US A-10 official issues warning over US Air Force’s ‘devastated’ Warthog fleet - Hollow Force 2: Electric Boogaloo

https://news.yahoo.com/10-official-issues-warning-over-182439650.html

A-10 official issues warning over US Air Force’s ‘devastated’ Warthog fleet​

WASHINGTON — A U.S. Air Force official managing the A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft says the service is “hollowing” its Warthog fleet by starving it of resources amid a push to retire the aging attack plane — but still continuing to heavily fly it.

In a March 31 briefing, Pamela Lee, the A-10 systems manager at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, said the Air Force has “resourced the A-10 to divest yet flew it like an enduring fleet, rapidly accelerating [the] decline toward today’s hollowing fleet.”

The watchdog group Project on Government Oversight posted the slides Tuesday. The Air Force confirmed the slides are authentic, but said they were prepared for internal discussion and that Lee declined to comment.

The A-10, designed during the Cold War to be a tank-killing aircraft, was flown heavily in the Middle East and Afghanistan over the last 20 years to provide close-air support. But the Air Force has long warned the A-10 would not survive a high-end fight in contested airspace and has since 2015 repeatedly attempted to retire the fleet, either in full or in part, to free up funding.

“The A-10 is a great platform for a [permissive] environment,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown told the House Armed Services Committee in a Wednesday hearing. “I don’t see very many [permissive] environments that we’re going to roll into in the future.”

Although Congress rejected all the service’s efforts, Lee said the Air Force’s decisions have “devastated” the fleet and left it “dealing with perpetual challenges.”

The “A-10 lives in the shadow of [fiscal 2015] divestiture decisions,” Lee said in the briefing’s summary.

Lee’s briefing slides said the service deferred the A-10′s “hogback” fuselage structural repair work from 2013 to 2019, which she said left 120 jets at risk of being grounded. The number of A-10s heading to depots for major maintenance was also cut by more than half, she added.

Lee said the A-10′s aging engine nacelles are quickly becoming a significant problem, representing a bigger threat to the aircraft’s readiness than its wings.

And she said the A-10′s re-winging efforts are falling short, with new wings purchased for only 173 of the service’s 281 Warthogs. Lee said this means 145 A-10s wouldn’t be able to fly a six-month deployment.

According to the slides, the Air Force has until the second quarter of FY23 to buy more wings before it risks a “stalled recovery.” Fixing the wing, depot issue and other shortcomings would take at least a decade, she said.

If Congress doesn’t grant the service’s request to start retiring the A-10, Lee said, it will have to quickly act to mitigate the worst of the problems that have come from these decisions.

In the committee hearing, Brown said the service plans to buy replacement wing kits for about 218 A-10s. The service called for retiring 21 A-10s as part of its FY23 budget request, leaving the service with 260 Warthogs; Brown said those will not be re-winged.

Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., expressed confusion about the Air Force’s apparent intention to not buy enough wing kits for all remaining A-10s and asked if only 218 planes needed new wings.

“Depends on how many A-10s we keep,” Brown said. “What we don’t want to do is buy more wing kits than we’re going to need if we’re going to start retiring A-10s.”

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall added that even if those remaining 42 A-10s wouldn’t get replacement wings, they would still be able to fly.

Kendall also said the Air Force, if free to do so, would retire the A-10 fleet by the end of the next five-year plan.
____
From the people who brought you classic hits such as: "Let's ship all our Stingers to Ukraine Without Having Replacements", comes "Let's run our CAS aircraft out of spare parts."

 

[thx1138]

The Hellfire missile was its primary tank killer.

Hellfire, or Maverick? I mean it can fire the Hellfire, I just thought it was the Mav that is its primary long-range ATGM.

 

[1Tonka_Truck]

Alright KF, redpill me. Is the A-10 a glorious, unparalleled ground support aircraft that's absolutely critical for combined arms? Or is it a flying, easily rekt shitheap that has no place in modern combat paradigms?

Both Ukraine and Russia are operating Su-25 in what has been a very non-permissive environment. I'm not going to say they aren't getting shot down, but when they aren't eating MANPADs they have been effective.

And because they move slow, they can loiter in the air and keep the enemy suppressed rather than just do a quick flyby and fuck off.

The words you are looking for are 'time on target' and 'time on station.'

I can't remember a time the Air Force haven't been salty as fuck the Army expects them to be able to provide air support that isn't a banner that says "You can do it!" Christ, US CAS has been one of the most horrifying things we've ever deployed to the battlefield, but since it isn't air superiority or strategic bombing, the Air Force doesn't want to do it.

This thing right here is the only reason the A-10 every made it past the concept stage.

The USAF hates CAS, but they hated giving up funding to the Army more.

 

[BONE_Buddy]

Hellfire, or Maverick? I mean it can fire the Hellfire, I just thought it was the Mav that is its primary long-range ATGM.

Yeah, you are right, the Maverick was also used very extensively by the A-10, it was just phased out largely more than 10(?) years ago. I had forgotten. That's what I get for posting from memory.

 

[Urbanmech]

Look man, I am a die-hard SAC loyalist, just look at my profile picture. PGMs like the JDAM made directly supporting the combat troops possible for the B-52 and B-1B. The new rotary launchers they have in the bomb-bays is also a great increase in capability. Once on target the B-52 can and does wreck the ever-loving shit out of entire formations.

But you have to admit that it is not the most flexible aircraft for reaction missions.

Why not. It just sits above the AOR for hours on end with a bunch of JDAMs just waiting for a call. That was our literal deployment was sending two in the air every X amount of hours to go to both AOR's.

 

[Margo Martindale]

Haha gun go BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTT

 

[Snekposter]

This thing right here is the only reason the A-10 every made it past the concept stage.

The USAF hates CAS, but they hated giving up funding to the Army more.

Oh, I'm aware of that. I fully expect the US Army to pull the same thing they did last time the Air Force bitched out about the A-10:
"Hey Congress, since they're not going to fly the A-10 anymore, can we have that money for the Apache?"

Funnily enough, that actually worked. The Air Force completely failed to put forth a reason why the Army should be told to pound sand, and so Congress mandated they keep the A-10 going as punishment.

 

[1Tonka_Truck]

Oh, I'm aware of that. I fully expect the US Army to pull the same thing they did last time the Air Force bitched out about the A-10:
"Hey Congress, since they're not going to fly the A-10 anymore, can we have that money for the Apache?"

It's going to be a tilt-rotor or tilt-wing gunship. Not just because the army became obsessed with the concept , but because it would really piss off the correct people. I can hear it in my head, "But that's a plane."

 

[Snekposter]

It's going to be a tilt-rotor or tilt-wing gunship. Not just because the army became obsessed with the concept , but because it would really piss off the correct people. I can hear it in my head, "But that's a plane."

Well, from my understanding the Osprey has finally managed to live up to what was promised of it, so its easy to see why the Army would love the concept. Having a STOVL slow-mover that can hover would do wonders for flexibility while maintaining firepower. I wonder if they can convince Congress turbofans don't technically violate the Key West Agreement so we get something like the Terminator hunter-killer or Farida's plane from Human Revolution...

 

[glib]

Let's just kick the can down further while also designing concepts that will never fully be embraced. That seems to be working fine for us.

 

[BONE_Buddy]

Why not. It just sits above the AOR for hours on end with a bunch of JDAMs just waiting for a call. That was our literal deployment was sending two in the air every X amount of hours to go to both AOR's.

1. Basing locations. If you *do* run out of bombs before the end of a rotation the guys on the ground are going to have to wait however long it takes for the new rotation to come out before the guys on the ground get air support. This is because the operating bases for the SAC fleet are pretty well fixed hours and hours beyond potential front lines. Whereas the A-10 (and hypothetical updated CAS aircraft) can and do doctrinally operate from austere and newly converted airbases 40 miles from the front. That's a 20 minute reaction time, versus over 4 hours.

2. Turn around time and maintenance. Put simply the B-52 (and the BONE) were overstretched doing the CAS mission in the MENA sphere. Maintenance debt built up, and readiness numbers tanked. The A-10 for whatever its faults was far more capable of flying that mission set, and maintain the same readiness levels. At least when congress was willing to pay for the parts.

3. Cost. B-52 is very cheap... for a Strat Bomber. Don't fight me on this, because if you start bringing up cost efficiencies of the larger payload vs more flight of a CAS tac-jet, we are going to be fighting over nuance, statistics, and actual use cases for a year.

4. Most importantly, and I think you will agree with me:
SAC will be much busier in a near peer war than with a counter-insurgency mission. We/They will be flying out to attrit Divisions behind the line in deep battle operations, much like the Gulf Wars. Not to mention anti-industry and anti-logistical operations. SAC and the B-52 has unique capabilities that the rest of the Air-Force just can't do, and it will be utilized to the maximum extent in those roles.

It's going to be a tilt-rotor or tilt-wing gunship. Not just because the army became obsessed with the concept , but because it would really piss off the correct people. I can hear it in my head, "But that's a plane."

The new Compound Helicopters are also an interesting working replacement.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Alright KF, redpill me. Is the A-10 a glorious, unparalleled ground support aircraft that's absolutely critical for combined arms? Or is it a flying, easily rekt shitheap that has no place in modern combat paradigms?

Because I have literally never heard anything in between.

The A-10 is a God tier CAS aircraft and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's not meant to fly over enemy territory, get into fights with other aircraft or reduce air defense capability. But it's slow flying speed combined with high payload makes it an infantryman's best buddy when they come on an enemy company entrenched with machine guns and a few APCs.

I've always maintained that if the Air Force doesn't want A-10s they should let the Army have them because they will definitely take them. The fighter jock mafia in the Air Force has been a huge issue for awhile, and they view A-10 pilots as little better then the unclean c-130 pilots. An effort was made by Robert Gates back in 2006 to purge those assholes. Sadly he failed and we are back to square one with the airforce focusing on aircraft that are great if you want to joust in knightly combat with imaginary enemy fighter jets that don't exist.

In the mean time the Army would really appreciate it if the Air Force would worry more about getting shit from Point A to Point B, and making sure Point C isn't held by an enemy ground Force capable of sending us back to Point A.

 

[LaxerBRO]

If they're going to retire it, the correct solution is a more up to date (and cost-effective) direct replacement, not sending F-35s or F-16s to try and do the same thing - the "fast movers" just aren't built for that role at all.

In all honesty, the Super Tucano is probably better for all these bush wars we fight especially if it's equipped with a modern targeting pod and precision weapons.


The A10 is cool but it cannot take out modern tanks.

 

[mindlessobserver]

In all honesty, the Super Tucano is probably better for all these bush wars we fight especially if it's equipped with a modern targeting pod and precision weapons.

Ver archivo adjunto 3228577
The A10 is cool but it cannot take out modern tanks.

But it has a turboprop! That makes it uncool and totally not USAF material. Fuck what the ground pounders need, our Air Force penises only sit in jet engines capable of going Mach 3.

This attitude is why the air force lost the fight over Attack Helicopters incidentally. The Armies experience in Vietnam with the fighter jet mafia made the generals adamant that if the Air Force wasn't going to provide CAS they would do it themselves.

 

[Kenya Jones]

Alright KF, redpill me. Is the A-10 a glorious, unparalleled ground support aircraft that's absolutely critical for combined arms? Or is it a flying, easily rekt shitheap that has no place in modern combat paradigms?

Because I have literally never heard anything in between.

The latter, the F-111 does better in every singe aspect.

The A-10 is a God tier CAS aircraft and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's not meant to fly over enemy territory, get into fights with other aircraft or reduce air defense capability. But it's slow flying speed combined with high payload makes it an infantryman's best buddy when they come on an enemy company entrenched with machine guns and a few APCs.

I've always maintained that if the Air Force doesn't want A-10s they should let the Army have them because they will definitely take them. The fighter jock mafia in the Air Force has been a huge issue for awhile, and they view A-10 pilots as little better then the unclean c-130 pilots. An effort was made by Robert Gates back in 2006 to purge those assholes. Sadly he failed and we are back to square one with the airforce focusing on aircraft that are great if you want to joust in knightly combat with imaginary enemy fighter jets that don't exist.

In the mean time the Army would really appreciate it if the Air Force would worry more about getting shit from Point A to Point B, and making sure Point C isn't held by an enemy ground Force capable of sending us back to Point A.

>Mentioning the Butt Pirate Mafia
Oh god not those morons.

 

[SmugAutist]

Alright KF, redpill me. Is the A-10 a glorious, unparalleled ground support aircraft that's absolutely critical for combined arms? Or is it a flying, easily rekt shitheap that has no place in modern combat paradigms?

Because I have literally never heard anything in between.

I get that talking badly about the A-10 will have a horde of frothing fans with pitchforks in your porch, but it's an outdated, inaccurate, inefficient aircraft. It's useful so long as you're facing 1950s armor (which, to be fair, seems to be most of America's enemies since WW2), but the only use it would have against modern armor is the morale boost from hearing that admittedly badass "brrrrrrr!"

 

[Kenya Jones]

I get that talking badly about the A-10 will have a horde of frothing fans with pitchforks in your porch, but it's an outdated, inaccurate, inefficient aircraft. It's useful so long as you're facing 1950s armor (which, to be fair, seems to be most of America's enemies since WW2), but the only use it would have against modern armor is the morale boost from hearing that admittedly badass "brrrrrrr!"

But muh loiter time and redundancies. I'm glad that every war where the A-10 (or a similar plane) has fought in has shown how useless the idea is.

 

[BONE_Buddy]

In all honesty, the Super Tucano is probably better for all these bush wars we fight especially if it's equipped with a modern targeting pod and precision weapons.

I still prefer an updated version of the OV-10 Bronco.

But the A-29 is just as good or better in many areas, including the most important. Cost.

The A10 is cool but it cannot take out modern tanks.

I get what you are saying, but it can kill tanks, but only with the missiles.

 

[Snekposter]

In all honesty, the Super Tucano is probably better for all these bush wars we fight especially if it's equipped with a modern targeting pod and precision weapons.

Ver archivo adjunto 3228577
The A10 is cool but it cannot take out modern tanks.

For CAS, why would you want the virgin P-51 Mustang when the CHAD P-47 THUNDERBOLT exists?

Only somewhat joking, actually. The Super Tucano probably carries less firepower than a late-model P-47 when you factor the EIGHT MACHINE GUNS into the equation. Besides, the USA would want a second engine for combat redundancy reasons, same way we did with the A-10 and we did in WW2. Sadly the name of "Lightning II" is already taken, but...

I believe "Invader II" is open. Pay no attention to the fact that plane is the size and weight of a medium bomber. Its a pure ground-attack plane, I tell ya.

 

[Mister Qwerty]

Welp, might as well bring up Lazerpig.

He brings up good arguments but damn, I wish he could fuck off with the funny. It’s like listening to the Nostalgia Critic.

BRING BACK THE SUPER TWEET!

 

[Urbanmech]

1. Basing locations. If you *do* run out of bombs before the end of a rotation the guys on the ground are going to have to wait however long it takes for the new rotation to come out before the guys on the ground get air support. This is because the operating bases for the SAC fleet are pretty well fixed hours and hours beyond potential front lines. Whereas the A-10 (and hypothetical updated CAS aircraft) can and do doctrinally operate from austere and newly converted airbases 40 miles from the front. That's a 20 minute reaction time, versus over 4 hours.

2. Turn around time and maintenance. Put simply the B-52 (and the BONE) were overstretched doing the CAS mission in the MENA sphere. Maintenance debt built up, and readiness numbers tanked. The A-10 for whatever its faults was far more capable of flying that mission set, and maintain the same readiness levels. At least when congress was willing to pay for the parts.

3. Cost. B-52 is very cheap... for a Strat Bomber. Don't fight me on this, because if you start bringing up cost efficiencies of the larger payload vs more flight of a CAS tac-jet, we are going to be fighting over nuance, statistics, and actual use cases for a year.

4. Most importantly, and I think you will agree with me:
SAC will be much busier in a near peer war than with a counter-insurgency mission. We/They will be flying out to attrit Divisions behind the line in deep battle operations, much like the Gulf Wars. Not to mention anti-industry and anti-logistical operations. SAC and the B-52 has unique capabilities that the rest of the Air-Force just can't do, and it will be utilized to the maximum extent in those roles.


The new Compound Helicopters are also an interesting working replacement.

1. We always ran 2 Alert aircraft just in case for those situations, but then again we weren't the only CAS in the AOR. Hell the beginnings of Iraq you had the B-1.-2,-52, A-10 and whatever the army brought to run CAS. But if a B-52 has run out of bombs for an "engagement" then that's probably not an engagement but an offensive and most likely need everything and the sink thrown at it to squash it.

2. Interested in these MC rates and if they were USAF wide or Site based. Usually deployed locations had a better MC rate due to not having the turd planes deployed with them. Usually its a decent indicator but I found its better to dig a bit and see what systems are broke the most or if say something happened to drop the MC rate to below 10%. Like say around 2005 when Boeing was being greedy and grounded the B-52 fleet. Or if the new Offensive Avionics system is still having kinks, which would be ironic that modernizing the B-52 is affecting its MC Rate. But it could just be the flying hours finally catching up to the airframe, but who knows MC rates don't really tell you anything about the cause of said rates.

3. B-52 is only "Cheap" because its been paid for a loooong time ago.

4. We honestly don't know if they will be busier. I mean the last 30 years we have been fighting wars where we Cruise Missile the shit out of them and get air superiority in less than a few days. Look at Iraq, the start of it had a bunch of B-52s fly with mixed munitions (JDAMs and ALCMs) for the first time ever and every B-52 came back with all their JDAMs because the Army just Blitzkrieg through all the secondary targets that the B-52 was supposed to take out. Like I said before the Air Force is all about optics more than Airframe strategic value. The next big war could have some "High Priority" target and you could have a B-52,A-10 and a B-1 in the AOR and they would launch an F-35 to take it out for the optics to show off the F-35.