12 ms·

The Air Force Initiative to Replace the A-10 Warthog Is Vaporware

100 points by ourmandave 11y ago

tired_man 11y ago
If the Air Force is so bent on getting rid of these wonderfully useful, tough machines, then perhaps they should entirely leave the ground support role to the US Marine Corps and the US Navy, both of which have a long history of providing ground attack support to troops. The A-10 is the best damned aircraft at this role since the AD-1 Spad's were retired. All the Air Force wants is glitter and fame, they aren't really interested in life on the ground. Give them their wish, take the A-10s and give them to someone who will use them to their fullest potential.
- grillvogel 11y ago
  chair force amirite
- dv_dt 11y ago
  I suspect the problem has been that the AF doesn't want to give up the ground supt role (or maybe just the budget associated with it), but they do want to give up the plane.
  - tired_man 11y ago
    The Air Force wants the cash to help make up for the abysmal F-35 program. The USMC and Navy should have control of ground attack resources. Let the Air Force play with their missiles and laser death rays.
    - Scramblejams 11y ago
      Or, I'm gonna go out on a limb here -- how about open up fixed wing close air support to the Army? The Marines are already free to run whatever they want, but they've banked on the F-35 as well. Since the end of the USAAF and the formation of the USAF, it's been sacrosanct that the Army isn't allowed to do fixed wing aviation. It may be time to look at changing that.
      - GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
        The Army is allowed to do fixed wing aviation, but only with a dry weight of 5000 lbs. or less.
        hga 11y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement most often called the Treaty of Key West in my readings.
        iofj 11y ago
        I bet that will turn out to be a massive tactical misjudgment by the air force once we really start switching to drones, at which point 5000lbs or less is no longer a limitation at all.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    Interesting opinion. The usual interpretation of USAF history is that it never really wanted CAS aircraft at all. Flying high and fast is what the USAF has prized as a general rule. CAS is necessary and important but not sexy or what you want to fly if you hope to climb the rank ladder.
- TylerE 11y ago
  The thing is, the last A-10 rolled off the production line 32 years ago. Airframes have finite lifespans.
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    Then Build more Airframes... Start up the production again, I would rather them scrap the F35 program, which is vaporware at this point, than the A10
    - adamson 11y ago
      Huh? F-35s are in production
      - bpodgursky 11y ago
        F-35s will not be able to fire their cannons until the 2020's (last I checked), because the software has not been written.
        vonmoltke 11y ago
        2019 That said, the decision to declare Initial Operating Capacity with a software load that only has 89% of the aircraft's functionality is some politicized bullshit by the USAF.
        mikeash 11y ago
        That must be one fancy-pants cannon if it takes three years to write the software to drive it. How is that even possible?
        ceejayoz 11y ago
        Cannons have substantially nastier failure modes than the latest Twitter clone, and as such have much longer software development and testing cycles. A look into a similar process with NASA: http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff
- nerfhammer 11y ago
  Wouldn't the Marines want the aircraft to be carrier-based, which the A-10 is not?
  - gozur88 11y ago
    Well, LHA and LHD-based, anyway. And also short improvised landing strips. The marines wouldn't have anywhere to base the A-10. They'd have to fly out of Air Force bases.
    - engi_nerd 11y ago
      ...What about all those lovely Naval Air and Marine Corps Air Stations?
      - gozur88 11y ago
        We tend to not have those were we need them. Is there a Naval air base near A-stan?
        engi_nerd 11y ago
        That's not what you said originally though. You said that the Navy or Marine Corps would be forced to use Air Force facilities. And there can be an air field within striking distance of Afghanistan, if necessary, as I'm sure you know. A CVN or an LHA.
        gozur88 11y ago
        >That's not what you said originally though. You said that the Navy or Marine Corps would be forced to use Air Force facilities. Yes... and if there's no naval base near the theater you're interested in, then...? We're not fighting wars in San Diego. >And there can be an air field within striking distance of Afghanistan, if necessary, as I'm sure you know. A CVN or an LHA. You know better than that. You're not going to base A-10s on a ship.
- michaelt 11y ago
  Traditionally in American politics (and doubtless in other countries too) if someone cuts your budget or doesn't increase your budget as much as you'd like, you can put pressure on them by announcing you're being "forced" to dump something useful and popular. Local government wants more money? Threaten to close libraries. Air force wants more money? Threaten to retire a plane famous for its effectiveness in a recent conflict.
eximius 11y ago
It is amazing how terribly managed our military resources are. I cannot even fathom where to begin to fix it.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Note the J in JSOC, discard the existing branches of the military and build integrated units around desired tactical capabilities. I guess you'd still have room for a Navy doing it that way, but you get the idea.
  - mentalpiracy 11y ago
    This is easier in theory than it is in practice. While obviously each branch puts together its own integrated units for various missions, th8e real detriment to this kind of idea is what you would lose when breaking down the larger command/logistics backbone of the Army/Marines/AF/Navy. I totally agree that the current system is not maximally efficient, but how would these new integrated units be managed logistically? Would each unit field its own logistics personnel? That might make sense, but then you end up with a lot of duplicated effort for little marginal improvement. Would we need an entire separate command structure for the sole purpose of heavy equipment movement and base management/support? If no, who might be the logical choice for this role?
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      I'm being a little sarcastic, but you could have units organized around providing logistics. Get this here, get that there. Realistically, you might just end up with even more bureaucracies defending their own turf and resisting change. The other thing that might happen is that you end up with less redundant capabilities and better integration. It's kind of stupid that the presence of a jet engine dictates that close air support be under a different command.
  - rdl 11y ago
    Medical should immediately be joint and separate -- maybe the deployed-with-unit combat medics should belong to each service, but there is no justification for the Navy, Air Force, and Army to all run separate medical and medical-logistics commands, role 3 hospitals (role 2 is borderline), stateside and fixed-base facilities like Landstuhl, etc. Medical and Medical Service Corps are pretty borderline inherently-military, anyway; they could be a (uniformed?) federal service, able to handle disaster relief and public health, as well as treating the injured in war. We have PHS already. (This also solves the VA vs. Active Duty healthcare difference; a unified records system and other processes for both would be ideal.)
Overtonwindow 11y ago
I almost started to say I don't understand the military's obsession with fixing things that aren't broke, but then I remembered defense contractors, campaign contributions, defense spending, and egos.
- Scramblejams 11y ago
  Ego's a big part of it here. The Air Force has historically demonstrated disinterest in programs that aren't "sexy," which is high-end fighter aviation in a nutshell. It's not just fixed-wing close air support that's hurting. It also manifests in the USAF not buying enough tanker, airlift and other assets to do the job.
  - bigdubs 11y ago
    The "sexiness" isn't just because of their egos; sexiness fuels recruiting, which is ultimately how the air force is effective. Granted I'm not sure what isn't sexy about the GAU-8 firing; probably the craziest gun attached to an aircraft ever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX6s6dryF9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX6s6dryF9M
    - stan_rogers 11y ago
      It's more a matter of the A10 being the craziest aircraft attached to a gun, ever. The aircraft was basically designed as an answer to the question, "how do we put this cannon where we need it in a hurry?"
      - bigdubs 11y ago
        It's also the size of a VW Beatle. People think the gun is just the barrel but the ammo belt and drive are enormous.
  - treerunner 11y ago
    An argument could be made, when considering the Air Force's costly desire for sexiness, that we will also be paying for the 2003 campaign of Shock and Awe for many years to come.
beloch 11y ago
CAS is a job best done by relatively slow, but well armored aircraft flying low and slow. Pilots need to have time to develop awareness of both their allies and their enemies. Pilots of this type of mission are going to come under fire, which is something the air force is fundamentally unwilling to accept. Marines in planes, on the other hand, are likely to accept similar risk to marines on the ground if it reduces risk for all. Given that CAS pilots must work most closely with those on the ground, it makes little sense for them to be air force. That being said, drones are probably the real A-10 killers. They can fly right down an enemy's throat without risking their pilot's lives. VR technology promises to give drone pilots a better field of view than any cockpit offers, and pilots could potentially switch control to a new drone when their previous drone is forced to return to base. This means one pilot could follow an engagement from start to finish, instead of multiple pilots trading off. This would greatly reduce the likelihood of pilot error and friendly fire incidents.
- adamson 11y ago
  "Marines in planes, on the other hand, are likely to accept similar risk to marines on the ground if it reduces risk for all." Is this an issue of different cultures within different departments, or different objectives, or what? I would hope that combined arms in a modern military would break down divisions in combat behavior like this
  - beloch 11y ago
    Purely on the basis of training, equipment, and investment of taxpayer dollars, a pilot's life is worth a helluva lot more than an infantryman's life, and air force pilots are probably aware of this. They're like the modern day equivalent of noblemen as mounted heavy cavalry. They feel the duty to protect the peons with pitch-forks on the front lines, but they're not trained to do so recklessly. A platoon getting wiped out is a far smaller loss than losing a plane. Such are the economic realities of war. Pilot training no doubt reflects this. I honestly don't know much about marine aviator culture, but I'd be very surprised if they don't see themselves as having more in common with marine infantry than air force pilots do. That commonality probably makes them a lot more committed to keeping ground forces safe when flying CAS missions. I could be wrong. I am speculating here. I'd welcome the opinion of somebody in a position to know better.
awinter-py 11y ago
If there's a consensus on what's wrong with pentagon procurement, the bullet points are: (1) no 'feasability feedback' mechanism to reject wishlist items that inflate complexity or delivery date, (2) focus on 'joint procurement', i.e. one product that solves army / air force / navy problems, i.e. a flying submarine with wheels, (3) lead times are too long for bespoke products (by the time it's delivered your needs have changed). A-10 was built based on CAS lessons that had been learned the hard way in Nam, where helicopters had to take the place of fixed-wing airplanes that couldn't do the job. (meaning it was built to do one thing well). It wasn't a swiss-army knife. If you believe that it's not practical to build a swiss-army knife aircraft, then you probably weren't surprised by the crappy fighters we turned out in the 90s and 00s. The head airplane designer on china's F-22 killer basically laughed when he was asked about the F-35, and said 'the best thing that ever happened to us was when the US decided to put VTOL in their main fighter -- and not even in all of them.' China could never afford to do that but arguably the US can't either. A post-IOC F-35C had its wings fall off (yes) and the pentagon lockheed liaison's explanation was 'the pilot was too heavy, we're looking into it'. Even more interesting than the A-10 is the F-16; it was a backburner project at lockheed and the pentagon tried to shut it down because they didn't want it stealing any PR thunder from the bigger badder F-15. These days the F-16 is doing every job because it's cheap, easy to maintain, lots of people can fly them. Lockheed just shut down the line for these but the aftermarket is booming.
- awinter-py 11y ago
  martha mcsally of the arizona 2nd flew A-10s in kuwait and is the loudest voice in congress to keep them flying.
- brudgers 11y ago
  My impression has been that the A10 was developed as a jet propelled successor to the A1 Skyraider. It saw a similar long service life fullfilling similar close air support missions. As with the A10 currently, the A1's use in combat was often different from the "last war" role for which it was designed and built: range, robustness, and ordinance capacity for sinking battleships translated to long loiter. It's long service life was probably also a function of development as a naval weapon system due to institutional culture and the practical advantage of carrier landing ruggedness.
johansch 11y ago
As a foreigner.. I don't get it. Is it all about pork/creating jobs in various states rather than over-all value to the country?
- jakelarkin 11y ago
  yes and the US Air Force is too much in the pocket of defense contractors and out of step with forces that actually wage combat in the current conflicts. They drag their feet on effective and low-cost solutions like the A-10 and drones and want spend all trillions on vanity "air-superiority" aircraft, for winning hypothetical dog fights with next-gen China/Russia fighter jets.
cromwellian 11y ago
Perhaps this is an Airforce/Fighter Jock fetish with speed? The A-10 isn't a super-fast super-maneuverable sexy jet, and they'd rather have more F-22s/F-35s with all of the checkbox Nth-generation bells and whistles (stealth, super-cruise, etc)? It's like an MVP product that serves customers vs a product loaded with features that only the developers wanted. The A-10 is boring and simplistic and old tech. Forget the fact that the F-35 is expensive, buggy, not the best in any category, and gets owned by earlier generation jets.
- zrail 11y ago
  This is exactly it. The Air Force brass is all fighter jocks these days.
  - nradov 11y ago
    The top Air Force brass is a former A-10 pilot. I'm pretty sure he understands its strengths and weaknesses. http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/104966/general-mark-a-welsh-iii.aspx http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Arti...
    - zrail 11y ago
      Flew an A10 for three months in training. AFAICT he then flew F16s for the rest of his operational career before transferring to command.
    - oxide 11y ago
      what I took away last time the A10 came up around here was that the AF brass (as well as the brass of every branch of the US military) were too busy fantasizing about future wars with China to appreciate the practical usefulness of the A10 in modern warfare.
- gozur88 11y ago
  I think the real explanation is more prosaic. The USAF is a giant bureaucracy, and giant bureaucracies take care of themselves before they take care of other giant bureaucracies. In this case, the army.
smoyer 11y ago
My favorite aircraft ever - I loved it at air shows [1 - 1978] as a kid and later when my son and I played the A-10 Cuba [2] video game together. [1] https://www.oceanaairshow.com/ https://www.oceanaairshow.com/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Cuba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Cuba!
- warmwaffles 11y ago
  a-10 cuba, good times
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
smegel 11y ago
Give them to the Army Air Corps. The pilots need to work more closely with soldiers on the ground than other pilots or air control, and the army are the last people who want to see these planes go. Then the Air Force Generals can get stars in their eyes about fast jets and stealthy bombers without the hassle of a little flying tank.
hudibras 11y ago
All I'm going to say is that the A-10 fanboys win the argument at the unclassified level, but it might be a different story when the discussion moves behind closed doors.
- dsr_ 11y ago
  "If you only knew what I know, you would agree with me." "Okay, what is it?" "I can't tell you." This is not an argument which ever works. Don't try it.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    If you know those sorts of things, it is generally best to stay away from arguments about capabilities. It isn't an argument that works, you're right.
jessaustin 11y ago
FWIW, and since this is on-the-ground perceptual anecdata maybe that's not much, A-10 training flights in southern Missouri (i.e. out of Whiteman AFB, with possible attack runs over Ft. Wood) have picked up appreciably during recent months. Over the last month, if I spend a day outside, I definitely hear/see a pair of Warthogs at some point. There were years for which that was not the case.
jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
These articles just get worse and worse. Opinions about the merits and flaws of the A-10 are largely irrelevant: the inventory is rotting, and there are no factory resources for replacement parts, let alone new aircraft. Keeping the A-10's going would require what amounts to a reverse engineering and reproduction program comparable in cost to developing a new aircraft. Even if you're the biggest fan in the world of them, it simply does not make sense to keep the A-10's going. Sentiment does not prevent the decay of the aircraft, nor does it whip into existence cad files and factory tooling that no longer exists. The A-10 costs around 20k per hour to fly. The predator series drones, T6 Texan, and the Super Tucano all cost 1/5th to 1/10th that per hour to operate.
- Warhawg01 11y ago
  The inventory is rotting? Laughable. The Mission Capable Rates are in the 80-90% range. There haven't been "factory resources" for parts in decades, and yet the fleet still manages to fly at a high rate. CAD Files? Factory Tooling? You have very little understanding of how aircraft maintenance in the Air Force works. Ever heard of a sheet metal shop? Those dudes can make anything. An A-10 flight hour costs <8K. Source: I managed a $54M, 7200 hour A-10 flying hour program. I have flown A-10s for 18 years.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
    I'm skeptical you are who you claim, but if so you know you're being hyperbolic. Airframes have a limited lifetime; fatigue adds up. Despite the overwhelmingly positive performance to date, an aging fleet that's more expensive on margin to operate than alternatives doesn't make sense.
    - msbarnett 11y ago
      The AF just rewinged the A-10 fleet. Ranting about airframe fatigue in relation to the A-10 is nonsensical; the money has already been spent refreshing the airframes. Their current expected lifespan is until 2040.
fixxer 11y ago
The Air Force attitude to the venerable A-10 has always struck me as pure budget bloating. I love that flying pig.

100 points by ourmandave 11y ago

If the Air Force is so bent on getting rid of these wonderfully useful, tough machines, then perhaps they should entirely leave the ground support role to the US Marine Corps and the US Navy, both of which have a long history of providing ground attack support to troops. The A-10 is the best damned aircraft at this role since the AD-1 Spad's were retired. All the Air Force wants is glitter and fame, they aren't really interested in life on the ground. Give them their wish, take the A-10s and give them to someone who will use them to their fullest potential.

grillvogel 11y ago
chair force amirite
dv_dt 11y ago
I suspect the problem has been that the AF doesn't want to give up the ground supt role (or maybe just the budget associated with it), but they do want to give up the plane.
- tired_man 11y ago
  The Air Force wants the cash to help make up for the abysmal F-35 program. The USMC and Navy should have control of ground attack resources. Let the Air Force play with their missiles and laser death rays.
  - Scramblejams 11y ago
    Or, I'm gonna go out on a limb here -- how about open up fixed wing close air support to the Army? The Marines are already free to run whatever they want, but they've banked on the F-35 as well. Since the end of the USAAF and the formation of the USAF, it's been sacrosanct that the Army isn't allowed to do fixed wing aviation. It may be time to look at changing that.
    - GunboatDiplomat 11y ago
      The Army is allowed to do fixed wing aviation, but only with a dry weight of 5000 lbs. or less.
      - hga 11y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement most often called the Treaty of Key West in my readings.
      - iofj 11y ago
        I bet that will turn out to be a massive tactical misjudgment by the air force once we really start switching to drones, at which point 5000lbs or less is no longer a limitation at all.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  Interesting opinion. The usual interpretation of USAF history is that it never really wanted CAS aircraft at all. Flying high and fast is what the USAF has prized as a general rule. CAS is necessary and important but not sexy or what you want to fly if you hope to climb the rank ladder.
TylerE 11y ago
The thing is, the last A-10 rolled off the production line 32 years ago. Airframes have finite lifespans.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  Then Build more Airframes... Start up the production again, I would rather them scrap the F35 program, which is vaporware at this point, than the A10
  - adamson 11y ago
    Huh? F-35s are in production
    - bpodgursky 11y ago
      F-35s will not be able to fire their cannons until the 2020's (last I checked), because the software has not been written.
      - vonmoltke 11y ago
        2019 That said, the decision to declare Initial Operating Capacity with a software load that only has 89% of the aircraft's functionality is some politicized bullshit by the USAF.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        That must be one fancy-pants cannon if it takes three years to write the software to drive it. How is that even possible?
        ceejayoz 11y ago
        Cannons have substantially nastier failure modes than the latest Twitter clone, and as such have much longer software development and testing cycles. A look into a similar process with NASA: http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff
nerfhammer 11y ago
Wouldn't the Marines want the aircraft to be carrier-based, which the A-10 is not?
- gozur88 11y ago
  Well, LHA and LHD-based, anyway. And also short improvised landing strips. The marines wouldn't have anywhere to base the A-10. They'd have to fly out of Air Force bases.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    ...What about all those lovely Naval Air and Marine Corps Air Stations?
    - gozur88 11y ago
      We tend to not have those were we need them. Is there a Naval air base near A-stan?
      - engi_nerd 11y ago
        That's not what you said originally though. You said that the Navy or Marine Corps would be forced to use Air Force facilities. And there can be an air field within striking distance of Afghanistan, if necessary, as I'm sure you know. A CVN or an LHA.
        gozur88 11y ago
        >That's not what you said originally though. You said that the Navy or Marine Corps would be forced to use Air Force facilities. Yes... and if there's no naval base near the theater you're interested in, then...? We're not fighting wars in San Diego. >And there can be an air field within striking distance of Afghanistan, if necessary, as I'm sure you know. A CVN or an LHA. You know better than that. You're not going to base A-10s on a ship.
michaelt 11y ago
Traditionally in American politics (and doubtless in other countries too) if someone cuts your budget or doesn't increase your budget as much as you'd like, you can put pressure on them by announcing you're being "forced" to dump something useful and popular. Local government wants more money? Threaten to close libraries. Air force wants more money? Threaten to retire a plane famous for its effectiveness in a recent conflict.

eximius 11y ago

It is amazing how terribly managed our military resources are. I cannot even fathom where to begin to fix it.

maxerickson 11y ago
Note the J in JSOC, discard the existing branches of the military and build integrated units around desired tactical capabilities. I guess you'd still have room for a Navy doing it that way, but you get the idea.
- mentalpiracy 11y ago
  This is easier in theory than it is in practice. While obviously each branch puts together its own integrated units for various missions, th8e real detriment to this kind of idea is what you would lose when breaking down the larger command/logistics backbone of the Army/Marines/AF/Navy. I totally agree that the current system is not maximally efficient, but how would these new integrated units be managed logistically? Would each unit field its own logistics personnel? That might make sense, but then you end up with a lot of duplicated effort for little marginal improvement. Would we need an entire separate command structure for the sole purpose of heavy equipment movement and base management/support? If no, who might be the logical choice for this role?
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    I'm being a little sarcastic, but you could have units organized around providing logistics. Get this here, get that there. Realistically, you might just end up with even more bureaucracies defending their own turf and resisting change. The other thing that might happen is that you end up with less redundant capabilities and better integration. It's kind of stupid that the presence of a jet engine dictates that close air support be under a different command.
- rdl 11y ago
  Medical should immediately be joint and separate -- maybe the deployed-with-unit combat medics should belong to each service, but there is no justification for the Navy, Air Force, and Army to all run separate medical and medical-logistics commands, role 3 hospitals (role 2 is borderline), stateside and fixed-base facilities like Landstuhl, etc. Medical and Medical Service Corps are pretty borderline inherently-military, anyway; they could be a (uniformed?) federal service, able to handle disaster relief and public health, as well as treating the injured in war. We have PHS already. (This also solves the VA vs. Active Duty healthcare difference; a unified records system and other processes for both would be ideal.)

Overtonwindow 11y ago

I almost started to say I don't understand the military's obsession with fixing things that aren't broke, but then I remembered defense contractors, campaign contributions, defense spending, and egos.

Scramblejams 11y ago
Ego's a big part of it here. The Air Force has historically demonstrated disinterest in programs that aren't "sexy," which is high-end fighter aviation in a nutshell. It's not just fixed-wing close air support that's hurting. It also manifests in the USAF not buying enough tanker, airlift and other assets to do the job.
- bigdubs 11y ago
  The "sexiness" isn't just because of their egos; sexiness fuels recruiting, which is ultimately how the air force is effective. Granted I'm not sure what isn't sexy about the GAU-8 firing; probably the craziest gun attached to an aircraft ever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX6s6dryF9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX6s6dryF9M
  - stan_rogers 11y ago
    It's more a matter of the A10 being the craziest aircraft attached to a gun, ever. The aircraft was basically designed as an answer to the question, "how do we put this cannon where we need it in a hurry?"
    - bigdubs 11y ago
      It's also the size of a VW Beatle. People think the gun is just the barrel but the ammo belt and drive are enormous.
- treerunner 11y ago
  An argument could be made, when considering the Air Force's costly desire for sexiness, that we will also be paying for the 2003 campaign of Shock and Awe for many years to come.

beloch 11y ago

CAS is a job best done by relatively slow, but well armored aircraft flying low and slow. Pilots need to have time to develop awareness of both their allies and their enemies. Pilots of this type of mission are going to come under fire, which is something the air force is fundamentally unwilling to accept. Marines in planes, on the other hand, are likely to accept similar risk to marines on the ground if it reduces risk for all. Given that CAS pilots must work most closely with those on the ground, it makes little sense for them to be air force. That being said, drones are probably the real A-10 killers. They can fly right down an enemy's throat without risking their pilot's lives. VR technology promises to give drone pilots a better field of view than any cockpit offers, and pilots could potentially switch control to a new drone when their previous drone is forced to return to base. This means one pilot could follow an engagement from start to finish, instead of multiple pilots trading off. This would greatly reduce the likelihood of pilot error and friendly fire incidents.

adamson 11y ago
"Marines in planes, on the other hand, are likely to accept similar risk to marines on the ground if it reduces risk for all." Is this an issue of different cultures within different departments, or different objectives, or what? I would hope that combined arms in a modern military would break down divisions in combat behavior like this
- beloch 11y ago
  Purely on the basis of training, equipment, and investment of taxpayer dollars, a pilot's life is worth a helluva lot more than an infantryman's life, and air force pilots are probably aware of this. They're like the modern day equivalent of noblemen as mounted heavy cavalry. They feel the duty to protect the peons with pitch-forks on the front lines, but they're not trained to do so recklessly. A platoon getting wiped out is a far smaller loss than losing a plane. Such are the economic realities of war. Pilot training no doubt reflects this. I honestly don't know much about marine aviator culture, but I'd be very surprised if they don't see themselves as having more in common with marine infantry than air force pilots do. That commonality probably makes them a lot more committed to keeping ground forces safe when flying CAS missions. I could be wrong. I am speculating here. I'd welcome the opinion of somebody in a position to know better.

awinter-py 11y ago

If there's a consensus on what's wrong with pentagon procurement, the bullet points are: (1) no 'feasability feedback' mechanism to reject wishlist items that inflate complexity or delivery date, (2) focus on 'joint procurement', i.e. one product that solves army / air force / navy problems, i.e. a flying submarine with wheels, (3) lead times are too long for bespoke products (by the time it's delivered your needs have changed). A-10 was built based on CAS lessons that had been learned the hard way in Nam, where helicopters had to take the place of fixed-wing airplanes that couldn't do the job. (meaning it was built to do one thing well). It wasn't a swiss-army knife. If you believe that it's not practical to build a swiss-army knife aircraft, then you probably weren't surprised by the crappy fighters we turned out in the 90s and 00s. The head airplane designer on china's F-22 killer basically laughed when he was asked about the F-35, and said 'the best thing that ever happened to us was when the US decided to put VTOL in their main fighter -- and not even in all of them.' China could never afford to do that but arguably the US can't either. A post-IOC F-35C had its wings fall off (yes) and the pentagon lockheed liaison's explanation was 'the pilot was too heavy, we're looking into it'. Even more interesting than the A-10 is the F-16; it was a backburner project at lockheed and the pentagon tried to shut it down because they didn't want it stealing any PR thunder from the bigger badder F-15. These days the F-16 is doing every job because it's cheap, easy to maintain, lots of people can fly them. Lockheed just shut down the line for these but the aftermarket is booming.

awinter-py 11y ago
martha mcsally of the arizona 2nd flew A-10s in kuwait and is the loudest voice in congress to keep them flying.
brudgers 11y ago
My impression has been that the A10 was developed as a jet propelled successor to the A1 Skyraider. It saw a similar long service life fullfilling similar close air support missions. As with the A10 currently, the A1's use in combat was often different from the "last war" role for which it was designed and built: range, robustness, and ordinance capacity for sinking battleships translated to long loiter. It's long service life was probably also a function of development as a naval weapon system due to institutional culture and the practical advantage of carrier landing ruggedness.

johansch 11y ago

As a foreigner.. I don't get it. Is it all about pork/creating jobs in various states rather than over-all value to the country?

jakelarkin 11y ago
yes and the US Air Force is too much in the pocket of defense contractors and out of step with forces that actually wage combat in the current conflicts. They drag their feet on effective and low-cost solutions like the A-10 and drones and want spend all trillions on vanity "air-superiority" aircraft, for winning hypothetical dog fights with next-gen China/Russia fighter jets.

cromwellian 11y ago

Perhaps this is an Airforce/Fighter Jock fetish with speed? The A-10 isn't a super-fast super-maneuverable sexy jet, and they'd rather have more F-22s/F-35s with all of the checkbox Nth-generation bells and whistles (stealth, super-cruise, etc)? It's like an MVP product that serves customers vs a product loaded with features that only the developers wanted. The A-10 is boring and simplistic and old tech. Forget the fact that the F-35 is expensive, buggy, not the best in any category, and gets owned by earlier generation jets.

zrail 11y ago
This is exactly it. The Air Force brass is all fighter jocks these days.
- nradov 11y ago
  The top Air Force brass is a former A-10 pilot. I'm pretty sure he understands its strengths and weaknesses. http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/104966/general-mark-a-welsh-iii.aspx http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Arti...
  - zrail 11y ago
    Flew an A10 for three months in training. AFAICT he then flew F16s for the rest of his operational career before transferring to command.
  - oxide 11y ago
    what I took away last time the A10 came up around here was that the AF brass (as well as the brass of every branch of the US military) were too busy fantasizing about future wars with China to appreciate the practical usefulness of the A10 in modern warfare.
gozur88 11y ago
I think the real explanation is more prosaic. The USAF is a giant bureaucracy, and giant bureaucracies take care of themselves before they take care of other giant bureaucracies. In this case, the army.

smoyer 11y ago

My favorite aircraft ever - I loved it at air shows [1 - 1978] as a kid and later when my son and I played the A-10 Cuba [2] video game together. [1] https://www.oceanaairshow.com/ https://www.oceanaairshow.com/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Cuba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Cuba!

warmwaffles 11y ago
a-10 cuba, good times

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

smegel 11y ago

Give them to the Army Air Corps. The pilots need to work more closely with soldiers on the ground than other pilots or air control, and the army are the last people who want to see these planes go. Then the Air Force Generals can get stars in their eyes about fast jets and stealthy bombers without the hassle of a little flying tank.

hudibras 11y ago

All I'm going to say is that the A-10 fanboys win the argument at the unclassified level, but it might be a different story when the discussion moves behind closed doors.

dsr_ 11y ago
"If you only knew what I know, you would agree with me." "Okay, what is it?" "I can't tell you." This is not an argument which ever works. Don't try it.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  If you know those sorts of things, it is generally best to stay away from arguments about capabilities. It isn't an argument that works, you're right.

jessaustin 11y ago

FWIW, and since this is on-the-ground perceptual anecdata maybe that's not much, A-10 training flights in southern Missouri (i.e. out of Whiteman AFB, with possible attack runs over Ft. Wood) have picked up appreciably during recent months. Over the last month, if I spend a day outside, I definitely hear/see a pair of Warthogs at some point. There were years for which that was not the case.

jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago

These articles just get worse and worse. Opinions about the merits and flaws of the A-10 are largely irrelevant: the inventory is rotting, and there are no factory resources for replacement parts, let alone new aircraft. Keeping the A-10's going would require what amounts to a reverse engineering and reproduction program comparable in cost to developing a new aircraft. Even if you're the biggest fan in the world of them, it simply does not make sense to keep the A-10's going. Sentiment does not prevent the decay of the aircraft, nor does it whip into existence cad files and factory tooling that no longer exists. The A-10 costs around 20k per hour to fly. The predator series drones, T6 Texan, and the Super Tucano all cost 1/5th to 1/10th that per hour to operate.

Warhawg01 11y ago
The inventory is rotting? Laughable. The Mission Capable Rates are in the 80-90% range. There haven't been "factory resources" for parts in decades, and yet the fleet still manages to fly at a high rate. CAD Files? Factory Tooling? You have very little understanding of how aircraft maintenance in the Air Force works. Ever heard of a sheet metal shop? Those dudes can make anything. An A-10 flight hour costs <8K. Source: I managed a $54M, 7200 hour A-10 flying hour program. I have flown A-10s for 18 years.
- jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
  I'm skeptical you are who you claim, but if so you know you're being hyperbolic. Airframes have a limited lifetime; fatigue adds up. Despite the overwhelmingly positive performance to date, an aging fleet that's more expensive on margin to operate than alternatives doesn't make sense.
  - msbarnett 11y ago
    The AF just rewinged the A-10 fleet. Ranting about airframe fatigue in relation to the A-10 is nonsensical; the money has already been spent refreshing the airframes. Their current expected lifespan is until 2040.

fixxer 11y ago

The Air Force attitude to the venerable A-10 has always struck me as pure budget bloating. I love that flying pig.