A-10 issues

U.S. Air Force Pilots Said Retiring the A-10 Will Put Troops in Danger
The flying branch whitewashed their concerns

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/th...-concerns-about-dumping-the-a-10-c1ed3c23e807

“I can’t wait to be relieved of the burdens of close air support,” Maj. Gen. James Post, the vice commander of Air Combat Command, allegedly told a collection of officers at a training session in August 2014.

As with his now notorious warning that service members would be committing treason if they communicated with Congress about the successes of the A-10 Warthog, Post seems to speak for the id of Air Force headquarters’ true hostility towards the close air support mission.

Air Force four-stars are working hard to deny this hostility to the public and Congress, but their abhorrence of the mission has been demonstrated through 70 years of Air Force headquarters’ budget decisions and combat actions that have consistently short-changed close air support.

The Air Force's Rationale For Retiring The A-10 Warthog Is BS

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-rationale-for-retiring-the-a-10-warthog-is-bu-1562789528

At What Point Does The USAF's War Against The A-10 Become Sabotage?

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/at-what-point-does-the-usafs-war-against-the-a-10-becom-1685239179

Re-winged A-10's - video. Shows A-10 flying with all paint stripped off. Guess they'd want to do some test flights before bothering to paint them as they'd want pristine, unmarred paint coming out of refurb.:

https://bcove.me/spucpmn6

Re-winged, refurbished, A-10:

It is all about the glamor! Must justify cost over runs on the F-35! The A-10 is ugly and has a calendar for an air speed indicator.

I love the a-10. I hope it continues to provide ground support for many more years.

cwbullet said:

I love the a-10. I hope it continues to provide ground support for many more years.

Click to expand...

Me too!
I'm so glad I got out of the Army in 2005. I loved it when I was in, but as I was getting out things were getting pretty stupid.

we have fly overs a few times a week en route to camp Grayling , real cool sound

The Air Force should have never had them, like the helicopter they are much more connected with the Army. Giving them to the National Guard is the ideal situation. Air Guard trains with the National Guard ground troops plus they hold exercises in the Orchard Range together with the Army and Air Force.

We have a squadron here, see them flying often. Very maneuverable.

We still have the a-10s where I live. This is one of my most favorite aircraft and I would be very sadden if they take these out of the air.

Such a great plane - may it fly on!

Daddyisabar said:

It is all about the glamor! Must justify cost over runs on the F-35! The A-10 is ugly and has a calendar for an air speed indicator.

Click to expand...

I actually haven't ever perceived it to be ugly. It's just not "sleek." I guess it's because I see beauty in a design for purpose and functionality, in this case at least, definitely not all.

dave carver said:

The Air Force should have never had them, like the helicopter they are much more connected with the Army. Giving them to the National Guard is the ideal situation. Air Guard trains with the National Guard ground troops plus they hold exercises in the Orchard Range together with the Army and Air Force.

We have a squadron here, see them flying often. Very maneuverable.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, fixed wing attack aircraft are not within their restricted venue. The Marines have the Harrier, so they might have the right to take them within their mission constraints.

“I can’t wait to be relieved of the burdens of close air support,” Maj. Gen. James Post, the vice commander of Air Combat Command, allegedly told a collection of officers at a training session in August 2014."

Let me translate: "The USAF wants to be a stand-off range only service branch. Low and slow aircraft, no matter how survivable, are going to get shot down eventually. We then have to rescue the pilot, risking more USAF airborne personnel not only because it's the right thing to do, but because airborne troops and, especially, pilots are better political propaganda captives than ground troops. Since the wars we are now typically fighting are against unsophisticated forces with little more than shoulder launched missiles and no fighter aircraft, the A-10 is the plane and mission we have that is most vulnerable to that threat. So, I worry about my career and I've convinced myself through rationalization that F-35s and F-15 Strike Eagles can do the job as well as the A-10."

That's the way I see it, anyway, bolstered by the fact that the USAF has apparently fought the A-10 from day one.

The A-10 were scheduled to be retired before Gulf War 1 in 1991, but it performed so well the US avoided a costly mistake. IMHO the problem is that the US Fighters & air crews have performed so well air to air in the last 25 years that no air force will tangled with US. To the extent that some fighter jocks transferred to the mud moving role (A-10). Now the powers to be think that the aging F-15Cs and the few F-22s will suffice. I believe that we cut production of the F-22 to be able to build the F-35. Now the F-35 is a exceptional 5th generation aircraft, but it is multi-role, from what I have heard, it will be difficult to defeat the 5th generation air superiority fighters. But powers to be think that the F-35 is as good as the F-22 in the air to air role. I hope we never find out one way or the other.

Soldiers Fight to Save the A-10 Warthog

https://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-05-15/soldiers-fight-to-save-a-10-warthog-jet

"Russell Carpenter owes his life to the ugliest warplane in the Pentagon fleet. When about 3,000 U.S. troops traveling on a dirt road in Iraq came under fire soon after the 2003 invasion, Carpenter, then an Air Force chief master sergeant, called for air support from the only fighter jet that could fly low and slow enough to tell friend from foe: the A-10. “They would have killed hundreds of our dudes” if it weren’t for the firepower of the A-10, with its seven-barrel Gatling gun that sounds like a buzz saw, says Carpenter, who’s now retired.

Generations of soldiers and airmen have put their trust in the A-10, known as the Warthog for its snoutlike nose. Active-duty and retired service members including Carpenter are trying to persuade the U.S. Department of Defense to drop its plan to save $4.2 billion in operation and maintenance costs over five years by retiring all 283 of the 1970s-era Air Force planes. Some top Army officers say there’s no substitute for the protection the jet has long provided to troops in ground combat. “It’s ugly, it’s loud,” General John Campbell, the Army’s vice chief of staff, said at a Senate hearing on March 26. “But when it comes in and you hear that ‘BVRRR,’ it just makes a difference.”

Hey!!
Maybe the United States can do for close air support what we’re doing for getting our astronauts into space.
Hire the Sovie. . .I mean the Russians to do it for us.

TALON said:

IMHO the problem is that the US Fighters & air crews have performed so well air to air in the last 25 years that no air force will tangled with US.

Click to expand...

Pilot training is just as important, perhaps even more so, as the hardware, and we do that better than any potential adversary. However, as far as the lack of airborne challenges, I think it's because there are no capable adversaries and any that might be capable enough are so economically attached to the US (China) or so afraid of nuclear war and militarily degraded (Russia) that there have been no attempts at serious airborne military engagement.

TALON said:

The A-10 were scheduled to be retired before Gulf War 1 in 1991, but it performed so well the US avoided a costly mistake.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces.[4] A-10s also shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon. The first of these was shot down by Captain Robert Swain over Kuwait on 6 February 1991, marking the A-10's first air-to-air victory.[74] Four A-10s were shot down during the war, all by surface-to-air missiles. Another three battle-damaged A-10s and OA-10As returned to base but were written off, some sustaining additional damage in crash landings.[75][76] The A-10 had a mission capable rate of 95.7 percent, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90 percent of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired in the conflict.[77] Shortly after the Gulf War, the Air Force abandoned the idea of replacing the A-10 with a close air support version of the F-16.[78]

The sound of an A10 is unique and most infantry feel it is the sound of reassurance.

Can you imagine what happens to something as fragile as a helicopter when it gets hit by one or more of those 30mm tank killers?

Did the helicopter actually crash or did it just get particleized and then drifted to the ground as confetti?

On the other hand; what with the velocity and mass of those 30mm rounds, not to mention the armor piercing aspect, they might just pass through something like a helicopter without imparting very much of their total kinetic energy.
Sort of like shooting a Kleenex tissue with a .30-.06

On the gripping hand; it probably didn’t make much difference to the helicopters pilot whichever way it went.

boomtube-mk2 said:

Can you imagine what happens to something as fragile as a helicopter when it gets hit by one or more of those 30mm tank killers?

Did the helicopter actually crash or did it just get particleized and then drifted to the ground as confetti?

On the other hand; what with the velocity and mass of those 30mm rounds, not to mention the armor piercing aspect, they might just pass through something like a helicopter without imparting very much of their total kinetic energy.
Sort of like shooting a Kleenex tissue with a .30-.06

On the gripping hand; it probably didn’t make much difference to the helicopters pilot whichever way it went.

Click to expand...

You don't have to do much to a helicopter for it to disassemble itself anyway.

If the Air Forces wants to be a stand off military force, fine. ...and the horse they road in on.

The A10 was built to be slow and flying tank-like. They were the most feared of our close air support by our enemies. That alone should be justification enough to keep them on line.

[political comment deleted]

I was a weapons mechanic on A-10's during the late 70's and early 80's. I've loaded lot's of MK-82's low drags and the pilot has taken them off. I think it was a great plane then and my opinion is the same now.

During the time of the aircraft's genesis (1970's), the thought was you needed tank busting to keep the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact at bay. With the Gulf War and subsequent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has performed brilliantly.

But the USAF has had competing schools of thought (e.g., the "Fighter Mafia" and the Lightweight Fighter Program, that brought forth the General Dynamics F-16) that often run afoul with the prevailing conventional wisdom within the walls of the Pentagon. And the much earlier prevailing wisdom that said "Dogfighting is in the past, so why do they need guns?" and turned out to be a bad idea over the skies of Vietnam. The "problem" is that it's an Old School aircraft, with all the panache of a baseball bat. But like a baseball bat, it's an amazing thing when the right person is swingin'.

Greg

PS. I have heard the A-10's GAU-8 Avenger gun fire at the Nellis Range as it lit up targets and it's pretty cool. It's a sound you never forget.

What a beautiful weapons platform...

Stunning, really...

Haters of the A-10 beware...

Chuck Norris is on the case...:y:

https://www.airforcetimes.com/story...uck-norris-weighs-in-on-a-10-debate/25217877/

Winston said:

I actually haven't ever perceived it to be ugly. It's just not "sleek." I guess it's because I see beauty in a design for purpose and functionality, in this case at least, definitely not all.

Click to expand...

Spare parts? Stealthy? Latest avionics? Something the top brass or Senator can hang a picture of on their wall? A Dinosaur of a by gone era. Just keeping around and old titanium tub. Keeping around an old ugly B-52. Keeping around those old battleships. Just Cold War relics. Kind of like flying with the perfectly doped balsa nosecone in a world of swank carbon fiber and aluminum tips. Motor deployment vs. cool electronics. Gotta spend money on all the new toys.

The Top 5 Reasons Why the USAF Wants to Retire the A-10

5. It's an unsophisticated aircraft without fancy electronics.

4. It's cheap to operate and rarely breaks.

3. It's butt ugly and won't break Mach.

2. It's main weapon is a big gun.

1. It's primary mission is close air support for the Army.

And don't forget the USAF gets to buy 8 brand new F-35s each year instead of keeping 500+ A-10s flying.......

What a deal....... for Lockheed....... but not the Army or the taxpayer.........

You mean to tell me there is going to be a Over Command Armed forces committee that gives permission to the Army officer on the ground the command and control over the Air Force Dive bombers? That the Air Force officer's only job is to set in the half track and relay Army orders up to the pilots! It will NEVER work! France will be safe.

Look at the terms of that lend lease agreement. Throw those Corsairs overboard! Fill the remaining ones up with fuel and sell them to the scrappers for less than the cost of the fuel. They are obsolete and expensive to maintain next to our new jets. . . A short time later the Reds push us to the Pusan perimeter. Where are the Corsairs?

History sure has a tendency to repeat itself.

Just LOVE on that A-10, and it makes a darn good rocket.

Besides being a great tank killer we need the A-10 to shoot-up any downed Wraith, “Dart” pilots, who set up shop in an old Air Stream Trailer outside Las Vegas NV with the intent of building a sub-space communicator with enough power to reach the Pegasus Galaxy.

I hate when they do that.

Daddyisabar said:

History sure has a tendency to repeat itself.

Click to expand...

If history truly repeats itself; I am so getting a dinosaur!!

boomtube-mk2 said:

If history truly repeats itself; I am so getting a dinosaur!!

Click to expand...

Just wait. An old A-10 hulk could be available to put in front garden as a lovely decor piece very soon. Clarkson has an Electric Lightning in his front garden.

boomtube-mk2 said:

If history truly repeats itself; I am so getting a dinosaur!!

Click to expand...

THAT'S what the Air Force keeps telling us about the A10....Park it in a museum next to the T Rex...

I love the A-10...so much so that I read an entire book on it about a decade ago. Always seemed that it was disliked politically, under appreciated and close to being mothballed until suddenly it's needed for war and then just kicks butt and brings that pilot's butt back home as well. Seems politicians and generals only like fancy looking expensive fighters over an "ugly" flying tank that always seems to do it's job.