PDA

View Full Version : A-10 Retirement Move Threatens Troop Security



thedrifter
06-01-03, 08:14 AM
05-30-2003

A-10 Retirement Move Threatens Troop Security



By Ralph Omholt



Just when you thought the U.S. military services had finally learned the value of operating and fighting together, the Air Force has come up with a boneheaded, selfish and destructive plan whose impact will lessen overall U.S. combat power.



I’m referring, of course, to the Air Force’s decision to retire its entire fleet of A-10 “Warthog” close-air-support aircraft.



News reports reveal that in early April, Maj. Gen. David A. Deptula, Director of Plans and Programs at Air Combat Command headquarters, drafted a memo to justify the decommissioning of the A-10 fleet. There are eight active-duty A-10 squadrons in the service today, down from 18 in 1991. Deptula’s memo sets the stage for the retirement of those remaining squadrons as early as 2004.



Unlike its swept-wing, supersonic cousins, the A-10 was built specifically to fly low to the ground in support of field ground troops. The A-10s delivered a combat soldier’s most precious commodity – time. That commodity translates into the ability to advance, or simply to survive. Disregarding its unconventional appearance, the A-10 is considered one of the most effective weapons systems of both the 1991 Persian Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom this spring.



While equipped with jet engines, the Warthog is specifically designed to loiter over the battlefield for prolonged periods in support of ground troops. Its fuselage and cockpit are heavily armored to withstand enemy ground fire. And it is an aircraft built particularly around a gun – the 30-mm. GAU-8/A Gatling cannon that can fire 3,900 rounds of tank-piercing ammunition per minute – that strikes terror in the hearts of the enemy. The Warthog can also drop bombs, with desired precision.



Just ask the Iraqi troops who faced the Warthog’s killing power two months ago. Writing in The New York Times on May 27, military aviation expert Robert T. Coram noted that “Iraqi prisoners interrogated after the war said the aircraft they feared most were the A-10 and the ancient B-52 bomber.”



Even more incredible is the timing of the Air Force decision to kill off the A-10. Coram revealed that Deptula’s memo appeared even as a group of A-10s were saving a 3rd Infantry Division unit from an Iraqi counterattack:



“The United States Army had arrived at a Tigris River bridge on the edge of Baghdad to find Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers positioned at the other end. A deadly crossfire ensued. A call for help went out, and despite heavy clouds and fog, down the river came two A-10s at an altitude of less than 1,000 feet, spitting out a mix of armor-piercing and explosive bullets at the rate of 3,900 rounds per minute. The Iraqi resistance was obliterated. This was a classic case of ‘close air support.’ ”



So why would the Air Force want to terminate such a successful and battle-tested aircraft?



Coram, author of an excellent biography of the late military visionary Col. John Boyd, noted that this reflects the Air Force’s historic prejudice against close-air support missions (and fighter aircraft as a whole) in favor of long-range bombers. The move also reaffirms the Air Force fetish with high technology – and weapons sales. From the F-16 “Falcon” to the advanced F-22 “Raptor,” the Air Force has never seen an aircraft it liked unless that aircraft could be loaded up with as many “gold-plated” systems as possible.



Retaining the A-10 is obviously not an Air Force priority: Building as many high-tech F/A-22s, at $252 million per copy, or F-35 joint strike fighters, with an estimated unit cost of approximately $40 million, is the top priority.



And what does the Air Force propose to bring in as a replacement for the A-10 in close air support? Historically, the Air Force has attempted to use the F-16 fighter jet as a close air support aircraft. However, in the 1991 Gulf War and in the Balkans, the Air Force couldn't allow the F-16 to fly below 10,000 feet due to its vulnerability to anti-aircraft guns and missiles, not to mention its inability to loiter over the battlefield. Its ability to protect ground troops was seriously limited by those factors.



Now, the Air Force argues that the incoming F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will suffice as a replacement aircraft for the A-10. However, that aircraft reportedly is as vulnerable to ground fire as the F-16, casting doubt as to whether the generals will ever allow it to operate low enough to do a sufficient job.



(And why not use Army attack helicopters such as the AH-64 Apache? As combat experience in Iraq confirmed, helicopters can’t fill that requirement since their ability to carry sufficient fuel and armament is compromised by a limited speed and weight capacity. However agile they may be, they cannot do the same job. The modern helicopter has proven too fragile for intense combat operations.)



Whether the A-10s are continued to be flown by the Air Force, or – as proposed by some experts, turned over to the Army or Marines – the Warthog remains the single jet aircraft designed to effectively and reliably support ground troops. Until a battle-proven replacement is provided, the A-10s should continue in service.



The absence of such a proven weapons system can only put American troops fighting in future conflicts in serious danger.



Ralph Omholt is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at skydrifter@attbi.com.

Sempers,

Roger

greybeard
06-01-03, 11:21 AM
This is an incredible aircraft & it's retirement will be felt by all ground troops.
Wonder how much it would cost to adapt the A-10 for carrier operations?
New landing gear
Tail hook
Wing fold
Some weight reduction

Jim
06-01-03, 04:30 PM
Back in the early 80s the A-10 and the Army's attack helicopters were touted by the Air Force and DOD as JAWS, Joint Attack Weapon System. The theory was that commanders could use the capability of each to maximize close air support especially against armor. The two systems working in tandem would offset limitations of both and wreak havoc on enemy armored units. Admittedly this was probably not the mainstream Air Force thought since most Air Force flyers do tend to think more of strategic targets than tactical close air support.

yellowwing
06-01-03, 05:54 PM
Perhaps the Air Cav would pick them up for protection. Or better yet pair them up with the OV-10 VMO squadrons. Folding wingtips may be possible, but where could they afford to shed a few pounds? Those titanium skivvies must feel pretty safe!

greybeard
06-01-03, 09:20 PM
Specifications A-10
Primary Function: Close air support; Forward Air Control.
Contractor: Fairchild Republic Co.
Power Plant: Two General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofans.
Thrust: 9,065 pounds each engine.
Length: 53 feet, 4 inches
Height: 14 feet, 8 inches
Wingspan: 57 feet, 6 inches
Speed: 420 mph (Mach 0.56).
Ceiling: 40,000 feet
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 51,000 pounds
Range: 288 miles (250 nautical miles) carrying 9,500 pounds of weapons and with a 1.7-hour loiter time

Specifications US Navy F-18 Super Hornet
Primary Function: Multi-role attack and fighter aircraft
Contractor: McDonnell Douglas
Unit Cost: $ 57 million
Propulsion: Two F414-GE-400 turbofan engines
Thrust: 22,000 pounds (9,977 kg) static thrust per engine
Length: 60.3 feet (18.5 meters)
Height: 16 feet (4.87 meters)
Maximum Take Off Gross Weight: 66,000 pounds (29,932 kg)

yellowwing
06-01-03, 09:52 PM
Range: 288 miles :( Not too spectacular for "over the horizon", but:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 (UPI) -- Naval developers are examining how to replace today's steam-powered aircraft carrier catapults with an electromagnetic arrangement similar to a magnetic levitation train...the 300-foot-long device would use electric pulses to drive planes off the flight deck...

USS Tarawa LHA-1 Length: 820 feet, plenty of room to launch an A-10! But then you'd have less Harriers on hand. What would a Regimental Landing Team think about that trade off?

greybeard
06-01-03, 11:32 PM
Depends what the comparison looks like between the Harrier & A-10 in the scope of time on station, range, amount of ordinance carried etc. In a strictly close air support role, I would think the A-10 would hold it's own in the hands of Marine pilots, even conssidering they may take longer to arrive on station. Although capable of vertical take-off, the Harrier's prefered launch mode is a rolling launch in order to get off with a heavier ordinance & fuel load. Not sure if the A-10's wings & aft eng position can stand the shock of a cat launch either. Something to think about anyway.

Armory
06-02-03, 10:38 AM
Don't really know what the Air Force is thinking here. I remember reading somewhere that in Iraq Freedom the A-10 took out more tanks than any other weapon system.

Sgt Sostand
06-02-03, 10:44 AM
It would be a dumb move the take away the A10 Warthog