Should the Air Force keep the A10?

Lt Col Skip Fleshman — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:09:32 -0500

A nice review from wired magazine.

http://www.wired.com/2014/12/a10-warthog-isis/?mbid=social_twitter

Source: Wired Magazine

For more than 30 years, the A-10 Thunderbolt II—better known as the Warthog because it’s so ugly—has performed a crucial role: attacking hostile targets that threaten troops on the ground, a task called close air support. The plane, designed for the Cold War, is old. It’s slow. And it’s about as sophisticated as a hammer. But it is heavily armored and wickedly armed, making it a ruthlessly effective weapon. And that is why, despite ongoing efforts by Defense Department brass to kill it, the Warthog is headed back into battle to help in the fight against ISIS.

An undisclosed number of Warthogs, part of the “Blacksnakes” 163rd Expeditionary Fighter Squadron based at Fort Wayne, Indiana, have been deployed to Middle Eastern airbases to provide air cover to troops fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

That makes the A-10 something of a zombie—it refuses to die. The Air Force wants to scuttle the 238 A-10s still in service, a move that would save $3.7 billion over five years—and make way for more sophisticated planes like the new F-35 Lightning II. But given the crucial role it plays providing close air support, something particularly helpful against enemies in a place like Iraq, the A-10 has many staunch defenders, including Senator John McCain.

Close air support is a vital job that, when properly executed, can mean the difference between life and death for soldiers. It’s highly dangerous, because it requires flying at altitudes low enough to discern friend from foe, leaving the plane particularly vulnerable to ground-based anti-aircraft fire. The A-10, little more than a flying tank, is perfectly suited to the task and beloved by pilots and troops alike.

“It’s a game-changer,” Gen. John F. Campbell, the Army’s vice chief of staff, told The Washington Post earlier this year. “It’s ugly. It’s loud, but when it comes in and you hear that pffffff [of the cannon], it just makes a difference.” Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called it “the ugliest, most beautiful aircraft on the planet.”

What makes the plane’s continued relevance so impressive is the fact it was designed more than 40 years ago, and a new one hasn’t been built since 1984.

The Fairchild Republic A-10 was developed in the 1960s and 1970s, even as American helicopters were being shot down in Vietnam with frightening regularity. It was the first airplane designed specifically for close air support, with the goal of defending soldiers against artillery, tanks and other weapons.

It was basically designed to “take apart a Soviet tank,” says Jeffery S. Underwood, a historian at the United States Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. To that end, the A-10 typically is equipped with the AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missile and is capable of carrying many other armaments, including AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles.

But its primary weapon is a seven-barrel GAU-8 Avenger Gatling cannon. It measures 9 feet long and fires 30mm armor-piercing shells which are held in a drum not quite six feet in diameter. It can spit them out at a rate of 3,900 rounds per minute, and accounts for some 16 percent of the plane’s unladen weight. The gun is so large and so integral to the A-10, that the airplane is effectively built around it. In fact, when the gun is removed for maintenance, the tail of the plane must be supported to keep it from falling over.

But all that firepower is useless if the plane can be easily shot down. “Close air support means you’re close to people,” says Underwood. That means you’re flying low, too — often just a few hundred feet up. Easy prey for anyone with bad intentions. The cockpit sits in what amounts to a 1,200-pound titanium tub, specifically designed to withstand fire from 23mm anti-aircraft shells at close range. The A-10 can take a ton of abuse, and continue flying if it’s lost an engine, a tail or even half of a wing.

The engines are quickly and easily replaced, most repairs can be made in the field, and many parts are interchangeable from the left side of the plane to the right. It can even take off from rough, unpaved runways. Although it typically flies at about 300 knots (350 mph), its large wing area, high wing aspect ratio and huge ailerons—almost 50 percent of the wingspan—make it highly maneuverable.

That durability and flexibility makes the plane, which was first flown in 1972 and deployed in late 1976, a pilot favorite. It proved its mettle during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when it was largely responsible for neutralizing much of Iraq’s artillery, tanks and missile defenses. And its exploits are damn near legendary.

In one famous A-10 incident, Air Force Capt. Kim Campbell was sent to defend Army troops in the early days of the Iraq War in 2003. After firing on Iraqi Republican Guard troops, Campbell took an epic amount of enemy fire. Both hydraulic systems failed, forcing the pilot to switch to “manual reversion,” a mechanical backup that allows limited flight capability. Campbell kept flying for more than hour, safely returning to Kuwait despite being riddled with hundreds of bullet holes and a massive hole in the right horizontal stabilizer.

You’d think the Air Force would want to keep the A-10 around, and Underwood concedes “it’s a very effective system,” but time is taking its toll.

“It’s getting older and more expensive to maintain, and that’s the problem,” he says.

Pentagon brass, including outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, would like to retire the jet by 2019. But the A-10 has key supporters in Congress, including McCain and New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte (whose husband Joe flew the A-10 in Iraq). They argue there simply isn’t yet an adequate replacement. Not so, say those calling for the A-10’s retirement. The F-35 isn’t quite ready for battle, but they insist planes like the F-16 and the F-15E are up to the task.

That may be, but nothing elicits the same admiration for the Warthog, which is so ugly as to be beautiful, a machine designed to take no end of punishment even as it punishes those stand in its way. “Its ugliness makes it endearing,” Underwood says.

Unless you’re on the receiving end of that 30mm cannon.

America’s Toughest, Ugliest Warplane Is Going Back Into Battle

The A-10 is old, ugly, and effective. So effective that now, it's headed back into battle to help in the fight against ISIS.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 5 at 2014 11:38 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:38:06 -0500

I always thought it was a cool looking bird! I briefed the crews that came in from Sembach.

Response by MSgt Charles Johnson made Dec 5 at 2014 11:49 AM

MSgt Charles Johnson — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:49:31 -0500

This is the age old "engineer", "developer", "procurement", "manufacturer", battle that goes on in Washington. The USAF wants a new airframe. They hate spending money on old stuff. If they have their way, they will dump the A10 turn it into more standing statues on bases and then in 5 years say; "Oh hell! We sure could use that A10 if it was around, so guess we will just have to make some new airframe to take its place!" EVERYONE knows this AC is the best deployed airframe for Close Air Support in the history of warfare. I remember when they first came out and at Nellis they developed a instant reputation at Red Flag for their combat effectiveness and reliability. Then war proved their reputations were vastly underrated. As a SERE Instructor at Red and Green Flag, we watched daily as the A10 made mincemeat of the targets, sucked down geese in both engines and flew home. I've seen canopy's shattered, engines torn to shreds, huge holes in the airframe and nothing keeps that aircraft from bringing its pilot home safe. But, the bottom line is when the cost exceeds the effectiveness, they will dump it. However, there is no aircraft in the inventory, including those in development which is a dimple on the tail of the CAS A10. When I was in the Army, and we needed that CAS, I wish back in 68-70 in SEA we had the A10 there. Ask any infantry (Army or Marines) if they want the A10 and the universal answer is affirmative. Ask if they believe the F Series anything can take its place and the universal answer is a cuss word.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 5 at 2014 12:11 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 12:11:02 -0500

And closely related question: Should Congress let the services actually run their own budgets, including Base Re-Alignment and Closures? That's the only reason the AF wants to mothball the A10.

Response by SGT Patrick Abrams made Dec 5 at 2014 12:17 PM

SGT Patrick Abrams — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 12:17:10 -0500

The a 10 is the best close air ground support from a fixed wing aircraft for our time. I'm an all time fan of the p51 and I would say that the a10 is the p51 of our time. As far as ground support goes.

Response by Lt Col Jp R. made Dec 5 at 2014 12:55 PM

Lt Col Jp R. — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 12:55:45 -0500

Ask a JTAC, SOF or Grunt what they want on station when the sh$t hits the fan... the mighty HOG. The GUN is the A-10, and everyone on the ground knows what the Hog brings to the fight. The upgraded versions do the job even better with precision capability, payload, loiter time, sensors... it does require a "permissive environment" to operate. We need to embrace that all situations are not the same, Afghanistan and Iraq are very different than Ukraine would be for instance, A-10, F-16, F-15E, F-18 are pretty useless in Ukraine if the Russians wanted to deny airspace. F-35 has its place there, at what capacity is TBD as the platform matures.

Bottom line, the A-10 has its place in the mix. Should be kept and upgraded until a suitable replacement is required. The F-35 isn't going to "replace" the A-10 in capability, cost to operate, etc.

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Dec 5 at 2014 1:57 PM

1LT Nick Kidwell — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:57:55 -0500

I say we scrap the idea of a high-tech video-game plane and keep the A10. Getting too old to maintain? Build NEW ones to the same specs.

If it's not broken, don't fix it.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Dec 5 at 2014 2:01 PM

MSG Wade Huffman — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:01:29 -0500

More discussion on the A-10 in this thread....

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/should-the-a10-thunderbolt-ii-be-an-army-marine-asset-due-to-the-air-force-s-plans-to-drop-the-platform-in-2015

Should the A10 Thunderbolt II be an Army / Marine asset due to the Air Force's plans to drop the...

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.Air Force leaders have said retiring the A-10 “achieves large savings while preserving...

Response by PO2 Jonathan Scharff made Dec 5 at 2014 3:28 PM

PO2 Jonathan Scharff — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 15:28:03 -0500

First, if we asked the solder, marine or airman on the ground who is under fire which platform best provides them with close air support while providing a sound of terror in the minds of the enemy what would they choose? When are we really going to stop playing politics and give the boots on the ground what they need? Case closed.

Second, I have never been in that position and I pray for our protectors every day who are there fighting for us. My son is SM and as a loving father if you ask me what plane I want supporting him if he were to be in that role I will say bring on the A-10!

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Dec 5 at 2014 8:31 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:31:16 -0500

I challenge anyone to find a ground pounder who thinks this airframe should be retired.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 5 at 2014 9:49 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 21:49:04 -0500

As a Soldier, I should prefer the Apache, but I LOVE this aircraft. An Aircraft built around a gun...what could be better? This is the modern(-ish) A-4, an aircraft that won't stop no matter how many times it is hit.

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Dec 5 at 2014 10:00 PM

SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 22:00:09 -0500

Lt Col Skip Fleshman Absolutely keep her. The is the greatest CAS air frame of the 20th and probably 21st Century. It has served valiantly with dedication which is second to none. If memory serves this is the second time they have made a move to deactivate or retire the A 10. The first time was between the Gulf War and Operation Enduring Freedom/Iraqi Freedom/Afghanistan war/Operation New Dawn. When they realized and recognized just how valuable an asset this aircraft is, she was reinstated and then some.

Hopefully someone knows this history better than I and will chime in.

Response by SPC Daniel Edwards made Dec 5 at 2014 11:22 PM

SPC Daniel Edwards — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 23:22:30 -0500

I have always loved this machine. I always tell my wife that if I was given the option to join the Air Force, they would have to promise to make me a Warthog pilot. If they want to replace it, then they should replace it with something that is as equally good and won't make the service members miss it on the battlefield.

Response by SrA Andrea West made Dec 6 at 2014 2:27 AM

SrA Andrea West — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 02:27:28 -0500

From what little I know of the subject, the A-10 is extremely popular with certain Army units (and, possibly, Marine units) in the thick of the fight. That alone makes it worth the time and expense, although the Air Force might want to be developing a good replacement in the meantime. I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject, though.

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Dec 7 at 2014 1:35 AM

1LT William Clardy — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 01:35:43 -0500

No, they shouldn't.

The A-10 fleet should be transferred to Army aviation (as should whatever C-27s haven't been shredded) so that the folks who value them can use them.

I would also suggest looking at the possibilities for revising the avionics to enable remotely piloted missions. Can you imagine the loiter potential of an A-10 RPV?

Response by SPC Darin Taylor made Dec 7 at 2014 11:45 AM

SPC Darin Taylor — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 11:45:02 -0500

When I was stationed at Clark AFB, PI. I had the privilege of seeing the A10 up close. The "Tank Killer" is an awesome part of the Air Force aerial arsenal.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Dec 8 at 2014 12:26 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Mon, 08 Dec 2014 12:26:51 -0500

If the AF doesn't want them they can turn them over to the Army. We love them and will put them to good use.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Mar 25 at 2015 11:54 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:54:33 -0400

Why is it always the Warthog the Air Force wants to kill? It is bad when Chuck Norris feels the need to chime in on it.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/save-the-a-10-thunderbolt/

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 1 at 2015 12:38 AM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:38:10 -0400

Dear God YES! this aircraft does what NO OTHER AIRCRAFT ON THE PLANET EARTH can do. What Moron bean-counter in that 5 sided puzzle palace thought up the bright idea to get rid of it?

Response by TSgt Ronald Iniguez made Nov 10 at 2015 9:34 AM

TSgt Ronald Iniguez — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:34:04 -0500

Keep it in the inventory!! It's old, but sometimes the older platforms are the best airframes for the job.
I was a C-130 Loadmaster and I loved seeing the A-10's flying off my wing!

Response by TSgt Daniel Wareham made Apr 5 at 2016 9:10 AM

TSgt Daniel Wareham — Tue, 05 Apr 2016 09:10:19 -0400

I've not seen an aircraft yet that can do the same job as well, let alone better, than the A-10 can. There is no reason that I know of to get rid of .

Response by SrA Chris Garrison made Apr 5 at 2016 10:03 AM

SrA Chris Garrison — Tue, 05 Apr 2016 10:03:04 -0400

Why would we want to get rid of it? Sure, it's not a "go fast" plane, but it's the best thing suited for the job.
Upgrade the engines so it can carry more and move out of it's own way, upgrade the targeting system and electronics and you have an unbeatable platform.

Response by Capt Joseph Olson made Apr 5 at 2016 10:47 AM

Capt Joseph Olson — Tue, 05 Apr 2016 10:47:18 -0400

Close Air Support is not what the Red Baron did in WWI. To fly below 10,000 feet is an insult to a real zoomie. Uck. The Air Force hates this mission, has always hated it, and will never give it more than token support.

Response by TSgt James Carson made Apr 5 at 2016 1:40 PM

TSgt James Carson — Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:40:49 -0400

I was a crew chief on a A-10A, stationed at RAF Bentwaters / Woodbridge, England. The plane was popular long before it fired a shot in anger. The State department barred the sale of the plane to key Allies of ours back in the middle seventies. My plane was 77-0270.

Response by SSgt Mark Geddings made Apr 5 at 2016 7:41 PM

SSgt Mark Geddings — Tue, 05 Apr 2016 19:41:34 -0400

Simply, yes, until a replacement is fielded that does the exact job just as well.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2016 8:31 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Apr 2016 20:31:40 -0400

its a classic--keep it!

Response by Sgt Mike Sarris made Apr 5 at 2016 10:14 PM

Sgt Mike Sarris — Tue, 05 Apr 2016 22:14:03 -0400

Not only no, but hell no! There is no other plane that can do the jobs the A-10 can do, and no successor is planned. Until we have another aircraft that can perform the duties of the Warthog, keep 'em flying!

Response by Col Robert Ginn made Apr 6 at 2016 6:20 AM

Col Robert Ginn — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 06:20:16 -0400

Of course. One of the abilities of CAS is to keep the bad guy's heads down as much as possible. The A-10 can turn around inside a baseball field . Keep it and give the ground commanders comments credence.,

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2016 7:10 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 07:10:16 -0400

I'm a medical officer with multiple deployments to the sandbox. I've seen lives saved because of the A-10, and have cared for good men who have been wounded and/or died from "friendly fire" incidents involving attempted CAS from inferior airframes. I can say that not only should the AF keep the A-10, but that anybody who tries to replace it with anything other than an improved "A-11" should be charged with something... I don't know what they should be charged with exactly, but something.

Response by A1C Bob Chauncey made Apr 6 at 2016 7:45 AM

A1C Bob Chauncey — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 07:45:39 -0400

There is no viable replacement for this ground support airframe. Keep it!

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2016 3:09 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 15:09:37 -0400

There's not a doubt in my mind. I've seen that puppy in action, up close and personal. While in the Army Reserves at Richards-Gebauer, AFB, in south Kansas City, MO, the 442nd was stationed there. This unit had two birds: the C-130 and the A-10. The Warthog is equal to or has more capabilities than anything else in the air. Get rid of this plane? Why not tell the Navy to get rid of the E-2C Hawkeye, or the Marines, the Harrier AV-8B??? INSANELY ASININE!!!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2016 9:44 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 21:44:50 -0400

Should we keep one of the best aircraft in our arsenal? How is this even still a question?

Response by CW3 Steve Lopez made Apr 7 at 2016 2:01 PM

CW3 Steve Lopez — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 14:01:40 -0400

As a former AH-64 Apache pilot who's participated many JAATs with A-10's, not only should the USAF keep the Hog, the Pentagon should re-start the production line.

Response by SMSgt Jay Campbell made Apr 7 at 2016 8:37 PM

SMSgt Jay Campbell — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 20:37:28 -0400

Without a doubt, the finest close air support system the Air Force has ever fielded. It would be a crime to put her down to pasture now when she is
performing miracles on the battlefield and there's nothing even close to being
capable of taking her place. Don't fall for the argument that some are trying to push that the F-16 and/or the F-15 could fill the gap. In the role of close air support, they're simply out-classed by the Old Warthog. The F-35/36 won't be ready for another decade, if ever. The A-10 came on, in point of fact, as a replacement for the venerable A-1E Skyraider, another low and slow, workhorse and some called her ugly as well. Until she came to their rescue under fire.

Big and heavy and rugged and able to take just about anything that was thrown into the sky, the Skyraider was in the early years of Vietnam a godsent gift that could carry very heavy payloads and get out into the field and linger for long periods of time over target. Same as is the case now with the Warthog.

PLEASE don't make the mistake of yanking the infantryman's best friend!!!

Response by Lt Col Robert Canfield made Mar 13 at 2017 9:55 PM

Lt Col Robert Canfield — Mon, 13 Mar 2017 21:55:48 -0400

STAVATTI: A WEIRD LITTLE COMPANY WANTS TO BUILD THE NEXT A-10 || WARTHOG 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glUPxed2hLA

A WEIRD LITTLE COMPANY WANTS TO BUILD THE NEXT A-10 || WARTHOG 2017

Stavatti, the mercurial, Minnesota-based aerospace startup, has dusted off its old proposal for a new attack plane to partially replace the U.S. Air Force’s ...