| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Bill Blocks Air Force from Retiring A-10 Warthog |
| 2013-12-17 |
| The bipartisan defense budget that passed through the House Thursday includes strict language mandating the Air Force not execute any plans to retire the A-10 Warthog. The legislation specifically blocks the Air Force from spending any money to divest A-10s through calendar year 2014. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh has said the service needs to retired older, single mission aircraft like the A-10 in order to reserve funding for newer aircraft like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is slotted to take over the A-10’s close air support role. In service since the 70’s, the twin-engine jet aircraft is designed to provide ground troops with close air support by using its armored fuselage for protection, flying low to the ground to track and hit enemies and firing deadly 30mm rotary cannons. Lawmakers have pushed back against any talk of the A-10’s retirement. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., blocked the nomination of the Air Force secretary, citing her concerns about Air Force’s A-10 plans and Defense Department struggles to bring the Joint Strike Fighter online. Air Force has not formally made a decision about whether to retire the aircraft. However, Lt. Gen. Charles Davis, Military Deputy for Air Force Acquisition, made clear that budget restrictions have forced the service to consider cutting entire programs to save money. “Everything that we have is being effected by sequestration right now – satellites, missiles, air frames have already been cut 13 percent. Do you try to retire something so that you get rid of the entire logistics trail and the depot? You can save a lot of money. That is the discussion that is going on right now,” he said. The potential budget deal that still needs to be approved by the Senate and signed by President Obama would reduce sequestration cuts and add $3 to $7 billion to the Air Force’s budget. However, Davis said the service would not prioritize saving the A-10 and instead listed funding more flying hours and the Joint Strike Fighter program has higher priorities. Davis did say that technological advances such as sensors and laser-guided weaponry have made it possible for a number of aircraft, such as F-16 fighter jets, to successfully perform close air support. F-16s have regularly provided close air support in Afghanistan, service officials specified. “F-16 does a wonderful close air support mission. You don’t need to fly slow with a lot of titanium armor with a 30-mm gun just to be able to do close air support. We’ve got B-52s and B-1s doing close air support. The weapons have changed the game,” Davis said. Furthermore, Davis emphasized that close air support in potential future conflicts will likely require different technologies than are currently needed in Afghanistan today. “Close air support is not hovering close with a gun anymore. That works great in a situation like Afghanistan — but if you assume that we are not going to fight that way all over the world you are going to do close air support much differently. Your ultimate close air support weapon would be something above the earth with a pinpoint accuracy laser that can pick off a person individually when they get too near our troops and do it repeatedly,” Davis added. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #12 "LOW-N-SLOW" > Higher on-target accuracy = minimal to no "friendly fire" incidents. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2013-12-17 20:07 |
| #11 Live Leak war pron videos of A-10s wiping out Talibunnies by the dozens always warmed my heart |
| Posted by: Frank G 2013-12-17 20:01 |
| #10 This brings back mmories of 'burg discussions about Iraq & Astan. We seem to have developed the mentality that it's bad to kill the enemy in groups larger than one at a time. There has always been a tactical advantage through out history to beating a population into submission (see Huns, Romans, Mongols, etc.) Will the nicey nice approach that this implies be effective in reducing the need to keep going to war? How does the wash, rinse and repeat approach fit here? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2013-12-17 18:42 |
| #9 True - not much market for a 'Top |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2013-12-17 18:17 |
| #8 CrazyFool, I'm also not military but I've read stories of VC in bunkers during an archlight strike in Vietnam. I read that and knew that when we bombed Saddams bunkers for a number of days they were gonna surrender with brown shorts. The other thing is a spooky gunship which can put a bullet in every square inch of a football field in a matter of minutes. That has to be intimidating. And it can stay over target. Both these and the A10 would be better and cheaper than the F-35 but the Air Force likes the high profile beauty of the combat jets. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2013-12-17 14:48 |
| #7 You don't need to fly slow with a lot of titanium armor with a 30-mm gun just to be able to do close air support. Let's see...A10, MH60 DAP, Spooky... Hey, they all fly low & slow! I still remember hearing the turbines whine overhead as one banked, pirouetted on the wingtip light as a dragonfly, and strafed a line of trucks as he was coming around. Amazing. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2013-12-17 12:37 |
| #6 Your ultimate close air support weapon would be something above the earth with a pinpoint accuracy laser that can pick off a person individually when they get too near our troops and do it repeatedly" I see we're already fighting "the last war." |
| Posted by: Pappy 2013-12-17 12:18 |
| #5 Your ultimate close air support weapon would be something above the earth with a pinpoint accuracy laser that can pick off a person individually when they get too near our troops and do it repeatedly," Davis added. A pinpoint accuracylaser that can pick point a person individually all while 999,999 other bad guys are firing at you. |
| Posted by: JFM 2013-12-17 11:35 |
| #4 Ahh... but I believe (being non-military) that CAS is not just killing the enemy - but to (legitimately) terrorize those who survive so that they think twice before attacking again. Having a great big noisy flying gun literally in your face would have a lot more impact than some remote jet or B-52 you might not even be able to see. But then again I'm not military so probably don't understand... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2013-12-17 10:36 |
| #3 They would like standoff so that the JAG legal officers have more time to decide whether to let the pilot to shoot. Besides, it's not a fighter & the Air Force fighter clique has been trying to put this AC down for the last 30 years. It was brought out of "mothballs" more than once because nothing else does CAS as well. |
| Posted by: tipover 2013-12-17 10:09 |
| #2 Your ultimate close air support weapon would be something above the earth with a pinpoint accuracy laser that can pick off a person individually when they get too near our troops and do it repeatedly," Davis added. And that capability exists where? Until then, the Reach out and Touch Someone practice should be maintained |
| Posted by: Warthog 2013-12-17 09:49 |
| #1 Give them to the Army and Marines. Duh. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2013-12-17 03:40 |