant officer corp would be a lot stronger if we didn't have to depend upon promotions to stay in service. Unfortunately that's not the case so you have a lot of focus on college education and OERs and not much on your performance as an aviator. I don't really understand the move up or get out thing. If a guy is happy making W2 pay and kicking ass at his job why get rid of him because he didn't get a degree? That's for another thread though... As for the Army taking the A-10 there's no way. We are brought up as rotary wing pilots and the institutional knowledge just isn't there to incorporate a tactical jet into the mix. We could be trained to fly it but on the battle field we would perform like ate up dog shit. It would be a rough transition for sure. Then you have the budget, maintenance, facilities, etc. It's just not realistic at all. Edited February 22, 2014 by Hydrostream
Bobby Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 .....no really fellas, let's keep the discussion going. I love reading about the A-10 on the internet these days. Almost as funny as the llama. Nice post Hoss.
OverTQ Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 https://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2014/02/25/plan-to-axe-10-warthog-gets-pushback/ A proposal from the Department of Defense to ax the Air Force’s entire fleet of A-10 Thunderbolts is receiving criticism from multiple fronts with questions over how the move will impact military bases and defense contractors So if it's more about money and jobs it will get saved. Here I was thinking it was to keep more troops from dying on the battlefield.
MD Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 https://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2014/02/25/plan-to-axe-10-warthog-gets-pushback/ So if it's more about money and jobs it will get saved. Here I was thinking it was to keep more troops from dying on the battlefield. And keeping the jet around (or any weapon system or base) solely to boost contractors or keep a metropolitan economy viable jobs-wise, is the exact wrong arguments to make to keep the A-10. Yet, these kinds of emotional arguments are many of the ones I hear around my area, rather than anything factual. Heck, it can't even really be factually quantified that "X number of troops will die if A-10s leave". What needs to be put forth is factual information of operating costs, life remaining, the mission it brings, etc; real things like that. So far as what contract is in the middle of occurring or not, that's moot too: In the late 90s, we were still installing some upgrades to F-111s just prior to sending them to the boneyard, stupid as that was. But that's not something that's likely to change minds, as its seemingly considered normal. The emotional arguments won't help keep an airframe around, and unfortunately may only serve to help it's retirement along.
Clark Griswold Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Foot insert mouth procedure complete. I am sure not meant in the sense of Benedict Arnold but really a poor choice of words. General: Praising the A-10 to Lawmakers is ‘Treason’
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now