Hey guys

I was talking with my CO the other day and he said that when the A-10 came out the army was interested in buying it and something happend with the air forces like they didn't agree or something and the A-10 ended up with them. It's that true at all? Was the US Army trying to get some A-10 on their fleet back in the 80's?


If it's true, that would of been interesting though.

Seems to me that the Air Force has always had a problem with the Army having fixed wing aircraft. That said, and having been an A-10 pilot for almost 20 years, it seems to me that the A-10 would certainly be the perfect close air support vehicle for the Army. There's many reasons for that, and very few, if any, for them not having the jet. Except of course, politics.

JJ

The Army has long ached to have their own indigenous airplanes for CAS.

Von Clausewitz said that war is the ultimate expression of political will. Unfortunately, the military branches all bear the stain of politicians and their will--both internal and external.

Each service is always in an unstated, covert war with the other branches to curry political favor on Capital Hill and thereby get the biggest share of each Fiscal Year's Defense Budget. Examples from history: The Air Force wanted only the Air Force to have nuclear weapons when the service was created; but the Navy wanted in, too. New technologies mean more money. The Air Force actually lobbied that aircraft carriers should be operated by the Air Force.

More recently, the Air Force largely won control of the "Cyberspace" realm because "cyberspace" sounded something like "space," which the Air Force largely controls.

The Air Force has some boats, the Navy has planes, the Marines (which derives from Latin for "Navy") have land, sea, and air forces. They seem to overlap in almost every area...except:

1. Only the Navy operates submarines.

2. Only the Air Force and Navy (I'm including the Marines here) do traditional CAS.

Letting the Army do CAS in Attack Helicopters is the closest the Army ever got (or will get) to having their own CAS resources.

Read the book about John Boyd and his association with the development of the Hog. I believe the Army wanted the airplane, and the Air Force didn't want to do unglamorous CAS. Ironic, since that is where the bulk of all action will be for the next 20 years.

How many lives has the F-22 saved in combat? But it sure sells a lot of beer and soda at an airshow.....

I think the AF was trying to control all FW flying, they tried and failed to seize naval aviation after WW-II. I think the AF controlled or tried to control RW also but the army threw the yellow flag on that.

The AF never really wanted the A-10, they did not want to be in the cas bidness at all...they only took it to keep others from getting a FW tactical jet. When budgets got tight after the cold war they tried to discard all of the A-10's in order to fund a few more pointy nose airplanes, o-clubs, and golf courses, but big DoD and congress canx that idea. Congress does occasionally display remarkable vision.

When the AF tried to shut it down, the marines were on the verge of taking some of the airframes...that would have been a good thing. Maybe next time.

The origin of the A-10 design and requirement was with the USAF. However, I think the Army has made several attempts to co-opt the mission from the USAF, thinking that the A-10 was a red-headed step child in the USAF's mind. The USAF has been successful at drawing doctrinal a line at fixed wing combat aircraft though and keeping the A-10.

I can't say I blame the Army. As an Air Force officer, I firmly believe the USAF places too much emphasis on strategic uses of Air Power and not enough on tactical.

Remember, just prior to the 1st gulf war (1991) the USAF's plans were to send all the Hogs to the boneyard within a couple years. Well, it's 20 years later and they're still around.

Honestly...F-16's as FACs. GMAFB.

What's next, F-22's as FACs? Maybe we can re-name them F/OV-22's for congress and try to trick people into thinking we give a crap.

The navy operates the only cost-effective and reliable strategic deterrence system...and we don't lose the things either.

That would have been...entertaining. While it lasted.

Great, let 'em have it. Somebody has to do it.

The Marines are just a department of the Navy. The men's department.

From what I remember - the Marines were looking at getting them from the AF right before and/or after the Gulf War. Like someone else said - they were looking at sending them to the boneyard - but they had a good performance during the Gulf War too - especially once they moved them up to (I think) a 10,000' hard deck (reference the 'Warthogs in the Gulf' book).

I remember when I first selected for the Strike/Fighter pipeline in late '91, I was told that there was a possibilty that I could have great timing for being in the intial cadre of Marine A-10 pilots. Since it was one of my favorties planes - I thought that would be just great! But - one problem the Marines had with the plane was its' lack of Expeditionary capability - meaning not STOVL like the Harrier and not carrier capable like the Hornet; otherwise, I worked right beside them out of Al Jaber in 2003

USMCFLYR

Re: Men's department quip. Funny, me and Jack never heard that one before.

The F-16 was to start replacing the A-10 in the CAS role in the very late 80s through the early 90s.

I was out by then, but my recollection during DS was the F-16s were limited to >10,000' due to the ZSU threat. Above 10, they had to rely on LGBs if they wanted to actually hit anything.

Meanwhile, the Hogs were down in the dirt tearing through Iraqi armor with AGM-65s and the GAU. We lost several A-10s but the general consensus was if the F-16s were tasked with the same mission - SCUD hunting and CAS down low - we would have lost plenty more.

As a result, and probably much to the chagrin of some Pentagon Brass, the decision to mothball the A-10s in favor of F-16s in the CAS role was postponed for years.