US A-10 official issues warning over US Air Force’s ‘devastated’ Warthog fleet - Hollow Force 2: Electric Boogaloo

https://news.yahoo.com/10-official-issues-warning-over-182439650.html

A-10 official issues warning over US Air Force’s ‘devastated’ Warthog fleet​

WASHINGTON — A U.S. Air Force official managing the A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft says the service is “hollowing” its Warthog fleet by starving it of resources amid a push to retire the aging attack plane — but still continuing to heavily fly it.

In a March 31 briefing, Pamela Lee, the A-10 systems manager at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, said the Air Force has “resourced the A-10 to divest yet flew it like an enduring fleet, rapidly accelerating [the] decline toward today’s hollowing fleet.”

The watchdog group Project on Government Oversight posted the slides Tuesday. The Air Force confirmed the slides are authentic, but said they were prepared for internal discussion and that Lee declined to comment.

The A-10, designed during the Cold War to be a tank-killing aircraft, was flown heavily in the Middle East and Afghanistan over the last 20 years to provide close-air support. But the Air Force has long warned the A-10 would not survive a high-end fight in contested airspace and has since 2015 repeatedly attempted to retire the fleet, either in full or in part, to free up funding.

“The A-10 is a great platform for a [permissive] environment,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown told the House Armed Services Committee in a Wednesday hearing. “I don’t see very many [permissive] environments that we’re going to roll into in the future.”

Although Congress rejected all the service’s efforts, Lee said the Air Force’s decisions have “devastated” the fleet and left it “dealing with perpetual challenges.”

The “A-10 lives in the shadow of [fiscal 2015] divestiture decisions,” Lee said in the briefing’s summary.

Lee’s briefing slides said the service deferred the A-10′s “hogback” fuselage structural repair work from 2013 to 2019, which she said left 120 jets at risk of being grounded. The number of A-10s heading to depots for major maintenance was also cut by more than half, she added.

Lee said the A-10′s aging engine nacelles are quickly becoming a significant problem, representing a bigger threat to the aircraft’s readiness than its wings.

And she said the A-10′s re-winging efforts are falling short, with new wings purchased for only 173 of the service’s 281 Warthogs. Lee said this means 145 A-10s wouldn’t be able to fly a six-month deployment.

According to the slides, the Air Force has until the second quarter of FY23 to buy more wings before it risks a “stalled recovery.” Fixing the wing, depot issue and other shortcomings would take at least a decade, she said.

If Congress doesn’t grant the service’s request to start retiring the A-10, Lee said, it will have to quickly act to mitigate the worst of the problems that have come from these decisions.

In the committee hearing, Brown said the service plans to buy replacement wing kits for about 218 A-10s. The service called for retiring 21 A-10s as part of its FY23 budget request, leaving the service with 260 Warthogs; Brown said those will not be re-winged.

Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., expressed confusion about the Air Force’s apparent intention to not buy enough wing kits for all remaining A-10s and asked if only 218 planes needed new wings.

“Depends on how many A-10s we keep,” Brown said. “What we don’t want to do is buy more wing kits than we’re going to need if we’re going to start retiring A-10s.”

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall added that even if those remaining 42 A-10s wouldn’t get replacement wings, they would still be able to fly.

Kendall also said the Air Force, if free to do so, would retire the A-10 fleet by the end of the next five-year plan.
____
From the people who brought you classic hits such as: "Let's ship all our Stingers to Ukraine Without Having Replacements", comes "Let's run our CAS aircraft out of spare parts."

 

[augment]

I remember years ago when one of the flavors of the F-35 was set to replace the warthog. The Flying Homer, replacing A-10s

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

Alright KF, redpill me. Is the A-10 a glorious, unparalleled ground support aircraft that's absolutely critical for combined arms? Or is it a flying, easily rekt shitheap that has no place in modern combat paradigms?

Because I have literally never heard anything in between.

 

[White Devil]

I remember years ago when one of the flavors of the F-35 was set to replace the warthog. The Flying Homer, replacing A-10s

With it's external gunpod that destroyed everything stealth about the plane and its 100 rounds.

 

[Krokodil Overdose]

Alright KF, redpill me. Is the A-10 a glorious, unparalleled ground support aircraft that's absolutely critical for combined arms? Or is it a flying, easily rekt shitheap that has no place in modern combat paradigms?

Because I have literally never heard anything in between.

It's a 30mm Vulcan cannon with a pilot, engines, and airfoils taped on as an afterthought. The answer to your question hinges entirely on the utility of the above in a given situation.

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

I think the Warthog is just too fucking badass for the pussies these days to appreciate. "Hrrrrrrkkk what use is a big fucking gun anyways? Overcompensating much?" kind of dweeb thinking.

 

[northstar747]

The article makes it clear in contested air space its gonna crash and burn but if you control the air space it can fly slow and provide support for ground forces.

 

[BONE_Buddy]

Alright KF, redpill me. Is the A-10 a glorious, unparalleled ground support aircraft that's absolutely critical for combined arms? Or is it a flying, easily rekt shitheap that has no place in modern combat paradigms?

Because I have literally never heard anything in between.

So, as an actual aircraft, it is outdated. The Auto-cannon was never particularly good for eating post T-64 tanks, but it was primarily for eating IFVs and other lighter skinned targets. The Hellfire missile was its primary tank killer. Funnily enough, it is still one of the few tac-jets capable of firing those missiles doctrinally.

The real benefit of the A-10 in this day and age is two fold:

1. That it is a dedicated Close Air Support aircraft, with pilots who are focused almost solely on that role. F-35 , f-22, f-16 and even f-15E pilots have a very fighter jock mentality. They have much of their training time focused on aerial warfare.

2. low-flying, visible, and loitering, aircraft flying CAS have a defined and outsized moral effect on an enemy force. Tac-Jets that fly at above 50,000 feet, drop a couple of smart bombs, then leave, have one of the lesser moral effects in after action studies.

Really the A-10 should have been replaced with a new, more survivable and capable CAS aircraft.

 

[Sithis]

Alright KF, redpill me. Is the A-10 a glorious, unparalleled ground support aircraft that's absolutely critical for combined arms? Or is it a flying, easily rekt shitheap that has no place in modern combat paradigms?

Because I have literally never heard anything in between.

It falls in between, but more toward the former description.
It's slow, unwieldy, loud as shit, and has some issues, namely caused by the Air Force hating it with a passion and doing everything in their power to kill it as a concept, plane, or memory of it as either. As this article even points out, they're willing to let the planes fall apart into nothing before keeping them properly maintenanced, because the air force doesn't even want to engage in the type of conflict the A-10 is built for.

As for what it's built for, it's fucking great at. As has been said, it's basically a gun the size of a VW with wings and rocket engines. And because it can stand up well to small arms fire while flying low and slow enough for pilots to actually line up targets, it proved itself invaluable for close air support in the deserts. It probably saved more lives in that role than it has as it's original purpose as a tank killer, tbh, because they're capable of decimating small buildings and shit insurgents hide in and laying down a good cover of fire. And because they move slow, they can loiter in the air and keep the enemy suppressed rather than just do a quick flyby and fuck off.

 

[Snekposter]

It's a 30mm Vulcan cannon with a pilot, engines, and airfoils taped on as an afterthought. The answer to your question hinges entirely on the utility of the above in a given situation.

There's a lot in which that's bad... and a lot in which that's good. Its probably the cheapest manned craft we have for CAS short of helicopters, too.

It's slow, unwieldy, loud as shit, and has some issues, namely caused by the Air Force hating it with a passion and doing everything in their power to kill it as a concept, plane, or memory of it as either. As this article even points out, they're willing to let the planes fall apart into nothing before keeping them properly maintenanced, because the air force doesn't even want to engage in the type of conflict the A-10 is built for.

I can't remember a time the Air Force haven't been salty as fuck the Army expects them to be able to provide air support that isn't a banner that says "You can do it!" Christ, US CAS has been one of the most horrifying things we've ever deployed to the battlefield, but since it isn't air superiority or strategic bombing, the Air Force doesn't want to do it. The worst part is thanks to bureaucratic fuckery they refuse to let the Army take over that sort of thing from them out of petty spite. "No, we don't want to do it, but we won't let you do it either." Also the gun is actually bigger than a VW, the ammo drum itself about half of VW's size.

Never forget what they want to take from you.

I'd also like to add that the plane itself is designed to be maximally redundant and easy to repair, so even if it limps back to base with half of it missing you can probably fix it back up afterwards no problems. Its pretty much the M4 Sherman of airplanes in that regard.

 

[WhatInTheActualFuck]

If they're going to retire it, the correct solution is a more up to date (and cost-effective) direct replacement, not sending F-35s or F-16s to try and do the same thing - the "fast movers" just aren't built for that role at all.

 

[ShortBusDriver]

This isn't a surprise because the Obama administration tried to retire it as well then a video leaked of the A10 doing A10 things and the Obama admin backed off.

Never forget the Obama admin's answer was to use the $2 billion dollar B2 bomber for close air support.

 

[WhatInTheActualFuck]

Never forget the Obama admin's answer was to use the $2 billion dollar B2 bomber for close air support.

Jesus. I remember their retirement efforts, but not that. I wish I could say that I was surprised by such galactic retardation, but given who we're talking about I can't be.

 

[Urbanmech]

So, as an actual aircraft, it is outdated. The Auto-cannon was never particularly good for eating post T-64 tanks, but it was primarily for eating IFVs and other lighter skinned targets. The Hellfire missile was its primary tank killer. Funnily enough, it is still one of the few tac-jets capable of firing those missiles doctrinally.

The real benefit of the A-10 in this day and age is two fold:

1. That it is a dedicated Close Air Support aircraft, with pilots who are focused almost solely on that role. F-35 , f-22, f-16 and even f-15E pilots have a very fighter jock mentality. They have much of their training time focused on aerial warfare.

2. low-flying, visible, and loitering, aircraft flying CAS have a defined and outsized moral effect on an enemy force. Tac-Jets that fly at above 50,000 feet, drop a couple of smart bombs, then leave, have one of the lesser moral effects in after action studies.

Really the A-10 should have been replaced with a new, more survivable and capable CAS aircraft.

Have to contest point 2, the B-52 for over 20 years has been doing CAS missions in Afghan/Iraq and it does have more than "2" bombs in the Bay/Wings.

But the main issue with the A-10 is the same issue with all planes, what the Air Force really wants and not what it needs. The USAF will do anything to justify what it needs to keep and get rid of. If the USAF wants new F-22/35's they are going to downsell/ tank the A-10 to make money in the budget to get them.

This isn't a surprise because the Obama administration tried to retire it as well then a video leaked of the A10 doing A10 things and the Obama admin backed off.

Never forget the Obama admin's answer was to use the $2 billion dollar B2 bomber for close air support.

Wow ok that's stupid as fuck to have your Stealth asset loiter in an area, also considering the B-52 was doing CAS for 10+ years at this point.....

 

[BONE_Buddy]

The worst part is thanks to bureaucratic fuckery they refuse to let the Army take over that sort of thing from them out of petty spite. "No, we don't want to do it, but we won't let you do it either."

The Key West Agreement did a lot of questionable things, giving CAS to the new Air Force was chief among them. The Army was lucky that the gunship helicopter concept wasn't around back in '48 as that probably would have been given to the Air Force too.

 

[Snekposter]

The Key West Agreement did a lot of questionable things, giving CAS to the new Air Force was chief among them. The Army was lucky that the gunship helicopter concept wasn't around back in '48 as that probably would have been given to the Air Force too.

Indeed. Even as someone who has only skimmed the surface through some Wikipedia articles its difficult not to hang my head and sob at the damage the Truman Administration and Curtis LeMay did and continue to do to the US military.

 

[Kheapathic]

If the Air Force expects to retire the A-10, they better start investing in helicopters or completely drop the idea of Close-Air Support. Wouldn't be shocked if they go with the latter.

 

[pwnest injun]

If the Air Force expects to retire the A-10, they better start investing in helicopters or completely drop the idea of Close-Air Support. Wouldn't be shocked if they go with the latter.

I expect squad level quad copter drones to be a thing at some point.

 

[BelUwUga]

If they're going to retire it, the correct solution is a more up to date (and cost-effective) direct replacement, not sending F-35s or F-16s to try and do the same thing - the "fast movers" just aren't built for that role at all.

Honestly I think we're going to see some big changes in air doctrine, especially in another world war. People joke about the A-10 being a gun with a pilot and wings attached, but imagine the miniaturization if you didn't have to keep a pilot alive and able to fly the thing. Put drone operators on a plane in proximity but out of immediate danger and they can be piloted without any of the major latency problems we deal with today. Hell have it be a CAS-mothership and have it able to communicate directly with people on the ground. Even if the enemy can field a better overall plane with a human pilot, is it a big enough difference they could beat half a dozen drones swarming them at once? Guns would be useful but explosive payloads are where I think you'll see things really shine.

 

[BONE_Buddy]

Have to contest point 2, the B-52 for over 20 years has been doing CAS missions in Afghan/Iraq and it does have more than "2" bombs in the Bay/Wings.

Look man, I am a die-hard SAC loyalist, just look at my profile picture. PGMs like the JDAM made directly supporting the combat troops possible for the B-52 and B-1B. The new rotary launchers they have in the bomb-bays is also a great increase in capability. Once on target the B-52 can and does wreck the ever-loving shit out of entire formations.

But you have to admit that it is not the most flexible aircraft for reaction missions.