Save the Hawg
 

If you believe Close Air Support is better served by the A-10 than other platforms, contact your Senator and Congressman. Ask them to support S.1764 and HR.3657.

They actually have a significant number of signatories to it; about 20. More is better. This will go before Congress in the next month. Congress will debate and want to know why retiring the A-10 is the best path forward.

The Air Force plan is to replace the A-10 units with Block 40 F-16s. A good airplane, but not as good for danger-close CAS as the A-10.

I have knowledge of a firefight last year (Afghanistan) from two of my former T-38 students. They saved an entire convoy, and killed 18 combatants, in a danger-close scenario.

How close? Hand-grenade range. They expended 2200 rounds of 30mm, and three Mk-82s.

Two F-16s and a Predator were orbiting overhead. They were unable to expend, as the 20mm in the F-16 has too wide a dispersal pattern, and the Pred could not employ Hellfires for the same reason.

Every American in the convoy lived. Not so for the bad guys.

If you believe that Close Air Support will not be necessary in future conflicts, then carry on. If you believe a viable CAS alternative should be tested and fielded before the A-10 is retired, I urge you to write your elected officials.

Only way to save the Hawg is to fire the AF and DoD leadership.

If the DoD has their way the only place you'll be seeing A-10 is firefighting air tankers.

Guns or Babies?
 

PBS has a video with transcript on the A-10 cut. Here is a direct quote from a very recent USAF Chief of Staff:

GEN. NORTON SCHWARTZ: "The dilemma is, what else in the Air Force do we stop doing in order to keep the A-10? So what child care center do we not keep open? What base do we compromise security?"

I guess he considers child care a (the?) prime mission of the USAF, and that it trumps, well, actually having an air force.

Maybe his quote would fit better under "Tool of the Day".

How the A-10 Warthog became 'the most survivable plane ever built' | Updates | PBS NewsHour | PBS

transcript here: Budget cuts could ground unstoppable A-10 Warthog aircraft

Major TOTD material there. It survived even me and I jumped out of one after a mid-air.

GF

If it was legal, I am sure the Army would find a way to find room in its budget for the A-10. The A-10 is like the C-130 & B-52, old but have not outlived their usefulness. You can not build a better CAS platform than the A-10, although it could use some stronger engines. When the A-10 goes, it will not be replaced by a more capable asset.

Wasn't the LAARS (light attack armed recon) supposed to be a direct replacement for the A-10? (Pardon if I am missing something). I can see why if F-16 is a poor replacement for the A-10 but I thought they had some other ideas in mind.

From my understanding the LAAR was never going to be a replacement for the Hog. Yes, the do have a replacement in mind, the F-35...

The A-10 will be grouped with the likes of the SR-71 and the RB-57. After they have "parked" them in the desert, they will come to the realization, once again, that the supposed replacement for said aircraft will not cut the mustard.

It is legal. The Army may not be able to acquire the A-10, but they can certainly fund the AF's sustainment of them. They won't, though, they have their own priorities. From my recent experience, the majority of them (outside of the JTACs, etc) consider FW CAS a nice-to-have anyway, perhaps because they don't like to count on what their own service can't provide. There are other entities that could provide funding as well, again it's a matter of priorities.

Regardless, the reality is that the decision-makers don't look at the tactical level, and they apparently feel that the incremental loss of capability by replacing the A-10 with the F-16 (while retaining CAS as a mission set) is worth the price to save some other mission set, initiative, etc. The vignette about the TIC mentioned above would get zero traction, the assumption is that the mission set or capability that would be sacrificed to save the A-10 would have an equivalent vignette. It was depressing when I realized how little tactical implications have on strategic decisions, but it is what it is.

I'm not saying I agree, I'm just laying out the cold facts of what anyone who has served on a staff already knows..

Having flown 14 years in the Hawg all I can say is that I'm glad I'm not around any more. Makes me sad.

They aren't good making decisions at the strategic level either. Then again, neither are their bosses.

Yeah, we will dismantle the entire GD Air Force to save the F-35. Great plan!!

Not Dead Yet
 

Looks like the Hawg ain't dead yet.
Lawmakers may save the Hog.

It's unfortunate.. I really hope the hog stays on.

Welsh loves to put it this way "the F-16 and 35 are too multi role. We need to keep them since they're good at multiple things".. He has turned on his own airplane.. Yes, Welsh was a hogdriver for some who may not know.

Lockheed and their lobbying dollars know what's best for you. Stop trying to think for yourselves.

Any bets as to the F-35 coming up short on expectations ?

Sorry bro'

As a father of four, and knowing that there are many other families in the USAF who barely make ends meet, we got to balance things out. Schwartzee knows this and so does every competent senior leader.

Go buy a million A-10s, but they are completely useless without the people to fly them, fix them, fuel them and support other mission areas. Those Airmen who fix, fuel and support need those day care centers whether we like it or not.

No people = no war-fighting capability...gotta take care of people too. The best cost saving measures are to divest entire fleets and make due with the remaining capabilities, it's a fiscal reality whether we like it or not.

Making a law to save the A10? That's BIG sh!t!

I flew the A-10 for 12 years and spent 3 on the ground with the Army as an ALO/JTAC. It is unfortunate for the ground pounders that this jet is going away. This isn't about saving money. It's about saving lives. There is nothing out there that can even compare to the amount of destruction, accuracy and flexibility that the A-10 can provide. Retire the A-10, fine but lets redesign it and help out our bros on the ground. What the brass fails to see is the AF is a support agency. We support the troops on the ground at all levels. You can't do that with a F-35 with no gun (150 rds of 20 MM) and a few bombs with no loiter time.

And also completely typical of our moronic elected officials. It's up there with forcing the Air Force to buy planes it does not want or need. I won't take a side on whether we should keep the A-10 or not, I don't know enough about CAS to say. But, when politicians begin to decide what the military does and doesn't need, no good can come of it. We cannot afford everything that each individual congressman wants for their constituents. No wonder we're 17 trillion in debt and going deeper.

I agree. They should stop d!ck'n around with the F-35 :p

'Like'
+1
Whatever, but he is dead-b@lls on.