Posted on 04/23/2014 6:29:07 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
For months, US Air Force officials have used the adjective “hard” to describe their decision to ground entire fleets of aircraft in response to budget cuts.
But on 23 April, USAF chief of staff Gen Mark Welsh says a review of the service’s options showed “very clearly” that grounding its Fairchild Republic A-10s is the right choice.
Speaking at a National Press Club event in Washington, DC, Welsh says the service evaluated a number of cost-cutting options against a “very detailed operational analyses” before making decisions.
“We came very clearly to the conclusion that of all those horrible options, the least operationally impactful was to divest the A-10,” Welsh says. “It makes perfect sense from a military perspective if you have to make these kind of cuts.”
The service’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal, which requires Congressional approval, proposes grounding all of its roughly 300 A-10s at a savings Welsh estimates to be $4.2 billion through fiscal year 2019.
The service has said other aircraft can fill the A-10’s close-air support mission, including Lockheed Martin F-16s and F-35s.
The USAF also considered deferring more planned orders for Lockheed Martin F-35As, but Welsh says that option would drive up the cost of the programme. He adds that the service intends to continue funding other next-generation programmes like the Boeing KC-46 tanker and the long-range strike bomber programme.
Another choice was to cut the fleet of Boeing F-15C fighters beyond the current 51 aircraft on the chopping block.
“We are cutting F-15Cs, but we can’t eliminate the entire fleet or we can’t do the air superiority mission,” he says.
Reductions in funding for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions and for the service’s air mobility fleet were also considered, but Welsh says those missions already face a budget shortfall.
Also on the table: grounding the entire fleet of McDonnell Douglas KC-10 tankers.
“Without the KC-10s, you could [do the job] but it would be ugly and you would not have any flexibility whatsoever,” Welsh says. “The impact of that was simply too big on all the services.”
The same savings could be achieved by cutting three times as many Boeing KC-135 tankers.
“If you take three times as many KC-135s, you flat can’t do the job,” according to Welsh.
Other options included cutting command and control funding or grounding some long-range strike aircraft.
But Welsh says the USAF is the only service that can provide command and control on a “theatre scale”, and he says the US needs 80 to 100 strike platforms in the event of a large-scale war.
“That’s about how many we have today. They are aging, but we have the right number,” according to Welsh.
The USAF has created a transition plan that Welsh says would move other “hardware” into units that currently fly A-10s, but he did not elaborate.
“If we don’t divest the A-10s from those units, the plan will come unraveled…and we will start the planning over again,” he says.
I for one support this move. The A10 hog is one of the most effective close air support planes ever made. Given that Obama et al define US as the enemy, taking it out of service is OK with me.
“The service has said other aircraft can fill the A-10’s close-air support mission, including Lockheed Martin F-16s and F-35s.”
A screwdriver makes for a very poor hammer, General. The A-10 is most definitely a hammer.
Better than nothing, I suppose. But the CAS mission is one that requires A LOT of practice. You can’t just dust the aircraft off & put any old pilot on the stick. Bad things can happen — to our own troops.
Not really. The Spectre gunships (AC-130) is very vulnerable to ManPads and even AAA. It needs to be flown in what is known as a “permissive environment”. The A-10 because it maneuvers on the deck and has a lot of lift for tight banking can evade a lot of that stuff, or survive a hit.
One of the reasons that they adapted the big cannon into the Spectre was that the mini-guns were too short in range and the plane needed a better stand-off weapon to avoid the radar control guns (ZSU-23/4).
An Israeli F-15 made it back to base with an entire wing missing. I saw a picture of it and boy, it was hard to believe he flew that thing back.
The thing that allowed him to do it was part of the fuselage is also wing like so it was getting a lot of lift even after the wing was gone.
We need to bring back all the jobs we sent to China.
Now.
Last year America imported 440 billion dollars worth of everything just from China.
Last year China imported just 122 billion dollars worth of stuff from America.
This has gone on now through two entire administrations. An entire generation.
Bring back American jobs.
STOP IMPORTING EVERYTHING.
I once taped two A-10s flying around for 20 minutes. The camera I was using used those mini VHS cassets and only ran for 20 minutes.
I still have that tape but it requires a VHS adapter then you play it in a VHS player.
They were a marvel to watch. Reminded me a whole lot of crop dusters. They actually looked to me like they would also be a little vulnerable to ground fire or whatever. I know they are built to withstand a lot.
I’ve seen that picture. A-6 collision, as I recall.
Bingo ... fast fly boys do not like the lumbering but efficient A10, however troops on the ground love the close fire support rather than the high flying “dual purpose” aircraft.
If you can’t get Puff, then an A10 is next best.
I knew it involved a collision but can’t remember the details.
The Russians had a plane in WWII which was somewhat like the A-10. It was the Stormovik. It was heavily aromored and deadly on tanks.
When Erich Hartmann the all time ace of aces first tried to shoot one down his bullets just bounced off. The other pilots took the young man aside and told him how to shoot one down.
I think it involved getting below the Stormovic and shooting from under and behind it.
Very good idea.
And now our government is desperately trying to get the cold war going again.
Funny how that works...
the Acquisition Mafia at it again.
I agree move the Hogs to the army so they n protecxt themselves,
Cost: US invaded and conquered by mortal enemy communists.
Benefit: Saved $4 billion.
Sounds like an excellent Cost/Benefit ratio to me.
He’s a four star. No more available.
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.