Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Grunts of the Air - the A-10 film the USAF wanted to suppress

And the story goes on....War is boring on the A-10

Now the U.S. Air Force Wants You to Believe the A-10 Is Too Old to Fight

But the Warthog isn’t nearly as tired as this argument

by JOSEPH TREVITHICK

After failing to convince the public that A-10s are a threat to friendly troops, the U.S. Air Force now wants you to believe that the ground attack planes are simply too old to keep fighting.

Earlier in March, Air Force officials hosted a summit to discuss the future of close air-support — the critical air strikes that help out troops on the ground.

After the gathering wrapped up, Air Combat Command—which controls the bulk of the service’s combat aircraft—kept up its media blitz against the A-10 by zeroing in on the aircraft’s age.

“There’s only so much you can get out of that airplane,” ACC chief Gen. Herbert Carlisle told reporters, referring to the A-10. “Those airplanes are gonna wear out.”

Carlisle offered these comments while the low- and slow-flying A-10s attack Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — and stare down the Russians from NATO bases in Europe. His statements also came despite upgrades that should keep the Warthogs combat-ready for decades, according to the flying branch’s own internal documents.

“They’ve been worked very, very hard,” Carlisle said. “But eventually that platform is going to age out.”
It’s fairness, it’s technically true the A-10 will eventually age out. But any actual problems are at best a self-fulfilling prophecy — and at worst — tantamount to willful sabotage.

Practically since the first squadrons got their Warthogs in 1977, the flying branch has continually tried to cancel or limit any improvement programs and even routine maintenance on the aircraft.

Carlisle’s statements were “at a minimum a mendacious spin,” A-10 designer Pierre Sprey told War Is Boring. In reality, the Air Force has made a “deliberate choice” to retire the Warthogs, Sprey added.

The flying branch already has a storied history of stonewalling against any serious efforts to keep the A-10 fleet going.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/no...eve-the-a-10-is-too-old-to-fight-87311b3bd95c
 
Too old?
0fd2a0c6b1129842b57147597ded7ddd.jpg

Yep anything over 5 years old is rubbish
 
Another article which spectacularly misses both the point and the corner that the USAF is being forced into.

Quite aside from the factual errors in the narrative, I notice that it fails to report that CSAF (himself a former A-10 pilot) has commented that they don't want to get rid of the aircraft. Nor does it highlight Hawk Carlisle's comments that they would like to procure a 'low end' CAS asset such as the Scorpion or AT-6 as the A-10 is withdrawn.

The suggestion that the A-10 is 'staring the Russians down' is indicative of the author's hypocrisy and lack of objectivity. I wonder how blogs such as this would react if the USAF claimed that the far more numerous European based F-15s and F-16s were influencing Putin in the same way.

As far as the B-52 goes, there is just a tad of difference between the amount of airframe fatigue that strategic bombing from medium altitude entails vice that of a CAS asset. Nor does the B-52 have to penetrate hostile MEZ now or - critically - in the future.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
So do I mate.

The Hog has enormous character, is robust and pretty versatile. But something has to give with sequestration and it makes sense that that something is the A-10 fleet. It's not the right answer. But just as with the Harrier, losing the Hog is the least worse option.

Regards,
MM
 
@Magic_Mushroom:

The Warthog has been sold to us as having a massive advantage in CAS when compared to packages such as the F16, thanks to its survivability - triple redundancy computers, dual engines wrapped in armoured nacelles etc.

Has any of that given it any advantage compared to a lesser armoured bird?

You say that the gun is rarely used during CAS missions, but I thought it was the A-10's raison d'etre and extremely effective?

Basically, what I'm saying is that are the USAF not trading in too many advantages for the sake of compromise?

Or are combat losses so rare that it negates any of the A10's advantages?
 
The gift keeps on giving !

U.S. Air Force Pilots Said Retiring the A-10 Will Put Troops in Danger

The flying branch whitewashed their concerns
by MANDY SMITHBERGER

“I can’t wait to be relieved of the burdens of close air support,” Maj. Gen. James Post, the vice commander of Air Combat Command, allegedly told a collection of officers at a training session in August 2014.

As with his now notorious warning that service members would be committing treason if they communicated with Congress about the successes of the A-10 Warthog, Post seems to speak for the id of Air Force headquarters’ true hostility towards the close air support mission.

Air Force four-stars are working hard to deny this hostility to the public and Congress, but their abhorrence of the mission has been demonstrated through 70 years of Air Force headquarters’ budget decisions and combat actions that have consistently short-changed close air support.

(...)

The Air Force intends to replace the A-10 with the F-35. But despite spending nearly $100 billion and 14 years in development, the plane is still a minimum of six years away from being certified ready for any real — but still extremely limited — form of CAS combat.

more at:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/th...-concerns-about-dumping-the-a-10-c1ed3c23e807
 
The gift keeps on giving !

U.S. Air Force Pilots Said Retiring the A-10 Will Put Troops in Danger

The flying branch whitewashed their concerns
by MANDY SMITHBERGER

“I can’t wait to be relieved of the burdens of close air support,” Maj. Gen. James Post, the vice commander of Air Combat Command, allegedly told a collection of officers at a training session in August 2014.

As with his now notorious warning that service members would be committing treason if they communicated with Congress about the successes of the A-10 Warthog, Post seems to speak for the id of Air Force headquarters’ true hostility towards the close air support mission.

Air Force four-stars are working hard to deny this hostility to the public and Congress, but their abhorrence of the mission has been demonstrated through 70 years of Air Force headquarters’ budget decisions and combat actions that have consistently short-changed close air support.

(...)

The Air Force intends to replace the A-10 with the F-35. But despite spending nearly $100 billion and 14 years in development, the plane is still a minimum of six years away from being certified ready for any real — but still extremely limited — form of CAS combat.

more at:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/th...-concerns-about-dumping-the-a-10-c1ed3c23e807


I don't understand this line of reasoning. Are the Generals really saying that there exists no need for CAS? I understand the A10 being replaced by something that isn't quite as good, in order to standardise their fleet, but I cannot for the life of me think that a serving general doesn't see the requirement for CAS.
 
Unfortunately I have heard the same line from other Air Force officers; CAS is an annoyance for them; fast jets are meant to kill other fast jets and that's it.
 
The Warthog has been sold to us as having a massive advantage in CAS when compared to packages such as the F16, thanks to its survivability - triple redundancy computers, dual engines wrapped in armoured nacelles etc.

All of this has been said before in the thread, however...

A-10 survivability was designed around 1970s threats it was expected to encounter in a 1980s Central Region battlefield. These were primarily AAA such as ZSU-23/4 as well as first and second gen IR systems such as SA-7, SA-8 and SA-14. Even 20 years ago in the Balkans, the A-10 could not venture into Serb SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 MEZ. To meet current and emerging threats, you need good EW, Low Observability and good kinematics. Any 2 of these 3 will do.

Meanwhile, all military aircraft have multiple levels of redundancy. Moreover, it's all pretty academic if it can't arrive in time.

Has any of that given it any advantage compared to a lesser armoured bird?

Some A-10s have certainly returned with serious damage. However, armoured nacelles and a titanium bathtub are utterly irrelevant against an SA-10/20, SA-11/17, SA-15 or similar.

As said previously, I also find pictures of damaged A-10s fairly counter-intuitive. Each of those jets was forced off task, leaving a hole in CAS coverage and requiring C2 assets such as my own to divert other CAS players and scramble GCAS. I saw that happen in Kosovo and GW2.

You say that the gun is rarely used during CAS missions, but I thought it was the A-10's raison d'etre and extremely effective?

I wouldn't say the gun was the Hog's raison d'être but it can undoubtedly be extremely effective. However, remember that it's only of use in low altitudes and relatively short ranges using profiles that expose the aircraft to additional threats.

Again, even in Bosnia 20 years ago, the gun was rarely used because of the threat systems present. Maverick was their preferred weapon, as it was in GW1.

Basically, what I'm saying is that are the USAF not trading in too many advantages for the sake of compromise?

I would argue that the A-10 offers no advantages whatsoever against current and emerging threats.

Or are combat losses so rare that it negates any of the A10's advantages?

If you wish to see combat losses, ask some A-10s to provide CAS on a battlefield with modern SAMs.

Meanwhile, I will call BS on the claim that USAF leadership is seeking to divest the CAS mission. Indeed, I use the phrase purposely: CAS is a mission not an aircraft. The USAF have spent $Bs in recent decades on CAS upgrades for the AC-130, MQ-1, MQ-9, F-16, F-15E, B-1B, B-52 and...shock...even the A-10. Likewise investment in weaponry, targeting pods, data links and the enormous expansion of USAF JTAC capacity all speak volumes. I've deployed with and worked alongside the Service a great many times, listened to their leadership privately and in public. Not only do the USAF get CAS, they understand what is needed to provide the effects on the ground a lot more than the US Army does frankly. Moreover, it has been enthusiastically embraced from the lowliest FNG pilot to CSAF (again, he is himself a former A-10 pilot).

What I suspect has happened here is one of the pro-Hog lobby has taken a quote out of context. The last 15 years of focus has severely eroded USAF, USN and USMC capabilities in other roles such as interdiction, Large Force Employment, EW, maritime and amphibious ops. With good reason, all of these services are keen to see a more suitable balance of capabilities re-established.

As with many of these articles, Ms Smithberger appears from her comments to have no military experience whatsoever and it is disappointing that links to such drivel are still posted.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
Given that even the mighty AC-130 has chinned off guns (and their huge suppression areas) for highly accurate GM is the A-10s gun not similarly redundant?
 
Given that even the mighty AC-130 has chinned off guns (and their huge suppression areas) for highly accurate GM is the A-10s gun not similarly redundant?

Although the emphasis on precision, stand-off weapons has certainly increased, the latest AC-130J and W variants still have guns. However, the AC-130 is exclusively limited to permissive or at best semi-permissive environments.

The A-10's gun is not irrelevant any more than that of the AV-8B, F-15E, F-16, FA-18, GR4 or Typhoon. However, it's fair to say it attracts undue, phallic like attention.

Regards,
MM
 
The gift keeps on giving !

U.S. Air Force Pilots Said Retiring the A-10 Will Put Troops in Danger

The flying branch whitewashed their concerns
by MANDY SMITHBERGER

“I can’t wait to be relieved of the burdens of close air support,” Maj. Gen. James Post, the vice commander of Air Combat Command, allegedly told a collection of officers at a training session in August 2014.

As with his now notorious warning that service members would be committing treason if they communicated with Congress about the successes of the A-10 Warthog, Post seems to speak for the id of Air Force headquarters’ true hostility towards the close air support mission.

Air Force four-stars are working hard to deny this hostility to the public and Congress, but their abhorrence of the mission has been demonstrated through 70 years of Air Force headquarters’ budget decisions and combat actions that have consistently short-changed close air support.

(...)

The Air Force intends to replace the A-10 with the F-35. But despite spending nearly $100 billion and 14 years in development, the plane is still a minimum of six years away from being certified ready for any real — but still extremely limited — form of CAS combat.

more at:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/th...-concerns-about-dumping-the-a-10-c1ed3c23e807
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...al-over-10-treason-remarks/?intcmp=latestnews
Air Force fires general over A-10 jets 'treason' remarks
An Air Force general has been fired after an investigation into comments he made to lower-ranking officers about how talking to members of Congress about the capabilities about the A-10 “Warthog” attack jet was tantamount to treason, the Air Force confirmed Friday.
 

New posts

Top