Now the U.S. Air Force Wants You to Believe the A-10 Is Too Old to Fight

[Ryoken]

 

Now the U.S. Air Force Wants You to Believe the A-10 Is Too Old to Fight

But the Warthog isn

[123456789A]

Then make some new ones.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Let's be serious here, any combat aircraft that still requires a pilot is outdated.

[ctebah]

A-10 has caused most friendly fire and civilian deaths than any other plane in the US arsenal.  But I agree, this plane looks sick and is very good at it's job.

[Anibal P]

A-10 has caused most friendly fire and civilian deaths than any other plane in the US arsenal.  But I agree, this plane looks sick and is very good at it's job.

 

Would love to see where you got your "facts" from, even using the AFs biased numbers the A10 is nowhere close to the top in friendly fire

[Torolol]

[Mr. Gibs]

I don't understand the USAF. They want to replace a viable, and highly effective aircraft with other planes that can't do it NEARLY as well, at MUCH higher costs, and that simply aren't even close to being read yet.

It's money, that's really all it is.

Operating and building A-10s (if they ever decide to do so again) costs nothing. Scrapping the entire program will save them $5 billion, and the plane costs something like $20 million to make. If its in service it makes it difficult to ask for extra money to build a new plane that does something similar (or extra funding for the F-35) because congress can just say "you already have the A10 and it works, so why do you need to replace it?" The AF has to keep justifying the cost of the F-35 and the A-10 (which the AF wants replaced by the F35) is looking far more nicer because of how cheap it is.

Then the other reason is that the air force never really wanted the A-10, it was essentially designed to take money away from the Army. Basically the army originally wanted to build a close air support vehicle (much like the A-10) which they called the Cheyenne. But the money to build it was going to come out of the Air Force budget, which the air force obviously didn't like and claimed was a violation of their agreement with the army that the army will never build an armed aircraft that had wings. Eventually the army decided to scrap the program and make a new plan which lead to the Apache. The Apache didn't infringe on the agreement and so the air force had to build something to counter it otherwise the army would have taken over the CAS role which would mean even less money to the AF, so they built the A-10. The A-10 never really killed off the Apache but back then it did take away significant amount of money away from the Army.

So in AFs mind the A-10 has already served it's purpose and doesn't fit into the AFs strategy of extremely complex / technical aircraft (with or without pilots) that are capable of launching strikes from BFR because that's where they want to eventually be. And the AF needs to constantly keep justifying this to Congress to keep the budget they have.

[Anibal P]

It's money, that's really all it is.

Operating and building A-10s (if they ever decide to do so again) costs nothing. Scrapping the entire program will save them $5 billion, and the plane costs something like $20 million to make. If its in service it makes it difficult to ask for extra money to build a new plane that does something similar (or extra funding for the F-35) because congress can just say "you already have the A10 and it works, so why do you need to replace it?" The AF has to keep justifying the cost of the F-35 and the A-10 (which the AF wants replaced by the F35) is looking far more nicer because of how cheap it is.

Then the other reason is that the air force never really wanted the A-10, it was essentially designed to take money away from the Army. Basically the army originally wanted to build a close air support vehicle (much like the A-10) which they called the Cheyenne. But the money to build it was going to come out of the Air Force budget, which the air force obviously didn't like and claimed was a violation of their agreement with the army that the army will never build an armed aircraft that had wings. Eventually the army decided to scrap the program and make a new plan which lead to the Apache. The Apache didn't infringe on the agreement and so the air force had to build something to counter it otherwise the army would have taken over the CAS role which would mean even less money to the AF, so they built the A-10. The A-10 never really killed off the Apache but back then it did take away significant amount of money away from the Army.

So in AFs mind the A-10 has already served it's purpose and doesn't fit into the AFs strategy of extremely complex / technical aircraft (with or without pilots) that are capable of launching strikes from BFR because that's where they want to eventually be. And the AF needs to constantly keep justifying this to Congress to keep the budget they have.

 

 

The only problem the AF as is that all the alternatives are complete junk compared to the A-10, they know it, we know i, Congress knows it

Now if they had a proper successor in the making no one would care, but they don't so till someone gets some sense in the AF they will be "stuck" with the superior aircraft 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

A-10 has caused most friendly fire and civilian deaths than any other plane in the US arsenal.  But I agree, this plane looks sick and is very good at it's job.

 

Nope

 

Platform         Civilian Casualties per 100 Kinetic Sorties

AC-130                                0.7

 

A-10                                     1.4

 

F-15E                                   1.6

 

F-16                                     2.1

 

F-18                                     2.2

 

B-1                                       6.6

 

AV-8                                     8.4

 

 

The table makes it clear that the A-10 is the safest airplane in Afghan combat, except for the AC-130. In fact, the A-10 produces nearly five times fewer civilian casualties per firing sortie than the B-1 bomber, even in the artificially truncated 2010 to 2014 time period. But when you consider that the A-10 makes at least two to three times as many firing passes per kinetic sortie as the B-1 bomber, the comparison becomes even more lopsided, with the A-10 causing at least 9 to 13 times fewer civilian casualties per effective firing attack than the B-1 bomber.

 

 

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/articles/2015/af-hq-declassified-and-released-incomplete-data.html

 

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/02/10/a10-pogo-air-force-statistics-casualties-fratricide/23177501/

 

It is a shame that the AF is apparently running a "smear" campaign to remove the A-10.  I'm certain that ground troops who needed close air support greatly appreciated the capabilities of this platform...and there isn't a suitable replacement yet.

[Mr. Gibs]

The only problem the AF as is that all the alternatives are complete junk compared to the A-10, they know it, we know i, Congress knows it

Now if they had a proper successor in the making no one would care, but they don't so till someone gets some sense in the AF they will be "stuck" with the superior aircraft

But only if you look at the role that the A-10 provides. The air forces argument is well if we have our way then that situation will never occur.

Yes you can rightfully claim that that isn't true at all, but thats where the air force and well militaries in general are headed. And like I mentioned if the air force wants to keep it's budget they need to justify it, and that's their way of justifying it. If the Air Force came out and said yup the F-22, F-18 and A-10s are the best aircraft we have, they'd likely lose a good chunk of their budget.

The A-10 was literally created in order for them to justify their budget and now they want to scrap it in order for them to justify a bigger budget.

[The Evil Overlord]

Let's be serious here, any combat aircraft that still requires a pilot is outdated.

A fair arguement, but any aircraft or warplane that is in service mostly unchanged, doesn't need to be replaced, drones CAN minimise loss of pilots, but have other disadvantages. (Jamming equipment, for one, no wireless or radio based communications systems are 100% foolproof, or sabotage proof)

Sticking with a piloted aircraft, it has proven itself time, and again. The amount of battered to hell a10s that return under their own power...

Had the amount of aircrafts and pilots lost were higher, I'd probably have agreed, or most likely, refrained from posting.

This just seems like a cash grab by manufacturers, claiming yes we need new equipment.

[Ryoken]

A-10 has caused most friendly fire and civilian deaths than any other plane in the US arsenal.  But I agree, this plane looks sick and is very good at it's job.

Actually it would be beat by ANY Bomber from the Nam erra.

Additionally, the Apache has cause more friendly fire deaths than any other vehicle in the modern military erra. During the first Gulf War, Apache's account for more American deaths alone, than all of the Iraqi military.

 

As was posted above, it is actually one of the best Aircraft for limiting casualties. Why you ask? Cause it's able to fly slow and low, meaning it can see what it's going after. Fighter Jets fly faster and higher, they don't really see the targets, they just fire in the general area where they are directed.

 

It's money, that's really all it is.

Operating and building A-10s (if they ever decide to do so again) costs nothing. Scrapping the entire program will save them $5 billion, and the plane costs something like $20 million to make. If its in service it makes it difficult to ask for extra money to build a new plane that does something similar (or extra funding for the F-35) because congress can just say "you already have the A10 and it works, so why do you need to replace it?" The AF has to keep justifying the cost of the F-35 and the A-10 (which the AF wants replaced by the F35) is looking far more nicer because of how cheap it is.

Then the other reason is that the air force never really wanted the A-10, it was essentially designed to take money away from the Army. Basically the army originally wanted to build a close air support vehicle (much like the A-10) which they called the Cheyenne. But the money to build it was going to come out of the Air Force budget, which the air force obviously didn't like and claimed was a violation of their agreement with the army that the army will never build an armed aircraft that had wings. Eventually the army decided to scrap the program and make a new plan which lead to the Apache. The Apache didn't infringe on the agreement and so the air force had to build something to counter it otherwise the army would have taken over the CAS role which would mean even less money to the AF, so they built the A-10. The A-10 never really killed off the Apache but back then it did take away significant amount of money away from the Army.

So in AFs mind the A-10 has already served it's purpose and doesn't fit into the AFs strategy of extremely complex / technical aircraft (with or without pilots) that are capable of launching strikes from BFR because that's where they want to eventually be. And the AF needs to constantly keep justifying this to Congress to keep the budget they have.

 

Operating the A-10's again? A-10's account for 11% of all CURRENT Flight sotre's by the USAF in the middle east. They are one of the main aircraft used against ISIS because they can accurately and effectively lay down fire, and come home again.

 

As for money to build something else. They Could get the money if they had an idea for what next. They have no idea. NONE. F-16's fly too fast and can't fly nearly as low. Fighters while they have guns, carry almost no ammo. F-22 has something like 5 seconds of fire time. F35 isn't near close to being ready, and even if it works exactly like the Air Force wants it too, will still be a joke against the A-10.. It's got more ewar to defend itself with, but it's far FAR more susceptible to any kind of dumb ground fire like guns.

 

Drones are too slow to get there, and don't have nearly as much firepower to bring to the table.

 

 

But only if you look at the role that the A-10 provides. The air forces argument is well if we have our way then that situation will never occur.

Yes you can rightfully claim that that isn't true at all, but thats where the air force and well militaries in general are headed. And like I mentioned if the air force wants to keep it's budget they need to justify it, and that's their way of justifying it. If the Air Force came out and said yup the F-22, F-18 and A-10s are the best aircraft we have, they'd likely lose a good chunk of their budget.

 

If the USAF thinks the role will never happen, they need to get their heads out of their asses. The role that will never occur is one of, if not the single most common role the Air Force is involved in currently. Close support or ground troops. Ask ANY troops on the ground what they want covering their back, the answers will be AC-130's and A-10's.

 

The USAF should keep the A-10, and either work on a project to modernize them, like they have with the F-18's (The Super Hornets being the current gen), or work on a viable replacement. AF says their are susceptible to surface to air missiles, work on adding a better defense to them. Too old? Build more. They are far FAR cheaper to build than their ultra-modern counterparts. They don't need stealth, they don't need to turn on a dime, or fly super fast. They don't even need all the new advanced avionics, as they are built to operate without them.

 

Sometimes I swear the only reason the USAF wants to get rid of them is a bet that they can find a way to trick congress into letting them. Thankfully that hasn't happened. But god knows they have been trying to dump them for over a decade now, yet they just keep seeing more and more use.

[The Evil Overlord]

It just doesn't make sense to me. The Pilots want the A-10's. Congress wants the A-10's. The troops on the ground demand the A-10's. The only people that don't seem to want them, are the heads of the USAF. And ISIS.. They hate them too.

 

This made me chuckle a little, But that's just the darker side of my sense of humour.

[nukenorman]

I have asked several US aiforce pilots and the A-10 warhog despite its cheap price tag is one of the best and deadliest aircraft for air to ground. The f -35 is very expensive and multi role and it cannot do nearly as good as a job for that function that the A-10 warhog can do.

 

Sad day when those are retired. Let me repeat the A-10 warhog plane is low cost, fuel efficient, easy to fly and designed to do one thing that is does VERY well.

 

Stealth did not work in the f -117 and it was shot down by a tiny third world country serbia with not a good military. The US better HOPE that the stealth in this thing works because it is the ONLY thing it has going for it . F-16 and the great legendary f-15 that has never been shot down where awesome planes.  I really hope I am wrong on the F-35 I do hope for the usa and its allies that it turns out to be a good plane but so far I do not have hopes for it.

 

F-35 can do all 3 roles and serve all 3 branches but master at NONE.

 

 

On the flip side maybe the A-10 should be retired? it may not be good enough from the new ground to air missile defense systems anymore and it is slow and not stealthy and it may be to risky to send them in anymore. So perhaps the airforce does knows whats best and they are the experts. I hope so.

 

Having said that I still don't think the F-35 will be good for air to air due to its body and short wings and also no thrust vectoring ( while in combat ) and NO super cruse 1 engine aricraft. 1 engine fighter jet engines fail more common than you think and the 2nd engine ones have said lives many of times such as the f -15, eurofighter, and French Raffale.

 

[Ryoken]

I have asked several US aiforce pilots and the A-10 warhog despite its cheap price tag is one of the best and deadliest aircraft for air to ground. The f -35 is very expensive and multi role and it cannot do nearly as good as a job for that function that the A-10 warhog can do.

 

Sad day when those are retired. Let me repeat the A-10 warhog plane is low cost, fuel efficient, easy to fly and designed to do one thing that is does VERY well.

 

Stealth did not work in the f -117 and it was shot down by a tiny third world country serbia with not a good military. The US better HOPE that the stealth in this thing works because it is the ONLY thing it has going for it . F-16 and the great legendary f-15 that has never been shot down where awesome planes.  I really hope I am wrong on the F-35 I do hope for the usa and its allies that it turns out to be a good plane but so far I do not have hopes for it.

 

F-35 can do all 3 roles and serve all 3 branches but master at NONE.

 

F-35 can't even use it's Gun's till 2019.. They forgot to write that program. And it can never come close to the A-10 as it can't handle any ground fire.

 

The survival of the F-15, while a great aircraft, is a very flawed number. F-15's have a long history of being pulled back from the front lines when facing ANY near-modern Aircraft. During both Gulf Wars, Against the Serbs, etc, they were regularly pulled back so the cheaper and more expendable F-18's, and similar, were sent to engage them. Not saying it can't handle itself, but it's never really been combat tested in the same way most other Fighters have.

 

This leads to another big issue. The US doesn't like to risk it's state of the art aircraft. You really think they are going to send in the multi-million dollar F-35 to support some ground troops when the A-10 is no more? Or will they just say that it's not worth risking the asset? They have done it before, in times when the A-10's were not in the region. A-10 is nice and cheap, silly survivable, but also expendable. If one gets blown away, it's not nearly as big of an issue as if a F-22 or F-35 does..

 

It's also worth saying, The F-117 while shot down by the Serbs, want not shoot down by some 3rd world country airforce. The Serbs had one of the most modern airforces outside of Russia, or a Western Power. Not good enough, obviously, but far better than Afghanistan, Iraq, or anyone else that the USAF has faced off against.

[Mr. Gibs]

Operating the A-10's again? A-10's account for 11% of all CURRENT Flight sotre's by the USAF in the middle east. They are one of the main aircraft used against ISIS because they can accurately and effectively lay down fire, and come home again.

Um the "again" bit was in reference to BUILDING the A-10s. The Air Force are still be operating them but they sure as hell aren't building any more.

 

As for money to build something else. They Could get the money if they had an idea for what next. They have no idea. NONE. F-16's fly too fast and can't fly nearly as low. Fighters while they have guns, carry almost no ammo. F-22 has something like 5 seconds of fire time. F35 isn't near close to being ready, and even if it works exactly like the Air Force wants it too, will still be a joke against the A-10.. It's got more ewar to defend itself with, but it's far FAR more susceptible to any kind of dumb ground fire like guns.

But thats the thing. The Air Force wants congress to believe that's there is no point to close air support because if the enemy cannot see you, it cannot shoot you.

The air forces strategy has always been based around that. You can argue rightfully so that in some (most?) situations that isn't realistic at all, but they're not interested in that.

 

If the USAF thinks the role will never happen, they need to get their heads out of their asses. The role that will never occur is one of, if not the single most common role the Air Force is involved in currently. Close support or ground troops. Ask ANY troops on the ground what they want covering their back, the answers will be AC-130's and A-10's.

Yes currently and the air force doesn't want that role to be done by the A-10. They need to justify the cost of the F-35 program to Congress because that's essentially the plane that will replace the A-10 (if it ever happens). As long as the A-10 remains in service people are always going to bring up "why do you need $200 million for that plane, when $20 million gets you the A-10"

---

I'm not disagreeing with you, I think the A-10 is needed and it's a great plane. You were wondering why the Air Force wants to get rid of it and I explained it that's really it.

I also don't think that the F-35 can ever truly replace the A-10 but like I said, if the Air Force cannot justify it's budget in front of Congress they lose some of it the next year. So if the Air Force gets a budget of $200 billion and only spends $150 billion that year, the next year congress will only give them $150 billion. So what do they do? Come up with super complex planes that rack up their budget and ensure that they get a nice big fat budget throughout the year.

[Ryoken]

Ya unless the USAF can convince the Army to night fight during the day, oh and ISIS too, then their idea of can't see can't shoot isn't close to realistic. It's delusional. Probably otta replace these people with Air Force personnel who aren't living in their own world.

[chrisj1968]

When I was with 8th ID during the cold war, we were attached with a A10 tank killer plane. scary to say the least. intimidating

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCnjWmtfvFo  

[Mr. Gibs]

Ya unless the USAF can convince the Army to night fight during the day, oh and ISIS too, then their idea of can't see can't shoot isn't close to realistic. It's delusional. Probably otta replace these people with Air Force personnel who aren't living in their own world.

Ah but you see that's exactly why the A-10 was created. To stop the Army from doing something like that.

The Army had plans for a CAS aircraft, AF got all butthurt that the army is stealing their roles and so built the a-10 to protect their own budget. That's literally the entire reason it was created, to ensure that the Air Force budget wouldn't be plundered by the Army. Apart from that the AF never cared about or wanted the plane.

In reality that should be a role the army handles because it's their troops on the ground. The AF should focus on BFR, space, missiles, rockets, bombers etc. But then pride sets in and the AF can't allow the Army to take over one of their roles.

All in all it's a cluster ######.

[The Evil Overlord]

Not mention the fact that the Warthog got dubbed the Thunderbolt II, purely because of the plane's survivability, which almost paralelled the Original Thunderbolt, one that took so many rounds the pilot that landed it, lost count. (If the legend is true, the pilot gave up counting after 200, one ONE WING)

(As I'm posting from my phone, I'm unable to link the article I took that piece of information from, sorry)

[PGHammer]

The A-10 is low-and-slow in its usual mission - the folks that the A-10 is designed to save (on OUR side) are ground-pounders and such - they aren't fighters and bombers (which are designed to save OTHER fighters and bombers).  They will take a far greater shredding than any other plane in the USAF inventory primarily because Fairchild Republic designed the plane to be able to fly DESPITE the avionics being turned nearly into Swiss - and the airframe being even leakier than a pasta colander.  The Hog is designed for the ugly side of the AirLand battle - the air-to-mud side.  It's something the Soviet Air Force used to do - and the Russian Air Force resisted - despite having a near-clone of the Warthog to do that nasty job - the Sukhoi Su-25 (NATO old reporting name "Frogfoot")  When the Russians retired the Frogfoot, they actually assigned helicopters to old Frogfoot missions - despite that even the Hind - the helicopter originally assigned - was TOO slow to do it (and, as the Afghan muj proved, too vulnerable to man-portable SAMs).  You don't make general flying Warthogs (or Frogfoots, either).

[Ryoken]

[+Fulcrum Subscriber¹]

Picture made my day!

[siah1214]

Let's be serious here, any combat aircraft that still requires a pilot is outdated.

*sigh*

[Yogurth]

Unfortunately civilian casualties score for A-10 can not be determined after the attack itself since most of it's ground attacks are through the guns that use "depleted" uranium shells, which were proven to be deadly decades if not longer after the battle took place. Look at the cancer statistics among inhabitants of battleground area and statistics of military employees that handle the shells. The rate of degenerative diseases is appalling.