Why Congress May Let Air Force Retire The A-10

[unhappycamper]

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/03/why-congress-may-let-air-force-retire-the-a-10/



Why Congress May Let Air Force Retire The A-10
By Colin Clark on March 14, 2014 at 5:30 PM

CAPITOL HILL: Aside from Sen. Kelly Ayotte, the reaction from Capitol Hill to the Air Force plan for retiring the ugly and beloved A-10 has been relatively muted and may remain so. Why would Congress, beloved for going slightly nuts whenever the military tries to retire a ship, aircraft squadron, or anything else that means jobs in their districts or states, not rail against this sweet plane going quietly into the night? They will be replaced at most A-10 bases by F-16s, C-130Js or KC-135s so few or no jobs or money will be lost.

The Air Force has crafted a plan in stark contrast to its efforts last year to trim assets. And the reaction to this one has, so far, been quite muted. The slide above, which depicts the shifts and their timing, was part of a detailed briefing to professional staff and Military Legislative Aides in the last week that included classified assessments of the various tradeoffs the Air Force considered to save the $3.7 billion the Air Force expects to save. Among the scenarios gamed: sending the entire B-1 bomber fleet to the boneyard; pushing 40 F-35 As to the far out years; and retiring 356 F-16s. The Air Force, Chief of Staff Mark Welsh told me after today’s House Armed Services Committee hearing, ran war games to assess the impacts of each action. The retirement of the A-10 fleet was found to be the least disruptive to America’s global capabilities.



Members did discuss the A-10 today at today’s House hearing, including Rep. Vicky Hartzler. Whiteman Air Force Base, home to an A-10 Reserve unit, sits in her district. She was not convinced by the Air Force’s arguments saying she did not ”agree that a B-1? can do the same job as an A-10. The Air Force argues that precision weapons have replaced the need for the A-10?s depleted uranium cannon shells. Hartzler said she believes ground troops “want to see the A-10 coming over that horizon.”

Several other members voiced what sounded like pro-forma objections to the A-10?s retirements. When Welsh answered their objections they appeared to accept his explanations. Gen. Welsh brings a certain authority to the issue, having been an A-10 pilot himself.




--

In Vietnam the A-1 Skyraider was the beall/endall for close air support.



This bad boy would carry SHITLOADS of ordinance with a long loiter time. And A-1s shot down two MIG-17s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-1_Skyraider

During the war, U.S. Navy Skyraiders shot down two North Vietnamese Air Force (NVAF) Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 jet fighters: one on 20 June 1965, a victory shared by Lieutenant Clinton B. Johnson and Lieutenant, junior grade Charles W. Hartman III of VA-25;[17] and one on 9 October 1966 by LTJG William T. Patton of VA-176.[12] While on his very first mission, Navy pilot LTJG Dieter Dengler took damage to his A-1H over Vietnam on 1 February 1966, and crash-landed in Laos.[18]

[Benton D Struckcheon]

1. Not exactly a military expert,

but from what I've read, the Air Force as a separate service has always been a bit controversial. Studies have repeatedly shown that their main mission should be close air support of ground troops, the mission of the A-10. And if that's what their main mission should be, why should they be separate from the Army?
These planes aren't glamorous, as they're slow in comparison to a sleek fighter jet. So their mission is always downgraded by the Air Force in favor of fighter planes and bombers.
In other words, not a surprise they'd want to can the A-10 instead of the other planes. Also not a surprise Congress would let them if they made it so that few jobs would be lost by doing so.

[bluedigger]

2. Heck of an aircraft.

I remember watching one go by overhead upside down at about 200' (low and slow) on a joint live fire exercise once. I waved to the pilot and he had time to wave back. You never forget the first time you hear one fire it's cannon (Vulcan?).

[daybranch]

3. The A-10 should not be retired

The A-10 with the ability to fly low and slow while remaining relatively invulnerable to ground fire is what we need to fight forces on the group . Without it , we are stuck with fast but very inaccurately firing F-16s or other fighter planes. There is no other plane to fill this role very well.
This is just a case of budget stacking- if we cut this now, then knowing it is very necessary to the mission, you will let us buy a replacement in a couple of years, and in that way we spend as much as possible and lose nothing except very short term.
There are plenty of F-16s they can spare at a lot less disturbance of their mission. They should not be in the business of providing jobs. Their job is to provide defense for the country.
Do not fall for the trick.