Future of the A-10 Warthog

Got it, thanks.

 

how many B52's are left?,
they must have built 100's since 1952 [60+years],

carpet bombing still strikes fear in anybody that has it happen to them[or are close by] and since our enemy is mostly from the stone-age,they all need to see allah again

 

It's back

America's Toughest, Ugliest Warplane Is Going Back Into Battle | WIRED

 

It's about time!

 

Maybe the Army will take them.

 

Getting rid of the A-10 would be an huge mistake. There is nothing we have to replace what this weapon can do physically and psychologically on the battlefield. I believe it was the A-10 and AC-130 gunships that decimated Al Qaeda in Tora Bora and had Bin Laden apologizing to his fighters for losing the battle and calling for them to retreat.

 

Newest legislation does not allow for the retirement of the KC-10, either. Congressmen do not want any possibility of aircraft being moved out of their states, so they will try and keep all the legacy systems going. Expect it for the U-2, too, even though USAF only wanted to retire those because Congress made them buy Global Hawks they did not want because they could not afford to operate both. USAF wanted more stealthy RQ-180 or similar types of drones, but could not say that out loud. USAF is being painted into a corner.

 

This is why I hate politics and politicians.

 

When retirement of the KC-10 was brought up last year, it was pretty laughable, and not even possibly realistic. Looking at the forecasted mission rates, and then actual missions and compare to the KC-135s it would just not be possible to retire the KC-10 if there was no replacement already in service. Seeing that the KC-10s are overflown so much that they are flying almost the same amount of sorties per year as the KC-135s (62vs250) its just not realistic to retire the "10". I have been to "places" where we had both 10's and 135's and we outflew the 135's per day with a third less aircraft 9 sorties to 2.

 

And the politics go on....

"The years-in-the-making debate over whether the Air Force should scrap its A-10 Warthog attack aircraft in favor of the over-budget F-35 has taken a harsh rhetorical turn.

A two-star general last month reportedly accused Air Force pilots who tell Congress about successes of the four-decade-old Warthog of committing “treason,” drawing the wrath of senators, defense policy critics and bloggers. The Air Force inspector general’s office has confirmed that an investigation was launched on Jan. 22.

Maj. Gen. James Post, vice commander of Air Combat Command, was reported to have made the comments at a January closed-door meeting of the Tactics Review Board at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The story, as relayed by meeting attendees, was broken by Air Force veteran Tony Carr writing on the blog John Q. Public. Carr was outraged at the apparent violation of free speech and the story was picked up by Stars and Stripes, the Associated Press and Defense News.

“If anyone accuses me of saying this, I will deny it,” Post told the meeting, according to the blogger. "Anyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason."

Carr proceeded to attack the Air Force’s initial silence on the episode, saying officers “were concerned less about his use of hyperbolic brio than how his words fit within a pattern of creeping fascism in the ranks. In other words, no one was calling for Post to be relieved so much as they were looking for the Air Force to make an affirmative statement about the non-negotiable rights of airmen to engage in free expression and engage their legislators.”

Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called on Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James to investigate. The Arizona Republican has long advocated that the Air Force retain the A-10, which provides close air support to ground troops in combat.

Another A-10 backer, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, at a Jan. 28 hearing, told Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh that “this is very serious, to accuse people of treason for communicating with Congress," adding her concern that the Air Force may seek to intimidate A-10 pilots who contact Congress in a sort of “reverse investigation.”

Welsh replied that he would be “astonished” if there were such a reverse probe, saying he would never condone one. He supports “any airman's right to discuss anything that you would like to discuss with them and to give you their honest opinion," Welsh said, but he added that he would not recommend any action against Post until the investigation is complete. Welsh did, however, say he personally phoned Post on learning of his reported accusations of treason.

After President Obama’s fiscal 2016 budget was released proposing decommissioning the A-10, Ayotte issued a statement on Feb. 2 conveying her disappointment. “Our ground troops and Joint Terminal Attack Controllers -- our nation's true close air support experts -- overwhelmingly believe that the A-10 provides life-saving close air support capabilities that no other current aircraft can. That's why Congress -- on a bipartisan, bicameral basis -- prohibited the Air Force from retiring any A-10s in fiscal year 2015,” she said.

On Thursday, the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit advocacy group that pushes for transparency and against waste, joined with other whistleblower protection groups in sending the Air Force Secretary a letter protesting alleged retaliation against Air Force pilots who spoke out on the A-10 and demanding that Post be fired, or at least suspended during the inquiry. “Maj. Gen. Post’s bullying comment shows he lacks the judgment to continue in his current role of vice commander of the Air Force’s Air Combat Command,” POGO wrote.

The Air Combat Command, in a Jan. 27 statement to Air Force Times, said Post’s “use of hyperbole” was intended to prove a point and not to restrict airmen from communicating with members of Congress. “The Air Force decision on recommended actions/strategic choices for the constrained fiscal environment has been made and the service's position communicated. While subsequent government debate will continue at the highest levels as those recommendations and other options are evaluated, our job as airmen is to continue to execute our mission and duties -- certainly our role as individual military members is not to engage in public debate or advocacy for policy."

On Friday, a spokeswoman for the Defense Department inspector general told Government Executive that her office always oversees “administrative investigations involving senior officials once they are completed by military service IGs.”

A week after his scoop, Carr wrote that “the Air Force doesn’t need a protracted investigation to determine what happened here, and it doesn’t need to barricade itself behind a bevy of pundits spouting misguided propaganda to maintain an appropriate public image. All it needs to do is account for the facts, make a decision based on those facts, and report that decision publicly so that various constituencies can understand the applied rationale. This would provide a perfect opportunity to remind airmen of their rights and limitations in public debate.”

 

http://theaviationist.com/2015/02/11/a-10s-return-to-europe/
"The U.S. Air Force has deployed 12 A-10 Thunderbolt attack planes and approximately 300 personnel to Spangdahlem airbase, in Germany ...."

 

The one and only time I've seen an A-10 flying was over the Nurburgring track which was cool coincidence.

 

I saw one do a take-off at full power once. Rather uninspiring compared to most every other plane. But no other plane can yank and bank like it can at tree top level while spitting out 30mm cannon rounds. Warthog is an appropriate name.

 

I was a range officer in the UK and we hated to see them show up because they tore up all the sensors we used for scoring. When A-10s got done on the range, it looked like someone had ploughed the field where those bullets dug furrows in the ground. They usually took down a good portion of the poles where the sensors were hung to hear the shells pass, as well.

The gun is one thing, but now they are set up to deliver most PGMs, as well. The AGM-65 Maverick was a favorite weapon because it could be fired from several miles away, clear of most light AAA.

Still, they are a flying radar reflector, and pretty vulnerable to a modern IADS.

 

I'm assuming they had 'range' ammo, with regular steel tipped rounds?

 

Jim- It was inert, whatever is in there. I thought it was still depleted uranium, but with no cannon charge, to maintain the same ballistics. Usually took several hours of maintenance after an A-10 visit. Virtually no maintenance after 20 mm cannon runs.

 

You say that like it's a BAD thing...LOL

I'd love to see somebody start plowing furrows in ISIS...

 

Taz, I have vivid memories from 1943 of watching P-40's firing at the range on the end of Longboat Key and 6 cal. 50's meeting at the point of convergence can plow a pretty good ditch and totally destroy the target and surrounding structures. Yeah, I know, ancient history.

 

Saw one do a flyover at Road America one year with an F117! Was amazing to see either much less both, such different ends of the spectrum!

 

Bob- The 50 cal was a great weapon. Fired in single shot mode, you could hit a man size target at 1000 yards with one. About equivalent in fire power to the cannon the British and Germans used in WW-2, with less holes in the pattern because of the higher rate of fire. At least once the Brits stopped listening to Bader about his 8 30 calibers, which were useless.

 

I trained with them a few times in Kuwait. When we did our force on force training in the tank battalion. They'd make a pass out as a friendly and make a pass in as the enemy. I had one dive bomb my tank once. It cast a shadow on my tank, I looked up, saw the pilot inside he was so close. It was amazing. Then he went back to where he came form all in a few seconds. It was outstanding! Tankers love those things

 

Taz, as far as I can tell, the cal. 50 is still a viable weapon. As you said , it's a great long range single shot sniper weapon. I recently saw a program on TV about it and the guy was hitting a man-sized target form 1 1/2 mile away. He had to calculate all the ballistics as well as wind, temp, and the rotation of the earth. I remember a story about a guy picking off a Korean general from umpteen thousand yards during the Korean conflict. The hardened steel dart from an armor piercing round is wicked looking and very effective. My P-38 fighter pilot friend said that he flew through the wreckage of an FW-190 that he disintegrated with a three second burst that damaged his airplane as well. The British cal. 303 was a pea shooter in comparison and I never understood why they hung onto it so long. Eight of them could throw a lot of rounds but no impact. The point of convergence of 8 cal. 50's was devastating. Look at what the P-47's could do when they were strafing.

 

Bob- I have fired one of the Armalite 50 cals and they are pretty amazing. Even with a 28 lb rifle, the recoil goes all the way through you. Range is unbelievable. Can only imagine what a Barrett semi-auto must feel like if fired rapidly.