Posted on 07/31/2021 7:20:22 AM PDT by Onthebrink
A typical misconception is that the military always seeks to enlarge its force, obtain more equipment and keep what it has – while it is lawmakers who want to cut budgets and force a downsizing of ships and planes as cost-cutting measures. However, when it comes to the A-10 Thunderbolt II – known affectionately as the Warthog – it is the United States Air Force that is being “forced” to retain an aircraft the service would like to retire.
(Excerpt) Read more at 19fortyfive.com ...
I find it amazing that all of this talk about reducing the A-10 fleet and fielding the next generation air dominance platforms fail to mention DOD’s own vision of future wars.
About a decade ago a DOD organization called JIFCOM produced its biannual vision of future conflicts. It is a bi-annual document signed off by senior (O-9 (Lt Generals) serving/commanding general officers. In 2009 it stated that Irregular Warfare would be the most likely form of combat faced by the US for the next 25 years. Why? Because it works and it something that DOD refuses to acknowledge since we “Won Vietnam”. I found reading their supporting “Joint Operation Environment (JOE)” very interesting.
BTW within a year of this 2008 document (it was repeated at least twice) by DOD in a DOD Directive that Irregular Warfare was a coequal concern for the US because it works against us. The initial publication of was repeated 3 times at a five year review cycle with each rewrite becoming progressively watered down.
As SOF fighter I have seen repeated attempts to get rid of the A-10 based on staff studies NOT ACTUAL AFTER ACTION REORTS by grunts on the line in combat. It comes down to systemic problems with the acquisition process - the project costs are constantly under estimated and their required combat capabilities aren’t achieved until years after they have been rolled out. In one platform (AC-130U) we worked on that aircraft for a decade to partially achieve what we (I was part of “WE”) said was the actual combat proven needs. BTW the AC-130U (a circa 1991 platform) was retired years before the Vietnam era AC-130H which it was supposed to replace.
Was there any repercussions for this multiple year failure? A stupid question I known.
Me - before I hung everything up (2010) I was recognized as the AF’s TOP R&D Tester out all the civilian contractors employed by the AF. Not too shabby piece of recognition for a retired Major whose orginal commision was dated 27 July 1970!
I think that congress has stock in Tucano, whose plane they want to take the place of the Warthog.
Thanks for the details...Thanks for the service from a parent of an active duty Marine Maj.
Remember this is the same group that during the design of the F-4 Phantom said all future air-to-air combat would be with missiles, so “We Don’t Need No Guns!”
Whoops!
Cue the gun pods
Uninformed folks need to keep your traps shut instead of trying to spread extreme stupid stories.
BBBBBrrrrrrrrrrrt. The audio is nine tenths of the experience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvIJvPj_pjE Happy Bbrrt Day.
None of those listed strikes dealt with the actual close-in threats of firing trenches, pillboxes, barbed wire entanglements, and direct fire artillery.
CAS, done properly, is coordinated with the frontline troops and hits immediate threats with precision. MacArthur used Marine teams in Luzon, employing Forward Air Controllers with radio jeeps and Marine SBDs to hit Japanese strongpoints as they were encountered. Saved many US lives, killed many Japanese, shortened the fight.
Many hundreds of our lives would have been saved if Air Force doctrine embraced CAS and maybe used P-47s or other fighter-bombers to directly engage the enemy beach defenses during the landing.
I agree. The both of those aircraft’s are the ones the enemy never wants to see headed their way.
“..Something about it just bugs them.....”
It’s a basic, grunt, ground-support aircraft that does that job extremely well, but does NOTHING for the glory-seeking, supersonic, ace, dogfight pilot types.
Ask the grunts on the ground if they want to retire the A10.
USAF only wants high flying fighter planes.
They don’t want the CAS mission.
What do you think of the idea of a Predator-type drone with gun pods, which could have control handed over to a Forward Air Controller on the scene, who could see what the drone sees using virtual reality goggles?
If you’ve ever been a grunt on the ground, you love the Warthog!
The Air Force has always hated the Warthog. 1. Because its effective. 2. Compared to their other boondoggles its cheap and can take a serious beating. 3. None of the generals are making any real money off of it.
Yep. Follow the money.
To wit, I have a cousin who was career military (Annapolis, USMC, Joint Chiefs of Staff under Clinton) and now a lobbyist for major defense contractors. I typically see him every year at a family Christmas party or summer bar-b-que where he drinks profusely, as you would expect of any hard-charging career Marine, which inevitably leads to him talking loud and proud towards the end of the day. And without fail, he ends up spouting off about how the Pentagon and big contractors care more about keeping the money flowing for newer, bigger, and more expensive weapons systems/platforms and profits at the expense of older, cheaper, equally effective, and proven inventory.
One particular example is the F-15 vs. F-22. The F-22 was designed and intended to replace the 15s and 16s and took 20 years of development and $35 billion to produce 8 test aircraft and 187 operational aircraft until the program was shut down in favor of upgrading the F-15 into the F15SE Silent Eagle. However, it became apparent to the Pentagon that they could upgrade the F-15 close enough to suffice for the F-22 and allow them to use the remaining F-22 budget to invest in other more lucrative R&D projects.
A according to my cousin, the Deep State (Pentagon, defense contractors, career bureaucrats, lobbyists) feared Trump intended to clean house and stop this corruption and graft and end the gravy train, as did the entire D.C. establishment. There was no need to discuss what needed to be done. Trump had to be crushed by whatever means necessary. To hell with what the majority of voters wanted.
The A-10 is the Battleship of the sky! Meaning its age has come and gone.
Rubio doesn’t know what he is talking about.
The JSF doesn’t have the loiter time, weapons load nor flexibility of the A-10.
And the A-10 is a proven combat aircraft whereas the JSF is nowhere near ready.
A-10 designed for ops in uncontested airspace? Wait, what?
What do you think Cold War airspace would have been if we faced the Soviets? Dense and hostile and heavily contested, that’s what...
Rubio is a putz.
Gawd.
Army really doesn’t want it, too long a logistic train, training and monitions and all sorts of support requirements. The A-10 is appreciated fully by the Army but the Army also knows they can’t support it.
I think not.
Budget challenges, the AF is looking at a multi-mission jet, meaning a jet that can fly CAS and interdiction, and even A/A missions. With a multi-mission aircraft you can “save” money. That is the “thinking.”
But to be capable of performing a broad range of missions means you compromise much when it comes to actually being the best at what you do.
Simply can’t be done.
In the dining hall at King Fahad, Saudi, the A-10 guys were motivated and a close group of guys. . .like they were before Gulf War I.
When I was in Iraq calling in CAS missions, I would be working A-10’s and a flight of F-16’s would show up with “5-minutes playtime and 2 Mk-84’s.”
I would then tell the Hogs to hang it on a hook for a few, call the F-16’s onto a target, they would drop and be out of gas and ammo and leave, and I would bring back the A-10.
Bottom line, this discussion takes place in congress all the time and it is BUDGET driven, not some post-retirement job.
Believe it or not, senior leaders do know their family, friends, kids of friends, etc, will be flying into combat and they value life over some job. Sadly, with Biden and Austin, the military is more into being Woke than winning wars smartly.
My experience on the Hill reveal the defense industry lobby for their kit, but former military guys know the score and will do their pitch but the reps and their staff can tell if what you are pushing is the right thing.
It is CIVILIANS I observed that push a weapon regardless if it was the best solution. The civilians would place a sale over troops life and limb.
Cheers.
Thank you. Posted a couple comments.
Same-ol, same-ol arguments. . .
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.