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.
Correction: an ARMED fixed-wing aircraft. The V-22 Osprey can operate as fixed-wing, but has no offensive armament. The newer V-22's have a belly gun, but it's supposed to only be employed defensively.
To be clear, CAS is defined by the application of force in close proximity to friendlies while under positive control.
We have munitions that can do CAS (JDAMS, SDB, etc for examples), but what gives the A-10 its true advantage in CAS is its ability to loiter and use a gun that is unmatched in its versatility and lethal effect.
Truthfully, the A-10 Thunderbolt II design is good for another 20-30 years, and those parts that need upgrading, mostly electronics, tend to be modular. So why not contract with a friendly foreign aircraft manufacturer to make an armada of them, but with empty holes for the electronics?
The hardest part to get used to be the engine, but there are now several quality engine makers.
“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”
Besides the shorter range to get a kill, the A-10 was designed to carry the GUA-8 and its full load of 30mm. . .to remove that and replace it with something else would upset balance for in-flight stability and control, let alone having to strap titanium plates in the front wheel-well to move the CG forward. . .back to the original weight.
An 80mil dispersion on the A-10 gun is necessary because when flying a jet and doing strafe, you need some dispersion pattern to ensure a hit. Things move fast, even an A-10 is fast when it comes to shooting a Gatling gun at ground targets. The GAU-8 could be made to decrease the mil dispersion but that would make it much harder to ensure a hit. (It was done in early testing to find the ‘right’ mil dispersion).
Interesting articles...
http://wethearmed.com/military-and-law-enforcement/the-a-10-close-air-support-myths-and-procurement-politics/
http://www.janes.com/article/31464/usaf-presses-case-for-a-10-cuts
I wonder, if the USAF isn’t; sweeping the skies of enemy aircraft, dropping bombs on the enemy, strafing the enemy, providing satellite recon to the ground troops, providing UAV and U2 intel to the ground troops, what, exactly, is the USAF doing then?
Aren’t all of the above and the numerous other roles they perform in DIRECT support of any US ground troops whether they be USMC or US Army?
When a bomb craters an enemy position, who is the “benefactor”? The USAF or the ground troops? When an F16 is called in by a USAF FAC and drops a load of bombs on Iraqis “danger close”, who are they supporting?
The “Airpower” mission for the USAF is a multi role effort...fighters gain and maintain control over the airspace. Fighters and bombers come in to DIRECTLY support the advance of the ground troops. ISR provides accurate and timely intelligence to Commanders in the field.
Yeah, maybe the USMC aren’t asking or maybe they have USMC aviation or Army helos in the area to provide the support.
Don’t know, but I really tire of this peristent maligning of the USAF when it is unwarranted.
Another article of “interest”...one where the AF “didn’t do anything for the Corps” except lose an entire crew of an AC-130.
http://astroguyz.com/2009/02/19/the-downing-of-spirit-03-did-the-moon-play-a-role/
The A-10 is called the Thunderbolt II, as in the grand-baby of the old WWII P-47 combined with the old A-1 Skyraider..
The Frogfoot, the SU-25 (@%) is a crappy jet; gun is not as accurate as the A-10, not even close to the same range, and its engines are a lag-monster and subject to compressor stalls.
LOL, well played.
I do believe that it would be a great asset to the Corps. As far a air-ground support it would provide a third arm to support the Marines in the mud. They would have attack helicopters which are slower but agile and able to fly NOE as well as lingering lower than an airframe. They’d have the Harrier which can provide faster arrival in the area and can do some heavier damage and can be launched or recovered on a minimum site as opposed to a carrier or fixed runway. The third would be the A-10 which has the protection, loiter time and better precision in hitting the ground targets. A great combination used separately according to the needs or in unison. The way they are built, they could conceivably be modified to be a usable deck-banger.
The AF frequently has supported the Army and the Corps in A-G support missions but more often the Corps brings in their own assets first because they exclusively train to support the ground mission. The A-10s, fighters and bombers where necessary as well as gunship and special ops support.
The current crop of fighter jocks in charge just don’t like and never have liked the slow and less glamorous Hog. It’s mission requires something more than the 15-year old sexy hero mentality that many fighter jocks have.
The Marines do have their own Air Corps. But the A-10 is sooo sweet.
I would never bash the AF. I was just asking for one person’s perspective and experience for inter-branch service, so to speak. I was really disappointed that my son wasn’t going to have A-10s cover his butt when he was in the stan that’s all. Wondered about it.
I extend my apologies for misunderstanding your question...
No problem, I really like talking in person better than type and I absolutely hate texting, plus I have a habit of assuming everybody knows how my spidey-web brain works so I kind of leap around when asking questions. I should ask if anyone knows any of the A-10 pilots from Willow Grove around 1992-4?
Agree. No question.
When I first saw pictures of ISIS convoys of technicals I salivated over what one or two A-10s could have done to them.
“When I first saw pictures of ISIS convoys of technicals I salivated over what one or two A-10s could have done to them.”
That’d work if the enemy couldn’t be counted on to behead any captured US pilots.
I have a few years working on the Hogs. Never got to see them in action but they did a SAR demo at Osan that felt like the real thing. The 16s did top cover and the 10s did the dirty work down low. The 16s had a good loiter time but no weps only flares.
OK anchor clanker, jealous?
Can’t use the GAU-8 on humans. Against some rule.
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.