10 ms·

The Air Force Has Been Trying to Kill the A-10 Warthog for 14 Years

52 points by richardfey 5y ago

evgen 5y ago
If the Air Force was truly interested in eliminating the A-10 instead of just pushing its job to an airframe that is less capable it would offer them up to the Army or bootnecks. I am fairly certain that either of them would be willing to take on the cost if it meant they were able to own CAS.
- masklinn 5y ago
  The AF is interested in eliminating the A10, but they're even more interested in the Army not having its own fixed wings. Every time killing the A10 comes up, the Army goes "sure mate we'll take them off your hands" and the AF steps back. If and when the Army stops wanting the A10, they'll immediately take it behind the barn and shoot it. Meaning they'll more likely end up waiting for the remaining warthogs to fall to pieces (the youngest frames are reaching 40 years of age) so there's nothing remaining for the Army to use. And the article describes them wilfully accelerating this by actively sabotaging the program.
  - 3327 5y ago
    I like the Army guys. Since they are the ones getting killed on the ground- they are far more inclined to go with products that just work and get the job done. Unlike the airforce - that has a huge budget and an arsenal of all sorts of hardware from B2s to b1s to drones to f22s, b52s, list goes on. Remind me again what happened in Afghanistan? Apache, a10, mh6, ac130. These were the workhorses and of course reapers.
    - noir_lord 5y ago
      Afghanistan/Taliban didn't have a functional air defence network nor where they technologically near-peer. The A10 is amazing for CAS in that environment but against anyone tooled up by the russians/chinese with modern SAM's it'd be a different picture. Now..whether the USAF needs both given that everything they've done for most of the last 40 years has been that type of air support is an interesting question, they like to have high tech toys which is why the A29 isn't apparently going anywhere.
      - RealityVoid 5y ago
        I imagine even in a near peer scenario, one of the parts would establish air superiority and then the CAS can go into gear.
        nradov 5y ago
        Which near peer would that be? The US military industrial complex is gearing up for a conflict with China to control Western Pacific islands, where any CAS will have to be provided by carrier aircraft or long-range land based bombers. The A-10 can't even get there.
        sotruesotrue 5y ago
        One side or the other has to eventually establish air superiority for a war to ever end.
        jjk166 5y ago
        Air superiority doesn't mean that ground-based air defenses are all eliminated, or even that the enemy's air force is completely defeated. Nor is there any guarantee that air superiority will be gained quickly. In WW2, the allies didn't achieve air superiority until early 1944, and while by D-Day they outnumbered the Luftwaffe 10:1, they still lost 10% of their aircraft between June 6th and June 30th. The Luftwaffe was still shooting allied planes down as late as May 8, 1945. In a modern conflict, CAS aircraft like the A10 would be vulnerable to MANPADs, AA guns, and SAMs which could all be hidden for extended periods of time in bunkers and caves, and would continue to be produced by peer adversaries for pretty much the entirety of the war. Even late in the war, manned CAS would require fighter escort, which effectively limits their dwell time and availability to that of the fighters. By the time the CAS can really do their thing, the war is essentially already won.
        noir_lord 5y ago
        Not to mention in a war between near-peers with similar industrial bases, you can turn out a lot of SAM's for every plane you build.
- desdiv 5y ago
  The US army is restricted from operating fixed wing aircraft heavier than 5,000 pounds due to the Pace-Finletter MOU of 1952[0]. I agree with you that both the air force and the army would appreciate and gladly cooperate with such a transfer, if it were possible. But in this case, both of their hands are tied. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace-Finletter_MOU_1952 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace-Finletter_MOU_1952
  - protomyth 5y ago
    If the Air Force truly wanted to transfer CAS to the Army, the legislation would have happened. They want it all but don't respect the CAS mission. They want fighters that look like fighters and bombers.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    > I agree with you that both the air force […] would appreciate and gladly cooperate with such a transfer No, it would not. The MOU was between the SECAF and the SECARM, if the Air Force actually wanted to hand the A10 (and CAS missions) to the Army it'd have happened 50 years ago. The AF wants to kill the A10 without the Army getting it, and the latter takes much higher priority than the former.
mcphage 5y ago
I wish this article made any sort of claims as to why.
- atonse 5y ago
  No good replacement. The military bet everything on the F35 which ended up being a pile of rubbish. The A10 can fly low enough and slow enough to do close air support for ground troop, with that incredibly powerful Gatling gun. What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? Must be the power of the A10’s Gatling gun.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > > A10 can fly low enough and slow enough... ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. > What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? I don't think the USAF operate these platforms do they?
    - imglorp 5y ago
      Vs helos: A-10 can carry 16,000 lbs of ordinance alone, including that brrrt stuff and 2000 lb bombs. AH-64 can carry 8,000 lbs, including fuel.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        Yea but helicopters have their own advantages. So you’re trading some things like payload for maneuverability. Helicopters also don’t need a runway. Etc.
    - masklinn 5y ago
      > ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. Which is a big concern when… not fighting either.
      - 5y ago
luxuryballs 5y ago
They should have left them in Afghanistan, I will volunteer to take one of their hands too.
3327 5y ago
US air force operates like a US corporation and is bestowed to LHM And others to start new products and buy a bunch of new parts. Who cares if it does the job great. Masters of war.
tyingq 5y ago
I like this picture of the GAU-8 cannon outside of the plane, next to a VW bug. Gives a notion of scale that's hard to get in other pictures of the A10. https://i.insider.com/579a52aa88e4a79f178bb61a?width=1200&format=jpeg https://i.insider.com/579a52aa88e4a79f178bb61a?width=1200&fo...
- mdaniel 5y ago
  The photos of the round are also illustrative of why one doesn't want to be on the angry end of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#/media/File:30mm_GAU-8_Avenger_round.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#/media/File:30mm... There are also photos out there showing it next to a bottle of beer
  - tyingq 5y ago
    >There are also photos out there showing it next to a bottle of beer https://i2.wp.com/gunsandtactics.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Round_600X8001.jpg?w=1068 https://i2.wp.com/gunsandtactics.wpengine.com/wp-content/upl...
- dragontamer 5y ago
  That being the case: advances in Tank Armor over the last 40 years have made the Air Force question the A10's ability to kill a tank (its original purpose).
  - caycep 5y ago
    From what I can tell, the A-10 has become a hellfire or even JDAM slinging platform like every other plane, the big advantage, if any, is loiter time. It sounds like they've found it easier stay far away from anyone shooting lead or manpads, and puke out longer range standoff weapons
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      AC 130 has a looter time measured in hours, multiples more air time than A10. The F35 gets additional loiter time from fuel drones, delivering fuel autonomous ly to the battlefield.
chriselles 5y ago
I was extremely grateful to have USAF A10’s in presence patrols orbiting overhead to deter activity against my partner and I in Afghanistan back in 2013 in a remote area. In conflict environments such as Iran and Afghanistan or against conventional forces with limited modern air defence systems, the A10 is a very useful platform. But against peer adversaries with modern air defence infrastructure, A10 is vulnerable. The future will probably include over the horizon perishable drone swarm launches and persistent UCAVs for close air support and networked fires(possibly hundreds of miles away) in contested environments The recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is a good indicator of near future conflict.
jmpman 5y ago
I’ve always wondered if the A-10 was saved because of John McCain, the now decreased senior AZ Senator. A-10s are based out of Davis Monthan Air Force base (possibly others) in Tucson AZ. Tucson, Arizona’s second largest metropolitan area, would be devastated if DM ever closed. McCain was extremely powerful, as chairman of the armed services committee, he could have help prevent the A-10 retirement.

52 points by richardfey 5y ago

If the Air Force was truly interested in eliminating the A-10 instead of just pushing its job to an airframe that is less capable it would offer them up to the Army or bootnecks. I am fairly certain that either of them would be willing to take on the cost if it meant they were able to own CAS.

masklinn 5y ago
The AF is interested in eliminating the A10, but they're even more interested in the Army not having its own fixed wings. Every time killing the A10 comes up, the Army goes "sure mate we'll take them off your hands" and the AF steps back. If and when the Army stops wanting the A10, they'll immediately take it behind the barn and shoot it. Meaning they'll more likely end up waiting for the remaining warthogs to fall to pieces (the youngest frames are reaching 40 years of age) so there's nothing remaining for the Army to use. And the article describes them wilfully accelerating this by actively sabotaging the program.
- 3327 5y ago
  I like the Army guys. Since they are the ones getting killed on the ground- they are far more inclined to go with products that just work and get the job done. Unlike the airforce - that has a huge budget and an arsenal of all sorts of hardware from B2s to b1s to drones to f22s, b52s, list goes on. Remind me again what happened in Afghanistan? Apache, a10, mh6, ac130. These were the workhorses and of course reapers.
  - noir_lord 5y ago
    Afghanistan/Taliban didn't have a functional air defence network nor where they technologically near-peer. The A10 is amazing for CAS in that environment but against anyone tooled up by the russians/chinese with modern SAM's it'd be a different picture. Now..whether the USAF needs both given that everything they've done for most of the last 40 years has been that type of air support is an interesting question, they like to have high tech toys which is why the A29 isn't apparently going anywhere.
    - RealityVoid 5y ago
      I imagine even in a near peer scenario, one of the parts would establish air superiority and then the CAS can go into gear.
      - nradov 5y ago
        Which near peer would that be? The US military industrial complex is gearing up for a conflict with China to control Western Pacific islands, where any CAS will have to be provided by carrier aircraft or long-range land based bombers. The A-10 can't even get there.
      - sotruesotrue 5y ago
        One side or the other has to eventually establish air superiority for a war to ever end.
      - jjk166 5y ago
        Air superiority doesn't mean that ground-based air defenses are all eliminated, or even that the enemy's air force is completely defeated. Nor is there any guarantee that air superiority will be gained quickly. In WW2, the allies didn't achieve air superiority until early 1944, and while by D-Day they outnumbered the Luftwaffe 10:1, they still lost 10% of their aircraft between June 6th and June 30th. The Luftwaffe was still shooting allied planes down as late as May 8, 1945. In a modern conflict, CAS aircraft like the A10 would be vulnerable to MANPADs, AA guns, and SAMs which could all be hidden for extended periods of time in bunkers and caves, and would continue to be produced by peer adversaries for pretty much the entirety of the war. Even late in the war, manned CAS would require fighter escort, which effectively limits their dwell time and availability to that of the fighters. By the time the CAS can really do their thing, the war is essentially already won.
        noir_lord 5y ago
        Not to mention in a war between near-peers with similar industrial bases, you can turn out a lot of SAM's for every plane you build.
desdiv 5y ago
The US army is restricted from operating fixed wing aircraft heavier than 5,000 pounds due to the Pace-Finletter MOU of 1952[0]. I agree with you that both the air force and the army would appreciate and gladly cooperate with such a transfer, if it were possible. But in this case, both of their hands are tied. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace-Finletter_MOU_1952 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace-Finletter_MOU_1952
- protomyth 5y ago
  If the Air Force truly wanted to transfer CAS to the Army, the legislation would have happened. They want it all but don't respect the CAS mission. They want fighters that look like fighters and bombers.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > I agree with you that both the air force […] would appreciate and gladly cooperate with such a transfer No, it would not. The MOU was between the SECAF and the SECARM, if the Air Force actually wanted to hand the A10 (and CAS missions) to the Army it'd have happened 50 years ago. The AF wants to kill the A10 without the Army getting it, and the latter takes much higher priority than the former.

mcphage 5y ago

I wish this article made any sort of claims as to why.

atonse 5y ago
No good replacement. The military bet everything on the F35 which ended up being a pile of rubbish. The A10 can fly low enough and slow enough to do close air support for ground troop, with that incredibly powerful Gatling gun. What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? Must be the power of the A10’s Gatling gun.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > > A10 can fly low enough and slow enough... ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. > What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? I don't think the USAF operate these platforms do they?
  - imglorp 5y ago
    Vs helos: A-10 can carry 16,000 lbs of ordinance alone, including that brrrt stuff and 2000 lb bombs. AH-64 can carry 8,000 lbs, including fuel.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Yea but helicopters have their own advantages. So you’re trading some things like payload for maneuverability. Helicopters also don’t need a runway. Etc.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    > ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. Which is a big concern when… not fighting either.
    - 5y ago

luxuryballs 5y ago

They should have left them in Afghanistan, I will volunteer to take one of their hands too.

3327 5y ago

US air force operates like a US corporation and is bestowed to LHM And others to start new products and buy a bunch of new parts. Who cares if it does the job great. Masters of war.

tyingq 5y ago

I like this picture of the GAU-8 cannon outside of the plane, next to a VW bug. Gives a notion of scale that's hard to get in other pictures of the A10. https://i.insider.com/579a52aa88e4a79f178bb61a?width=1200&format=jpeg https://i.insider.com/579a52aa88e4a79f178bb61a?width=1200&fo...

mdaniel 5y ago
The photos of the round are also illustrative of why one doesn't want to be on the angry end of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#/media/File:30mm_GAU-8_Avenger_round.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#/media/File:30mm... There are also photos out there showing it next to a bottle of beer
- tyingq 5y ago
  >There are also photos out there showing it next to a bottle of beer https://i2.wp.com/gunsandtactics.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Round_600X8001.jpg?w=1068 https://i2.wp.com/gunsandtactics.wpengine.com/wp-content/upl...
dragontamer 5y ago
That being the case: advances in Tank Armor over the last 40 years have made the Air Force question the A10's ability to kill a tank (its original purpose).
- caycep 5y ago
  From what I can tell, the A-10 has become a hellfire or even JDAM slinging platform like every other plane, the big advantage, if any, is loiter time. It sounds like they've found it easier stay far away from anyone shooting lead or manpads, and puke out longer range standoff weapons
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    AC 130 has a looter time measured in hours, multiples more air time than A10. The F35 gets additional loiter time from fuel drones, delivering fuel autonomous ly to the battlefield.

chriselles 5y ago

I was extremely grateful to have USAF A10’s in presence patrols orbiting overhead to deter activity against my partner and I in Afghanistan back in 2013 in a remote area. In conflict environments such as Iran and Afghanistan or against conventional forces with limited modern air defence systems, the A10 is a very useful platform. But against peer adversaries with modern air defence infrastructure, A10 is vulnerable. The future will probably include over the horizon perishable drone swarm launches and persistent UCAVs for close air support and networked fires(possibly hundreds of miles away) in contested environments The recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is a good indicator of near future conflict.

jmpman 5y ago

I’ve always wondered if the A-10 was saved because of John McCain, the now decreased senior AZ Senator. A-10s are based out of Davis Monthan Air Force base (possibly others) in Tucson AZ. Tucson, Arizona’s second largest metropolitan area, would be devastated if DM ever closed. McCain was extremely powerful, as chairman of the armed services committee, he could have help prevent the A-10 retirement.