"End looms for US Air Force's 'Warthog' ground-attack jet" This is Ridiculous!

I was reading in addition to the A-10, the USAF is considering retiring their entire fleet of KC-10 tanker aircraft as well.

This is all about budget cuts and force reduction. If these guys and gals (pilots) have hit the 10 year mark and met their commitment...I'd seriously get the hell outta dodge at this point. Join the major airlines. Sayonara Uncle Sam...it's been nice.

*Two cents of course*

 

Isn't this like the fifth time the KC-10 was on the chopping block?

I think they're trying to concentrate too much on multirole aircraft. Unless a multirole aircraft can be proven to be as survivable as the A-10, it won't be nearly as capable in the CAS role.

 

They are bringing in the KC-45 (multi-role) the new tanker...however the KC-135 inventory is as old as Moses. Eventually those will be retired also. It means one tanker type and fewer of them after the dust settles.

 

Doesn't someone have to pull the propellers on the KC-135 and say "Contact!" ?

I'm all for having a uniform tanker fleet and having a multirole tanker is a bonus.

 

The first thing I think of when I hear "multi-role" is "Jack of all trades, master of none".

Now do not think I am saying there is no purpose for such craft, there most definitely is. But it should not be used exclusively as a replacement for other aircraft. Fighter bombers are good, but not replacement for real bombers. Multi-role aircraft can do fighter intercept missions, but are not as good at it as a dedicated intercept fighter is.

The A-10 was for a long time the unwanted stepchild of the Air Force, because pilots did not see it as "sexy". However, the Gulf War changed that in many ways, especially with how much damage the thing could withstand. Over the last 23 years we have seen A-10s come back with battle damage that would have destroyed most other aircraft.

Do I think the lifespan of the A-10 is limited? Yes, because it really is getting towards the end of it's functional lifespan. But that does not mean such an aircraft is not needed.

Myself, I think an ideal replacement would be to modernize and update the bird. The 30mm GAU-8 is really overkill since the most likely battles of the future will not include streams of Soviet tanks streaming into Europe. So it's "tank busting" mission is rather obsolete. But building a similar aircraft with the 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon would be more then adequate. They could update it, make it more "stealthy" and use modern composites to make a more modular and easy to repair and maintain craft.

 

I happened to see a B-25 flying together with a B-29 and a Lancaster at a vintage air show in Hamilton, ON a few years ago.

 

Beautiful old birds, I'm glad there are folks willing to restore and keep them flying.

 

When the B-25H fired its whole battery, the plane lost 15 knots of airspeed.

Whether the Army of Marines want the A-10 is irrelevant. Their airframes are being weakened by metal fatigue - the same problem than scrapped the F-14 and early version F-15s. Their structural integrity is about the same as ObamaTax.

Oddly enough, Iran now flies more F-14s than the US. They have about a half-dozen F-14As dating back to the time of the Shah. The US flies zero. These Iranian planes have no metal fatigue because the Iranians couldn't get enough parts to put them into the air for more than a few hours a year. US Tomcats were retired with 30,000+ hours on them - mostly carrier ops. The Iranian Tomcats can't have a thousand hours on them and zero cat shots or traps.

 

Actually, it is estimated that they have around 20 of them that are operational (out of 79 purchased). And the are the first generation F-14A aircraft, not the later F-14B "Bombcat" or F-14D "Super Tomcat" that the US Navy used from 1987-2006.

Interestingly enough, Iran is still demanding that we ship them the 80'th F-14A that they ordered before the revolution. I am actually tempted to say we should pull one out of Davis-Monthan and send it to them, just to shut them up.

Heck, here is one that they can have:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=davi....308647&t=h&hq=davis-mothan&radius=15000&z=21

 

We never did ship the Shah the Phoenix missiles the Tomcat was designed around. They made do with Sparrow missiles. Sparrows have been out of production for decades.

 

Actually we did send them Phoenixes. Iran has the only kills with the AIM-54 in its history thanks to the Iran-Iraq War.

 

Think they still work?

 

Considering the AIM-54 was having rocket motor cracking issues even with routine maintenance from the manufacturer in American service, I'd imagine the Iranians, who had been cut off from any manufacturer support, would have had a lot more problems.

 

The A-10 is a single mission aircraft, and it would struggle in more contested airspace. It's a favorite of ground forces (friendlies), in that it represents a tangible USAF presence committed to the CAS mission. The issue, in it's current form it will continually fall behind the revolution in technology occurring in military operations. A way to keep the A-10 competitive in a 21st century battlespace, would be with PE modifications (precision engagement), which has been done in various modification programs The cost vs. benefit analysis still has to be weighed. A complete vertical divestiture of the aircraft, as I stated in another post on this thread, would have a potential savings in the billions of dollars. The savings could be used to sustain systems with multi-role mission capabilities built into their design parameters.

To sum up. The A-10 is a one trick pony, past it's prime. A decision needs to be made whether to mothball the inventory or invest further dollars into a cost structure which has already exceeded economic limits in keeping the A-10 relevant in a 21st century battlespace.

A-10 (without refueling)
Range: 800 miles
Combat Radius: 288 miles

As noted above the A-10 has a limited combat effective range, therefore in order for it to be effective it needs to be based closer to the front lines. Also, facing an adversary with a modern manpad/AAA/SAM threat, the A-10's survivability would decrease dramatically.

I'm not certain the decision to retire the inventory has actually been finalized, but if it is, or when it is...while it will be missed, the rationale to do so is valid.

 

For what? What giant tank armies does Britain need to stop?

 

Hahaha, close are support.

 

"I'm not certain the decision to retire the inventory has actually been finalized..."

Taxcutter says:
They are retiring themselves. As the airframes are compromised by metal fatigue they are taken to Davis-Monthan to provide parts for those still flying.

You speak of the age-old tension between special-purpose and general-purpose anythings. It all depends of how well you think you can predict the future. If you think you will always have air dominance, then a specialized ground support plane like the A-10 is justified. No way a "fast mover" does close support like an A-10 and helos are very expensive to operate and have an even more restricted performance envelope. If its even up )or worse) fast-moving and air combat capable planes are indicated.

Same problem is sen with ship design. The US Navy ranges the blue waters of the world's oceans and needs ships with long range, livable accommodations for crew, good underway self-repair capabilities and plenty of ammunition to justify the long trip. While underway replenishment mitigates some of this, that still dictates a pretty big ship. Arleigh Burke class destroyers are ten times the size of a World War II Fletcher-class destroyer (a big destroyer in its day). They are the gold standard for blue-water surface combatants They have tremendous capabilities in anti-surface warfare, antisubmarine warfare, and in antiaircraft/anti-missile combat. But efficient operation in littoral waters demands a smaller, handier ship - something about the size of a Coast Guard cutter. But that cutter-sized vessel is a deathtrap if the light goes green in a big-navy war. Given the size of their manufacturing sector, China could have a credible bluewater navy in 7-10 years. the service life of naval vessels is usually about thirty years. If naval war with China (or Russia) started you'd have to get those little cutter-sized 'littoral combat ships' back to a safe place or watch them sink.

Just so, if all you are going to do is beat on losers like Iraqis and Afghans, A-10s and helos are just the ticket. But if they have fighters roaming around you better keep the slow movers in a safe place.

The A-10 has to be replaced. They will all be at Davis-Monthan in a few years. Yes the replacement will not be the same. It will have to be more survivable. It will have to be modular so as to be configured as an autonomous drone, a remote control drone, or as a manned aircraft. The F-35 will not do the CAS role as well as a slow-mover. Pure remote-controlled drones can be jammed. Autonomous drones have limited mission capability. Manned CAS planes/helos offer the best support for the grunt on the ground, but they allow scope for aircrew casualties.

 

You know what else cuts through tank armor like hot butter?

Sensor fused munition bomblets, and unlike the 30mm ammo fired by the A-10, those are guided.

 

What really needs to be addressed in an A-10 replacement is the service division of missions.

Any assessment of US CAS since the Key West agreement tells you that the Air force (outside of the A-10 squadrons) does not do CAS very well. While they can indeed hit the bad guys, too often they miss the bad guys or hit the good guys. In Iraq/Afghanistan the terrain let the aircrew get a good look at the ground situation, but even then a F-16 pilot has only seconds to decide where the bad guys are. In Vietnam a F-100 (a staple of CAS in that war) had literally mission impossible. The F-100 carrying a load of bombs had to maintain an airspeed in excess of 350 knots. targeting was by the Mk.1 eyeball and he had no chance of accurately delivering bombs on the NVA. the F-100 driver was no better off than the BUFF driver over the Ho Chi Minh trail. Both bombed more or less blind. They hit bad guys, good guys and empty jungle. The Marines (using older aircraft) and the Army using helicopters did a better job of putting ordnance on the bad guys pretty consistently.

The who is important. While the Marines make a fetish out of "every Marine is a rifleman," the Army is pretty good at walking a mile or two in the grunts' boots as well. Those two service are simply gonna do a better job of supporting the ground troops than the Air Force or Navy.

Since the end of the Cold War, the US Air force has been a service looking for a mission. Strategic manned bombers are a dead letter in a big-time war. Even B-2s would have a short, exciting life. ICBMs still have a place as do ABMs and air defense. Space operations are a logical extension of the Air Force. Gaining air superiority has to be the main thrust of the Air Force.

Maybe the best course of action is to split the CAS mission off from the air force and let them concentrate on the crucial air/space superiority mission. At this point even the B-52 is a form of CAS aircraft. They can only be used in secure airspace as smart bomb dispensers. army cres could fly B-52 near the FEBA, orbit around and wait for the ground-pounders to light up a target, then drop a JDAM or two.

The air interdiction role (bombing targets fifteen miles of so back from the FEBA) might be discussed some more.

 

Mostly becaus a freighter was the only thing that cannon could reliably hit.