What's new

Boeing touts A-10s for international customers should USAF divest fleet

It's Time For America To Give Its Allies The A-10
5/21/15 4:05pm
1262392555945977382.jpg
12345

Reports state that Boeing is looking at reselling refurbished and upgraded A-10s, many of which may be idiotically orphaned by the USAF, to foreign countries. Although it sounds intriguing, the idea to offload the A-10 to allies is really nothing new. I pitched it years ago.


The Air Force's Rationale For Retiring The A-10 Warthog Is Bullshit
The fact that the USAF is so willing to throw away 300 of the finest close air support platforms… Read more

As the A-10 remains mired in a fight to the death on Capitol Hill, the re-winging effort for the older ‘thin wing’ A-10s has seen its 105th modification, with 68 more to go under the original contract. This will take the effort through 2017. There are options for another 69 Warthog installed wing-sets after that.


At What Point Does The USAF's War Against The A-10 Become Sabotage?
The USAF's leadership wants the A-10 Warthog retired seemingly at all costs. Now it appears… Read more

1262392556071787302.jpg
6

Today, there are about 300 A-10s in the USAF’s inventory, with a portion of this number already in reserve aircraft storage. This number is constantly under pressure via the USAF who continues to push for retiring the Warthog fleet as whole. Even if funding continues through the end of the decade for 300 active A-10s, dozens of surplus airframes still exist.


This Video Will Leave You Begging The USAF to Keep The A-10 Warthog
After countless high-energy and breathtaking videos showing fighter jets going about their… Read more

If the A-10 fleet were reduced or totally retired, throngs of fully upgraded jets with decades of life left on them would be sent to bake in the desert, or even worse, some of them may be destroyed. No other country operates the A-10, so even spare parts reclamation would be very limited for these retired airframes. As such, Boeing says they already have customers for surplus A-10s, with the plan being that the unloved (by USAF brass at least) ‘Hogs would get the upgrades they have always deserved. These include upgraded displays, even improved over the A-10C Precision Engagement Package upgrade that occurred in the mid 2000s, new targeting pods, defensive systems and, yes, new engines.

1262392556110066726.jpg
789

The idea of providing our allies with surplus US hardware, including A-10s, even for free, is an underutilized foreign policy tool. This is why I wrote the following on the very subject in early 2012, when the A-10 was already under attack from USAF leadership:

DON’T SEND PREMATURELY RETIRED A-10 WARTHOGS TO THE BONEYARD, GIVE THEM AWAY!
February 12th, 2012

We are retiring good airframes at such an alarming rate now that stories like the one linked here have been popping up left and right. Literally, business is booming at AMARG in Tucson, and they are about to get a lot busier when another squadron of F-16s and over a hundred A-10′s hit their doorstep over the coming year. These cuts, among others, are all part of the DoD’s cost cutting and restructuring plan aimed at trimming half a trillion dollars in defense spending over the next decade.

I realize that it is good to keep aircraft and plentiful parts in war reserve, but from what I can tell, we are going to have such an abundance of airframes baking in the Arizona sun that really, they are going to the bone yard to die frivolously as a waste of money. This is ridiculous.

Currently, a huge push is underway to arm our allies in troubled regions, especially in the Pacific and Middle East, so that we don’t have to do, or pay for, all the fighting ourselves if a conflict were to arise. Instead of giving away mass sums in foreign aid to many of these countries we should give them a sizable portion of our recently retired hardware instead. Yes, I know that this already does happen under limited circumstances, but we need to really invigorate the process not just to countries who receive US foreign aid, but to wealthier ones as well.

The legendary A-10 is the perfect aircraft to kick this effort off. With about 1/3 of the fleet stated to be retired soon, most likely some of the A+ models that have not received the full Precision Engagement Package and many of the earlier thin-winged airframes that are in need of new wings-sets, we should market these incredibly effective aircraft to our allies, at no cost. Why give these aircraft away for nothing you ask? Here is why:

  • These jets are incredible counter insurgency and close air support machines. Both roles are tactical in nature and thus the A-10 offers little threat to neighboring countries when it comes to offensive deep strike or surprise attacks on strategic targets.
  • They are able to loiter for long periods of time and deal a devastating blow on the battlefield. In other words they are not as tanker dependent like F-16s or Hornets, and thus perfect for countries who have limited aerial refueling assets. Also, a probe could be easily fitted for probe and drogue tanking off of prop-driven tanker aircraft such as a C-130, or even buddy tanking could be developed.
  • The A-10 is easily supportable and does not require heavy infrastructure to operate, perfect for smaller countries will limited aerospace infrastructure.
  • They are fuel efficient and relatively inexpensive to operate.
  • They can carry a wide variety of munitions, from dumb bombs to the latest Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) and deliver them accurately.
  • In the Middle East they could provide incredible effectiveness against desert anti-tank operations, urban close air support scenarios, as well as counter helicopter operations. Two areas of which the A-10 has proven it’s prowess time and time again
  • The A-10 would be the aircraft to have when fighting against small boat swarms and other asymmetric tactics in Straits of Hormuz and the littorals of the Pacific Theater. The A-10 was envisioned as a sea control platform early on, now that concept’s time may have finally come.
  • The A-10 Precision Engagement Package and further “Charlie” model upgrades have married modern systems to a robust, simplistic and survivable bomb-truck, thus giving countries with limited means modern precision attack capabilities.
  • Modern miniaturized PGM such as the Griffon Missile and laser guided rockets will offer lower collateral damage precision weapons, of which many more can be carried at a single time, and at lower costs than currently fielded more elaborate and powerful PGMs. These new munitions will truly unlock the incredible urban warfare and asymmetric threat countering capabilities of the A-10.
  • Operators do not have to only drop PGM’s at a minimum of $20k per bomb kit, they can use the GAU-8 Avenger cannon for persistent precision target destruction on the cheap.
  • A structural and technological ongoing upgrade pipeline is already in place in the US, thus new operators will have little if any operational test and developmental costs with such a mature system.
  • Full interoperability with US A-10 and fast jet units as well as data-link connectivity would be a potent byproduct of such a plan.
  • With another perspective on A-10 operations by an entirely different user than the USAF, new tactics development and certain multinational intellectual synergies can be realized.
  • Very low export risk to the US, only targeting pods and a few key “black boxes” would possibly need heavy export controls and monitoring.
  • By keeping the number of operational airframes high, even if the US is not the only user, costs can be diffused across a wider multinational fleet, saving the tax payer money in the long run.
  • Americans will continue to support the airframes long into the future which means importation of wealth into America and the retention of key aerospace jobs here in the US.
  • It costs the US major dollars to park an airframe in the type of storage where it could be re-animated in the span of a couple months. Why pay this cost when we can give these aircraft to a close allies with common interest who will fly and utilize the airframe for years to come?
  • We are not going to use them anymore so why not give them to someone that we can work with when we do need such a capability in the future? Let the recipient ally pay for their gifted A-10s upgrades, fuel, maintenance and training, and in the process we will not experience a “net loss” of available airframes should we need to go to battle under common interests in the recipient county’s neighborhood.
  • Military trade and cooperative training is one of the best ways of tightening alliances and bonds with key overseas allies. Further, by giving them such a capability for only the cost of ownership and upgrades sends a strong message to our friends and enemies alike that we reward our allies and thus can more effectively punish our enemies if need be.
  • Do not limit such gifting to just allied nations, departments inside the US Government and out should also have a fare shot at keeping the A-10s flying in a multitude of roles. Special Operations Command, the US Forestry Service, NOAA, the Coast Guard, or even private industry, whoever can make use of the still going strong A-10s should have a go at continuing operations with them.
Sadly, the US has become the kid who throws away his toys every year around Christmas time in the hopes that he will get new ones from mom and dad. Other nations have learned to make use of what they have by upgrading older aircraft or buying used airframes instead of costly new ones. While we may continue with this ridiculous practice in the foreseeable future, let’s at least give our lightly used toys in need of some new batteries and a bit of paint to our less fortunate best friends who live down the block. Almost nothing but good can come of such a plan and the A-10 is just the perfect platform to start out this new initiative, especially if the idiotic USAF ends up getting its way and retires the fleet as a whole.

With any luck, our used F-15s and F-16s will follow quickly on the A-10s heals under such a concept.

1262392556168851750.jpg
10

Looking back, 2012 was a much simpler time than today. With Russia threatening Eastern Europe, ISIS ravaging the Middle East, Iran backing fighters throughout the region, and the Pacific becoming a hot spot with China’s growing military might, arming our allies with our hand-me-downs makes more sense than ever. This is especially true when it comes to our Eastern European allies and those countries fighting ISIS, especially Jordan.

The A-10 is deployed to both those theaters right now and it remains the close air support giant that it was decades ago. The A-10 is a capability that can be feared, not just because of its deadliness over the battlefield, but because of its survivability, durability and simplicity of operations. These attributes makes the A-10 even more ideal for cash-strapped countries that are not accustomed to operating high-end and relatively delicate western fighter types.

1262392556265372966.jpg


In the end, if we cannot keep the A-10 in sufficient numbers to keep the force relevant within the USAF, than the jets should be distributed to our allies. The idea of Boeing selling them at the cost of upgrades and service contracts is fine, but anything over that is a barrier to their distribution and should not be allowed. The tax payer would be paying for them to bake in the desert anyway, so giving them away is a win and it would cost us a lot less to arm our allies with A-10s, or any other surplus fighters for that matter, than to operate our own from their bases half way around the world, on a rotating basis with no end in sight.

So what are we waiting for? The DoD should immediately tally available A-10s, and other aircraft such as F-15s and F-16s, for distribution to our allies, even if it is just a few dozen jets to begin with. If the ax ever actually falls on the USAF’s active A-10 fleet, then hundreds more Warthogs should be available for gifting immediately. A wall off A-10s lining the border with Russia and flying against ISIS is a good thing no matter what flag is on the tail, and it is a lot cheaper having our allies create such a persistent presence than us.

Contact the author at Tyler@jalopnik.com.
 
Five. Five were shot down in Iraq. That's not a lot considering the amount of sorties and damage they received.

They've been hit my surface-to-air missile in combat, some are damaged, a few downed. But saying that MANPADS render the A-10 irrelevant is a major leap in ignorance.
Alright. Granted. Irrelevant is not the acceptable word here.




Makes zero difference. A-10 was designed to survive hits from ground fire. That was in the 70's. Air defence units have grown far deadlier in the 40 or so years since then. Just about any decently modern AAA or SAM system has more than enough punch to overwhelm the A-10's armour. Surviving massive damage isn't a very sustainable strategy in a war at any rate and certainly not for a 20-30 aircraft force. Even if the planes do manage to make it back to base missing practically everything but the cockpit like you people get so worked up about, they're no longer combat worthy. They'd need countless hours of repairs if they weren't written off as a loss. All the repair time/cost plus the lost missions that the damaged planes were unable to fly would be a huge detriment logistically.

GW1. Of the damaged A-10's, how many operated before the destruction of Iraq's IAD? When were A-10's first deployed? Will such tactics work against the 'near-peers', at least for the rest of world, which cannot afford to expend 2000 HARM ARM's fighting a 3rd world dictator?

Seriously, using brains is not a privilege. You may nitpick posts and selectively quote a person and go I win, I win. For any one who can see and read and understand, it is clear who the ignorant is.
 
just in case you haven't already, I highly recommend this book for all fans of the warthog:

51d1fIr9fQL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg



can't post links yet but for those in India, you can get it off flipkart too, great read.
 
030408-F-2034C-018.jpg~original
Alright. Granted. Irrelevant is not the acceptable word here.




Makes zero difference. A-10 was designed to survive hits from ground fire. That was in the 70's. Air defence units have grown far deadlier in the 40 or so years since then. Just about any decently modern AAA or SAM system has more than enough punch to overwhelm the A-10's armour. Surviving massive damage isn't a very sustainable strategy in a war at any rate and certainly not for a 20-30 aircraft force. Even if the planes do manage to make it back to base missing practically everything but the cockpit like you people get so worked up about, they're no longer combat worthy. They'd need countless hours of repairs if they weren't written off as a loss. All the repair time/cost plus the lost missions that the damaged planes were unable to fly would be a huge detriment logistically.

GW1. Of the damaged A-10's, how many operated before the destruction of Iraq's IAD? When were A-10's first deployed? Will such tactics work against the 'near-peers', at least for the rest of world, which cannot afford to expend 2000 HARM ARM's fighting a 3rd world dictator?

Seriously, using brains is not a privilege. You may nitpick posts and selectively quote a person and go I win, I win. For any one who can see and read and understand, it is clear who the ignorant is.


Example
Warhead weight
1.15 kg directed-energy blast fragmentation warhead (Strela-2M / SA-7 Grail. Entered service 1968)
1.17 kg (2.6 lb) with 390 g (14 oz) explosive (9K38 Igla / SA-18. Entered service 1981)

Yeah, a huge change .....
Yeah, massive damage

030408-F-2034C-018.jpg~original

This one made it home.

A-10%20770255%20damage.jpg

This one too.

820664%20ABDR%20Desert%20Storm%20-3.jpg

Same plane
 
030408-F-2034C-018.jpg~original



Example
Warhead weight
1.15 kg directed-energy blast fragmentation warhead (Strela-2M / SA-7 Grail. Entered service 1968)
1.17 kg (2.6 lb) with 390 g (14 oz) explosive (9K38 Igla / SA-18. Entered service 1981)

Yeah, a huge change .....
Yeah, massive damage

030408-F-2034C-018.jpg~original

This one made it home.

A-10%20770255%20damage.jpg

This one too.

820664%20ABDR%20Desert%20Storm%20-3.jpg

Same plane
impressive, but what happens when 70 kilos of a buk warhead strikes it ?
 
impressive, but what happens when 70 kilos of a buk warhead strikes it ?
Surface to air missiles kill. That is what they are designed to do. But you BUK would first have to detect and catch the A-10 in time.
383947.jpg


Clearly A-10 is not designed to be protected against a BUK, so it is a silly comparison (protecting from that kind of warhead weight is unfeasible for ANY aircraft > it is a moot point). A-10 is designed to protect against the typical low level threat: AAA and SPAAG and MANPADS.

Also, Buk is one of your 1970s missiles.... it entered service in 1979. Are you suggesting 9M38 has a less deadly warhead than the newer 9M317? And the latest 9M317ME has a warhead of 62 kg rather than 70 kg of the 9M38...

020711-F-1851F-004.jpg


Brrrrrrrrrrt+brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt_43b056_5279813.jpg


A10Image5.jpg
A10-30mm-damage.jpg
 
But you BUK would first have to detect and catch the A-10 in time.
it would, but apart from the US/NATO, who else has that kind of battlefield awareness big picture wargame strategy (backed by global monetary/political clout) working for them that would allow for these guys to do their thing.. Pakistan ? :cheesy:

even if they're flown by Americans, the A-10s will be sitting ducks in the Donbass if they're handed over to the Ukies,

stories of scarred ones that managed to RTB even with a wing blown off etc are cool but apart from the Gulf war, they really have not been tested anywhere.. it's laughable to think 20 of these could tip the balance in south asia.
 
I think it would be a toss up between South Korea and Japan because both countries are maritime countries. The A-10 with its long loitering capability would be great for maritime patrols.

A-10's greatest use as of now, would be in anti terror activities.

Thus, countries which are a. fighting terror campaigns and b. require to be brought under US diplomatic leverage
may be the prime customers.
 
it would, but apart from the US/NATO, who else has that kind of battlefield awareness big picture wargame strategy (backed by global monetary/political clout) working for them that would allow for these guys to do their thing.. Pakistan ? :cheesy:

even if they're flown by Americans, the A-10s will be sitting ducks in the Donbass if they're handed over to the Ukies,

stories of scarred ones that managed to RTB even with a wing blown off etc are cool but apart from the Gulf war, they really have not been tested anywhere.. it's laughable to think 20 of these could tip the balance in south asia.
Who said anything about tipping a balance (what balance?) in South Asia.... or anywhere else?

The A-10 was used in combat for the first time in 1991 during the Gulf War. It also saw action over Bosnia and Herzegovina (1994-95). A-10s returned to the Balkan region as part of 'Allied Force' over Kosovo in 1999. During the 2001invasion of Aghanisatan, A-10s did not take part in the initial stages. For the campaign against the Taliban and AQ, A-10s were deployed to Pakistan and Bagram AB, Afghanistan, in 2002. These participated in 'Anaconda', remained in-country afterward to fighting remnants of said groups. During that initial invasion of Iraq, in 2003, A-10s had a mission capable rate of 85 percent. A single A-10 was shot down by Iraqi fire late in the campaign.The A-10C first deployed to Iraq in 2007. In March 2011, A-10s were deployed as part of the intervention in Libya and participated in attacks on Libyan ground forces there. etc

Irrespective of aircraft type used, CLOSE AIR SUPPORT (for which A-10 is designed) always pre-supposes (at least temporary local air superiority)

List of equipment of the United Armed Forces of Novorossiya
Air Defence Vehicles
2+ x 9K35 Strela-10 (SA-13 Gopher)`
1x 9K33 Osa (SA-8 Gecko)
1x 9K37 Buk (SA-11 Gadfly / SA17 Grizzly)
List of equipment of the United Armed Forces of Novorossiya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Among such exclusively Russian equipment seen with pro-Russian separatists is the sophisticated anti-aircraft system Pantsir-S1
United Armed Forces of Novorossiya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those non-present Russian forces, I'm sure.
 
I had the privilege of seeing one fly during RIAT 2011. The display lasted around 6 minutes and the pilot was great and communicating to the crowd from his cockpit. Sadly engine trouble had to bring the display to an early end.
The A-10 is incredible.
 
I had the privilege of seeing one fly during RIAT 2011. The display lasted around 6 minutes and the pilot was great and communicating to the crowd from his cockpit. Sadly engine trouble had to bring the display to an early end.
The A-10 is incredible.

lol I had the privilege to see one flying in combat, above my head.....lol

Anyway, people say A-10 is crap, or it's 70s technology may need to go face down the 30 mike-mike barrel of an A-10 and come back and tell me if they are 70s technology.

The unique thing A-10 can do the frog foot can't is to swept away 50 ft off the ground and give your enemy a run for their money with its 30mm cannon. It enter an "invincible" mode when they do that, it will be too low and too quick (Yes, quick) for Manpad or SAM, that's why you see most of the damage done to an A-10 is by ground small arms or 50 cal machine gun or 20 mm cannon.

That said A-10 is often said as an Illegitimate child between US Army and US Air Force, they were flown by the AF pilot, yet 90% of their workload is for the Army. It will be actually quite hard to give or sell A-10 to foreign military unless said military have an Army that operate fix wing combat aircraft. Cos this is what killing the A-10 in the US right now.

Fly boys wants to shot down fighter and become an ace, you get nothing destroying insurgent or tanks, and Air Force don't really want to maintain inventory that they don't actually use most of the time and yet the Army don't want to shoulder the cost of keeping them in the air and yet they want them to provide CAS, Bureaucracy what killing the A-10, not its technology
 
President Carter offered predecessor of A-10 to Pakistan. The A-7 were offered to Pakistan but PAF instead wanted F-16s and refused A-7 Corsairs. Also the sale of A-7s to Pakistan was not approved due to U.S. opposition to its nuclear program.
 
lol I had the privilege to see one flying in combat, above my head.....lol

Anyway, people say A-10 is crap, or it's 70s technology may need to go face down the 30 mike-mike barrel of an A-10 and come back and tell me if they are 70s technology.

The unique thing A-10 can do the frog foot can't is to swept away 50 ft off the ground and give your enemy a run for their money with its 30mm cannon. It enter an "invincible" mode when they do that, it will be too low and too quick (Yes, quick) for Manpad or SAM, that's why you see most of the damage done to an A-10 is by ground small arms or 50 cal machine gun or 20 mm cannon.

That said A-10 is often said as an Illegitimate child between US Army and US Air Force, they were flown by the AF pilot, yet 90% of their workload is for the Army. It will be actually quite hard to give or sell A-10 to foreign military unless said military have an Army that operate fix wing combat aircraft. Cos this is what killing the A-10 in the US right now.

Fly boys wants to shot down fighter and become an ace, you get nothing destroying insurgent or tanks, and Air Force don't really want to maintain inventory that they don't actually use most of the time and yet the Army don't want to shoulder the cost of keeping them in the air and yet they want them to provide CAS, Bureaucracy what killing the A-10, not its technology

that's what my country army and air force has done since our independence day, Indonesia Air Force taking pride for their CAS history....
 
Alright. Granted. Irrelevant is not the acceptable word here.




Makes zero difference. A-10 was designed to survive hits from ground fire. That was in the 70's. Air defence units have grown far deadlier in the 40 or so years since then. Just about any decently modern AAA or SAM system has more than enough punch to overwhelm the A-10's armour. Surviving massive damage isn't a very sustainable strategy in a war at any rate and certainly not for a 20-30 aircraft force. Even if the planes do manage to make it back to base missing practically everything but the cockpit like you people get so worked up about, they're no longer combat worthy. They'd need countless hours of repairs if they weren't written off as a loss. All the repair time/cost plus the lost missions that the damaged planes were unable to fly would be a huge detriment logistically.

GW1. Of the damaged A-10's, how many operated before the destruction of Iraq's IAD? When were A-10's first deployed? Will such tactics work against the 'near-peers', at least for the rest of world, which cannot afford to expend 2000 HARM ARM's fighting a 3rd world dictator?

Seriously, using brains is not a privilege. You may nitpick posts and selectively quote a person and go I win, I win. For any one who can see and read and understand, it is clear who the ignorant is.
The same argument could be applied against any weapon system, which includes the human soldiers, that are designed for direct contact with the enemy: Surviving massive damage isn't a very sustainable strategy in a war...

If a soldier lost a leg in combat and must be removed from the war, I guess we can say that the human soldier is a worthless component of warfare, right ?

You are correct, using brains is not a privilege.
 
Back
Top Bottom