Replacing, Not Just Retiring, the A-10

[Zarvan]

One size fits all generally results in something that is ill fitting, at best. So it is with many attempts — built around the commendable push for cost savings — to field multirole weapons platforms.

The push to retire the widely beloved A-10 Warthog and shift its close-air support mission to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter had many critics who charged that the shiny new toy did not have nearly the battle-proven CAS capabilities to safeguard ground troops on par with the A-10.

Last week, Air Force leaders eased off their determination to decommission its fleet of A-10 attack aircraft and plug the CAS gap by having F-16 fighters, B-1 bombers and other jets perform the mission until the F-35 is fielded. Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, the deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, told reporters the Air Force was defining requirements for a follow-on CAS aircraft.

That’s the wisest, if belated move. The nature of close-air support has evolved with ever-better sensors, command and battle management systems, and precision weapons. A new aircraft dedicated to the CAS mission could take advantage of new technologies, including defense systems to counter sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses not encountered in the uncontested battle spaces of Afghanistan and Iraq.


DEFENSE NEWS

Air Force Moving Forward With A-10 Replacement Option


Setting the requirement is the first move toward developing a potential follow-on aircraft for the A-10, one dedicated to the close-air support mission, often referred to as A-X. The Air Force has been studying the idea of procuring a single-role A-X for at least a year now and in 2015 played host to a joint-service summit to identify options for the CAS mission.

Holmes said the Air Force will now will weigh the capability and affordability of three alternatives: building a new A-X, using existing aircraft to meet the CAS mission, or extending the life of the A-10. He said several current and development aircraft could meet the CAS mission, including the A-29 Super Tucano attack plane, the AT-6 trainer aircraft and Textron AirLand’s Scorpion.

For an A-X, the general cautioned that a lot will depend on Congress and whether another round of mandatory budget cuts under sequestration occurs in fiscal years 18 and 19. Meanwhile, A-10 supporters in Congress want the planes kept in service, largely to guard installations in their districts from any future base closures.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh will review the requirements documents this spring. The optimum outcome will be an aircraft dedicated to the CAS mission, one that sustains the survivability and effectiveness of the Warthog and takes advantage of new and emerging technologies. Wasteful spending, of course, can never be tolerated. But neither should cost savings for the sake of cost savings.

One would be hard-pressed to find a mission more important that protecting the troops on the ground. They deserve nothing less than an aircraft designed solely for that, with no corners cut.

Replacing, Not Just Retiring, the A-10

 

[Desertfalcon]

I've been hearing stories of the A-10's demise for about 25 years now. And yet...

 

[The Sandman]

Oh i love that BRRRRRRRRRRTT

 

[gambit]

I say give the A-10 to the Army.

I am Air Force but to me the ban on the Army having offensive fixed wings is ridiculous on the intellectual level and in violation of common sense. As a matter of fact, the Army already have fixed wings pilots and even fixed wings aircrafts.

So here is my take on this...

When the US Army aviation leaders were fighting for their survival which depends on the separation of aviation from the Army, their arguments were that if Army Air Corps remains under Army control, full realization of airpower may not come to pass. It was a legitimate argument and criticism of US Army leadership and doctrines at that time.

Army generals are not stupid. They do think strategically and they must in order to properly advise the President in peace and war times. But when it comes to battle, Army generals have no choice but to focus on how to defeat the enemy in front of them, as in the front lines. Weapons and combat doctrines evolved to support this need.

Airpower give the military the ability to leapfrog the front lines and attack the enemy where it hurts the most: the resources necessary to wage war.

Army thinking and doctrines at the end of WW II probably would NOT be conducive for the exploration of how far airpower could go. WW I airpower was more glamour than military and like it or not, that was the hard truth. WW II airpower was where naval fleets fought each other without seeing each other. WW II airpower was where airpower became serious in intellect and execution. Airpower needed its own separate institution in order to better serve the military. So the US Air Force was borned.

Fine...So now that Air Force proved that as an institution, it had the IQ and foresight to see how far into enemy territory airpower could go to do anything to convince an enemy that further war conduct would not be in his favor. No one is going to even try to do away with the USAF. A navy is always a strategic weapon and the US Navy is no different. US naval aviation exists to support the strategic aspect of the US Navy. US Marines aviation exists to support the Marines on the front lines and the Marine generals do not intrude into the strategic views of the US Air Force generals. So why not give the A-10 to the Army ? It is a weapon designed for the front lines.