F-35s Won't Outdo A-10 in Battlefield Capabilities

First, you are totally wrong about the A-10 loadout. It cannot carry 6 Mavericks on each hardpoint, the weight limits, aircraft clearance requirement, and stores management system do not support that kind of loadout.

Plus 66 Mavericks with 11 6 rail launchers weighs more than the fully fueled A-10, the plane would never get off the ground.

Second, there is a lot more to effectiveness than warhead size. Maverick and Hellfire both require the shooter to be essentially lined on the target, they have limited off boresite capability. It takes time for a pilot to id the target and align on the right heading. Griffin and some other missiles in use do have off borseite launch capability, the UAV just has to orbit, when a target comes in there is an operator dedicated to the track ball and has eyes on target immediately and continuously, they just shoot. Plus with the UAV, the person that gives approval for the launch is right there in the van seeing the target and the friendlies and possible collateral damage, he isn't relying on second hand information from a pilot and friendlies - the approval process is much faster than for a manned plan like an A-10.

Maverick warhead is frequently too large for the job - and BTW the warhead weight you list is for the shaped charge warhead which would not be used on most missions, the blast/frag is twice that weight. When you just want a sniper taken out, but not the house below him or the shop next door, you don't use a Maverick or JDAM, you use something like a Griffin which will put a 13 lb warhead optimized for job right on the sniper (or bad guys behind a wall, or in the SUV or pickup).

And as I said, there are multiple variants of Predator, and more UAV's than Predator with much larger loadouts.

And as I also wrote, UAV's are not going to replace manned aircraft in all roles, but UAV's are doing a better job at some roles and are here to stay.

 

What !!! The USAF over 15 years ago was suppose to be developing a Maverick that was capable of lock on after launch. (LOAL) Was money diverted from this project to drag queens performing on Air Force Bases instead ?

Edit:

Here's the answer.

 

A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt II
Specifications
Primary Function A-10 -- close air support, OA-10 - airborne forward air control
Contractor Fairchild Republic Co.
Power Plant Two General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofans
Thrust 9,065 pounds each engine
Length 53 feet, 4 inches (16.16 meters)
Height 14 feet, 8 inches (4.42 meters)
Wingspan 57 feet, 6 inches (17.42 meters)
Speed 420 miles per hour (Mach 0.56)
Ceiling 45,000 feet (13,636 meters)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 51,000 pounds (22,950 kilograms)
Range 800 miles (695 nautical miles)
Armament One 30 mm GAU-8/A seven-barrel Gatling gun;
up to 16,000 pounds (7,200 kilograms) of mixed ordnance on eight under-wing and three under-fuselage pylon stations, including infrared countermeasure flares; electronic countermeasure chaff; jammer pods; 2.75-inch (6.99 centimeters) rockets; illumination flares and:
MK-82 (500 pound bomb)
MK-84 (2000 pound bomb)
MK77 incendiary
10 MK20 Rockeye II (4 - 6 standard load)
10 CBU-52 (4 - 6 standard load)
10 CBU-58 (4 - 6 standard load)
10 CBU-71 (4 - 6 standard load)
10 CBU-87 (4 - 6 standard load)
10 CBU-89 (4 - 6 standard load)
CBU-97
10 BL755 (4 - 6 standard load)
AGM-65 Maverick missiles
GBU-10 laser-guided bomb
GBU-12 laser-guided bomb
AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles

MK AGM CBU CBU CBU 2.75 GBU AIM LUU LUU 30
82 65 87 89 97 RX 12 9 1 2 MM
12 2 1000
4 2 1000
6 2 2 1000
2 4 2 1000
6 2 1000
2 4 2 1000
6 2 1000
6 2 1000
2 14 2 8 8 1000
4 14 2 8 8 1000
2 4 2 1000



A-10C Precision Engagement
Joint Direct Attack Munition
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser
LITENING AT targeting pod
Sniper XR targeting pod
Systems
AN/ALE-40
AN/ALQ-119
Crew One
Date Deployed March 1976
Unit Cost $FY98
[Total Program] $13 million
Inventory
A-10 OA-10
Active force 72 72
Reserve 24 12
ANG 64 30
A-10 Propulsion Upgrade Program [as of 2005]
Capability Threshold Objective Justification

Operate from high density attitude airfields with militarily significant payloads A 47K lb A/OA-10 (DI of 7.75) operating on a 9000 foot runway at 5,000 feet PA and 35 degrees C can lose an engine at rotation, jettison stores (41.75K lbs remaining, DI of 3.62) and climb with the gear up and failed engine wind milling and maintain a minimum rate of climb of 150 feet per minute (FPM). Same conditions but maintain a minimum climb rate of 500 FPM. Allows safe operations with a militarily significant payload in high DA expeditionary conditions; Enables significantly more worldwide basing options.
A 47 K lb A/OA-10 (DI of 7.75) operating on a 9,000 foot runway at 5,000 feet PA and 35 degrees C must have a critical field length of less than 9,000 feet. Same conditions but have a critical field length of less than 7,500 feet.

Operate from austere expeditionary airfields A 47K lb A/OA-10 (DI of 7.75) operating on a 5,000 foot runway at 2,500 foot PA and 25 degrees C can lose an engine at rotation, jettison stores (41.7 lbs remaining, DI of 3.62) and climb with the gear up and failed engine wind milling and maintain a minimum rate of climb of 150 FPM. Same conditions but maintain a minimum climb rate of 500 FPM. Allows forward basing of "Sandy" role aircraft with CSAR Task Force; Enables rapid response to calls for CAS/CSAR; Minimizes sortie transit times and maximizes employment; Allows more staging options for TST operations; Allows staging closer to the ground forces for emergency/immediate CAS.
A 47K lb A/OA-10 (DI of 7.75) operating on an airfield at a 2,500 foot PA and 25 degrees C must have a critical field length of less than 5,000 feet. Same conditions but have a critical field length of less than 4,500.

Maximize gross weight on take-off (weapons and internal fuel) Operate a 51K lb A/OA-10 (DI of 14.49) on a 9,000 foot runway, sea level, standard day, be able to lose an engine at rotation, jettison stores (41.6K lbs remaining, DI of 3.62( and climb with the gear up and failed engine wind milling and maintain a minimum rate of climb of 150 FPM. Same conditions but operate on a 7,500 foot runway. Leverage PE Mod; Fully capitalize on available hard points in the optimum conditions.

Easier to comprehend by going to the link.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10-specs.htm

 

Sensors, weapons, procedures, communication equipment, experience and delivery platforms, heck that is about everything... perhaps it would be better to ask what hasn't changed?

 

If we look at the most recent data available for the A-10s currently used against ISIS in Syria and Iraq...between Nov. 2014 - Feb. 2015

A-10s have flown 562 sorties with 139 of these being airstrikes.
Other coalition aircraft have flown 22,372 sorties with a total of 2,446 airstrikes

A-10s represent roughly 2% of the total sorties flown and 6% of the airstrikes.

The A-10 does very well, perhaps legendarily, in a no-low threat environment. It's not a deep strike aircraft...and as I stated in another post on this thread deep strike skills are beginning to atrophy from fighting going on a decade and a half of these asymmetrical wars where air superiority is never in doubt.

The A-10 is not indispensable...there is no supporting data to argue otherwise.

.

 

Yipee, great, another miracle weapon, if we only fought wars on Powerpoint......

 

Funny, some research I have seen says quite differently.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/01/19/a10-strikes-isis-11-percent/21875911/

So out of the 60% of the airstrikes the Air Force did, 11% of total strikes were A-10.

So the Warthog is still doing more strikes then B-1 or F-22 (actually it is doing about as many strikes as those two platforms combined). And one of the reasons the strike number is only 11%? The Hogs got into the game late.

Not bad for a totally obsolete aircraft that many in here think is a flying coffin.

 

I'm unaware there were any Army or Marine grunts on the ground in Syria or Iraq where CAS missions were called for to support the grunts.

If an air strike isn't directly being used to support the grunts so they can continue to accomplish their mission, it's really not Close Air Support.

I think most of the air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria are nothing more than Battlefield Air Interdiction (BAI) missions, not Close Air Support (CAS) missions.

Battlefield Air Interdiction not to be confused with Deep Strike Interdiction (SDI) that's something completely different.

The A-10 is used for CAS while the F-16's are suppose to be used for BAI. The USAF thinks that the F-16 can do both, CAS and BAI.

There was an A-16 on the drawing board at one time, an F-16 C that would be dedicated for CAS and BAI missions. It was competing against a new upgraded re-engined A-7 D Corsairs . Don't know what ever happened, I think Bill Clinton became President.

 

The USAF does still have the A10..... so its perfectly suitable for something like the IS in Syria and Iraq - why not use it! Especially if the other assets not slated for the boneyard could perhaps be better used (or not used) elsewhere. I don't think the US budget's can afford to run such a highly specialized platform as the A10 when other more versatile systems achieve the same effect. The A10 is great for what it does, but what it brings now doesn't really fit a niche enough to justify the duplication of capabilities to more modern systems.

 

You missed my point about the A-10 being a redundant system.

Where do we currently have troops on the ground with a pressing need for CAS that only the A-10 can provide.

Afghanistan?

You're aware the U.S. formally ended the combat mission there.

So why the pressing need to retain an otherwise redundant platform like the A-10?

 

Your article dates from mid-January, my numbers are sourced through February.
Even at 11% it hardly justifies keeping it with a total USAF budget of 122 billion, retiring will save 4 billion.

It's capabilities are redundant.

It's going to be retired between 2016 - 2019, unless Congress blocks it, and the JSF is the future...
like it or not.

F-15Es, F-16s, AC-130s, B-52s and B-1 bombers have been doing 80% of the CAS missions in Afghanistan since 2001.

As combat missions have ended there...where, precisely, is there a pressing need for a mission to be done that only the A-10 is capable of doing?

 

Every system pretty much in the military is "redundant". 3 different "bombers", probably 20 rifles and 10 machine guns, several fighters with many missions that overlap. This is the way the military is. As I said many times "suspenders and belt".

Heck, think on just submarines. Ballistic subs have missiles and torpedoes, attack subs have missiles and torpedoes. So why do we need both? Why do we not have more people screaming that with 2 replacement bombers that the BUFF is a redundant system and must be disposed of?

Or with LMTV that the 5-ton is redundant? Or both are redundant by the HEMTT?

Different equipment, different roles, even though to 90% the roles seem the same.

And why are you talking about what is going on now as the justification to get rid of it? Do you really think that every combat situation we will run into for the next 10 years is the exact same thing that is going on now?

 

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, a former A-10 pilot, has said:

From his bio...

FLIGHT INFORMATION
Rating: Command pilot
Flight hours: More than 3,300
Aircraft flown: F-16, A-10, T-37 and TG-7A

He's flown both aircraft, seems to me he has the proper perspective on the issue....he's not coming from a non-rated desk jockey background to be making this decision.

Neither the A-10 or F-16 can be regarded as survivable aircraft projecting into future war scenarios, say 10 years from now. Paraphrasing the General's own words.

USAF wants to double down on the JSF F-35 as THE replacement platform for both the aging F-16 and A-10. In order to accomplish this, retiring the A-10 makes the most sense...as it is single mission while the F-16 is multi-role. This is the General's perspective, he's flown both platforms. Ideally, they would like to keep the A-10, it's my understanding this is as much an economic decision as anything else. Factoring in budget constraints, USAF believes it is better to invest funds in the platform of the future rather than maintain an aging system.

 

During the Vietnam War the easiest aircraft to ID in the air was the F-4 Phantom. It left a black smoke trail. They say a Mig pilot could spot a F-4 Phantom from 25 miles away from the black smoke trail.

Nobody did any thing about it until Ronald Reagan became POTUS when he convinced Congress to appropriate the funding adding smokeless burner cans to the F-4 engines which reduced the black smoke trail which made the aircraft easier to spot from a distance. Not sure if the Air Force had already done this before or after Reagan became POTUS but Navy and Marine Corps F-4's were still smoking.

Even though Reagan knew that all of the Navy and Marine Corps F-4's were to be replaced by FA-18's with in a three to six years, it was decided to spend the money so just in case America found itself in a shooting war the next day, our F-4 pilots would have better odds in AA than those who flew the F-4 during the Vietnam War.

Back in the early and mid 1980's I use to live in San Juan Capistrano and Dana Point and above was the flight path for all Marine aircraft that were landing at MCAS El Toro. During the 80's I would see the F-4 headed for El Toro smoking as they have always had. Then one day I looked up and I saw F-4's weren't smoking anymore.

I knew about the smoke cans and some of those F-4's I could ID as being from VMFA 232, the Red Devils. (You could see the red tails on some of the Red Devils F-4's) I said to myself they spent tens of thousands of dollars on each aircraft to give a pilot an edge if he went to war knowing that in three or four years they would be transitioning to the FA-18 Hornet. Now there's a President who really cared about those who served in the military.

 

During the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom, eight B-1s dropped nearly 40-percent of the total tonnage delivered by coalition air forces.. This included roughly 3,900 guided bombs or Joint Direct Attack Munitions, called JDAMs.

While the A-10 and F-117 were the "stars" of the first Gulf war...to a lesser extent have these platforms dominated in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact the F-117 was retired in 2008, with not much fanfare. Talk of retiring the A-10 has really created a stir. Ground troops have overwhelmingly voiced their disapproval...forgetting that 80% of munitions used in OEF/OIF were dropped and/or fired from platforms other than an A-10 or F-117.

Frankly I'd be more dismayed if they retired the B-1B...it's more versatile. The A-10 is indeed cheaper to operate and less maintenance intensive but if the goal is to provide an umbrella of air support for the ground troops with cost being secondary, I'd prefer the B-1...it can carry 125,000 lbs. of ordnance vs. 15,000 lbs. for the A-10, can loiter on station longer and get there quicker...it is supersonic.

Do you want 62.5 tons of potential whoop ass flying overhead or 1,200 rounds of 30mm. That's the only difference, the 30mm cannon, the B-1B doesn't have that.

 

Which goes right back to the accuracy of the ordinance dropped, and where.

The B-1 has an enormous offset in capacity of ordinance carried compared to an A-10. The A-10 at most can carry around 16,000 pounds of ordinance, a B-1 can carry over 125,000. So even if they ran the same number of missions, you would need almost 8 A-10s to carry the ordinance load of a single B-1.

This is the kind of statistic where the figures are skewed unless somebody understands the capacities of each aircraft..

And I have never said no other aircraft could do CAS missions. But how many times were the A-10 sent in where no other aircraft could have completed the mission for various reasons? To close to civilian areas? To close to friendly troops? Requirement to use gun rounds instead of explosives?

Funny how those that scream the A-10 needs to be retired now never seem to answer those questions, and always seem to forget that it is very doubtful that our next military conflict will be like the ones we are engaged in now.

And remember, those ground troops who "overwhelmingly voiced their disapproval" are the ones who are the benefit of their capabilities. I would think that they should be considered very seriously. To do otherwise would be like ignoring what a cop on the street in an inner city area says when they want to downgrade their body armor and take away their 9mm and instead give them a single pannel Generation 1 kevlar vest and a .38 revolver. You can't just ignore what the people who actually need these aircraft because a bunch of skewed statistics support the belief of some they can be replaced.

 

You won't get eyeballs on the bad guys in a B-1 like you would in an A-10. However, the B-1 is not blind, they are outfitted with sniper pods that can...not my words...

I do believe stand off CAS is the future, is it ideal? No...ideally you would prefer a human being with a pair of eyeballs and a trigger finger on a stick capable of delivering bursts of highly accurate 30mm rounds. Ideally...but given the survivability of a true close air support platform in a near peer threat environment. Stand off is better insurance your umbrella of air support won't get shot out of the sky, or damaged to such an extent it must RTB - return to base.

 

I'm a dumb airlift guy, I don't know the technical facets of delivering precision ordnance...but for those willing to put aside an emotional attachment to the A-10. Here is an article, fairly recent (March, 2015) entitled from a solid source, Aviation Week & Space Technology.

USAF Eyes New Era Of Close Air Support
U.S. Air Force’s campaign to reinvent CAS

Read more: http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-eyes-new-era-close-air-support

 

Myself, I think the biggest problem that people like me have against the retirement of the A-10 is that it's replacement is not up to the task.

I love multi-role, do not get me wrong. But even in multi-role, there are dominant roles and secondary roles. The F-35 is designed primarily as an air to air fighter, the CAS role is secondary. If the A-10 is to be retired, then I think it should be replaced by a fighter that has CAS as it's primary role, and air to air as a secondary.

And for me, we have already had such a platform in the past. With some modifications the designs could be melded into that of the A-10 and I bet both sides would be happy.

For decades, the F-14B "Bombcat" (and successors) was a favorite CAS aircraft of the Marine Corps (not because the F-14 was superior to the A-10, but because it was flown by Navy and Marine Corps "Naval Aviators" and not Air Force pilots). Fast, agile, with a large payload and Variable-Sweep Wings which allowed it to go from Mach 2+, then all the way down to around 50 knots with wings fully extended. This really was an aircraft that could scream with the best fighters of it's generation, and yet still go all the way down to the speed of helicopters to deliver highly accurate ordinance before zooming away again.

To me, the best solution (and one that would likely make both sides happy) would be to bring back a VSW CAS fighter. Once again build it around a GAU-8 cannon, heavily armored cockpit, but VSW so that if not engaged in CAS missions it could go air intercept with the best of them. And keep the crew of 2, the pilot would have more then his or her hands full in flying the bird, let somebody else dedicate their time and attention to ensure that the ordinance is dropped as accurately as possible.

It is not the A-10 that I am dedicated to, as much as a dedicated CAS platform that has ground attack as it's primary role.

 

Addition to my post above...

I would actually prefer to see the A-10 pilots assigned to F-14 squadrons and that aircraft brought back to take over the CAS mission.

To bad there are no more F-14 aircraft left (other then those in use by Iran). All of the ones the US had were destroyed shortly after they were retired.

 

Marines are flying the F-35B as I type this.

The biggest complaint I've heard about the F-14 was reliability. The A-10 was/is very reliable and very robust. When the F-14 worked, they were better than F/A-18s. The issue was it was cheaper to keep the Hornets flying than the Tomcats.

The newer block A-10Cs will probably go into a similar mothball status as the F-117 and that means if the need arises, they could potentially fly again. They won't be truly scrapped and neglected.

Occasionally an inactive F-117 still graces the skies.

 

It's not easy or cheap, but I think the fate of more than a few A-10Cs that have the extended service life modifications will be similar to these F-117 kept in hangars.



They are technically "off the books" and regarded as inactive, but a few are flyable; kept as testbed aircraft mainly.

I think the A-10C will stick around a few decades in this sort of limbo status of not quite fully retired. If the you know what hits the fan, they will get a few pilots up to speed in simulators and eventually get them in the cockpits again.

As needed of course, and they may never be needed.

 

The B-1 dropped 40% of the tonnage of ordnance, let me get out my old trusty slide rule. You are correct, but it was because the B-1 was able to carry and deliver 40% of the tonnage.

But remember, the war in Iraq was fought stupid. No regards to how much money it was draining the tax coffers. During the Vietnam War I got a stand down from a Lt. Col. when I called for a six gun, three salvo fire mission with only a body count of six and was given a quick course in economics 101.

Like you have a $1.4 million dollar Tomahawk cruise missile or you can use a $500. 16" gun projectile with a larger warhead and being more destructive plus the phycological effect it has on the enemy. Which one do you use ? You have smart people who are some what conservative would go with spending $500 to destroy a target then you have the other side who thinks, if it's new, it must be better or it it works, it must be obsolete.

I'm a big fan of the B-1B bomber. It was one of the reasons why I voted for Reagan in 1980.

If you remember right after the "New Left" (radical left) had hijacked the Democrat party the first weapons platform they went after was the B-1A. President Carter appeased the "New Left" and canceled the B-1A. When Reagan became POTUS he resurrected the B-1 bomber with help from "B-1" Bob Dornan in Congress. But tactics were changed, the new B-1 would be the B-1B that would fly low, below the Soviets radars.

Today the B-1B flies high overhead only because they aren't facing any enemy SAM's.

The A-10 was good in Afghanistan for providing CAS but not excellent. Like in Iraq there were to many friendly troops being killed. Both the Air Force A-10 pilots along with the JTAC on the ground get the blame but I would say it's really the JTAC who are the real blame. I'm still a believer on having a FAC on the ground conducting the CAS missions, not enlisted JTAC who are not fighter jocks.

What we didn't have in Afghanistan that could accomplish the CAS missions that the A-10's couldn't was a COIN light attack aircraft like the OV-10 Bronco. The Air Force rejected such an aircraft during the 70's and 80's, the Piper PA-48 Enforcer. < http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/piper_pa-48.php > (Read the comments section of those who flew and were involved in the flight testing of the PA-4

The A-10's 30 MM gatling cannons. Not good at strafing missions. Good at knocking out tanks, armor vehicles and semi harden targets but dispersed enemy troops ???
I talk to these young enlisted Marine grunts who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and they seemed to love the A-10 30 MM gun. Maybe it's the sound of the gun they like or seeing all of that dust being thrown up as the rounds hit the ground ??? But that's all they know, they never seen an A-1 Skyraider in action or what the cannons of a A-7 or A-4 were able to do.

7.62, .50 cal MG's and 20 MM cannon are what you use for strafing not 20 MM, 25 MM or 30 MM gatling guns. The real question to be asked, do today's JTAC's even know how to call in and conduct a CAS strafing mission ? Obvious not, maybe because we no longer have an aircraft capable being excellent at the job.

The A-1 Skyraider, F-4U Corsair and the F-6F Hellcats were excellent at the job. The A-4 Shyhawk, A-7 Corsair ll were good at the job.

The F-6F had four .50 Cal HMG's and two 20 MM cannons.

 

All of those aircraft would be blown out of the sky in minutes in contested airspace at least the prop driven ones, the A-7 might survive a bit longer based on it's speed.

I'm all for developing a small COIN turbo-prop aircraft capable of low level strafing in non-contested airspace. Converting the T-6 II trainer to this sort of plane would be doable and cheap to operate. It won't be a huge 30mm cannon however. The A-10 was designed around that gun.

The trainer I had in the USAF was a T-37 and they made an attack version of it called the A-37, a very effective close air support plane.


Converting a trainer to an attack plane does not require complicated engineering, and trainers make stable platforms for accurate guns.

 

How old is that photo of those F-117's ?

Have you been aboard or driven by Davis Monthan AFB bone yard lately ? It doesn't look the same as it did six years ago. A lot of open desert today. I wonder why ?

When the four Iowa class battleships were decommissioned during the G.H. Bush administration during the 1990's Congress wrote a law that G.H. Bush signed into law. All four Iowa BB's were to be kept in the naval reserve fleet in a high state of preservation being able to be recommissioned and sent to sea quickly being able to fight if needed. It was the law.

All four Iowa's were suppose to be kept in mothball in a high state of readiness until the U.S. Navy could come up with a warship that was capable of providing NSFS for the Marine Corps that the Marines need, not some 5"/54 pop gun. Today the Navy still hasn't been able to come up with that ship.

Then President Clinton decided to ignore the law and broke the law and turned two of the Iowa's into museums. Then Clinton broke the law again and towed the last Iowa BB on the east coast mothball fleet and towed it to the west coast and allowed it to sit next to the other Iowa and allowed both to rust away in violation of the law. (What was Congress suppose to do with Clinton, impeach him for a second time ? ) Then another one became a Museum. Finally the last Iowa was towed down the coast where it's a museum today at San Pedro, Ca. San Francisco rejected having a battleship museum in their city, they reject any thing that's related to the U.S. military or represents freedom. They hate both.

The Navy's only deep strike aircraft was the A-6 Intruder. It's replacement, the A-12 was canceled by then SECDEF Dick Cheney. The FA-18 F Super Hornet had to fill the vacuum but the FA-18 F doesn't have the range or bomb load to full fill the mission of the A-6.
Congress said that 100 A-6 Intruders had to be kept in a high state of readiness at the bone yard at Davis Montham to be able to be called back to active duty in case of war or a national emergency. I wonder how may of those 100 A-6's are still at the bone yard and what condition they are in ?

The Air Force has the same problem, the Air Force deep strike attack aircraft was the F-111 Ardvark. They went to the bone yard with no replacement in the pipeline. To fill the vacuum they came up with the F-15 E Strike Eagle. Not as capable as the F-111.

Back to the bone yard. It looks like they have been disposing of many aircraft in storage making room, a whole lot of room for more aircraft to be sent to the bone yard. Will there be any replacement for the aircraft being sent to the bone yard ?