You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Government
USAF Goes Around Congress to Drive a Stake in the A-10
2016-08-06
Article in the Blaster blog by Chuck Spinney, colleague of the late great John Boyd. 8th article in a series.
The intervention of Congress temporarily has thwarted the AF game plan by directing the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) to conduct a realistic fly-off and shoot-off between the A-10 and the F-35. The sensible goal of this approach is to use the scientific method to determine empirically which plane is more effective in supporting ground troops in combat. Currently that test is scheduled for 2018. That the Air Force was forced by Congress to conduct such a common-sense test is a telling message in itself.

But there is more. An A-10/F-35 fly-off in 2018, while well intentioned and entirely appropriate, is also a charade. The F-35 will not be cleared by 2018 to carry and fire the weapons appropriate for the Close Air Support mission, including its necessary command and control avionics. Even if one makes the patently absurd assumption that there are no more delays in the problem-plagued F-35 program, the OT&E report evaluating the F-35's capability to carry and fire these weapons in anything approaching a realistic CAS scenario will not be available until 2021. How can the F-35 pass a fly-off/shoot-off comparative CAS test against the A-10 before we know what, if any, CAS capabilities are possessed by the F-35? To ask such a question is to answer it, so don't expect any meaningful fly-off/shoot-off to be conducted in 2018.

Nevertheless, this mismatch between the F-35's availability and capability, has not deterred the AF from its goal of trashing the A-10 ‐ literally.

Notwithstanding, the speed bump imposed by Congress, as my good friend James Stevenson explains below, the AF is making the retirement of the A-10 in favor of the F-35 inevitable by quietly destroying those A-10s now in long term storage. There are currently 291 A-10s in active service, with another 99 A-10s in storage in the Arizona desert (including 50 recently modernized A-10Cs with gobs of flight time left on them). But the Air Force is sending these stored aircraft (including A-10Cs) to the breakers. In so doing, the AF is deliberately reducing its ability to maintain the existing active A-10 force structure over the long term.

In short, the quiet AF strategy of destroying perfectly good A-10s guarantees the F-35 will replace the A-10, thereby rendering Congress's direction for a fly-off/shoot-off irrelevant. This makes a mockery of the powers assigned to the Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution ‐ a document every member of the AF has sworn unconditionally to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Posted by:Alaska Paul

#14  I believe I've told this story here before. In several of our family's Marine Sargent's 'encounters' during the Iraq invasion and subsequent AQI actions, nothing lit up smiles on the wounded guys waiting for evac like the sound of those turbofans at the start of a run.

The riflemen on the lines were too busy to smile, but they were thinking the same thing.

"Here comes Hell, you F*ckers!!"

The aviator folks at Pendleton that I talked to about 10 years ago would've loved to have the A-10. Unfortunately the USMCA today doesn't have the resources to keep their existing birds flying or pilots properly trained. Probably by design.

Hopefully that changes soon.
Posted by: Mullah Richard   2016-08-06 20:40  

#13  Show some sympathy for the fly boys. The F-35 is their last gasp before the Robot Mafia takes over air combat maneuvering.

I realize it goes against the Treaty of Westphalia or some damn agreement, but giving the A-10s (and their budget!) to people who want and need them makes such good sense that I can almost guarantee it will never happen.
Posted by: SteveS   2016-08-06 19:37  

#12  Oh SPOD how true you are.

This is so typical of all tech projects. Been there done that for 30 years and it always comes down to techies wanting to do the latest and greatest (mea culpa) to deliver the spiffiest solution possible. Rugged? Invulnerable? Idiot proof? Never seen those requirements on the spec.
Posted by: AlanC   2016-08-06 19:18  

#11  I guarantee if the techies in the Air Farce weapons R&D were true stick and rudder guys, you would not see this kind of silliness.

Yep, an airplane that is a flying WiFi hotspot with multiple computers collecting terabits of information, what could go wrong?

If they can hack the Defense Department or the FBI what makes you think they can't hack one of our flying computers?

Our aircraft are flying computers with pilots playing video games. An armed force for the millennialists and snow flakes that want to fight a war without offending anyone.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2016-08-06 18:44  

#10  RE: Cheaderhead's comment "pour encourager les autres" (hat-tip, Candide)
Posted by: Lone Ranger   2016-08-06 17:56  

#9  Maybe if a few of the fighter mafia generals get shot for treason, the lesson would take.
Posted by: Silentbrick   2016-08-06 17:22  

#8  Only takes a directional order from the SecDef to move CAS to the ground bounders and out of the zoomies responsibility. Hell, if you can direct a third gender integration, you can direct doctrine.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2016-08-06 15:45  

#7  Army for sure. Is there any way to launch and recover an A-10 from a ship?

Say what you want about the new Battlestar Galactica I found interesting the opening moves - the old stuff being retired and when the Cylons attacked, all the new stuff was hacked.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2016-08-06 14:34  

#6  These are the same guys who back in the sixties didn't think a fighter should have a gun and that missiles at 100 miles, via the AARAM missile was how dogfighting would be done in the future.

These idiots in R&D seem to think they can do close air support from 20,000 with smart airplanes and smarter bombs. They are essentially raccoons distracted by the latest shiny object.

As for close air support mods, sell them to the Israelis and wait a year and they will have all the close air support mods you want. Funny, I don't think our Air Farce has the stomach for close air support.

SO why don't we just transfer the A-10 to the Marines I am sure they would LOVE to get rid of those decrepit old Harriers and early model Hornets.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2016-08-06 14:04  

#5  If they want a meaningful 'fly-off' (they don't, of course) it needs to run for multiple sorties of the same aircraft - maybe 10? - over a one week time. Doesn't matter if the F-35 is better (unlikely) on one pass if it can't show up again for a week. And the test has to include being shot at and still being able to go around again.
Posted by: Glenmore   2016-08-06 13:24  

#4  The F35 will never provide the ground support the A10 provides. This is their game. They will do the fly off. They will show people that don't understand ground support that it will work. Congress will swallow and it will be done. The F16 was sold to congress as a ground support aircraft, the F14 was sold as a ground support aircraft, the F15 was sold as a ground support aircraft. Then after they bought them they had them modified to carry a different payload. The weapons necessary for ground support had their install mods removed. When you call them out on it they say it can do that mission but we don't have any in that configuration and it will take months to modify them. Its a bullshit game and our soldiers are the pawn. They should disband all ground support aircraft from the Air Farce. Give it to the Army and Marines.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2016-08-06 11:50  

#3  There's a book out (Red Platoon) by Clint Romesha, MOH and one of the defenders of COP Keating in 2009, describing in some detail what a happy event the arrival of Apaches and A-10's over the battlefield was. (Apparently, watching a couple of hundred bad guys finding out what a 30mm Gatling gun can do tends to improve morale.) Whatever the brass says, I don't think your Army and Marine infantry would be real happy about standing down the A-10's.
Posted by: Matt   2016-08-06 11:49  

#2  Areed. We should initiate pilotless aircraft (no more POWs) for the Air Farce and turn over the A-10 to the Army and Marines if they can use them. Barring that, I would not scrap the planes as surely they could be sold or donated to some foreign service (e.g., Chad, Nigeria, Kenya) that could use them.
Posted by: Slease Pelosi2504   2016-08-06 10:02  

#1  Of course the ideal solution of just transfering the 'Hog to the Army and Marines is something not to be even discussed. Hell give them the AC-1390's too. Along with the Air Scouts funding.
Posted by: Cheaderhead   2016-08-06 06:06  

00:00