Shhhh...Don't talk about the A-10

[Clark Griswold]

So what does he push to divest that offers the same amount of savings as the A-10/KC-10? I'm not a fan of either going away, but if we have to divest something, what else? And yeah, I know there's bullshit waste like Tops in Blue and new flat screens - but unfortunately none of those will create the same savings. It has to be something "big"...I don't know the answer, and because of that I'm not going to throw spears at the guy. I will however throw burning spears towards Congress - this is their giant shit pie and now they're making him clean it up.

Valid points and I understand that TIB - golf courses and DoD cyberchallenge CBTs will only go so far

Propose big changes like retiring the BUFF and replace with the Super T, reduce the AR requirements for the C-5 and C-17 and retire 10% of the oldest 135s, make the case to retire the oldest 15Cs

After post follow on:

Those are just some WAGs at where to save the approximately 400 mil the SECAF and CSAF quoted in the CSPAN video deaddebate posted, fundamentally he should propose basically a new AF as the funding as appropriated now will not support the legacy structure now, this is big DoD national wartime and contingency strategy stuff not just saving the A-10 and KC-10. Make the case to Congress (after consulting with Clark Griswold from BO.net of course) that we need an AF of around the same size but one with smaller footprint, modern systems scaled to fight a big conflict but one also to put out the brushfires we are likely to get into, we are kind of there now with the one major theatre and two or more contingency operations in our stated doctrine but not in what is actually on the ramp, we need a plan with numbers and desired systems to acquire to make that happen

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited March 25, 2015 by Clark Griswold

[SuperWSO]

I might get crucified for this but...

Cut the B-1, ... No need for a non-nuclear bomber,

Right, because nuclear bomber strikes are something we do all the time, completely outweighing any consideration for the 60 year old other jet.

[brabus]

I understand the need to save money...but you don't do it by cutting one of the most used aircraft in the most used missions when the aircraft is hands down the best at what it does.

How about we reign in the F-35 4bn over budget per year first.

I'm completely with you. But again, the latter statement especially lies heavily on Congress. My entire point is the CSAF is having shit forced down his neck and because of how our system works, there's nothing he can do about it except do the best he can with the shit he's been given. Congress is unwilling to reign in the F-35 (jobs and money for all my friends!), so they scream bloody murder for X savings "some other way," which has forced the AF into a very terrible situation. It's bullshit we're forced to do it, but since we are here, from a purely objective standpoint, you can't really argue (un-emotionally) against single-role being targeted over multi-role. The CSAF shouldn't be in this position, but he is, and I think given the stark reality of having to choose between piss and shit, he's not doing bad. Again, all of this to say I put 95% of the blame on Congress and our civilian leadership for these problems and bullshit situations, not the man at top in uniform.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

I think the F-15C is a far better candidate for cutting than the A-10. The exact same arguments being made to justify pulling the plug on the A-10 apply to the F-15C. It is old, it is not day 1 survivable, and is unabashedly single role, even more so than the A-10. The F-15C is also more expensive to operate than the A-10, and to top it off, the F-15C is not necessary for the kind of war we are currently fighting. I know the discussion is about future conflict and the F-15C loses there too. The big difference is there are already aircraft in the inventory that can fill the role the C model occupies.

[di1630]

......from a purely objective standpoint, you can't really argue (un-emotionally) against single-role being targeted over multi-role.

A-10's are being targeting as single role but thats a stretch. They are the experts in CSAR, FAC-A, CAS and those missions while all A/G, are far from a single role. You could make the same B-1 argument that it is much more single role. The chances of F-16's being used for A/A or even AI vs modern threats is so small that their primary job has become PGM CAS.

I stand by my argument that you don't cut the jet tha is best at the mission you have been executing for the past 20 years for the cheapest price with no end to the ops in sight.

And we shouldn;t cut any jets until we've trimmed the fat everywhere.

[Disco_Nav963]

Right, because nuclear bomber strikes are something we do all the time, completely outweighing any consideration for the 60 year old other jet.

Whoa whoa whoa... 53 year old jet. Huge difference.

[brabus]

I think the F-15C is a far better candidate for cutting than the A-10...

Valid - the C model fleet has been cut a ton in the last 5 years, but I'm not sure why it's not getting the "full axe" like the A-10. Maybe it's because "they" view us as having more jets that can "replace" the A-10 compared to those who can "replace" the F-15C. Who knows, pure conjecture and not saying I have any reasons to support such a thought.

A-10's are being targeting as single role but thats a stretch. They are the experts in CSAR, FAC-A, CAS and those missions while all A/G, are far from a single role. You could make the same B-1 argument that it is much more single role. The chances of F-16's being used for A/A or even AI vs modern threats is so small that their primary job has become PGM CAS.

I know, not saying A-10s are one mission. Where "they" draw the line is it it can't do A/A and AO/AI is pretty much not going to happen (take too long to get to a target and egress / not survivable in such scenario). It's ignorant to say CSAR, FACing and being a CAS fighter are the same thing, but from a large, institutional viewpoint when it comes to this topic, it's not completely out of this world that the three are combined into "single role."

I hate all this as much as the next guy, and hell no we shouldn't be crippling combat capability like this. But, there's a lot of assholes who don't give a shit about such things and just want to keep their power, money, etc. They have put us in this "save X amount now!" and regardless of how insane and ridiculous it is, the CSAF has to make a very difficult decision that unfortunately can't be solved by TVs, furniture and TIB. The real solution to this problem is get the damn funding we need and allow BRAC. Or save us a shit ton of money by not spending it elsewhere in the world, who are ungrateful dipshits anyways.

[Hacker]

A-10's are being targeting as single role but thats a stretch. They are the experts in CSAR, FAC-A, CAS and those missions while all A/G, are far from a single role.

You are confusing the meaning of "role" with the meaning of "mission".

A pure A-G mission aircraft is a single-role aircraft.

By your argument, the F-15C is a multi-role aircraft because it can do OCA and DCA.

[TreeA10]

If someone ever has to jettison their jet and walk home, I'm pretty sure they want a Hawgdriver or another entity who understands the difference between CSAR, FAC-A, and CAS vs proving gravity works by throwing high explosives at the ground.

[HU&W]

Perhaps we should re-name this thread?

"There are plenty of programs/platforms to cancel, list your favorite here."

1: F-35

2: F-15C

3: B-1

4: RQ-4

5: U-28

6: C-5

7: UH-1

8: T-1

[HuggyU2]

If someone ever has to jettison their jet and walk home, I'm pretty sure they want a Hawgdriver or another entity who understands the difference between CSAR, FAC-A, and CAS vs proving gravity works by throwing high explosives at the ground.

Like this case, when Boots Jones was shot down in his Tomcat?

And PJ showed up in his Hog?

And PJ was awarded the Air Force Cross?

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/22/world/war-in-the-gulf-rescue-navy-pilot-is-plucked-from-iraqi-desert.html

Edited March 27, 2015 by Huggyu2

[di1630]

You are confusing the meaning of "role" with the meaning of "mission".

A pure A-G mission aircraft is a single-role aircraft.

Correct, let me use some lessons learned from current esteemed military leadership, F-35 marketers and USAF PA to bolster my multi role A-10 argument.

Just as the B-1 has become a premier CAS platform and the F-22 has excelled in combat over Syria, the A-10 has proved itself an incredible multi-role fighter in the A/A realm. After scoring more kills versus aerial tgts in the Gulf War than F-16's and with a current A/A kill record better than the F-22 and F-35 combined, the A-10 also has also never lost an aerial battle, unlike Mig-29s and other 4th gen fighters. In fact with up to four AIM-9 sidewinder missiles and more bullets than any other A/A fighter aircraft, the A-10 is exceptionally suited for the majority of current A/A missions. According to USAF statistics 90% of A/A alert missions have been launched versus Cessnas and helicopters, airframes the A-10 can more easily intercept given its slow speed, tight turning radius and long loiter time. The A-10 can do missions such as Noble Eagle cheaper and with less risk of fratricide than fighters such as the F-15C which shot down 2 friendly helicopters in the past, making it the most dangerous twin engine, two tail aircraft with PW-220 engines to friendly pilots in the history of mankind.

Edited March 27, 2015 by di1630

[tac airlifter]

1: F-35

2: F-15C

3: B-1

4: RQ-4

5: U-28

6: C-5

7: UH-1

8: T-1

Please explain why you would CANX the U28.

[Gravedigger]

Want to keep all of those planes, and solve a bunch of personnel problems at the same time? Axe ICBMs.

The F-15C is pretty damn irrelevant though...

[hispeed7721]

Please explain why you would CANX the U28.

2

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[guineapigfury]

1: F-35

2: F-15C

3: B-1

4: RQ-4

5: U-28

6: C-5

7: UH-1

8: T-1

Also, please explain the T-1 hate. God forbid the USAF buy a modified off the shelf product and use it to provide relevant training at a significantly reduced fuel cost while simultaneously reducing wear and tear on T-38s which are already ancient. With all the current acquisitions buffoonery, shouldn't the Tone be regarded as a rare triumph?

[deaddebate]

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/15-29%20-%203-18-15.pdf

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Senator Lee: Now, the Air Force last year determined that it was experiencing a shortfall in five and seven experience level maintainer personnel for the undermanned legacy fleets and F-35 aircraft scheduled to be brought into service and recently announced measures for a near-term solution to the issue. Can you give the committee more detail about what alternative solutions may have been considered by the Air Force and why the Air Force chose to transfer maintainers from A-10 squadrons and how the Air Force will be impacted if a longer-term solution to this maintainer issue cannot be found?

General Welsh: Senator, the issue was because of the budgets that are lower than we anticipated a few years ago, we are having to cut force structure. So we are not adding numbers of squadrons. We are decreasing numbers of squadrons while we are bringing a new weapons system on board. So we have to replace squadron A or aircraft A with the new aircraft B and take the people who are working A to be part of the new aircraft B. We do not have 1,000 more maintenance personnel standing around waiting for work. [...] And so because we are not transitioning that way now, we are not retiring the squadrons we had planned to retire to stand up the F-35 squadrons, we have to find that maintenance manpower in some other way. And the first effort we were going to make was to just downsize the percentage of manning within every other fighter squadron in the Air Force to take the experienced maintainers we need to be able to build up the F-35 fleet as opposed to delaying F-35 development and bed-down at multiple bases. Unfortunately, as we put that plan together, ISIS became a reality and the continued effort in the Middle East related Iraq and Syria came on the books. And we cannot take those squadrons down and still support that effort. So now we are looking at contracting an aircraft maintenance unit at Luke Air Force Base to help us with the training effort and to have contract maintainers instead of active duty maintainers. The problem with that is we then are not developing the active duty maintenance personnel that we need to send out to Hill Air Force Base and to other places as we bed down the F-35 because the maintainers there have to be deployable. We are in a corner here. We have got to develop active duty F-35 maintenance people to bed down airplanes, and we do not have them standing around.

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/15-31%20-%203-19-15.pdf

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Senator Cotton: General Wolters, from a pure combat capability perspective, do you view the fighters and the B-1 as an adequate substitute for the A-10 to ground forces in need of close air support?

General Wolters: Chairman, I do. As you well know, there are certain situations with a show of force and show of presence opportunities over soldiers where the A-10 is one of those insertion resources in combat that produces positive effects on the battle space. That is one area where the A-10 probably outmatches some of our others. But the F-15E, the F-16 and the B-1 can adequately perform the close air support mission and satisfy the requirements of our combatant commanders.

Senator Cotton: The long-term plan is to replace all those with the F-35’s capabilities. Right?

General Wolters: Chairman, that is correct. And as you well know, the F-35 will possess a level of close air support capability and initial operation capability, and by its fully operational capability in 2021, we suspect it will contain all of the capabilities that currently reside in the CAS force requirements today for the combatant commander. [...]

Senator Ernst: But when we are comparing the cost of A-10 sorties versus the F-35 as a replacement, I have not seen any numbers on that.

General Holmes: [...] The A-10 is always going to be cheaper to operate than an F-35 will be, and I would stipulate that. The question is that in the environments of the future, can it get there. And so what we are trying to do is make sure that we have a way to support soldiers in the future as well that may be operating in a place where there are sophisticated surface-to-air defenses. We estimated that the loss rate of the A-10 in the Fulda Gap scenarios back in the 1970’s was really, really high. They were not going to last through the conflict and they were going to take a really high attrition rate. And if you looked at the places that they employed in the first Iraq War, if they got up into a sophisticated ground threat, they took a pretty good beating. It is a tough airplane and they were able to fly a lot of those home with the damage they took, but they could not fly them again. And so they could not support ground troops the next day because of the damage that they took. So what we are trying to do is balance our ability to support our brothers and sisters on the ground today, make sure we have the capability to do it 20 years from now if they are operating in place where they may be on the defensive, you know, for once where the enemy is bringing their fire power with them like the Russians were going to do and they have sophisticated defenses with them. We think it is worth paying a little bit more, cost per flying hour, to be able to get there instead of having a cheaper airplane that you cannot use. And I think that is the simple part of it. We would love to keep the A-10 until the wings fall off of them if we could afford to do it. It is just how do we fit that capability in and plan to support the ground troops of the future within the same limited budget. [...]

General Wolters: [...] One of the challenges that we faced with the A-10 was the fact if we had multiple engagements separated by distances greater than 100 nautical miles, you are potentially in a position to where some of the other aircraft that possessed the capability to dash quicker between targets would be able to serve multiple targets. And that is a classic illustration to where the A-10 was slightly challenged due to its inability to achieve a high-end speed. But I could not agree more with what General Holmes said and with what your candid observations are about the A-10. It is a wonderful close air support aircraft. I have flown it. I have flown its predecessor, the OV-10, in the early 1980’s. But there are some things that become challenging certainly in a non-permissive environment, and there are still things that occur in today’s combat permissive environment where other aircraft possess a little bit better ability to dash to other targets.

Edited March 28, 2015 by deaddebate

[uhhello]

Correct, let me use some lessons learned from current esteemed military leadership, F-35 marketers and USAF PA to bolster my multi role A-10 argument.

Just as the B-1 has become a premier CAS platform and the F-22 has excelled in combat over Syria, the A-10 has proved itself an incredible multi-role fighter in the A/A realm. After scoring more kills versus aerial tgts in the Gulf War than F-16's and with a current A/A kill record better than the F-22 and F-35 combined, the A-10 also has also never lost an aerial battle, unlike Mig-29s and other 4th gen fighters. In fact with up to four AIM-9 sidewinder missiles and more bullets than any other A/A fighter aircraft, the A-10 is exceptionally suited for the majority of current A/A missions. According to USAF statistics 90% of A/A alert missions have been launched versus Cessnas and helicopters, airframes the A-10 can more easily intercept given its slow speed, tight turning radius and long loiter time. The A-10 can do missions such as Noble Eagle cheaper and with less risk of fratricide than fighters such as the F-15C which shot down 2 friendly helicopters in the past, making it the most dangerous twin engine, two tail aircraft with PW-220 engines to friendly pilots in the history of mankind.

End thread.

[ClearedHot]

And not a word about the AFSOC guys who flew to the X and actually picked him up...

Like this case, when Boots Jones was shot down in his Tomcat?

And PJ showed up in his Hog?

And PJ was awarded the Air Force Cross?

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/22/world/war-in-the-gulf-rescue-navy-pilot-is-plucked-from-iraqi-desert.html

[TreeA10]

General Holmes: [...] The A-10 is always going to be cheaper to operate than an F-35 will be, and I would stipulate that. The question is that in the environments of the future, can it get there. And so what we are trying to do is make sure that we have a way to support soldiers in the future as well that may be operating in a place where there are sophisticated surface-to-air defenses. We estimated that the loss rate of the A-10 in the Fulda Gap scenarios back in the 1970’s was really, really high. They were not going to last through the conflict and they were going to take a really high attrition rate. And if you looked at the places that they employed in the first Iraq War, if they got up into a sophisticated ground threat, they took a pretty good beating. It is a tough airplane and they were able to fly a lot of those home with the damage they took, but they could not fly them again. And so they could not support ground troops the next day because of the damage that they took.

Yes, not flying home is a better indication of combat capability. Hard to argue with that twisted logic. An engine wrapped in a fuel tank protected by thin aluminum or composite is much more survivable.

[busdriver]

And not a word about the AFSOC guys who flew to the X and actually picked him up...

The ACC/AFSOC relations were a bit cold back then....

[HuggyU2]

The ACC/AFSOC relations were a bit cold back then....

That's because ACC didn't exist back then.

[busdriver]

That's because ACC didn't exist back then.

Touche. Guess I should have said TAC...

[dvlax40]

Also, please explain the T-1 hate. God forbid the USAF buy a modified off the shelf product and use it to provide relevant training at a significantly reduced fuel cost while simultaneously reducing wear and tear on T-38s which are already ancient. With all the current acquisitions buffoonery, shouldn't the Tone be regarded as a rare triumph?

x2

[SurelySerious]

Also, please explain the T-1 hate. God forbid the USAF buy a modified off the shelf product and use it to provide relevant training at a significantly reduced fuel cost while simultaneously reducing wear and tear on T-38s which are already ancient. With all the current acquisitions buffoonery, shouldn't the Tone be regarded as a rare triumph?

The predator is also a modified off the shelf product...