Senate Panel Dodges A-10 Retirement Decision

Even though I am retired, I read this and breathed a sigh of relief.

www.dodbuzz.com...

Levin disagrees with counterparts in the House who proposed raiding the Pentagon’s war budget to keep the gunships from being sent to the bone yard. Thus, it’s likely the A-10 will stay in the fleet, at least for now, once lawmakers settle on an appropriate offset in the budget

Whenever I was outside the wire, hell even in it, I always felt better when I heard the sound of a pair of A-10's overhead. There are those who say that the F-35 will be a good replacement for it. Horse puckey! While the F-35 is supposed to be a multi-role aircraft, the A-10 is a one trick pony that does it's trick better than anything else, and that trick is Close Air Support (CAS) for the guys on the ground.

a reply to: TDawgRex

I would rather the military make these decisions rather than politicians.

a reply to: TDawgRex

Just for you… Dawg

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: TDawgRex

I would rather the military make these decisions rather than politicians.

Yes, but the problem is that AF doesn't want to use its own budget for something non shiny, but won't let Army field fixed-wing aircraft. There isn't one "the military".

Personally I think it's too valuable to get rid of. (In Gulf War 1 it was by far the most powerful US weapon system). Army and MC and Poland should get them if AF doesn't want to pay.

a reply to: TDawgRex

I would prefer to have a pair of Apaches nearby, but I am biased.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: TDawgRex

I would rather the military make these decisions rather than politicians.

I agree, but you ask anyone who is on the ground in a firefight, you find the end users always back keeping the plane, until another CAS aircraft can be procured. Remember, the A-10 can be refueled mid-flight so can stay on station until it goes Winchester (out of ammo) or the pilot passes out.

Remember, the military didn't want more M-1 tanks or C-17's, etc and yet Congress forced them down their throats as well.

The Marines do a pretty good job of procurement by doing most of the testing themselves. The Army tries to duplicate this, but all to often those programs become money pits and they shut down. A lot of wild eyed dreams go on in those programs. I've seen it and it is drain on the Army's budget.

But keeping the A-10 flying is one of the few times I agree with Congress and not the USAF. They don't like the CAS mission anyways. I say give it back to the Army. The Marines already have theirs.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Apaches are great, but they cannot carry a full combat load and still be refueled in mid-air. Maybe a AH-60...but I wouldn't know as I've never seen one. (Full Load while refueling in mid-flight)

a reply to: TDawgRex

I cannot believe that they were even thinking of getting rid of that particular face stomping, crap wrecking, death machine.

I mean seriously? I only recently read of the various improvements which had been made to the current fleet. It's not like it's been in service for fifty plus years!

a reply to: TDawgRex

I don't know their capabilities for inflight refuel, but I do know they generally will sling load out fuel and rearmament to a forward point. Seeing as how they are not constricted by terrain and can land anywhere. I went on a few of those missions to deal with any unexpected ordinance or IED issues.

Where as the A-10 needs an airstrip to rearm but can midflight refuel.

www.youtube.com...

few more videos of the awesome a-10
doumentary

www.youtube.com...


cant belive they wanted to get rid of these ,and that cannon makes one of the most intimidating firing sounds ive ever heard

www.afrc.af.mil... this link talks about how the navy and coast guard might use them and shows stills from an a-10 sinking a naval vessel ( i didnt know they did that)

7/20/2012 - Barksdale AFB, La. -- Pilots of the 47th Fighter Squadron demonstrated the maritime capability of the A-10 Thunderbolt II by sinking an abandoned naval vessel July 14 during the Rim of the Pacific exercise at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii The exercise was unique in that it required A-10 pilots to take on a maritime target instead of the more traditional land-based target, according to Lt. Col. Jim Travis, 47th Fighter Squadron commander. Maj. Grant McCall, 47th FS pilot, coordinated the event and said the quick sinking of the naval vessel surprised some of the RIMPAC planners. "I think they underestimated the ability of the A-10," he said. "Other groups were supposed to shoot at the target after we took our turn, but never got the chance because we sank it."

so they not only sank the boat but sunk it very quickly...i would not wanna be in a boat where a few a-10s were making attack runs,the word no place to hide comes to mind and reminds me of that stuka pilot who sank a battleship

a reply to: Grimpachi

I've helped on some FARP's myself, mostly during the first Gulf War providing security. The big trick is to get them close enough to combat, but in a position that is fairly easy to defend. (Rockets and mortars though are a entirely different story).

Setting up a FARP is usually pretty easy in Eastern Afghanistan for instance, while the western provinces hold many headaches just due to terrain.

a reply to: TDawgRex

HA...I am now thinking we may have crossed paths at some point.

At one point command had a "brilliant idea" to try an make a deep strike Apachi unit where we drilled some behind the lines...well you couldn't call them FARPs because it was touch and go. Anyway that was before the second gulf kicked off and we practiced in Korea against the ROKAs. It was decided that it probably wasn't such a brilliant idea after all.

a reply to: Grimpachi

1/17th Cav, 82d ABN here. Whenever a FARP was thought up, they always looked in-house before asking the Infantry for help. Kept the foot print smaller. Being in a Scout Platoon, we often were called up for these missions. But we always took CCT's with us as well.

I just wish that the USAF wasn't so keen on killing their CAS role and yet not giving a chance for others to pick it up. At least develop another aircraft if they think the A-10 is getting old.

a reply to: TDawgRex

At the time I was part of the 53rd Inf Brigade but because of my prior MOS from active I was whored back to 52nd EOD where I got my marching orders and was attached to several different units at various times. Did that up till 07 till coming back from a routine check the rear tire on a vehicle in front of us tripped an IED and sent shrapnel right into my cab. I lost a friend and most of my sight in my right eye. The lack of depth perception pu an end to anymore tours.

As far as the A-10 program I am in no rush to see them go, but I do think the workaround would involve closer support with the existing attack helos. If it is pure bureaucracy trying to shut them down then its BS, but if they have figured another way...well...it may work out. When I consider some of the other stuff they thought would work out that didn't. It kinda makes me glad I am not in that position anymore.

a reply to: TDawgRex


Go All American's.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
As far as the A-10 program I am in no rush to see them go, but I do think the workaround would involve closer support with the existing attack helos.

Except helo's are extremely vulnerable in any even moderate-threat environment with MANPAD"s (more then A-10)---e.g. any Russian division even without the serious S-300 type of air defense systems.

And A-10s can do an exceptional job slashing through enemy helos.

a reply to: mbkennel

I agree A-10s would be better against MANPADs or even other attack helicopters. Better but not invulnerable and as far as I am aware there aren't any current theater of operations where we are coming up against either and as Tdawg said the F-35 is slotted for those roles where they would fair better in both scenarios you presented than an A-10.

The next generation of drones will be cheaper, faster, smaller, deadlier, be available in huge numbers quickly from the mfr., more maneuverable, can engage in swarming techniques too dangerous for manned warbirds. 50 drones in a swarming technique attack can perform far better in the battlespace than 20 A-10s. A-10 can't Kamikaze when they might need to, drones can. Ender's Game was a glimpse of future warfare. I go to IITSEC in Orlando, FL about every year and most of you would sit in the corner and cry if you knew.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Nothing is. The F-35 is a HORRIBLE replacement for the A-10. It has something like 1/3rd the ammunition, the RAM, while vastly improved over previous generations is still vulnerable to damage that will degrade it's protection, and it won't take damage anywhere even remotely close to what the A-10 will take.

They say the P-51 Mustang which is much cheaper could do the same job with some modifications of course, but even better than the A-10. Lets bring the P-51 back!

They should put them in the bone yard in a condition ready to be re-activated. Keep say one squadron for initial engagement. Bring the rest back up if needed.