Posted on 09/10/2014 8:36:34 AM PDT by GonzoII
With top officers still calling for the aircraft’s retirement as a cost-saving measure, the US Air Force has announced a major potential investment in depot maintenance for the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt.
The air force on 9 September announced a $46 million contract award to Korean Air Lines Co. (KAL) for depot-level maintenance and repair of A-10s, commonly called Warthogs, stationed Osan Air Base, South Korea. The work will be performed at KAL’s facility in Seoul with an expected completion date of 30 September, 2020. No funds were obligated at the time of award, which is standard for maintenance contracts.
The award comes as the US is set to bolster its offensive against Islamic militants in the Middle East and with air force brass only weeks ago continuing their call for retiring the Cold War-era aircraft.
The A-10 was designed to fight tanks on the European plains in case the Cold War with the Soviet Union ever boiled over into open combat. Its role then evolved into close air support, flying low and slow to cover ground troops from the uncontested skies of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Air Force Gen Mike Hostage, chief of US Air Combat Command, in July told reporters the aircraft would not survive sorties over countries like Syria that have integrated air defence systems. That assertion has been widely debated, but the US is considering air strikes in that country in its ongoing fight against the Islamic State. Airstrikes so far have been carried out by carrier-based aircraft like the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet.
Air Force officials maintain that the A-10’s sole close air support (CAS) role can be taken on by other aircraft, including the Lockheed Martin F-16, the Boeing F-15E and the Rockwell/North American B-1 bomber. Unmanned air vehicles like the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper also have been floated as CAS aircraft.
The Air Force stands to save $4.2 billion by retiring the A-10, a move that in the current fiscal environment “makes eminent sense” in the words of chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh. Welsh was quoted by the Wall Street Journal in August as remaining steadfast that it was the correct course and would protect funding for the service’s three main modernisation priorities: the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, the Boeing KC-46 aerial refuelling tanker and a next-generation bomber to replace the Northrop Grumman B-2.
But retiring the A-10 is unpopular in Congress, where the argument has taken on an emotional tone. The US House of Representatives has voted to block the retirement plan in its version of the federal defence spending bill but did not allocate funding to keep the aircraft flying.
Say it ain't so Joe!
top officers,hand picked by Obama Admin ?
I bet the South Koreans would be willing buyers for the A-10s stationed in Korea. If the Norks ever go over the border the coastal plain from the DMZ to Seoul the Nork tanks would go through would be perfect killing ground for the A-10.
“Air Force officials maintain that the A-10’s sole close air support (CAS) role can be taken on by other aircraft, including the Lockheed Martin F-16, the Boeing F-15E and the Rockwell/North American B-1 bomber. Unmanned air vehicles like the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper also have been floated as CAS aircraft.”
Yeah? But not as well and with not the same punch.
The A-10 has loiter time to really make a difference AND the A-10 has the weapons to REALLY make a difference (GAU-8).
Gulf War I, working as a ground FAC with the US Army, was working a 4-ship of A-10’s when a flight of two F-16’s showed up with ‘5-minutes play time’. Told the A-10’s to hold high and dry, gave the GPS coordinates to the F-16’s, they swooshed by, dropped their two Mk-84’s a piece and then left the area. . .brought the A-10’s back into the game to do the man’s share of the work.
No surprise, The “Chair Farce” would contract out BREATHING is they could(Lazy, Condescending SWIVERS)!
.........you know it takes a LIFETIME to develop one of these major weapon systems and put it in the field and get it fine tuned!
Then, a bunch of rotten to the core politicians want to give more money away to the “gib-me-dats” and whimsically the system is done away with.
The B-52 is probably the most dollar efficient piece of equipment ever put in the field. The Warthog could go the same route if they would just leave it alone.
That’s one sound no enemy wants to hear overhead.
I wonder why the A 10 pilot sits in a titaniun bathtub? Why are the turbofans mounted high and aft on pylons? CAS is for brawlers not dancers.
An F 16 uses up its supply of ammo for its cannon in two 2-second bursts, and is over the target for just a few seconds, even if it slows down to 3-400mph. Then it has to go home to reload.
The air force brass have never liked the A-10, since virtually its inception. It’s not a go-fast fighter so the brass, mostly made up of fighter jocks don’t like the ground support mission. Sometimes I wonder if the A-10 would be a better fit within Marine or Army aviation.
CC
The Taliban calls them “whispering death”.
“I wonder if the A-10 would be a better fit within Marine or Army aviation.”
That is who should own them.
“Air Force Gen Mike Hostage, chief of US Air Combat Command, in July told reporters the aircraft would not survive sorties over countries like Syria that have integrated air defence systems.”
What a bunch of crap. By the time you need close air support, the air defenses have already been taken out by the stealth aircraft.
BUY them? Nooo, we're GIVING them away!
I saw them fly and shoot on the firing range at Fort Riley, Kansas, the home of the Big Red One!
Serbs had been over-running so-called Muslim “safe havens” in eastern Bosnia. The UN (which had the authority to approve air strikes) had actually allowed us to put ordnance on target in response to those actions. During one of my missions, the Serbs were moving into a town called Gorazde, shelling the hospital, etc. The request for CAS had gone up the chain and would get final approval in New York (took at least 45 minutes on a good day).
We finally got the OK, and had a flight of two A-10s overhead, ready to obliterate Serb armor.
But someone in the NATO command structure decided the U.S. had been getting all the glory for conducting limited air strikes and it was time to get the coalition involved. We had two Sea Harriers coming off the Brit's small carrier in the Adriatic, and they got the tasking. So we put the A-10s in a holding pattern and sent the Harriers in (with very limited range/play time, you had to work them in quickly before they hit bingo fuel).
You can guess what happened. One of the Harriers (on the third pass over the target) got hit by a MANPAD and shot down. The CAS/BAI mission now became a rescue effort. The A-10 pilot became an airborne FAC as everyone searched for the downed British pilot. He was eventually rescued by the Muslims and at the end of the day, the Serb tanks rolled into the sunset, untouched by any NATO bomb, rocket or bullet.
Nothing matches the A-10 for loiter time, lethality and survivability. Air Force leadership has long tried to get rid of anything that isn't stealth or doesn't shoot down other aircraft. That's one reason my old platform was retired before 9/11, though it was tailor-made for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it's the same reason they want to get rid of the A-10. Stupidity writ large.
Your slander and slurs towards members of the USAF, past, present and future is duly noted...
The crux of the argument against the A-10 has been that it was designed to be a soviet tank killer, and we don’t need to kill soviet tanks anymore. Fair enough I guess.
On the same track, the B-1 is a strategic bomber, not a CAS plane, for any air force official to suggest it as good choice for CAS is either stupid, dishonest, or corrupt.
A much better solution would be to refit the vulcan on the A-10 with a slightly smaller and lighter cannon (maybe a 25mm Bushmaster) that could put even more rounds on lightly armored targets, increase precision, and improve loiter time.
A flying Bradley would be a terrifying weapon to our enemies, and would fill the CAS role much better than even the existing options, but the Air Force brass doesn’t want terrifying weapons, they want whiz bang and large procurement activities... more opportunities for ego stroking and graft.
This is just another wave of BS and if they manage to shed them this time they'll be sorely missed by the ground troops who love the loiter time that lets one stay overhead a good while, something they carefully avoid mentioning when they claim much more expensive aircraft can do the same job.
Cost effective doesn't apply when they analyze something like the A-10, apparently, only when they rationalize adding another few million to the cost of each F35 or F22. If reality were a factor they'd still be producing A-10s not retiring the ones they have.
Fortunately for the crony capitalist crowd, reality only enters the equation when the new planes the Air Force acquires need a few million in modifications before they've been in service a year or two.
JMHO
The surprising thing is the granddaddy of the A-10 is the old Soviet Stormovik, aka “flying tank”, developed for CAS by the Soviets in WWII. It was a hugely successful aircraft that devastated the Panzers. Just imagine one or two A-10s going after a soft column of ISIS technicals as shown in recent news pictures. AS long as CAS is needed, the A-10 will be essential. BTW the Russians haven’t forgotten their WWII history; they now have an excellent CAS aircraft, the SU @%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.