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."

 

[Snekposter]

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

Oh, I forgot to reply. Fuck no. That VG wing was as much trouble as it was worth, and the entire plane was too heavy, too big, and too expensive to keep flying as pure CAS, and once the B-1 entered the picture it was no longer viable as a bomber. According to the Aussies when they finally axed it the plane was 9% of their fleet but used 25% of the maintenance budget. That's up there with 13/50 for unpleasant ratios.

 

[Kenya Jones]

Oh, I forgot to reply. Fuck no. That VG wing was as much trouble as it was worth, and the entire plane was too heavy, too big, and too expensive to keep flying as pure CAS, and once the B-1 entered the picture it was no longer viable as a bomber. According to the Aussies when they finally axed it the plane was 9% of their fleet but used 25% of the maintenance budget. That's up there with 13/50 for unpleasant ratios.

Yeah but I'm right and you're wrong, so there's that.

 

[Kendall Motor Oil]

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...

Or the blackfish VTOL

Or a Jigabachi if they want their CAS heli

 

[BONE_Buddy]

2. Interested in these MC rates and if they were USAF wide or Site based.

Been a while since I saw the papers, and I am not to motivated to dig for them, but it was USAF wide IIRC. Deployments were running them hard at the front and then rotated in new Squadrons/Aircraft when needed. That left a lot of the air-frames doing light duty to recover maintenance debt at home. 2014-18 is when I looked at the issue. As you say, it is a very complex issue, that would take a book to fill out the nuance.

But running you boys ragged doing overwatch work wasn't doing any of the air-fleet any good, except for the A-10s who were happy to be noticed and get a dollar or two.

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.

Yeah, I can agree with that.

_
And you could say my frame of reference is a bit different. My SAC and Air Force contractor work has been more focused on the big shows that, God willing, will never happen. "Oh Fuck, the Soviets are crossing the Fulda Gap!" and later things like "Oh Shit, the Chinese are invading Taiwan!"

Most Counter Insurgency CAS work could be done in a rinky-dink turbo-prop like the A-29 and would be just as useful. Though that may be changing with how many MANPADs are going to be floating around out there.

_
As an aside. It's nice to have a decent conversation on these issues without somebody getting really butthurt. This is more civil than some conversations I have had professionally.

 

[Pocket Dragoon]

It falls in between, but more toward the former description.
It's slow, unwieldy, loud as shit, and has some issues, namely caused by the Air Force hating it with a passion and doing everything in their power to kill it as a concept, plane, or memory of it as either.

Agreed, except they're not really that loud. The sound they make while orbiting or lining up for runs is.... different. Eerie and more subdued; definitely not like an F-16 or F-18, or even an attack rotary wing like the AH-64 or a Marine Super Cobra. Things echo weird close to the ground, and once you know a helo is overhead, the constant rotor noise makes it easier to track by ear, even if they've gone below the treeline or ridges. But with the A-10, it's incredibly hard to spot them that way, and it's hard to anticipate where they're going (unless they're flying directly at or away). I spent a lot of time watching those assholes have all the fun, but at least A-10 drivers work for a living.

The only thing we had that would catch me (or haji) unawares were A-10s and Kiowas. And even in the middle of buttfucked nowhere Iraq, with pretty much unimpeded visibility to the horizon, A-10s, Kiowas, or fucking Chinooks would startle the fuck out of us, flying on the deck directly over our position, with no warning.... I still have PTSD from that shit.

 

[Snekposter]

Agreed, except they're not really that loud. The sound they make while orbiting or lining up for runs is.... different. Eerie and more subdued; definitely not like an F-16 or F-18, or even an attack rotary wing like the AH-64 or a Marine Super Cobra.

That probably has to do with the engines. They're extremely high-bypass which means they run cold and slow for a turbofan. Combined with the subsonic velocity meaning no boom and its probably quieter than a WW2 piston plane. They're also angled slightly down to counter being mounted above the center of gravity, so that may contribute as well.

 

[Urbanmech]

Been a while since I saw the papers, and I am not to motivated to dig for them, but it was USAF wide IIRC. Deployments were running them hard at the front and then rotated in new Squadrons/Aircraft when needed. That left a lot of the air-frames doing light duty to recover maintenance debt at home. 2014-18 is when I looked at the issue. As you say, it is a very complex issue, that would take a book to fill out the nuance.

But running you boys ragged doing overwatch work wasn't doing any of the air-fleet any good, except for the A-10s who were happy to be noticed and get a dollar or two.

But I doubt it was heavier than what we were flying in the 2001-05 era though so its sort of weird to have such a huge MC drop off across airframes.

I do remember back around 2013 the Air Force did make a mandate that you "Cannot have deferred write-ups on aircraft anymore" for "Fleet Health reasons". Essentially a deferred write up would be something small that could be fixed at a later time like Depot Maintenance. For example say you install an instrument with screws in the 4 corners and one of the corners would not tighten, you could write that up as a deferred write up. The thing is when Depot fixed these things they wouldn't eat up extra Non Mission Capable rate time due to already being NMC for having everything pulled out, but the flightline was different. Like I remember one time we installed an electrical panel and it had I think 6 zeus fasteners but one of them would not catch. So the whole rack had to be replaced, the thing is the rack is next to the Throttles so we had to remove all the panels AND the throttle mod just to replace a rack. Plane was Non Mission Capable for about 18 hours just for one little zeus fastener, which before this mandate would have been deferred and fixed at Depot. If just one instance had 18 hours of NMC rate going imagine what its doing air frame wide or even Air Force wide across all airframes? Granted this may not hit Fighters as much do to having less systems and being smaller compared to Heavies. Also different flying patterns aka Fighters having multiple goes a day vs heavies having one go a day for training and such.

 

[BONE_Buddy]

I do remember back around 2013 the Air Force did make a mandate that you "Cannot have deferred write-ups on aircraft anymore" for "Fleet Health reasons".

I figure that did a lot. Obama era procurement hitting its nadir was another. Then we had the ISIS and Taliban air-strike surge without a backlog of parts. the Gulf Wars used up a lot of the late Cold War era stores from what I have been told.
The result was a scramble for replacement materials and the B-52 but especially the B-1B got hit by that harder than other combatant air-fleet platforms.

It took the Trump era procurement and several readiness drives being pushed through to get those number where they were before. But I don't know how that ended up for the end user.

Being on the receiving end of the statistic games is not easy to dig through.

 

[Uranus Pink]

Oh, I forgot to reply. Fuck no. That VG wing was as much trouble as it was worth, and the entire plane was too heavy, too big, and too expensive to keep flying as pure CAS,

F-111 is a strike bomber and never was a CAS aircraft as it was too fast to do much other than dropped bombs and fuck off.

and once the B-1 entered the picture it was no longer viable as a bomber.

F-111s and especially the EF-111s were still viable in their role as strike bombers and ECM while the B-1s were heavy bombers.

According to the Aussies when they finally axed it the plane was 9% of their fleet but used 25% of the maintenance budget. That's up there with 13/50 for unpleasant ratios.

Some Aussies on another board who're more familiar with the Aardvarks had more information as to why the USAF and Aussies retired them. F-111s were built as one massive fuel tank as every available void in them used. But in order to do it and keep the fuel from leaking everywhere, they needed to be seal with one particular sealent. However that sealent was highly cancerous which was another deciding factor to retire them.

 

[MG-34]

The FB-22 would have provided all we need the A-10 to do, but I think the F-35 and MQ-9s can replace it. Personally I think the A-10 has outlived its usefulness. The GAU-8 cannot destroy modern Russian or Chinese tanks, the idea of aiming a fixed wing aircraft at ground formations to pepper enemy ground targets is a foolish enterprise in the age of modern anti aircraft weapons and retiring the aircraft can help streamline logistics as the less Aircraft in inventory, the smoother the entire logistic system can operate. If I had to enter a battlespace with enemy tanks, AFVs and infantry I would rather have support from stealth aircraft with PGMs rather than a non stealth aircraft with fewer PGMs and a 30mm cannon.

 

[White Devil]

The FB-22 would have provided all we need the A-10 to do, but I think the F-35 and MQ-9s can replace it. Personally I think the A-10 has outlived its usefulness. The GAU-8 cannot destroy modern Russian or Chinese tanks, the idea of aiming a fixed wing aircraft at ground formations to pepper enemy ground targets is a foolish enterprise in the age of modern anti aircraft weapons and retiring the aircraft can help streamline logistics as the less Aircraft in inventory, the smoother the entire logistic system can operate. If I had to enter a battlespace with enemy tanks, AFVs and infantry I would rather have support from stealth aircraft with PGMs rather than a non stealth aircraft with fewer PGMs and a 30mm cannon.

Put a bigger gun on it then.

(This is a joke but I'd be very amused if that actually happened. It won't though.)

 

[Slappy McGherkin]

My trips to Mexico won't ever be the same without watching the A-10s from Davis Monthan play on the Barry Goldwater range. Fascinating to watch them seemingly come out of nowhere, go full Devil's Cross and dive on their target. Then hearing that BBBRRRRTTTT a moment later. I always pull off the road and watch. I'll miss the hell outta that.

 

[BelUwUga]

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.

I like the sentiment but I think I have a better idea that's already a once-proven showstopper when it comes to CAS.

Now the AC-130 is a fine gunship. That said things like needing that pylon turn and being unable to hover cause some problems. We want the A-10s gun. Helicopters are already something the Army has been given ground on. Hmm...

It fits with room to spare.

 

[BONE_Buddy]

Helicopters are already something the Army has been given ground on. Hmm...

It fits with room to spare.

There has been talk of doing things like this for a long time. The problem is platform stability. The Chinook helicopter would not be able to do a useful "in-line" mounting of the GAU-8, unless you wanted it mounted vertically. That's a problem when the auto-cannon can power an aircraft's flight on it's recoil alone.

The AC-130 gets away with it due to the sheer size of the plane, and the fact that it *is* a plane. Planes, by design, like to fly. Helicopters don't like to fly, and it is by sheer thrust alone they are kept aloft.

 

[BelUwUga]

There has been talk of doing things like this for a long time. The problem is platform stability. The Chinook helicopter would not be able to do a useful "in-line" mounting of the GAU-8, unless you wanted it mounted vertically. That's a problem when the auto-cannon can power an aircraft's flight on it's recoil alone.

The AC-130 gets away with it due to the sheer size of the plane, and the fact that it *is* a plane. Planes, by design, like to fly. Helicopters don't like to fly, and it is by sheer thrust alone they are kept aloft.

Excuse the quality, this was hastily made:

Slightly downward angle and centered within the cargo bay. When firing the helicopter goes faster/ascends, almost always something possible in-flight, or you're more concerned with not crashing than shooting anyway. I'm not saying it's as simple as carting the fucker aboard and strapping it down, but these are modifications that are very possible.

 

[LOWERCASE LETTERS]

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.

There are other things that could probably do the job a little cheaper, but nothing the US currently has in it's inventory is quite as good at the job. The gun is a little superfluous for a lot of CAS stuff these days, but they can carry a decent amount of precision guided munitions.

It isn't so hot in contested airspace, but, frankly, the same thing is true of pretty much any low and slow close support aircraft. In it's defense, when the A-10 was designed originally, man portable SAMs were much less of a threat and AA gun systems were a lot more common. It did fine against that kind of thing-- an A-10 got chewed to hell by flak during Desert Storm and made it back to base just fine.

Part of the reason the A-10 is kind of a hot issue is that a) Congress can't decide whether the air force should keep it or toss it and b) there's no real replacement of equivalent or superior performance on the horizon.

 

[RodgerDodger]

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.

I don't think the Army is even bothering anymore. They have their own A-10 replacement plans in the pipeline

The Raider-X or Invictus paired with drones seem to be the main A-10 replacement. I've seen the Defiant-X and Raider-X flying in formation with Blackhawks near my house. So these aren't lost somewhere in development hell.

And this is the Army's Osprey equivalent the Bell V-280 Valor

 

[Male Idiot]

Excuse the quality, this was hastily made:
Ver archivo adjunto 3229578
Slightly downward angle and centered within the cargo bay. When firing the helicopter goes faster/ascends, almost always something possible in-flight, or you're more concerned with not crashing than shooting anyway. I'm not saying it's as simple as carting the fucker aboard and strapping it down, but these are modifications that are very possible.

That is at once orky and the perfect getaway craft for a supervillain.

 

[TowinKarz]

I expect squad level quad copter drones to be a thing at some point.

Bring back the Hiller Pawnee!

 

[mindlessobserver]

Part of the reason the A-10 is kind of a hot issue is that a) Congress can't decide whether the air force should keep it or toss it and b) there's no real replacement of equivalent or superior performance on the horizon.

Which is the issue. The FB-22 got axed due to cost overruns, which really irritated the Army because the F-22 program only got greenlit because the fighter pilots running the air force swore fucking blind the program would provide for a stealth CAS fighter bomber. Well that went out the window and we just got an Air to Air combat fighter, which would be great if we were fighting a war with China right now, but we are not. In the decades since the F-22 program got greenlit we've fought wars in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, and all of those have been very CAS heavy conflicts. Which is why the A-10 is still around.

But what REALLY sticks in the Armies ass is that to pay for the FB-22, the Comanche Program got axed. So now the Army doesn't have a stealth attack helicopter, AND a stealth fighter bomber. Oh boy the Generals were mad, its part of the reason why Gates was able to pull off his "night of the long knives" at the Pentagon on the Air Force brass. The Army was there helping him push the blades in.

Now the Air Force is swearing blind the F-35 variant will definitely be able to fill this role. Just give them more money and more time. I'll believe it when I see it. in the mean time, we gotta keep the A10, outdated yes, but the only weapon system we HAVE for the role required thanks to Air Force incompetence. If its not A10's doing CAS, the Army has to rely more on the Navy. The F/A-18 is not ideal for the role, but its does a better job of it then most anything else in Air Force inventory.