Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?

[Moose]

Could always end the Sequester. No, wait, forgot that the #1 geopolitical threat to the Untied States is spending.

 

[Grey Havoc]

The latest news on the controversial A-10 retirement and transfer of the AH-64 to the Army:

"Authorizers Bend A Tad On A-10s; NDAA Heads To Senate"
By Colin Clark on December 02, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Source:
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/authorizers-bend-a-tad-on-a-10s-ndaa-heads-to-senate/

However, this latest development is likely to harden stances:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/01/22/james-post-a10-comment-investigation/22155219/

 

[donnage99]

If I were the USAF I'd tell him I'd fund the A-10 by shutting down Luke AFB and moving their functions elsewhere. Then see how serious he is about wanting to keep the A-10. ;D

The money that they save by scrapping an entire fleet of A-10 can buy them 4 f-35. I would lose 4 f-35 to keep an entire fleet of aircraft not only is relevant, much needed, but has no real replacement.

 

[GTX]

The money that they save by scrapping an entire fleet of A-10 can buy them 4 f-35. I would lose 4 f-35 to keep an entire fleet of aircraft not only is relevant, much needed, but has no real replacement.

What's the basis for your calculation?

 

[donnage99]

What's the basis for your calculation?

I was exaggerating. According to this, it's 30 f-35 that they could buy.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-rationale-for-retiring-the-a-10-warthog-is-bu-1562789528

 

[tfbjwi]

All I know is that my son is a UH-60L Black Hawk pilot in the Army and he said if the Army was ever given back the job of fixed wing CAS and the A-10's, there would be a stampede of Army pilots volunteering for those slots.

 

[tfbjwi]

And, as a grunt in the field with the 82nd and the 10th Mountain Divisions, he related that no other aircraft providing CAS was more welcome, and more effective, by his fellow soldiers than the A-10. It got the job done the first time and scared the beAllah out of the enemy. The Apache was the 2nd choice. Fast CAS was a distant last.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/232202-watchdog-air-force-doctored-the-data-to-make-a-10-look-bad

 

[Triton]

"US Deploys A-10s to Europe Amid Debate to Arm Ukraine"
Feb 10, 2015
by Brendan McGarry

Source:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/02/10/us-deploys-a10s-to-europe-amid-debate-to-arm-ukraine.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

The U.S. military has deployed a dozen Cold War-era A-10 attack aircraft to Europe amid the escalating assault from pro-Russian separatists in the Ukraine, an official said.

The aircraft, known officially as the Thunderbolt II and unofficially as the Warthog, on Monday departed Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona for Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany in support of Operation Atlantic Resolve, according to Lt. Col. Christopher Karns, a spokesman for the Air Force at the Pentagon.

"While in Germany these aircraft will forward-deploy to locations in Eastern European NATO nations," he said in an e-mail. "Units will conduct training alongside our NATO allies to strengthen interoperability and to demonstrate U.S. commitment to the security and stability of Europe."

The deployment comes as President Barack Obama is weighing whether to approve the transfer of weapons in addition to non-lethal assistance to Ukraine.

The top NATO commander, Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, last week warned that any action the U.S. or other Western nations take "could trigger a more strident reaction from Russia," even while acknowledging that Russia continues to supply separatists on the border with heavy, state-of-the-art weapons, air defenses and fighters, according to an article by The Associated Press.

The A-10 has flown numerous missions to support U.S. and coalition ground forces in Afghanistan and, more recently, in Iraq, where American troops are helping Iraqi and Kurdish forces battle militants affiliated with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

The low, slow-flying gunship's snub-nose packs a seven-barrel GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun that fires 30mm rounds designed to shred the armor on tanks, combat vehicles and other targets.

The Air Force has proposed retiring its fleet of almost 300 Warthogs by 2019 to save an estimated $4.2 billion a year and free up maintainers for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a stealthy multi-role fighter jet and the Pentagon's most expensive acquisition program.

Congress rejected the service's request to begin the process of divesting the A-10 this fiscal year and approved $337 million in funding to keep them in the inventory. While lawmakers did allow the Air Force to move up to three dozen of the planes to back-up status, they blocked the service from sending any to the bone yard.

"The Air Force values the A-10 and will continue to use it while it remains in the Air Force inventory," Karns said.

Ashton Carter, the White House's nominee to replace Chuck Hagel as defense secretary, last week signaled a willingness to hear arguments from joint tactical air controllers, or JTACS, for keeping the A-10 in the force.

The U.S. has in recent months deployed both troops and equipment to Europe as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve, which is designed to reassure NATO allies of Washington's commitment to security in the region in light of Russia's intervention in Ukraine.

The White House last year began targeting Russian officials for economic sanctions in response to Russia's invasion and subsequent annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region.

American lawmakers have also questioned the Pentagon's reliance on Russian military hardware. Congress in the current fiscal year approved funding to develop a domestic alternative to the Russian RD-180 engine used to launch military and spy satellites.

 

[Triton]

More charges of data manipulation to smear the A-10 Thunderbolt II:

"Group: AF Skewed Data in A-10 ‘Smear Campaign’"

by Brendan McGarry on February 10, 2015

Source:
http://defensetech.org/2015/02/10/group-af-skewed-data-in-a-10-smear-campaign/#ixzz3RSNdm96P

The U.S. Air Force manipulated casualty data to make the A-10 attack aircraft appear more hazardous than it really is, according to a watchdog group.

The service “cherry-picked” information on civilian casualties and friendly fire deaths in Afghanistan, making it look as though the aging gunship is responsible for killing more American troops and Afghan civilians than any other warplane, according to the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.

The raw figures, which were the subject of a recent story in USA Today, don’t take into account the frequency with which the aircraft were flown — critical for any kind of comparison, only cover certain years, and leave out a major incident in 2009 involving the B-1 bomber in which nearly 100 civilians were killed, POGO said.

“Those cooked statistics excluded—and kept classified—data that is essential for a basic understanding of the issue,” Mandy Smithberger, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information at POGO, wrote in an analysis.

The flap comes just weeks after Maj. Gen. James Post, vice commander of Air Combat Command, warned officers that praising the A-10 to lawmakers would amount to “treason.”

It may give congressional overseers such as Sen. John McCain, a Republican from Arizona and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, yet more fodder to block the service’s latest proposal to retire the Warthog by 2019 to save an estimated $4.2 billion a year and free up maintainers for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Congress rejected the service’s requests to begin the process of divesting the low, slow-flying aircraft in the current fiscal year and included about $337 million in the budget to keep almost 300 of them in the inventory. While they did allow the Air Force to move as many as 36 of the planes to back-up status, they blocked the service from sending any to the bone yard.

The 30mm, seven-barrel GAU-8/A Avenger in the nose of the Cold War-era Warthog can hold as many as 1,174 rounds designed to shred the armor on tanks, combat vehicles and other targets.

The Air Force data show the A-10 was involved in missions that killed 35 civilians in the five years through 2014 — more than any other aircraft. However, they also show the Warthog flew almost 2,700 combat missions, or kinetic sorties, during that period – far more than any other plane. That translates into 1.3 civilian deaths per 100 missions. (The rate increases to 1.4 when including wounded civilians.)

That’s the second-lowest casualty rate of any of the aircraft, behind the KC-130 cargo plane, according to POGO. Which was the worst offender? The AV-8B Harrier jump-jet, which had 8.4 civilian casualties per 100 missions, according to the group’s analysis:
Platform Casualties per 100 Kinetic Sorties
KC-130 0.7
A-10 1.4
F-15E 1.6
F-16 2.1
F-18 2.2
B-1 6.6
AV-8 8.4



“The table makes it clear that the A-10 is the safest airplane in Afghan combat, except for the KC-130,” it states. “In fact, the A-10 produces nearly five times fewer civilian casualties per firing sortie than the B-1 bomber.”

And that’s taking into account the Air Force’s truncated time period, which excludes the so-called 2009 Granai Massacre in which a B-1 killed between 26 and 147 civilians and wounded even more, according to POGO.

“The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission estimated 97 civilians killed, which the Department of Defense has not disputed,” the analysis states. “Including 2009 would have made the B-1 bomber the worst killer in theater by far.”

The data also show that the A-10 flew sorties that resulted in the deaths of 10 American troops, though the F-15E Strike Eagle was involved in missions that wounded 34 U.S. service members and the F-18 flew sorties that killed 25 coalition members and wounded another 54.

POGO concludes, “Air Force headquarters is engaged in an all-out campaign to use any means possible—including threatening service members and doctoring data for the media—to bolster its failing argument on Capitol Hill to prematurely retire the A-10. Retiring the A-10 gets rid of an Army-supporting mission Air Force generals despise and protects the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program from a combat-proven competitor.”

Lt. Col. Christopher Karns, a spokesman for the Air Force at the Pentagon, said the service wasn’t trying to be selective with data on civilian casualties, or CIVCAS in military parlance. Rather, it only began tracking the incidents in a standardized and consistent manner since 2010, he said.

“In 2010, CIVCAS was tracked by the Air Force using consistent DOD guidance,” he said in an e-mail. “The incidents captured were entered into a data base, validated and met the common definition applied across all the services.”

The point in releasing the information was to respond to a specific media query and highlight how the service’s aircraft — including the A-10, F-15E, F-16 and B-1 – all have relatively low casualty and fratricide rates, and can perform the close air support, or CAS, mission equally well, Karns said.

“The A-10 is an effective platform, there’s no denying that,” he said in a telephone interview. “However, with the fiscal realities of the day, we have to be responsible and take a look at actions that may help us ensure an affordable Air Force in the future.”

He added in the e-mail, “We never take the application of force for granted. From 2001–2014, the incident rate for fratricide for all platforms and services is .0003%. We’re all trying to make this statistic zero.”

 

[Flyaway]

Could the USAF finally have decided to develop a replacement for the A-10?

Stealthy Son of A-10?
—JOHN A. TIRPAK2/13/2015

​The Air Force will consider developing a new dedicated close air support platform capable of operating in contested airspace; a follow-on to the A-10, Air Combat Command chief Gen. Hawk Carlisle said Thursday. Speaking with reporters at AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Carlisle said that such a platform “may be something … we need to look at in the future, depending on what’s happening. Nothing is off the table.” Carlisle said he believes “we’ll have to perform close air support in contested environments” given that adversaries are growing more sophisticated. They “are going to try to figure out how to … not let us do that,” he said, so a new platform may be required. The idea is not a response to critics of USAF’s plan to retire the A-10, Carlisle insisted. USAF has “always been dedicated to the mission of support to the ground component” and takes the mission seriously, he maintained. Airspace denial is already a tough challenge, and the need to “close … gaps and seams” in future capability “I think (is) something we have to be cognizant of.” He added that for the near-term, “there may be something that we can do with legacy platforms to make them better” at delivering CAS. The A-10 is “significantly more vulnerable in a contested environment than other airplanes … and what provides that mission set in the future is something we’ll continue to look at … it’s something that’s got to be in the discussion,” he added.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/February%202015/February%2013%202015/Stealthy-Son-of-A-10.aspx

Also this A-10 related article.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/02/air-force-to-hold-close-air-support-summit-may-need-new-weapon/

 

[Boxman]

Could the USAF finally have decided to develop a replacement for the A-10?

Stealthy Son of A-10?
—JOHN A. TIRPAK2/13/2015

​The Air Force will consider developing a new dedicated close air support platform capable of operating in contested airspace; a follow-on to the A-10, Air Combat Command chief Gen. Hawk Carlisle said Thursday. Speaking with reporters at AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Carlisle said that such a platform “may be something … we need to look at in the future, depending on what’s happening. Nothing is off the table.” Carlisle said he believes “we’ll have to perform close air support in contested environments” given that adversaries are growing more sophisticated. They “are going to try to figure out how to … not let us do that,” he said, so a new platform may be required. The idea is not a response to critics of USAF’s plan to retire the A-10, Carlisle insisted. USAF has “always been dedicated to the mission of support to the ground component” and takes the mission seriously, he maintained. Airspace denial is already a tough challenge, and the need to “close … gaps and seams” in future capability “I think (is) something we have to be cognizant of.” He added that for the near-term, “there may be something that we can do with legacy platforms to make them better” at delivering CAS. The A-10 is “significantly more vulnerable in a contested environment than other airplanes … and what provides that mission set in the future is something we’ll continue to look at … it’s something that’s got to be in the discussion,” he added.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/February%202015/February%2013%202015/Stealthy-Son-of-A-10.aspx

Also this A-10 related article.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/02/air-force-to-hold-close-air-support-summit-may-need-new-weapon/

Color me cynical. I believe they will make an effort to develop a replacement for the A-10 for just as long as it takes to make sure the A-10 is dead and buried as a platform for the USAF (and no further).

 

[Grey Havoc]

Could the USAF finally have decided to develop a replacement for the A-10?

Stealthy Son of A-10?
—JOHN A. TIRPAK2/13/2015

​The Air Force will consider developing a new dedicated close air support platform capable of operating in contested airspace; a follow-on to the A-10, Air Combat Command chief Gen. Hawk Carlisle said Thursday. Speaking with reporters at AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Carlisle said that such a platform “may be something … we need to look at in the future, depending on what’s happening. Nothing is off the table.” Carlisle said he believes “we’ll have to perform close air support in contested environments” given that adversaries are growing more sophisticated. They “are going to try to figure out how to … not let us do that,” he said, so a new platform may be required. The idea is not a response to critics of USAF’s plan to retire the A-10, Carlisle insisted. USAF has “always been dedicated to the mission of support to the ground component” and takes the mission seriously, he maintained. Airspace denial is already a tough challenge, and the need to “close … gaps and seams” in future capability “I think (is) something we have to be cognizant of.” He added that for the near-term, “there may be something that we can do with legacy platforms to make them better” at delivering CAS. The A-10 is “significantly more vulnerable in a contested environment than other airplanes … and what provides that mission set in the future is something we’ll continue to look at … it’s something that’s got to be in the discussion,” he added.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/February%202015/February%2013%202015/Stealthy-Son-of-A-10.aspx

Also this A-10 related article.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/02/air-force-to-hold-close-air-support-summit-may-need-new-weapon/

Color me cynical. I believe they will make an effort to develop a replacement for the A-10 for just as long as it takes to make sure the A-10 is dead and buried as a platform for the USAF (and no further).

Agreed.

 

[tfbjwi]

Could the USAF finally have decided to develop a replacement for the A-10?

Stealthy Son of A-10?
—JOHN A. TIRPAK2/13/2015

​The Air Force will consider developing a new dedicated close air support platform capable of operating in contested airspace; a follow-on to the A-10, Air Combat Command chief Gen. Hawk Carlisle said Thursday. Speaking with reporters at AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Carlisle said that such a platform “may be something … we need to look at in the future, depending on what’s happening. Nothing is off the table.” Carlisle said he believes “we’ll have to perform close air support in contested environments” given that adversaries are growing more sophisticated. They “are going to try to figure out how to … not let us do that,” he said, so a new platform may be required. The idea is not a response to critics of USAF’s plan to retire the A-10, Carlisle insisted. USAF has “always been dedicated to the mission of support to the ground component” and takes the mission seriously, he maintained. Airspace denial is already a tough challenge, and the need to “close … gaps and seams” in future capability “I think (is) something we have to be cognizant of.” He added that for the near-term, “there may be something that we can do with legacy platforms to make them better” at delivering CAS. The A-10 is “significantly more vulnerable in a contested environment than other airplanes … and what provides that mission set in the future is something we’ll continue to look at … it’s something that’s got to be in the discussion,” he added.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/February%202015/February%2013%202015/Stealthy-Son-of-A-10.aspx

Also this A-10 related article.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/02/air-force-to-hold-close-air-support-summit-may-need-new-weapon/

Color me cynical. I believe they will make an effort to develop a replacement for the A-10 for just as long as it takes to make sure the A-10 is dead and buried as a platform for the USAF (and no further).

You hit the nail right on the head, my good sir.

 

[Triton]

"At What Point Does The USAF's War Against The A-10 Become Sabotage?"
by Tyler Rogoway
Feb 12, 2015

Source:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/at-what-point-does-the-usafs-war-against-the-a-10-becom-1685239179

 

[bobbymike]

CAS Futures

—John A. Tirpak2/17/2015

​Explaining the thinking behind calling an all-service close air support summit at Nellis AFB, Nev., in March, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Friday, “We just have to get to a point where all the services understand what the future looks like in this arena.” Speaking to the media at AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Welsh said CAS summit will also focus on future CAS-oriented munitions, which may again change the way the mission is performed. These could include “a large number of forward-firing, laser-guided rockets … something that fragments a rocket into a thousand bullets, creating the effect of a “thousand-round burst” instead of the limited burst possible from a gun today. Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, also at the press conference, said “the body of thought that comes from this summit would help us re-engage with the Congress to say, is there a different way to get there from here, a different approach? Because, believe me, we want to work this out. We’re looking for a way to achieve the goals I think we all share … We have to be ready today and modern for tomorrow.” Welsh said, “It’s a mission, not a platform. We keep saying it, but it’s absolutely true.”

Keep the Culture

—John A. Tirpak2/17/2015

Air Combat Command “has been focused … for a while” on how it maintains the close air support culture as it transitions from the A-10 to the F-35, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Feb. 13 at AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando. Welsh said he’s looking at putting a majority of former A-10 pilots “in some squadrons … so we create places where the CAS culture has a home; the keepers of the flame of this mindset, the attack mentality, which is important to us and has always been important to us.” He insisted the F-35 “will be a good CAS platform,” although it will take a while “to get it to where we want it to be; like it has with every other airplane we’ve ever bought, including the A-10.” The A-10, he said, “is going to go away, eventually,” and can’t serve past 2027-2028. “Beyond that, you’re talking a huge investment to recapitalize that fleet. That makes no sense in today’s environment,” Welsh argued.

Tell it to the Marines

—John A. Tirpak2/17/2015

​Critics of the Air Force's plan to retire the A-10, who say the F-35 is simply not an adequate platform for the close air support mission, are ignoring the Marine Corps' huge endorsement of it, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Friday. At a press conference during AFA's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Welsh said "it's an interesting conversation where everyone's talking about the F-35 not doing close air support when that's all the Marine Corp is buying it for," Welsh said. "This thread of conversation" that USAF doesn't care about the CAS mission "has really become a little ridiculous," he said. "I've got 140,000 data points over the last seven years that prove that's a ridiculous statement," Welsh added, offering the statistics on how many CAS sorties the service has flown during the period. "That's about 20,000 a year. When is there a little bit of credit given for that?" He said his father "thought he flew" CAS in P-40s, P-47s, P-51s, and F-84s, and his father's friends thought they did so in A-1s and A-7s, "long before we had an A-10." They believed they had a "mentality, a culture, and a focus" of giving ground support full attention, Welsh argued. "So why people, all of a sudden, looking backward, (are) saying they didn't is a little beyond my comprehension," he added.

 

[Flyaway]

CAS in Context

—Marc V. Schanz

Feb. 23, 2015: Focusing on airframes is the wrong way to look at the effectiveness of the close air support mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, USAF spokesman Lt. Col. Chris Karns told Air Force Magazine.

His comments came in response to a query regarding a recent news article by USA Today, which cited declassified Air Force statistics and claimed the Air Force's A-10s are responsible for the most civilian casualty deaths in Afghanistan airstrikes since 2010—a disclosure the Project on Government Oversight claims is based on "manipulated data … intended to bolster the Air Force's campaign to retire the A-10 Warthog in favor of the much costlier and unproven F-35 Joint Strike Fighter."

Karns said the data also shows incident-free rates of the A-10, B-1, F-15E, and F-16 are all "relatively comparable" due to the reliance on precision weapons. While the F-15E had the top incident-free rate in the 2010-2014 timeline, cited in the report, each of the four aircraft had an incident-free rate above 99 percent.

Of the 140,000 sorties examined, Karns noted, the newspaper pointed to a total of 45 friendly fire incidents, which comes to an incident rate of 0.0003 percent.

"This speaks to the precision of each aircraft in the hands of highly skilled and trained airmen of all services," Karns noted.

In each instance of fratricide or civilian casualties cited in a recent news report, lessons learned were applied to CAS procedures, he added.

"Incidents are remarkably low because everyone works hard to keep them low," Karns said, adding that the development and refinement of precision-guided munitions over several decades has allowed USAF to "capably perform CAS with a wide variety of platforms, including some not originally designed with the CAS mission as a primary role."

Budget limitations, combined with the need to better operate in a "high-end threat environment," means the Air Force must focus resources on "survivable platforms capable of providing CAS in future conflicts."

The Air Force plans to use the A-10 while it remains in its inventory, Karns noted (as evidenced by recent deployments to both Europe and the Middle East). However, divestment plans will eventually give the service the resources needed to "further support combatant command priorities while still providing [CAS] using multi-role aircraft."

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2015/February%202015/CAS-in-Context.aspx

 

[jjnodice]

Eglin has been conducting exercises with the A-10 in the Choctawhatchee Bay versus a flotilla of small commercial fishing boats & speedboats.

Article here:

http://m.nwfdailynews.com/military/top-story/eglin-pilots-test-their-skills-against-flotilla-in-the-bay-w-photos-1.451764


Pictures here:

http://nwfdailynews.emeraldcoastphotoswest.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=1914962&CategoryID=28208&ListSubAlbums=0


Eglin pilots test their skills against flotilla in the bay (w/ PHOTOS)
By KELLY HUMPHREY
Daily News Published: Monday, March 16, 2015 at 17:03 PM.

EGLIN AFB — Two fishermen trolling on Choctawhatchee Bay Monday afternoon probably went home with a story to tell.

The boaters got a close-up look at some pretty realistic Air Force training that included 25 to 30 boats and four A-10 aircraft practicing low-level air-to-sea combat operations.

“There are hostile countries that are developing high speed, armed boats that are harassing our fleets at sea and in ports,” said Dennis Beabout, the 96th Test Wing’s Gulf Range Engineer. “This exercise allows our pilots to practice maneuvers and tactics to take on this threat.”

Monday was the first day of the latest round of Eglin’s Maritime WSEP (Weapons Systems Evaluation Program). The exercise will run through Thursday, with live-fire operations over the Gulf of Mexico in the morning, and realistic simulations on Choctawhatchee Bay in the afternoon. Local residents may experience louder than normal noise levels while these exercises are taking place.
During Monday afternoon’s operations on the bay, six squadrons of five boats each (about half of which were private vessels hired from local fishing fleets) took to the water in inverted V, or “Vic” formations. Each squadron was labeled by color. Upon hearing a radio operator call out “Fight’s on,” the boats took off in formation.
Like a play-by-play announcer, the radio operator called out directions to the boat captains.

“Red squadron, clear to jink!” the operator called out, causing the five boats flying red flags to fan out in different directions. Seemingly out of nowhere, four A-10s from Eglin’s 53rd Wing appeared from the west, their trademark whistling roar announcing their presence.

With its huge 30mm Gatling gun sticking out of its nose, the A-10 is known affectionately as the “Warthog.” On Monday afternoon, however, the mighty planes looked more like giant seagulls, swooping down as low as 100 feet above the scrambling boats.

As the boats attempted to maneuver out of the way, one by one they fell victim to the Warthogs.

“If the pilot can lock on electronically and hold it for three seconds, it’s considered a kill, explained Mike "Adrian" Guidry, the general manager of InDyne, the main defense contractor that provides support for the Eglin test range’s missions.

Occasionally, a boat would set off a flare to simulate a surface-to-air missile, but they were a poor match for the A-10 pilots. Within 20 minutes, the first round of attacks was complete.

Final score? Warthogs 30, Pretend Terrorists 0.

 

[Triton]

DARPA: Could a Robot Replace the A-10 Warthog?
By Rich Smith
April 26, 2015

Source:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/04/26/darpa-could-a-robot-replace-the-a-10-warthog.aspx

The U.S. Air Force wants hit the eject button on the A-10 Warthog and replace it with a modern fighter jet. In furtherance of that goal, USAF has tossed out every possible excuse you can imagine to get rid of America's No. 1 tank-busting aircraft. To date, the Air Force has proposed replacing the A-10 with:

$100 million-plus F-35 stealth fighter jets from Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) -- whose guns don't shoot.
Retasked Boeing (NYSE: BA) F-15 fighter jets, and Lockheed F-16s -- designed for air superiority roles but operated by pilots retrained and "dedicated" to a close-air support role.
Textron's (NYSE: TXT) lightly armed but budget-priced Scorpion light attack fighter.
And -- in the case of one at least U.S. ally -- by substituting a Brazilian-built prop-driven fighter named after the Froot Loops mascot.

In fact, about the only thing the U.S. Air Force hasn't yet proposed is replacing the A-10 Warthog with a robot.

So DARPA just went ahead and did that.

Domo arigato, Mr. A-10 Roboto
Earlier this month, DARPA -- the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -- issued a brief report on its progress testing out a "full prototype" Persistent Close Air Support, or PCAS, system for deployment with the U.S. Marine Corps.

PCAS utilizes two elements:

A ground-based tablet computer operated by joint terminal attack controllers, or JTACs, to communicate the location of friendly forces and call in airstrikes; and
A "smart launcher electronics," or SLE, device carried by aerial surveillance and strike aircraft, to spot targets, stream video of their location to the ground, and launch attacks from the air.

Communication between the two devices is designed to ensure aircraft can provide accurate close-air support to troops -- firing on hostile forces in close proximity to friendly forces, without injuring the latter. In essence, the troops on the ground and the "shooter" in the air simultaneously see the same thing, speeding up the conversation between JTACs and supporting aircraft, and eliminating confusion when discussing a target that must be hit.

In the recently completed DARPA test run, dubbed "TALON REACH," JTACs used an Android-based Kinetic Integrated Low-cost SoftWare Integrated Tactical Combat Handheld, or KILSWITCH, tablet to call in an airstrike on a hypothetical hostile target. From 5 miles away, a Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey then fired a Raytheon (NYSE: RTN) Griffin missile at the target, striking "exactly where directed," says DARPA. In so doing, it demonstrated the Osprey's ability to take out a target from a distance, accurately and without risk to the troops calling in the strike.

PCAS holds the potential to turn even transport aircraft into CAS strike aircraft. Photo: DARPA.

Other tests of PCAS have used unmanned Switchblade drones from AeroVironment (NASDAQ: AVAV) in the "PCAS-Air" role. Importantly, DARPA said that in future tests it intends to focus on "transitioning the system to unmanned platforms."

What it means to investors
What this all means for the Pentagon is pretty clear: If even an Osprey transport aircraft or an unmanned drone can be used for close-air support, then the need to send in piloted A-10 Warthogs into harm's way, flying "low-and-slow" to perform their mission, is lessened. As USMC Deputy Commandant for Aviation Lt. Gen. Jon Davis explained, going forward the objective is to "network every one of our aircraft" such that "every aircraft [will be] a sensor, every aircraft a connector, every aircraft an [electronic warfare] node, and every aircraft a shooter.

What's more, with JTACs both calling in and pinpointing their own airstrikes, the need for dedicated close-in support pilots will diminish. Indeed, if PCAS performs as promised, JTACs could get faster, more accurate support from the air, calling in airstrikes via their tablets, than even an A-10 Warthog could provide. In that case opposition to the Air Force's plan to retire the A-10 Warthog could diminish.

PCAS is making CAS video game-simple. Photo: DARPA.

But what does this mean for investors?

Basically, it shakes up the air warfare game significantly, accelerating the switch to drones, whose lower weight and fuel requirements make them both cheaper and more "persistent" close-in support weapons than any piloted aircraft could ever be. Even more so than in years past, investors should focus on the companies that are leading the switch to drones -- players such as Northrop Grumman and AeroVironment, for instance -- and less on traditional piloted-warplane makers such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

As the technology marches on, and is spurred on by DARPA, Boeing's and Lockheed's piloted products are looking more and more like the historical relic that the Air Force claims the A-10 Warthog to be.

 

[Sundog]

Tell it to the Marines—John A. Tirpak 2/17/2015
​Critics of the Air Force's plan to retire the A-10, who say the F-35 is simply not an adequate platform for the close air support mission, are ignoring the Marine Corps' huge endorsement of it, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Friday. At a press conference during AFA's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Welsh said "it's an interesting conversation where everyone's talking about the F-35 not doing close air support when that's all the Marine Corp is buying it for," Welsh said. "This thread of conversation" that USAF doesn't care about the CAS mission "has really become a little ridiculous," he said. "I've got 140,000 data points over the last seven years that prove that's a ridiculous statement," Welsh added, offering the statistics on how many CAS sorties the service has flown during the period. "That's about 20,000 a year. When is there a little bit of credit given for that?" He said his father "thought he flew" CAS in P-40s, P-47s, P-51s, and F-84s, and his father's friends thought they did so in A-1s and A-7s, "long before we had an A-10." They believed they had a "mentality, a culture, and a focus" of giving ground support full attention, Welsh argued. "So why people, all of a sudden, looking backward, (are) saying they didn't is a little beyond my comprehension," he added.

That comment is absolutely laughable to anyone who followed the development of the JSF. The Marines wanted a STOVL replacement for the Harrier for a number of years and the F-35 isn't anywhere near the ideal of what they wanted. The only reason they were able to get a replacement is they hitched their requirements to the Navy's need to replace the legacy F/A-18 and the USAF's need to replace the F-16. Of course the Marine's are going to be strong advocates of it, since it's the only replacement they're going to get.

 

[AeroFranz]

FWIW, i have been hearing increasing mention of avoidance of 'exquisite' solutions and a push for affordable, attritable UAV solutions in AFRL/DARPA circles. I think that there is a recognition the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. Or, you know, it could be just the usual fad that disappears in a couple of years.

 

[Flyaway]

Boeing proposes international A-10 Warthog sales.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-proposes-international-a-10-warthog-sales-412606/

 

[Triton]

Boeing proposes international A-10 Warthog sales.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-proposes-international-a-10-warthog-sales-412606/

Boeing has a contract for 233 new wings sets for the A-10 to be delivered through 2018. I presume that Northrop Grumman would need to be involved in some capacity if the United States government chooses to sell used A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft. Grumman acquired all A-10 assets and the "A-10 OEM Team" from Fairchild Republic in 1987.

 

[Flyaway]

I could imagine somewhere like Poland being interested in this considering their strategic position and current active re-armament.

 

[Pioneer]

Boeing proposes international A-10 Warthog sales.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-proposes-international-a-10-warthog-sales-412606/

How interesting (and yet how sad an indictment on the last 12+-years of combat experience!)
Wouldn't it be ironic if the likes of Blackwater the United States Government/Pentagon's favoured "contracted security agency" was to acquire a squadron of A-10C's! Then the United States Government/Pentagon contracts Blackwater to employ the given Blackwater A-10 squadron in support of U.S. military operations, to do exactly what the USAF was doing

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

“A-10s were limited in libya when rumors of Sa-18s surfaced” (TaiidanTomcat, Reply #12)

"but it also kind of highlights the USAF's hesitation to use/risk the A-10 for its intended role, and would rather assign alternates."(TaiidanTomcat

Hmm was this a U.S. intelligence assessment?, or is my mind cynical to the history of the USAF head-sheds playing games in their endeavour to be rid of the A-10...Again!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

"US Deploys A-10s to Europe Amid Debate to Arm Ukraine"
Feb 10, 2015
by Brendan McGarry

Source:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/02/10/us-deploys-a10s-to-europe-amid-debate-to-arm-ukraine.html?ESRC=todayinmil.s

Here's a radical idea......how about allowing the F-35 enter full operational service first!
The USAF, in conjunction with the U.S. Army, along with the Government Auditor General (or what ever their name is ) be made to prove and provide actual operational prof that the numerous plagued problems with the F-35 be proven to be fixed!
The U.S. Army should expect nothing less of the USAF to prove the operational capability of the F-35, before the A-10 is allowed to be replaced!
Then I'd support the prospects of the A-10 being retired.
Call me cynical, but I'm sure the above happens, the Ukrainian crises will probably be finished....Putin would have died of old age and the USAF finally admits that it made a mistake in acquiring the F-35 in the first place :

From a grunts perspective

Regards
Pioneer

 

[GTX]

the USAF finally admits that it made a mistake in acquiring the F-35 in the first place :

And what mistake would that be?

 

[Pioneer]

the USAF finally admits that it made a mistake in acquiring the F-35 in the first place :

And what mistake would that be?

That they've put so much time, effort and expectation into the F-35, which is excessively over-priced, excessively over due, unable to fly/perform to its expectations and will undoubtedly become a maintenance hog! But then again, they've (Pentagon) has put so much $, pride, careers and emphasis on the JSF, they can't admit to its failing.

Just my opinion, to which I happy to eat my words if Im wrong

Regards
Pioneer

 

[GTX]

the F-35, which is excessively over-priced, excessively over due, unable to fly/perform to its expectations and will undoubtedly become a maintenance hog!

Your opinion only! Others think differently...including those in the know making decisions...

 

[donnage99]

Your opinion only! Others think differently...including those in the know making decisions...

Those in the know making decisions on this matter have been proven wrong and wrong and wrong and wrong and wrong again over the life of this program. The numbers of reports and articles on this subject is as numerous as pictures of miley cyrus's flat behind.
This is a political battle at this point. Every branch knows this plane isn't what they wanted it to be. But they know the moment they raise their voice they might lose the plane and have nothing else in line to take its place. This is the classic "too big to fail" situation. The military is basically sticking to dishonest tactics at this point just to get this plane flying, ditching tests to protect schedule milestones, declaring the plane operational even when the plane can still do very little in the air.


I dont blame them. Politics is dirty. You gotta play its rules if you want to get something done. This plane certainly provides a quantum leap in terms of capabilities over what it replace. And I just want to see it fixed and flying personally. But for the cost, delays, and compromises, I don't know if it's worth it looking back. Perhaps we were too wishful when we drawn the specs.


BTW, nothing he said was just opinion. If he had said that this plane marks the downfall of American Air Superiority, than that would be an opinion. Because it has yet to happen. But he mentioned the plane being "excessively over-priced, excessively over due, unable to fly/perform to its expectations and will undoubtedly become a maintenance hogs" are all facts and had widely been reported, even by the people making the decision.

 

[marauder2048]

Boeing proposes international A-10 Warthog sales.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-proposes-international-a-10-warthog-sales-412606/

Boeing has a contract for 233 new wings sets for the A-10 to be delivered through 2018. I presume that Northrop Grumman would need to be involved in some capacity if the United States government chooses to sell used A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft. Grumman acquired all A-10 assets and the "A-10 OEM Team" from Fairchild Republic in 1987.

And Lockheed did the avionics upgrade to A-10C standard. The lack of a clear prime (after the OEM disappeared shortly after the last A-10 rolled on the lines in '84) is a real liability for foreign sales.

 

[The Artist]

Can we let this stay the thread on the relevance of the A-10?

Your opinion only! Others think differently...including those in the know making decisions...

Those in the know making decisions on this matter have been proven wrong and wrong and wrong and wrong and wrong again over the life of this program. The numbers of reports and articles on this subject is as numerous as pictures of miley cyrus's flat behind.
This is a political battle at this point. Every branch knows this plane isn't what they wanted it to be. But they know the moment they raise their voice they might lose the plane and have nothing else in line to take its place. This is the classic "too big to fail" situation. The military is basically sticking to dishonest tactics at this point just to get this plane flying, ditching tests to protect schedule milestones, declaring the plane operational even when the plane can still do very little in the air.


I dont blame them. Politics is dirty. You gotta play its rules if you want to get something done. This plane certainly provides a quantum leap in terms of capabilities over what it replace. And I just want to see it fixed and flying personally. But for the cost, delays, and compromises, I don't know if it's worth it looking back. Perhaps we were too wishful when we drawn the specs.


BTW, nothing he said was just opinion. If he had said that this plane marks the downfall of American Air Superiority, than that would be an opinion. Because it has yet to happen. But he mentioned the plane being "excessively over-priced, excessively over due, unable to fly/perform to its expectations and will undoubtedly become a maintenance hogs" are all facts and had widely been reported, even by the people making the decision.

 

[sferrin]

Just my opinion, to which I happy to eat my words if Im wrong

Regards
Pioneer

Oh don't worry. You will. (You'll have to get in line behind quite a few others though, I'm guessing, they'll just quietly slink back under their rocks and try to pretend they never said anything at all. Can't wait.)

 

[CxxTxx]

You seem to be so emotionally invested in the F-35 being a POS...

Unfortunately, my dear friend, based on the f-a-c-t-s that's a simple and easy bridge to cross. Just saying... And no amount of Lockheed press office and F-16.net fanboy, 'ra-ra' is going to change that. (Hate to be a "basement dweller.")

 

[marauder2048]

AFAIC, the bigger issue isn't the loss of the A-10 for CAS; there's a huge body of combat CAS experience and expertise that's proliferated throughout the USAF, Navy and USMC and most of the fast jet and A-10 drivers transitioning to F-35 will have the skill set and background to enable it to work well in that role.

The bigger issue is the CSAR/helicopter escort gap that the McConnell report identified way back in 1965 and is just as relevant now;
the V-22 will outrun any of its escorts aside from the A-10. Ironically, this would seem to be the perfect opportunity for the Army to justify getting the "grandson of Cheyenne" in some form e.g S-97.


Though it really must be said, especially in the light of the way ATACMS has been allowed to atrophy that the Army should have taken
McPeak up on his A-10s for ATACMS offer.

 

[sferrin]

Though it really must be said, especially in the light of the way ATACMS has been allowed to atrophy that the Army should have taken
McPeak up on his A-10s for ATACMS offer.

Could you elaborate on these? ???

 

[donnage99]

I think you're confusing "reports" with "opinion". A hit piece written by some know-nothing blowhard with an axe to grind hardly constitutes a reliable source. When you see the USAF say, "whoops, this thing sucks" like the USN did with the F-111B, or the US Army did with the AH-56, then you might have a case. I'm not seeing it. And I never will. Those who ACTUALLY know, i.e. not you, love what they're seeing. Sucks for you I guess. You seem to be so emotionally invested in the F-35 being a POS, I really hope you don't damage yourself when the taps on the Eurocanards finally shut down.

Let's not turn this into personal attacks. When did I say that this plane is a POS? I logically assume you got a little too emotionally riled up and didn't finish my entire post, in which toward the end I stated that this plane no doubt will provide quantum leap in term of capabilities over what we currently have (in some regard, f-22 included). But back to topics, I'm not referring to reports made by the "shut this pigeon down, it sucks" crowd; I'm talking about reports made by the Pentagon, and also just plain history of many performance requirements that have to be abandoned and various deadlines that were consistently not met. All of which made Pioneer's statement factual.


He said it's excessively over-priced. This is correct. The whole premise behind the f-35 is affordability. That's why all the 3 branches accept performance trade-offs. However, this premise is now moot, as the f-35 will not meet its affordability of costing less than a 4th generation aircraft, providing an affordable pathway toward sufficiently replacing the entire fighter fleet. This was reported by the Pentagon.


He said it's excessively over-dued. That's fact. It's a decade behind initial schedule. So behind, that many of the original equipments are outdated and need upgrades before the aircraft even goes operational, further adding to the delays. And operation dates are pretty much a political move as this point. It's public information that this the aircraft will lack core capabilities that make it mission relevant when it's declared operational. This has also been reported by the government.


He said it's a maintenance hog. This is also fact. The pentagon reported that the initial requirement for maintenance of the aircraft. It was supposed to cost less than a 4th gen aircraft. But the Pentagon admitted that it will cost significant more. In fact, the Marines have to abandon a core requirement of their air power doctrine with the f-35, it will not be able to operate at foward base nor will its fly per hour cost will permit it to provide sufficient support for soldiers on the ground.


I think you have to get pass the emotional sides of things and see the difference between people who think that this plane, as a fighting machine, is a failure and people who see the PROGRAM, not necessarily the plane, as a failure. The former is unsupported opinion, while the latter is just admitting fact.

 

[marauder2048]

Though it really must be said, especially in the light of the way ATACMS has been allowed to atrophy that the Army should have taken
McPeak up on his A-10s for ATACMS offer.

Could you elaborate on these? ???

ATACMS as a carrier for loitering munitions had the potential to change CAS significantly. There were also many
proposals to give ATACMS capability against moving targets or at the very least the ability to retarget it in flight.
AFAIK, none of those proposals were adopted.

I thought everyone knew about McPeak's offer? It was more than just ATACMS; it was medium and long range air defense as well.
Part of it was that deconflicting the airspace for ATACMS in GWI took more than an hour. My understanding is that it's now down
to a few minutes.

 

[marauder2048]

I think you're confusing "reports" with "opinion". A hit piece written by some know-nothing blowhard with an axe to grind hardly constitutes a reliable source. When you see the USAF say, "whoops, this thing sucks" like the USN did with the F-111B, or the US Army did with the AH-56, then you might have a case. I'm not seeing it. And I never will. Those who ACTUALLY know, i.e. not you, love what they're seeing. Sucks for you I guess. You seem to be so emotionally invested in the F-35 being a POS, I really hope you don't damage yourself when the taps on the Eurocanards finally shut down.

So behind, that many of the original equipments are outdated and need upgrades before the aircraft even goes operational, further adding to the delays.

IOW, the same diminishing manufacturing sources/parts obsolesce issues that have plagued every defense program since
the global defense market share of semiconductor production went from 60% in the 1960's to less than 0.05% (and that's a high estimate) today.

I did read your entire post but couldn't do so with a straight face after this...