Should the A10 Thunderbolt II be an Army / Marine asset due to the Air Force's plans to drop the platform in 2015?

SSG John Bacon — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:32:57 -0400

<p>As Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced last week, the Air Force plans to retire its A-10 Thunderbolt fleet, a plane built for close air support and long and widely appreciated by ground troops. But the Air Force considers the plane, dubbed the “Warthog,” as a single-mission aircraft at a time when it needs weapons able to conduct multiple missions.</p><p>Air Force leaders have said retiring the A-10 “achieves large savings while preserving multi-role [aircraft].” Of course, the Air Force tried this last year, and was promptly denied by Congress who included legislation in last year’s budget ordering the service not to spend a dollar toward retiring the fleet.</p>

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2014 6:43 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 06:43:47 -0400

I'd love to see it back in Army control but that will never happen.  The problem is that the Air Force considers it a single-mission aircraft.  That's like labelling a rifle as a "deer rifle" or "assault rifle" or "moose rifle".  It can be used for whatever the pilots are able to do with it.  Plus, if you eliminate something, then something else has to take it's place.  Are they going to use F-22s or F-35s or whatever to do the CAS mission?  I'm thinking that the maintenance costs are cheaper for the A-10s if they get shot up on a CAS mission, but I could be wrong.

Response by SSgt Gregory Guina made Apr 28 at 2014 6:30 PM

SSgt Gregory Guina — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:30:11 -0400

I know for a fact that there are marine A-10 pilots. I would love to see the marine Corps keep this platform and fly it as it is an amazing CAS aircraft. One of the benefits of the A10 is that it can fly at low speeds. Additinally that gun is just an amazing piece of machinery and needs to be in the air supporting the ground pounders.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Apr 28 at 2014 6:35 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:35:13 -0400

Interesting Proposition. Great Idea for a Feasability Study.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Apr 28 at 2014 7:25 PM

SGT James Elphick — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:25:07 -0400

I think the answer should be obvious, someone needs to continue to fly the A-10. The Air Force is considering the F-35 as one of the replacements because it is "multi-role". However the F-35 has a significantly shorter loiter time than the A-10, has degraded performance at the slow speeds necessary for CAS roles, and carries about 10% of the ammo for it's gun that the A-10 does. Should the A-10 go out of service, in my opinion the slack is going to have to be picked up by attack helicopters because most of the planes in the USAF inventory simply can't do the job.

Response by SPC Christopher Morehouse made Apr 28 at 2014 10:16 PM

SPC Christopher Morehouse — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 22:16:47 -0400

Absolutely. There is nothing wrong with that air frame. It has lots of life left in it, and plenty of opportunities to keep it current in the near and distant future. The A-10 could conceivable have just as long and successful service life as the B-52 has had.

The Airframe is solid. The engines have already gone through numerous upgrades (there civilian counterparts anyway, and working for the company that makes them I can tell you all those upgrades could be drop ins to the current air frame), and the weapons package it brings to the battlefield is not something that can be easily replaced.

The A-10 is not stealth. It is not "networkcentric" and it is not a techno fad 'insert buzzz word'. What it is, is a solid, survivable airframe that can carry a whole heck of a lot of ordnance and put it right where it needs to be. It should have gone to the Army and the Marines a long time ago.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Apr 29 at 2014 10:20 AM

MSG Wade Huffman — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:20:50 -0400

Saw this and had to share it here!!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2014 10:41 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:41:33 -0400

I say screw it, if the Air Force doesnt appreciate it, and the Army is getting rid of Kiowas, lets just replace one for the other, lol.

Seriously though, I understand what the Air Force is trying to do, and yes it does make sense to have aircraft that can handle multiple missions instead of an airframe that is only used for one type. That being said, this airframe has proved itself time and time again whether it was its ability to put massive amounts of steel on target, or take a licking and keep on ticking. The phasing out of this airframe is a sad testament to the power of pencil pushers over those of us on the ground.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2014 11:07 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:07:34 -0400

The Wart Hog saved my life in Afghanistan. I heard we sold some to the Canadians.

Response by SFC Stephen Carden made Apr 29 at 2014 12:45 PM

SFC Stephen Carden — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:45:21 -0400

This is yet another example of congressional/senior military staff ridiculousness. "Let's get rid of a proven battlefield asset because we think our fast movers can fly slow enough to handle the mission of the 'Hog." There was a rumor going around when I was a young Soldier during the Gulf War that the USAF had decided to let the Army take the A-10 program over, but reconsidered after the A-10 was the rock star of the war. I wish it had been true because that is one aircraft that is a real benefit to ground troops. In the end, despite all of the Joint Operations rhetoric, the USAF is going to do what is best for the USAF. Since only a very small percentage of USAF Airmen are ground-pounders (CCTs, PJs, combat weathermen, etc.)the A-10 is not all that important to them. Fighter jets are sexier, bombers drop more ordnance, cargo planes haul the lickies and chewies, and space operations are the future (according to the Star Trek movies). If one of the roles of the USAF is to support the Army or the Marines on the ground, then I say the responsible thing to do is to make the USAF keep the Warthog. You know, we have had problems with the Army Air Corps ever since they went off on their own back in '47! Does anybody else think "combat weathermen" sounds silly?

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2014 12:52 PM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:52:33 -0400

I see a movie in the making. Some of you may be aware that the Australian MoD's offering jobs to former US servicemen. So I'm thinking a rogue wing of A-10 drivers led by an unhinged COL along with a zany KC crew should steal their birds and fly them off to down under where they'd get commissions in exchange for handing over the planes to the RAAF. Then, as we've fought alongside the Aussies more so than either the Brits or the Canucks, they can provide the Army and USMC with proper CAS. Think Cannonball Run meets Dr. Strangelove meets Firefox.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Apr 29 at 2014 3:15 PM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:15:27 -0400

IMHO, HELL YES....this weapon delivery system is by far one of the best platforms to be utilized in the CAS role and would give the Army and Marine Corps an added punch to their overall arsenals.

Response by PO2 Rocky Kleeger made Apr 29 at 2014 8:16 PM

PO2 Rocky Kleeger — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:16:51 -0400

No. Air Force jets are not made to land on carriers

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Apr 29 at 2014 8:45 PM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:45:19 -0400

Heck yea give it to the Corps. And as robust as the frame is it can be modified for carrier landings

Response by CW4 Michael Fowler made Apr 29 at 2014 10:36 PM

CW4 Michael Fowler — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 22:36:28 -0400

You damn right the Army should take it!! It's a flying tank for goodness sake. There was a female Air Force Pilot that flew her A10 back to base during Desert Shield/Storm with half the vertical fin shot off and holes all over the aircraft. That was proof enough for me that this aircraft is BADASS!!!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2014 1:32 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 01 May 2014 13:32:55 -0400

Let the Army take them and you'll see my Warrant Packet for A-10 Pilot hit the post office in about 24 hours.

Also, the sound of their engines is probably the most motivating thing I've ever heard in my life, though they remind me of home due to their large numbers at Davis Monthan AFB.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made May 2 at 2014 11:45 AM

MAJ Jim Woods — Fri, 02 May 2014 11:45:42 -0400

In VN we had A1E's for AF CAS. After VN we went without AF CAS for almost 10 years. When the A-10 came along, it quickly became the Infantryman's best friend. We got 3 to play with at Ft. Lewis in 81'. There is no past or current fast mover that can come close to the accurate and effectiveness of the A1E and the A-10. We could never safely call in a fast mover closer than 500 meters because we just weren't real sure where the ordnance was going to go (not the fault of the Pilots).

The Army and Marine Corps should fight hard for control of this wonderful aircraft. That being said, I'm not sure, given the current culture of the WH and Joint Chiefs, that will happen. And for those of you who are the Sensitive Police, I am not disparaging the WH or Joint Chiefs. Just being realistic about the culture that has been created.

Response by Sgt Dennis Ford Jr. made May 2 at 2014 12:00 PM

Sgt Dennis Ford Jr. — Fri, 02 May 2014 12:00:26 -0400

The Marines are 1st to move in anyways, so why not Pick-up the Aircraft and use them for that purpose themselves. Who else feels the same way?

Response by Capt Tom Wilson made May 4 at 2014 8:18 PM

Capt Tom Wilson — Sun, 04 May 2014 20:18:50 -0400

The reason the A-10 exists is to provide Close Air Support for the ground soldier. If the Air Force doesn't include this incredible aircraft in their budget, the Marines or Army should fly it. If you ask any ground soldier what their favorite AF aircraft is, I'd be surprised if the answer wasn't the Hog. We need to do everything we can to protect the ground forces and keeping the A-10 flying does just that.

Response by SSG John Bacon made May 7 at 2014 8:47 AM

SSG John Bacon — Wed, 07 May 2014 08:47:11 -0400

I have put up a Petition on Whitehouse.gov see it here https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/transfer-control-10-thunderbolt-ii-usaf-after-2015-army-or-marines/S1qf1cbn

Response by SSG John Bacon made May 7 at 2014 8:49 AM

SSG John Bacon — Wed, 07 May 2014 08:49:04 -0400

I have put up a petition on Whitehouse.gov you can see it here https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/transfer-control-10-thunderbolt-ii-usaf-after-2015-army-or-marines/S1qf1cbn

Response by SSG Jeffrey Spencer made Jun 7 at 2014 9:44 PM

SSG Jeffrey Spencer — Sat, 07 Jun 2014 21:44:53 -0400

If they can fly the U-2 and B-52 for as long as they have because of it's record, the A-10 should have another 30 years of life.

Response by SSG John Bacon made Sep 2 at 2014 6:45 PM

SSG John Bacon — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 18:45:21 -0400

http://www.funker530.com/a-10-warthogs-life-extended-until-2028/

Guess Someone Listened!!

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2014 6:59 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 18:59:42 -0400

SSG John Bacon.

What a deal . . . sustaining the entire fleet of Warthog A-10 Thunderbolts . . . for another decade and a half through 2028 . . . is said here to cost us less than one third of the cost of one of those New USAF $85MM F-35 JSF Currently NickNameless Flying Thingys . . .

What other flying machine has a rotary cannon that dwarfs the size of a Volkswagon . . . and fires rounds bigger than a bottle of beer . . . at even half the Warthog rate of fire ???

Bring on your ISIS, Al Queda, Boco Haram . . . but maybe not your Vladimir Putin . . . we've got a cheap reliable answer to your cheap unreliable pickup trucks . . .

Warmest Regards, Sandy

o http://www.funker530.com/a-10-warthogs-life-extended-until-2028/

Response by SP5 Tom Carlson made Sep 4 at 2014 11:25 AM

SP5 Tom Carlson — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 11:25:44 -0400

YES

Response by SSgt Tim Ricci made Sep 16 at 2014 4:13 PM

SSgt Tim Ricci — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:13:47 -0400

I wonder how many maintenance Manhours are for every Flight Hour!! I think the AV-8 is like 8 to 1

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 12:59 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:59:13 -0400

This is cutback talk part II. I remember in the 90's the Air Force had explored getting rid of it. They were going to replace it with a Viper that was going to have a center-line gun pod. They were going to dub it the F/A-16. After initial proof concept tests it did not prove to be very feasible. The idea scraped.

The Army explored the possibility of buying the airframes from the AF, but it did not appear to be cost effective to buy a 20 year old weapon system at the time. Once they factored in the logistics, and training for both air crews and MX support it was not considered a value added. Now that it is a 35 year old weapon system in a sequestered environment I doubt this will happen.

Its not that the AF wants to get rid of them, its that they would rather have a shiny new toy or more accurately 1763 planes called the F-35 instead.

Response by CW4 Thomas Shefflette made Sep 17 at 2014 12:33 PM

CW4 Thomas Shefflette — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:33:29 -0400

Let's get back to the question and off the politics. In 1990 the Air Force wanted to dump the A-10 and was weeks away from signing the aircraft over to the Army, then Saddam and the Iraqi Army invaded Kuwait. During the Gulf War, the Air Force found the A-10 was the best built ground attack aircraft ever built. It is time for the A-10 to be transferred to the Army instead of placed in mothballs at Davis-Monthan AFB to root in the desert. The A-10 carries more firepower, better range and longer loiter time than any helicopter made. It is the perfect aircraft to support ground troops anywhere in the world and is self deployable. Bring the total ground support role back where it belongs and away from the Air Force..... Although the Air Force needs to remember where it came from..... The Army Air Corps.

Response by COL Randall C. made Sep 17 at 2014 6:19 PM

COL Randall C. — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 18:19:26 -0400

The Air Force was going to get rid of the A-10s back in 1990. Congress told the Air Force to transfer the A-10s over to the Army in 1991 and then Desert Storm broke out. As we know, the A-10s were the darling of the war (>95% operational rate, most sorties/day flown, etc).

Strangely, the Air Force abandoned the replacement of the A-10 after the war. Go figure. :)

Response by A1C Robert Pomfret made Sep 24 at 2014 1:14 PM

A1C Robert Pomfret — Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:14:15 -0400

Absolutely and unequivocally, this a/c should stay in the arsenal of the American military, up till and including when a suitable replacement a/c is designed and built. Is our congress crazy? (rhetorical question). Of course it should stay.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Sep 26 at 2014 12:24 AM

1SG Michael Blount — Fri, 26 Sep 2014 00:24:42 -0400

To guys on the ground, the A-10 is the best thing since sliced bread. My suggestion would be to move the A-10 to the USMC Air Wing, then have USMC and Army conduct one joint exercise after another until perfected.

Response by PO3 Jeffrey Saupp made Apr 14 at 2015 2:50 AM

PO3 Jeffrey Saupp — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 02:50:13 -0400

The US Army is barred by Executive Order and inter-service agreements from operating any armed, fixed-wing aircraft over 5,000lbs.

Look into the;
"Key West Agreement" which led to;
Pace-Finletter MOU 1952 and ultimately to;
Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966

Though it has been argued before, most recently at the close of Desert Storm, the US Marine Corp could lawfully assume the A-10 but only if it was capable of operating from a ship.

Personally, I think this ancient crap between Army & Air Force is hurting our FAC/CAS capabilities, meaning it hurts our ground forces and needs to be squared the f* away!

We KNOW the Air Force has no desire to play in the dirt as evidenced by their response to FAC/CAS complaints from OEF/OIF; Boeing jumped to say they could have OV-10s back in production in 12mos but USAF disregarded them, A-10s could be Blocked up, again USAF turned it down and last but not least, they decided they would buy the foreign made Embraer Super Tucano for FAC/CAS but never really fielded them and they are currently being "given" to the Afghans to create their new "Air Force".

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 3:21 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 03:21:31 -0400

And when we say Air Force we mean people who do not know shit from shinola. Those civilians who use the military as a social experiment and who in the 70s and early 80s, absolutely hated us. (the military). They were/are the best and the brightest and we, but expendable parts. Satellites that replaced ground troops but satellites cannot get the kind of intel that ground troops can. It is a mess and the kind of mess that happens when liberals arrogantly assume they know more about war than people like Norman and other tactical leaders.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2015 9:39 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:39:40 -0400

Something to consider, though, is that the original air frame design is over 40 years old. It's been around for that long because it is rather good at what it does, regardless of how you parse it. I think the problem boils down to two things:

1) The Generals in the Air Force want something new and shiny, not something that someday soon /might/ start showing its age, and
2) The proposed replacements aren't actually replacements.

Honestly, I think that we're going to continue to see this 'jack-of-all-trades' mentality until we find ourselves facing a foe that can punch at our level - that is to say, face a foe that reminds us why we have specialty platforms in the first place. You wouldn't train a single soldier, sailor, marine, or airman to fill all the MOS/AFSCs, would you? Then why would you expect it of your weapon systems?

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 1 at 2015 12:40 AM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:40:40 -0400

HELL YES! 'Nuff Said.

Response by Sgt Tommy Johnson made Jun 5 at 2015 3:08 PM

Sgt Tommy Johnson — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 15:08:18 -0400

Both the Army and the Marines need the A-10 for close air support.

Response by Sgt Tom Derus made Jun 5 at 2015 6:40 PM

Sgt Tom Derus — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 18:40:22 -0400

Yes, I think they would be a great weapon against ISIS and Taliban
t

Response by TSgt James Carson made Jun 8 at 2015 2:29 PM

TSgt James Carson — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:29:48 -0400

The A-10 Warthog is a proven weapon as the F-35 isn't. It's much cheaper to maintain as well. If the USAF doesn't want the mission, give it to the Marines and the Army, then take that portion of funding away from the USAF.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Dec 19 at 2015 6:38 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 06:38:17 -0500

Well because of the Key West agreement, 1948, it probably will never happen. We were lucky to get armed choppers! I think the agreement is outdated and should be thrown out the door. the Marines prove "in house" air support works great! After all, like others said, it's nothing but a flying tank and should be ours.

Response by LTC Ron Haynes made Dec 22 at 2015 9:06 AM

LTC Ron Haynes — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:06:03 -0500

At what cost to the current force? There will be no more money that comes with the A-10 IF they were transferred to the Army or USMC. I'll bet to run one A-10 costs as much as running 4-6 M-1s...

Response by SFC Randall Anderson made Dec 22 at 2015 4:27 PM

SFC Randall Anderson — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:27:33 -0500

Yes most definitely!

Response by Capt Joseph Olson made Apr 7 at 2016 9:44 PM

Capt Joseph Olson — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 21:44:25 -0400

Of course they should go to the Army but that would violate the 1948 Key West Agreement under which the Army can only have "fixed wing" cargo planes. And it would deprive the USAF of a mission (that they hate) and the money that comes with it (that they love). So the AF Brass all stand at attention and "claim" that the F-35 can do the mission. But only if: (1) the F-35 ever goes into full production and , more importantly, (2) air commanders are actually willing to risk a limited number of hugely expensive airframes attacking low value assets like tanks, trucks, bunkers, all the while flying low and slow, fully exposed to cheap ground fire weapons. I will bet $100 that #2 insures the Army will always have a need for larger, better armed "combat" helicopters.

Response by HN Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 16 at 2017 9:57 AM

HN Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Jul 2017 09:57:32 -0400

Here's the way I see it. Not to put the Army on blast, but these should go to both the Marines and Navy. The Marines are a no brainier. I say the Navy because as we've seen over the last 20 years, terrorists like to use small water craft to harass and damage our warships. A10's have proven they can take out dozens of these watercraft in a single run and with the Republican Guard using speed boats to swarm our bigger vessels, it would only make sense to modify a squadron to fit aboard our assault carriers for close air protection