Should the A-10 Warthog be flown by Army Pilots since the Air Force does not care for it and Senator McCain sees through the AF b.s.?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 23:33:42 -0500

Senator McCain again grilled the Air Force Chief of Staff on the lack of a good replacement. The plane should be kept in service and flown by Army Aviatiors, Guard and Reserve, who often have commercial jet pilot experience already. The price of the F-35/F-16/F-18 is like comparing the price of a Bentley vs a Dodge Challenger Hellcat that can do the job better for a fraction of the price. Keeping the A-10s will save lives. Keep the extra ones not used in Guam or Diego Garcia ready for use. Put some in England to protect NATO. Hire retired air force A-10 veterans or Air Guard mechanics to fix them. If a 1950s B-52 is being kept until 2040, why not keep a 1970s A-10 around just as long? Makes sense to any Army Soldier or Marine who prefers an armored plane vs an unarmored fast mover that can't see you very well! Senator McCain and Congresswoman McSally should pursue having every single A-10 air frame out of Davis-Montham and be rebuilt to the C-model modern tank killer just like the Army rebuilds their tanks at Anniston Army Depot and makes them M1A2s. I doubt two F-16s today can destroy 32 Iraqi tanks in less than 90 minutes like the two A-10 Alpha models like did in Desert Storm back in 1991. If it works, don't fix it! Air Force, we love you, we just beg you to keep an effective weapon that Army and Marines love! I am an admirer of Air Force as a whole. http://www.stripes.com/news/mccain-lambasts-air-force-chief-of-staff-over-a-10-in-islamic-state-fight-1.397359

McCain lambasts Air Force chief of staff over A-10 in Islamic State fight

Sen. John McCain on Thursday charged the Air Force chief of staff with being dishonest about the critical role of the A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft in the war against Islamic State militants.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2016 11:34 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 23:34:51 -0500

This is a great idea!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 8 at 2016 11:35 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 23:35:02 -0500

It would be awesome to go ahead and assume ownership of that airframe. However, the airforce would kill it and bury it long before they would ever let us have it.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Mar 8 at 2016 11:38 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 23:38:00 -0500

Don't know how Kosher, Cost Benefit Analysis, Whatever but I love the A-10 Warthog. They used to be HQd down the Street at Richards Gebaur. between them and the Chinooks I always saw Military Aircraft over Johnson County, KS. Might as well have been a war zone.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Mar 9 at 2016 12:07 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:07:17 -0500

Unfortunately, too many are going to waste already...

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Mar 9 at 2016 12:26 AM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:26:55 -0500

I have long thought that the close ground support mission should be given to either the Army or the Marines. I don't mean to insult the Air Force but they have long seemed more interested in wasting billions on fancy toys.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2016 12:54 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:54:28 -0500

The issue is a few fold. This idea was floated prior to Desert Storm and the issue was the AF would give up the airframe, but not the pilots. There are no "trainer" (2-seat) versions of the A-10, which makes it a problematic airframe even for the Air Force to train their pilots on. I don't know where you justify your statement that many Guard/Reserve Aviators have mulit-engine jet experience, I can think of none of the top of my head that I've ever ran into, and even if I had, the only multi-engine jet pilots who "count" (official military rating) are the VERY small amount we have in OSAA with the UC-35/37 detachments (45 jets TOTAL).

I'm not saying that it couldn't be done (after some amending of federal laws which prohibit the Army from operating combat fixed wing aircraft), but when you account for the training costs and time to train pilots and maintainers, combine that with assimilating the supply chains, finding appropriate locations for basing, and then also determine how/where to doctrinally assimilate the weapon system into the order of battle... Chances are the airframes would all be well past their recommended retirement dates (as most of them already are). As an aviation maintenance officer, the Air Force's argument for retiring the airframe makes sense to me. It's the same problem the Army faced with the KW, older airframes are simply not cost effective to maintain when compared to newer airframes. In a budget constrained environment, the AF is making the fiscally sound decision regardless of Senator McCain's opinion on the matter.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2016 12:58 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:58:36 -0500

Here's the big problem that the Army would face: sustainability. As great as these are for CAS, they're old jets. The older the jet, the more hours flown, means the more the work in maintenance and cost in parts to keep them in the air. Granted while the Army has a large budget, what current programs, personnel, and commands that would need to be cut to take these on? What other ratings and training would Army pilots require IOT fly these? There is no simple answer to this question. Any USAF A-10 maintainers/MOs around that can help put this in perspective?

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Mar 9 at 2016 6:08 AM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 06:08:54 -0500

The concept makes sense, but the AF would never go for it for political reasons. Back during the early years of Viet Nam, the Army was arming its fixed wing aircraft. The AF had a heart attack and got congress to pass a law that the Army wasn't "allowed" to have armed fixed wing aircraft. The AF was concerned that money for airframes would go to the Army instead of them.

To me, it only makes sense to give the CAS mission to the Army. It seems to be working well for the Marines. But I doubt it will ever happen.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Mar 9 at 2016 7:49 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:49:01 -0500

I'm sure there are many Army aviators capable of flying the A-10. It's just not the issue DoD and Congress face. DoD faces a resource shortfall...both funds and manpower. The AF has insufficient maintenance personnel for both the aging (and ever-increasing maintenance) A-10 and the F-35. I am no zealot for the F-35, as I have made arguments on this forum that no fast mover can be as effective at CAS as the slow, low, long-loiter, and deep magazine A-10. However, the DoD budget is fixed, so whether the AF or Army sustains the A-10, there has to be a cut somewhere. Then the discussion moves to "what kind of war should we be preparing for?"

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Mar 9 at 2016 8:42 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 08:42:49 -0500

First, Congress would have to change the law that says how many and what type of fixed wing aircraft the Army can have.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 9 at 2016 8:57 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 08:57:52 -0500

We can't do it all. We especially can't do it all as our resources are trimmed due to congressional mandate.

The "idea" behind the F35 is good. The "bird" itself has issues. The USAF (and USMC/USN) is attempting to create a new philosophy when it comes to PILOTS. That doesn't work if we have platforms that are too diverse. The goal is to be able to grab any pilot and shove him in any bird (from a fighter/attack/cas perspective).

I LOVE the A10. Love it. But something has to get cut. The USAF chose the A10. We can't just shift the platform over to the Army. It won't work. Not how we're currently structured. It's not "logistically" feasible, even if it does appear to be the common sense solution.

Yes, I get the cost & benefit arguments, and I agree with them. I also get the philosophy arguments (from big AF) and agree with them. No one is going to be happy with the solution.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2016 9:33 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 09:33:40 -0500

Open up the option for Army Warrant Officer pilots to fly them and I'm sure you will have a huge line of Warrant Officers willing and able to take the reigns. There are already some Warrant Officers flying smaller fixed wing aircraft so it's not out of the question.

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Mar 9 at 2016 9:46 AM

SGT Dave Tracy — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 09:46:18 -0500

A10, a Grunt's best friend (next to his weapon, Woobie, Beanie, and the dude next to him). Put it in the hands of the Army if it just isn't flashy enough for the Chair...Ahem, sorry, Air Force--don't get mad, just having some fun. ;-)

Seriously though, while I know that age and maintenance/cost are issues for such a machine, I think its value--the plane's superiority in close air support--would offset such downsides for the Army. If they gave it to the Guard or Reserve, instead of or in addition to, the Regular Army, for a chance to fly it, I'd re-up and go Warrant or Commissioned Officer (doubt I could get an age waiver, but I would try for a shot at that beast!).

I do feel that that option should be given some serious consideration.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2016 11:04 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 11:04:02 -0500

look at that bad mamma jamma up there! While I visited Osan in Korea, a friend of mine said you wanna see a bad mo fo in action? Well it was a sunday and we were bored, he took me to some of his friends who were doing live fire drills in those, and My Lord I was floored. Those are death from above right there boy, the only other plane I love more is the blackbird and that's at the smithsonian.

Response by MSgt Darren VanDerwilt made Mar 9 at 2016 11:52 AM

MSgt Darren VanDerwilt — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 11:52:28 -0500

I bet the Marine Corps would like to have it also. However, I believe the A-10 should stay in Air Force inventory. The disconnect starts with the Faster, Higher, Further, Sleek and Sexy, newer is always nicer, gene that's inherent with all of us. Air Force leadership can't help it, they never really liked the A-10 because it's not a chick magnet. They fail to grasp the trend though. 4th generation asymmetric contingencies are the order of the day. That high tech, sleek, (and supposedly stealthy, the new buzz word.) F-(Jack of all Trades, Master of None) 35 will likely only punch useless holes in the sky, unable to get into the weeds where the action is. So far, as experience has shown, a small team of snake eaters with an attachment of Air Force Combat Controllers, supported by AC-130 Spectre gunships and A-10 Thunderbolt II's, can wreck havoc in counter insurgency, 4th generation warfare. The type of fighting we'll likely be involved in for the foreseeable future.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2016 12:05 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 12:05:05 -0500

No, but the plane should not be left to die off. They should be upgrades and overhauled. Hell, the AF made numerous upgrades and changes to the C-130 and still uses that flying sh!tcan today.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Mar 9 at 2016 12:06 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 12:06:55 -0500

Keep it in the air until a superior replacement is designed, fully tested and proven operational. Again, the MIC wins.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Mar 9 at 2016 1:11 PM

SFC Marcus Belt — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 13:11:06 -0500

Credit where credit is due: A-10 pilots "get it". It's "Big Air Force" that's got the problem.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Mar 9 at 2016 1:16 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 13:16:30 -0500

Yes to support our ground troops and piss off the AF for failing a process to provide the best air cover to the troops.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Mar 9 at 2016 1:49 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 13:49:44 -0500

The A-10 is close air support that is heavily used to support Special Operations teams and should remain in use and housed as close by the service that it supports.

Response by SSgt Donnavon Smith made Mar 9 at 2016 4:23 PM

SSgt Donnavon Smith — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 16:23:19 -0500

Air Force is run by FIGHTER pilots and has a general distain for the CAS role. Always has.

Response by SPC James Dollins made Mar 9 at 2016 5:10 PM

SPC James Dollins — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 17:10:27 -0500

The AF NEEDS TO KEEP IT!! It's been theirs, they need to keep it. The A-10 is an AMAZING aircraft! Why don't they just upgrade it, like they do w/ other programs? I know it's expensive, but so is upgrading all of the other airframes. What's the difference?

Response by MSgt John Taylor made Mar 9 at 2016 10:49 PM

MSgt John Taylor — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 22:49:38 -0500

To all the Marines and Soldiers; the plane was replaced years ago when they produced the smart weapons that we have today. The plane is still capable in a low threat environment, but so is the F4U Corsair. The AF's contention is that there's not enough money to go around and prepare for the future war. The infantry isn't tasked by the Nat'l Command Authority to win air superiority in a future large scale conflict with a capable enemy Air Force, but the service that has to foot the bill for the A-10 is.

If you give the plane to the Army, then take away their tanks and attack helicopters. The A-10, according to the infantry, makes the enemy tank obsolete and can do the same mission as the Apache. Therefore, they don't need tanks and Apaches. Without tanks and attack helo's, there should be enough money for the Air Force to keep the A-10

As for the Marines, they provide they're own close air support. I forgot, how many A-10's did they build and buy to support their infantry? In a service where every marine is a rifleman, they bought the F-18 because it gives you more options that the single role A-10

Response by SGT Richard H. made Mar 11 at 2016 10:40 AM

SGT Richard H. — Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:40:21 -0500

I didn't vote, because I'm thinking more along the lines of a third option: There's a lot of talk about rebuilding, maintaining, the cost of maintaining, updating wear and tear, airframe stress, etc. I wonder if we aren't looking at this the wrong way. New A-10s cost around $18 million. What if the design were updated a little with modern engines, electronics, etc and new A10s were built on the same basic design? Even if it costs 30% more than the original cost to do that with upgrades, etc. we could still buy four A-10s for the cost of one F35...and the existing ones are there with trained and experienced pilots and functional as they conduct a phased replacement.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2016 12:14 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:14:33 -0500

If the Army could figure out the budget and structure to incorporate the A-10 I would be all for it!! It's an awesome aircraft. I only see one huge issue with this...I would probably want to trade in me being a AH-64 pilot to be an A-10 pilot haha

Response by MSgt Wayne Morris made Mar 12 at 2016 8:13 AM

MSgt Wayne Morris — Sat, 12 Mar 2016 08:13:27 -0500

The AF is struggling to maintain the current aircraft they have now with budget and personnel cuts. The A-10 has no mission and somehow I don't see the Army needing to kill off waves of tanks poring thru the Fulda Gap anytime soon and if so, there is the F-15 Strike Eagle. I too love the A10 but like the F4 Phantom its time has come.

Response by SFC William Farrell made Mar 12 at 2016 11:25 PM

SFC William Farrell — Sat, 12 Mar 2016 23:25:41 -0500

Thats a mean machine LTC Private RallyPoint Member. I wold have loved to have seen it work out!

Response by SPC James Anderson made Mar 13 at 2016 6:35 PM

SPC James Anderson — Sun, 13 Mar 2016 18:35:14 -0400

A-10 is not an old bird. It actually flew after the f-15 and only 2 years before the F-16. Its costs to maintain are a fraction of the cost of these fighters but the Air Force is in love with expensive fast toys. Air Defense and strategic roles should remain with the Air force. The muddy day to day CAS needs should be regulated to the Army. Give the plane to the Army and let them properly handle it.

Response by PVT Raymond Lopez made Mar 16 at 2016 4:56 PM

PVT Raymond Lopez — Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:56:56 -0400

18 and 19 year Warrant Officers can handle the job! It just when one of the says "Watch this shit!" that you have to worry. Just tell them not fly under bridges!!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2016 5:50 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:50:52 -0400

I thought by law the USAF has the mission. Fly the Warthog until you come up with anything better. Multi-role aircraft that can't do anything well should be restricted. Promote CAS and SO pilots.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jan 21 at 2018 8:37 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Sun, 21 Jan 2018 20:37:58 -0500

I said no, not because I agree, but because it is the law, as the Key West Accord does not allow the army to have attack fixed wing aircraft.

Response by Gary Henson made Mar 12 at 2018 10:03 PM

Gary Henson — Mon, 12 Mar 2018 22:03:59 -0400

Give it to the Army!

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2018 11:46 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Mar 2018 23:46:25 -0400

It doesn’t matter, Air Force has shot down many attempts by the Army to fly fixed wing aircraft for close air support. They are not going to give up the fight on that any time soon.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Mar 13 at 2018 7:38 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 07:38:30 -0400

Don't see why not.

Response by CPT Lawrence Cable made Mar 13 at 2018 8:30 AM

CPT Lawrence Cable — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:30:19 -0400

With the present set of missions that we do, wouldn't it be more cost effective to use the air frame we are buying for the Afghan's the Super Tucano? Am I mistaken that since Desert Storm most CAS missions have been in a non air threat environment against non armored targets? So my question is there a cheaper alternative that is still effective?

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Mar 13 at 2018 11:04 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:04:46 -0400

The problem has always been since they moved into their own branch (USAAC- USAF)-they feel that if you are not flying fighters you are sub human. Fighters look down on bombers, and both look down on "trash haulers" . They do not like nor care for CAS, cause it isn't glamorous enough. Which is why if you are a grunt, AC-130, A-10 or USMC aviation or the only SURE things to count on. USAF and USN fighter in ground support is almost as dangerous to the grunt on the ground as the enemy trying to kill you.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Mar 14 at 2018 11:34 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 23:34:02 -0400

That was floated out there right before ODS. As soon as the Army expresses interest, the Air Force seems to hang on to it tighter.