McCain's Showdown With the U.S. Air Force Over the A-10

[rangerrebew]

McCain's Showdown With the U.S. Air Force Over the A-10
Dave Majumdar

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/mccains-showdown-the-us-air-force-over-the-10-15393

March 3, 2016


Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, clashed with top U.S. Air Force officials over the fate of the A-10 Warthog close air support aircraft and Russian-made rocket engines.

While the Air Force has finally conceded that the stealthy fifth-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will not be able to replace the ungainly flying tank, the service still plans to retire the A-10 by 2022. In the Warthog’s place, the Air Force hopes to use the Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon and the Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle—which are not as effective in the close air support role as the A-10.

“The mission capability of the A-10 will not be replaced by the F-35,” Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 3. “We will do the work that the A-10 is doing today with the F-16 and the F-15E predominantly.”

McCain, however, was not mollified. The senator noted that the A-10 is still—by far—the lowest cost and most effective close air support platform ever built. The senator further noted that the A-10 is performing exceptionally well over Iraq and Syria in the fight against ISIS.

“You have nothing to replace it with, General. Otherwise you would be using F-15s and the F-16s of which you have plenty of,” McCain said. “But you’re using the A-10 because it’s the most effective weapons system. This is really unfortunately disingenuous.”


Welsh tried to push back—he noted that the service had used both the F-15E and F-16 against ISIS. McCain, however, was not having any of it—calling Welsh’s testimony “embarrassing.” The senator noted—as numerous Air Force sources have repeatedly stressed—that there is no close air support aircraft remotely as capable as the Warthog. “Every Air Force pilot that I know will tell you that the most effective close air support system is the A-10,” McCain said.

Welsh conceded that the Air Force does not really want to retire the ungainly aircraft—but the service needs more multirole aircraft to perform its global responsibilities. “I don’t want to retire it, Senator,” Welsh said. “But the Air Force has to get bigger to do all this.”

Moving on, McCain also grilled Air Force secretary Deborah Lee James about the Russian-made RD-180 rocket engine. McCain asked James if she knew that at least two people associated with Russia’s Roscosmos are on the U.S. government’s sanctions list. He expressed his frustration when it became clear that James had no clue. “It’s public knowledge Secretary James that the company is Roscosmos that is selling the RD-180,” McCain said. “You didn’t know that?”

[Wingnut]

Save the A-10.

http://www.facebook.com/savethea10

The A-10, originally intended to destroy Soviet tanks, is better suited to close-in missions than fighters designed for air-to-air combat. A titanium “bathtub” that wraps around the bottom of its cockpit gives the Warthog better protection against ground fire. It can fly as slowly as 300 knots (345 miles per hour) without risk of stalling, compared with 450 knots for an F-16 or F-35. That allows more time to identify and shoot at ground targets. The A-10’s fearsome Gatling gun, which is 20 feet long and weighs 2.5 tons, can fire more than 1,100 rounds of 30mm bullets. The F-16 and F-15E can fire fewer than half that number.

[PzLdr]

Save the A-10.

http://www.facebook.com/savethea10

Agree. The A-10 is the groundpounder's best friend.

[EdinVA]

We just never learn.
We tried the "all purpose fighter" with the F-4 phantom and the F-111 Aardvark and neither was excellent at anything.
Then we went with the F-15 as the air intercept and the F-16 as the low level bomber and the A-10 to provide CAS and ended up with superior capabilities which remain unmatched.
Now we are going to go back to the all purpose fighter and expect to retain superior capability...
We just get stupider and stupider...

[PzLdr]

We just never learn.
We tried the "all purpose fighter" with the F-4 phantom and the F-111 Aardvark and neither was excellent at anything.
Then we went with the F-15 as the air intercept and the F-16 as the low level bomber and the A-10 to provide CAS and ended up with superior capabilities which remain unmatched.
Now we are going to go back to the all purpose fighter and expect to retain superior capability...
We just get stupider and stupider...

Well the Air Force could give a rat's ass less about ground support. They're still clinging to the idea you can win a war solely from the air.

[EdinVA]

Well the Air Force could give a rat's ass less about ground support. They're still clinging to the idea you can win a war solely from the air.

We are letting money drive the mission rather than the other way around.
The Marines and the Army both refuse to give up their CAS mission as they do not trust the Air Force to deliver and the Air Force refuses to give up the CAS mission because it would reduce their "image" and power.
If we were really serious about being cost conscious, we would take the CAS mission from the Air Force and let the Marines handle it and they could focus on a single mission aircraft and let the Air Force focus on big and fast..

[sneakypete]

“The mission capability of the A-10 will not be replaced by the F-35,” Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 3. “We will do the work that the A-10 is doing today with the F-16 and the F-15E predominantly.”

That is either an  outright lie,or he is too stupid to understand he is wrong. Either way,he should be relived of his command for cause,and forced into retirement.

Talk to any ground soldiers that have ever had to call in close tactical air support what they think about the capability of the A-10 compared to the F-16 and F-15 zoomies the AF loves so much,and you will get an earful. Yeah,I have called in F-16's and F-15's "danger close" on bomb runs to keep from being overran,but it's not something any sane person will do uniess they think they are going to get killed either way. They just fly too damn fast,and carry the wrong kind of ordinance for close ground support missions.

We used to use the old A1E- Skyraider prop planes for close air support when it would take the helicopter gun ships too long to get to us,and we loved,loved,LOVED those things. They could and would fly low and slow,and they put what you needed where you needed it,and rarely put any of it on you.

Plus,I have to admit that I loved the sounds of those big piston engines when the throttle were slammed to the wall at the end of a run so they could get some altitude to keep from running into a mountain. Not to mention the pilots were playing the role,too. I have seen them come in so low with their canopies pulled back that you could see the leather helmets and the"snoopy" scarfs flying in the breeze as they were making their gun runs. It was just like being in the middle of a WW-2 movie. Cool beyond beief.

I have talked to guys on AD now,and they absolutely LOVE the Wart Hogs. EVERYBODY but AF Generals that love stylish Buck Rogers fighter planes loves the Wart Hog. The pilots that fly them love them,despite being looked down up by AF brass like they are cab drivers or something.

Ohhh,and one other group of people also hate them besides the AF Generals. The people that own,work in,or have stock in the factories and companies that make the F-16'S and F-15's.

I'm actually wanting to say something nice about John McLunatic! i didn't even think that was possible.

[sneakypete]

Well the Air Force could give a rat's ass less about ground support. They're still clinging to the idea you can win a war solely from the air.

Sad,but true. It was before my time,but I understand they had a real hissy-fit over the army adopting helicopters to move troops,and tried to get the Pentegram to take them away from the army and give them to the AF. The Cobra guns ships had them stroking out,but by that time they had already lost helicopters to the army,so there wasn't anything they could do about it.

They did succeed in getting the old Caribou prop cargo plane taken away from the army,saying they could do what the Caribou could do with their C-123'S,but they couldn't and they lost a lot of C-123's trying to prove they could safely land on and take off from improvised short airstrips outside of isolated SF camps. They ended up sliding cargo resupply pallets out the back with a drogue parachute to slow them down before they hit the ground,but that did nothing to help evacuate wounded soldiers. They even put a jet pack on the C-123's to help them take off from the short strips.

All that money spent and lives and equipment lost,in order to protect your little slice of the empire and it's budget.

BTW,this is taking nothing away from the glorious history of the C-123. It was one of the most reliable and best airplanes every produced. It just wasn't designed to "work smaller" like the Caribou was designed to work from day one.

[Bigun]

I absolutely agree with Senator McCain on this one!

Hope I don't get coodies!

[EC]

If we were really serious about being cost conscious, we would take the CAS mission from the Air Force and let the Marines handle it and they could focus on a single mission aircraft and let the Air Force focus on big and fast..

Agree with the concept, but the A-10 has one big problem for the Marines. There is absolutely no way to make a carrier variant, or at least one capable of landing on a carrier. The whole airframe basically hangs off the gun and the bathtub, any attempt to stick an arrestor hook on it would result in two halves of a plane on first landing.

I LOVE the A-10 though. Call one in and watch a hill disappear in front of you. They, and my girls (Mil-24 D) are probably the pinnacle of close support aircraft design.

[flowers]

Wow I agree with McCain here. Haven't done that in decades.