A-10 Cost Debate Continues

The debate to dismantle the A-10 fleet due to budget restrictions continues.

https://www.defensenews.com/article...udget-Offset-Keep-Attack-Planes-Funded-Flying

An emotional argument to keep the Hog. USAF's been legislatively prevented from closing unneeded infrastructure (i.e. bases), has the oldest fleet in the history of the US Air Force, the smallest number of Airmen ever and what's quickly becoming the most least capable Air Force in its history as compared to quickly rising adversaries. What else was the USAF to do given these circumstances when you can fly credible CAS with a B-1 and a targeting pod now.

I'm not qualified to comment on whether the A-10 should be retained or not. I just recall it as being my favorite plastic model as a kid and my best friend, a jarhead officer, telling me it was the most beautiful thing with wings he had ever seen after the battle for the airport in Kuwait City.

Its an emotional favorite of mine.

JAL3 said:

Its an emotional favorite of mine.

Click to expand...

Mine too. It was the first jet I worked in the USAF, and I saw firsthand what they could do in Afghanistan. We have 13 of the Hogs here at Nellis AFB, and they are all dirty as heck right now because of all the gun firing--the way they should be. Hate to see them go, but our military is making a lot of unpopular decisions because they've been forced into a rock/hard place position--no win.

Blows me away that we're cutting the military in an unprecedented way while STILL conducting combat operations (otherwise known as a war, but our society forgot about that part, I think) in Afghanistan, but the administration wants to dedicate $1.1B to gun control and force a Nevada rancher of the land his family cattle ranched for over 140 years to make way for a solar power plant "protect the desert tortoise". Yeah right.

Long live the Hog.

I remember that the A-10 model I had was called the "Thunderbolt". When I first mentioned it in elementary school, nobody knew what I was talking about until I described it. "Oh, you're talking about the Warthog." I like the warthog moniker better but Mark, my friend (and best man at my wedding) said that after seeing it in action, "thunderbolt" made sense to him.

IIRC the annual cost of the A-10 program is ~$1.2B per year, and the purchase price of the F-35A is $150M each.

In my simple minded view, doing the math for the budget offset is ridiculously simple: don't purchase 8 F-35A vaporware aircraft per year and keep the 500+ A-10 fleet flying.

If you like that, my big budget cutting recommendation is to eliminate the F-35 program totally and reduce government spending by $1.2T over the next 20 years! We don't need them as they are not as good as the aircraft they are designed to replace: the F-16, the F/A-18, the AV-8 and A-10! Too slow, too heavy and more importantly too costly!

Bob

One needs control of the airspace to allow the A-10 to perform their ground support mission. That said, the A-10 is an iconic ground support aircraft in the class of the B52, F4, & F15. Nothing in the USAF inventory has the combination of low speed, high duration, tight turning, fire power, and toughness. Oh and they are already paid for.

John

bobkrech said:

If you like that, my big budget cutting recommendation is to eliminate the F-35 program totally and reduce government spending by $1.2T over the next 20 years! We don't need them as they are not as good as the aircraft they are designed to replace: the F-16, the F/A-18, the AV-8 and A-10! Too slow, too heavy and more importantly too costly!

Click to expand...

Bob, your assumptions are faulty. I am directly involved in testing the F-35, I am responsible for 4 of them assigned to Nellis and I've been involved in that program for a few years. While 'formal' operational testing is yet to come, I can tell you the early results are very promising. The Lightning is far superior to any aircraft it replaces, in any threat environment. Those aircraft/capabilities you would keep are too hard to sustain, too expensive, and rapidly falling behind in any advantages over potential adversaries. From the employment perspective, I don't you are familiar with countering the PAK-FA, J-20, J-31, SU-35 or combating double digit SAMs.

BTW, you quote the cost figures for the entire program, to include the joint partner shared costs--not the US only costs. And, the cost per aircraft you quoted is the cost per aircraft right now. Those costs will come down with full production. I know the guy who wrote the last F-22 check for the USAF, and funny enough, that $300M aircraft only cost $92M. If we'd bought the number we truly needed, that cost would have come down into F-15 territory. And, the Raptor is so superior to the Eagle it isn't even funny--same analogy with the F-35 holds true.

Also, does your $1.2B cost to keep the A-10 account for the fuselage cracks seen just aft of the gun bay, new engines because of vanishing vendor problems (no one else uses the TF-34 in the military any more), replacing cracked gun mounts and addressing the myriad of other sustainment challenges looming on the A-10s horizon? Fact is that we've flown the snot out of that jet in the GWOT, it will not last forever, and it needs replacing. Doubt that? Come by Nellis and I'll show you an A-10 undergoing a Phase Inspection.

Keeping old iron around forever is just not viable or smart. If the airpower practitioners in the US military do not upgrade capabilities via the F-35, the advantages we regularly enjoy in that domain will disappear quickly, Americans in uniform will be put at risk and the recovery will take decades. And, that's a Airman's honest perspective from the middle of the issue, not a company one.

When I was with the Pershing units in Germany I did not like to see them overhead (even though it looked cool) as there job was to wipe us out if we were taken over.
Mr. Bob
Starlight Dude
Countyline Cycles and Hobbies
Grovertown, IN
574-540-1123