Air Force Wants to Replace Highly Effective Modern A-10 With a 'Flying Tinderbox'

[rangerrebew]

Air Force Wants to Replace Highly Effective Modern A-10 With a 'Flying Tinderbox'
 
By Mike Fredenburg
8/31/2023
Updated:
9/1/2023
 
“By scrapping the A-10, the Air Force is guaranteeing more Gold Star families will be created,” according to Charlie Keebaugh, president of the largest group of tactical-air-control party airmen.

The 2024 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (pdf) allows the Air Force to retire 42 A-10 Thunderbolt 2s in 2024, with the remaining 220 or so to be retired with prejudice by 2029. This retiring of the A-10 “Warthog” is predicated on the fantastical disproven idea that the A-10, which to this day is the most cost-effective plane in the Air Force’s inventory, can be replaced by the F-35.

This power play by the Air Force is just another chapter in the long, ongoing saga of senior Air Force leaders using every tactic, including underhanded tactics, threats, and rigged testing, to justify retiring the A-10. It certainly isn't about improving our country’s close air support (CAS) capabilities that have saved countless American lives. Instead, it's about converting A-10 maintainers to F-35 maintainers in order to satisfy the F-35s endless, ravenous appetite for maintenance and support. And it's about killing off the plane that will continue to show up the F-35 as long as it continues to fly.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/air-force-wants-to-replace-highly-effective-modern-a-10-with-a-flying-tinderbox-5477327?utm_source=epochHG

[Hoodat]

Why is the Air Force even involved with this?  If the Army wants A-10s, they should be able to order them themselves without involving the Air Force.

[Smokin Joe]

Why is the Air Force even involved with this?  If the Army wants A-10s, they should be able to order them themselves without involving the Air Force.

Why not send them to Air National Guard outfits?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Why is the Air Force even involved with this?  If the Army wants A-10s, they should be able to order them themselves without involving the Air Force.

Why not send them to Air National Guard outfits?

Those are both good points.  I think the Air Force doesn't want to give up primary responsibility for the ground attack role even though it doesn't really believe in it.   Probably some coordination arguments as well that may have a bit more merit in terms of fast-mover air superiority being integrated with fast-mover ground attack.

But yeah, if the Army can afford them and has pilots, that makes the most sense.

[sneakypete]

What this is really about is USAF General Officers getting "no show" jobs with defense contractors after they retire.

[Smokin Joe]

What this is really about is USAF General Officers getting "no show" jobs with defense contractors after they retire.

At the cost of the grunts on the ground.

[ironhorsedriver]

Like I’ve said before, give them to the Marines!

[Timber Rattler]

Why is the Air Force even involved with this?  If the Army wants A-10s, they should be able to order them themselves without involving the Air Force.

I think it goes back to an old 1950s interservice debate/argument in which the Army was allowed to develop its own missiles in exchange for giving up combat aircraft.

[GtHawk]

I think it goes back to an old 1950s interservice debate/argument in which the Army was allowed to develop its own missiles in exchange for giving up combat aircraft.

I thought the army gave up combat aircraft when the Army Air Corps became the Air Force in 1947

[sneakypete]

At the cost of the grunts on the ground.

@Smokin Joe

HEY!

Sacrifices have to be made if defense contractors,their employees,and General Officers  need the money.

[sneakypete]

I thought the army gave up combat aircraft when the Army Air Corps became the Air Force in 1947

@GtHawk

That was before my time,but I THINK that was the first dust-up because the US Army and the former "Army Air Force".

MY generation dust-up was over the army having spotter airplanes and armed helicopters. The USAF didn't really give a squat about the helicopters because "helicopters ain't jets and they ain't sexy",but almost stroked out over spotter planes for ground troops.

In the end the Army was allowed to keep armed helicopters and the small "Cessna" type prop planes to use for jobs the USAF didn't want to be troubled with.

I don't think most people know this,but during the VN War the USAF had at least one squadron of "combat attack helicopters" based in Thailand that flew actual  combat and combat rescue missions into Laos and Cambodia in support of US SF recon teams and Hatchet Force platoons. It was easy to tell they were USAF instead of US Army because they were painted blue.

I'd really like to see these guys get the recognition they deserve for the risks they took.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Airforce will probably obstruct any attempt to re-allocate A-10 Warthogs to other services - Army Air Calvary, National Guard and Reserves - and other nations.

The Airforce needs to drive a wooden stake through the heart of the A-10 Warthog to kill a competitor with the F-35 for close ground support operations.

The F-35 has been sold as the Ginsu Knife of Air Supperiority Fighter and Attack Aircraft to replace most others.

The theory is that fewer models of aircraft will be less expensive to maintain ... if there is competition among vendors and contractors to provide parts and services.  If the maintance contract(s) were structured like the acquisition contracts, one company will be the monopoly source for parts and services ... which may negate any theoretical savings of having a unform aircraft fleet.

[Hoodat]

The theory is that fewer models of aircraft will be less expensive to maintain ...

In other words, the one-size-fits-all Soviet model.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Seems like the F-35 program is being implemented as a one-size-fits-all solution.  Makes sense for a Harvard M.B.A., but not in practicality.

Single-vendor solutions streamline vertical integration, but it also means the bills will get bigger as you become a captive customer.

[Timber Rattler]

Seems like the F-35 program is being implemented as a one-size-fits-all solution.  Makes sense for a Harvard M.B.A., but not in practicality.

Single-vendor solutions streamline vertical integration, but it also means the bills will get bigger as you become a captive customer.

McNamara tried to do the exact same thing with the TFX program, which led to the F-111 "all-purpose fighter-bomber"  1986 Libya aside, it never really did well in either role, and it was totally unsuited for Navy carrier operations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxDV9y5Is64

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Like I’ve said before, give them to the Marines!

. Can't land on carriers so that doesn't work.

[sneakypete]

In other words, the one-size-fits-all Soviet model.

@Hoodat!