
The Air Force Initiative to Replace the A-10 Warthog Is Vaporware - ourmandave
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-air-force-initiative-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-is-1771018719
======
beloch
CAS is a job best done by relatively slow, but well armored aircraft flying
low and slow. Pilots need to have time to develop awareness of both their
allies and their enemies. Pilots of this type of mission are going to come
under fire, which is something the air force is fundamentally unwilling to
accept. Marines in planes, on the other hand, are likely to accept similar
risk to marines on the ground if it reduces risk for all. Given that CAS
pilots must work most closely with those on the ground, it makes little sense
for them to be air force.

That being said, drones are probably the real A-10 killers. They can fly right
down an enemy's throat without risking their pilot's lives. VR technology
promises to give drone pilots a better field of view than any cockpit offers,
and pilots could potentially switch control to a new drone when their previous
drone is forced to return to base. This means one pilot could follow an
engagement from start to finish, instead of multiple pilots trading off. This
would greatly reduce the likelihood of pilot error and friendly fire
incidents.

~~~
gozur88
>CAS is a job best done by relatively slow, but well armored aircraft flying
low and slow.

That _was_ true, but it's not true any more. Modern targeting pods (like the
Siper XR pods on the B-1) mean you can get the same situational awareness from
much farther away. Between targeting pods and laser guided weapons the A-10 is
obsolete.

Low and slow is dangerous. Aircraft defenses (lasers, flares, chaff, ECM)
haven't been evolving as quickly as threats at low altitudes. Not by a long
shot. You're fine against a dozen guys with rusty AK-47s and RPG-7s, but once
you start fighting armies equipped with something like Pantsir or NASAMS
you're in big trouble.

~~~
Warhawg01
A-10s having been flying with targeting pods (Litening and Sniper) and
dropping laser and GPS-guided weapons for years. So how exactly has their
presence made A-10 obsolete again?

~~~
arjie
Can't say I know very much about this, but if you can see and hit things well
from a distance why go close? And if you don't need to go close, why do you
need something that is built to go close over something that can carry more
ordinance or fly for fewer dollars per hour or get there quicker? Surely it
costs something (speed, flight range, maybe) to get the ability to go close
and if you don't need that ability you can use that cost elsewhere.

~~~
Warhawg01
Sometimes standoff is good and necessary. Stay out of threat range, not be
seen or heard by the enemy as you follow them with your targeting pod, etc.

Sometimes standoff is pointless. Friendlies on the ground are in a knife feet
with the enemy less than 100m away and they need air support. Now close, and
slower to better maintain SA on who the friendlies are and who the enemy is --
and the ability to deliver weapons with lower Risk Estimate Distances and/or
Collateral Damage Estimates is critically important. The GAU-8 does both. The
F-16 gun is useless. A laser guide bomb in this scenario may present too much
risk for fratricide.

A-10s can carry more ordnance, for a longer time over a target area, and need
less tanker support to do so, than an F-16. And for less $/flying hour. It
does cost speed. A-10s don't go anywhere quickly. But it can perform CAS in a
standoff roll, or in a close-in fight equally well.

------
awinter-py
If there's a consensus on what's wrong with pentagon procurement, the bullet
points are: (1) no 'feasability feedback' mechanism to reject wishlist items
that inflate complexity or delivery date, (2) focus on 'joint procurement',
i.e. one product that solves army / air force / navy problems, i.e. a flying
submarine with wheels, (3) lead times are too long for bespoke products (by
the time it's delivered your needs have changed).

A-10 was built based on CAS lessons that had been learned the hard way in Nam,
where helicopters had to take the place of fixed-wing airplanes that couldn't
do the job. (meaning it was built to do one thing well). It wasn't a swiss-
army knife.

If you believe that it's not practical to build a swiss-army knife aircraft,
then you probably weren't surprised by the crappy fighters we turned out in
the 90s and 00s. The head airplane designer on china's F-22 killer basically
laughed when he was asked about the F-35, and said 'the best thing that ever
happened to us was when the US decided to put VTOL in their main fighter --
and not even in all of them.' China could never afford to do that but arguably
the US can't either. A post-IOC F-35C had its wings fall off (yes) and the
pentagon lockheed liaison's explanation was 'the pilot was too heavy, we're
looking into it'.

Even more interesting than the A-10 is the F-16; it was a backburner project
at lockheed and the pentagon tried to shut it down because they didn't want it
stealing any PR thunder from the bigger badder F-15. These days the F-16 is
doing every job because it's cheap, easy to maintain, lots of people can fly
them. Lockheed just shut down the line for these but the aftermarket is
booming.

~~~
engi_nerd
"A post IOC F-35C had its wings fall off”

Stop making things up. The C variant won't be declared operationally capable
for at least another year, probably two. No C model " had its wings fall off".
A test aircraft undergoing lifetime fatigue testing in a loads fixture had
some wing spar cracks. I don't mean to dismiss that issue, because it _is_
serious, but that's hardly having the wings fall off.

~~~
awinter-py
ok, fair point.

[http://www.janes.com/article/55987/wing-spar-cracks-found-
on...](http://www.janes.com/article/55987/wing-spar-cracks-found-on-
usn-f-35-variant)

------
tired_man
If the Air Force is so bent on getting rid of these wonderfully useful, tough
machines, then perhaps they should entirely leave the ground support role to
the US Marine Corps and the US Navy, both of which have a long history of
providing ground attack support to troops.

The A-10 is the best damned aircraft at this role since the AD-1 Spad's were
retired.

All the Air Force wants is glitter and fame, they aren't really interested in
life on the ground. Give them their wish, take the A-10s and give them to
someone who will use them to their fullest potential.

~~~
TylerE
The thing is, the last A-10 rolled off the production line _32_ years ago.
Airframes have finite lifespans.

~~~
the_ancient
Then Build more Airframes...

Start up the production again, I would rather them scrap the F35 program,
which is vaporware at this point, than the A10

~~~
adamson
Huh? F-35s are in production

~~~
bpodgursky
F-35s will not be able to fire their cannons until the 2020's (last I
checked), because the software has not been written.

~~~
mikeash
That must be one fancy-pants cannon if it takes three years to write the
software to drive it. How is that even possible?

~~~
ceejayoz
Cannons have substantially nastier failure modes than the latest Twitter
clone, and as such have much longer software development and testing cycles.

A look into a similar process with NASA:
[http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-
stuff](http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff)

~~~
mikeash
My incredulity is not because I think it's easy to write reliable software,
but because a cannon shouldn't need more than "if button then fire." From the
other reply, apparently it's way more complex than that though.

~~~
engi_nerd
Additional complexity comes from the F-35's Stores Management System (SMS). In
addition to the basic accounting tasks of keeping track of what kinds of
weapons are loaded, and on which stations, the SMS keeps track of how much the
stores at each station weigh and provides that information to the flight
control system (FLCS). FLCS can then compensate for the weight distribution of
the stores. The gun must integrate with the SMS.

[http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkADougHa...](http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkADougHayward.pdf)
for some more information.

------
cromwellian
Perhaps this is an Airforce/Fighter Jock fetish with speed? The A-10 isn't a
super-fast super-maneuverable sexy jet, and they'd rather have more
F-22s/F-35s with all of the checkbox Nth-generation bells and whistles
(stealth, super-cruise, etc)?

It's like an MVP product that serves customers vs a product loaded with
features that only the developers wanted. The A-10 is boring and simplistic
and old tech. Forget the fact that the F-35 is expensive, buggy, not the best
in any category, and gets owned by earlier generation jets.

~~~
zrail
This is exactly it. The Air Force brass is all fighter jocks these days.

~~~
nradov
The top Air Force brass is a former A-10 pilot. I'm pretty sure he understands
its strengths and weaknesses.
[http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Arti...](http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/104966/general-
mark-a-welsh-iii.aspx)

~~~
zrail
Flew an A10 for three months in training. AFAICT he then flew F16s for the
rest of his operational career before transferring to command.

------
smegel
Give them to the Army Air Corps. The pilots need to work more closely with
soldiers on the ground than other pilots or air control, and the army are the
last people who want to see these planes go.

Then the Air Force Generals can get stars in their eyes about fast jets and
stealthy bombers without the hassle of a little flying tank.

------
jessaustin
FWIW, and since this is on-the-ground perceptual anecdata maybe that's not
much, A-10 training flights in southern Missouri (i.e. out of Whiteman AFB,
with possible attack runs over Ft. Wood) have picked up appreciably during
recent months. Over the last month, if I spend a day outside, I definitely
hear/see a pair of Warthogs at some point. There were _years_ for which that
was not the case.

------
smoyer
My favorite aircraft ever - I loved it at air shows [1 - 1978] as a kid and
later when my son and I played the A-10 Cuba [2] video game together.

[1] [https://www.oceanaairshow.com/](https://www.oceanaairshow.com/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Cuba](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Cuba)!

~~~
warmwaffles
a-10 cuba, good times

------
Overtonwindow
I almost started to say I don't understand the military's obsession with
fixing things that aren't broke, but then I remembered defense contractors,
campaign contributions, defense spending, and egos.

~~~
vonmoltke
Actually, the A-10 is "broke" in the sense that it can no longer perform its
mission in a modern air defense environment. The current fleet is also old and
wearing out.

That said, there are plenty of military commitments that involve CAS in
environments with minimal to non-existent air defense. The sensible thing to
do would be to replace the A-10 in kind with a fairly cheap, modern version
while working on a more expensive, more survivable complement. That makes too
much sense for the Five-Sided Playpen, though.

~~~
bubuga
>Actually, the A-10 is "broke" in the sense that it can no longer perform its
mission in a modern air defense environment.

I'm sure that the A-10 can still perform its mission in a modern air defense
environment, mainly due to the fact that the bulk of today's missions involve
an enemy with limited resources, limited industrial capabilities, and limited
technical skills.

> The current fleet is also old and wearing out.

I'm sure the US is quite capable of putting up a military aicraft program for
a mark 2 version of the A10 thunderbolt, one which is focused on tackling the
maintenance/cost issues of the current version and even increase the
reliability of the whole airframe. The last four decades in the aviation field
were very fertile with regards to technical progresses.

~~~
vonmoltke
> I'm sure that the A-10 can still perform its mission in a modern air defense
> environment, mainly due to the fact that the bulk of today's missions
> involve an enemy with limited resources, limited industrial capabilities,
> and limited technical skills.

To answer both you and robotresearcher, the US has not faced an opponent with
a modern air defense system since Vietnam. The closest was Serbia, and NATO
specifically held off on low level missions for a while there because of the
Serb AD network.

> I'm sure the US is quite capable of putting up a military aicraft program
> for a mark 2 version of the A10 thunderbolt, one which is focused on
> tackling the maintenance/cost issues of the current version and even
> increase the reliability of the whole airframe. The last four decades in the
> aviation field were very fertile with regards to technical progresses.

That's basically what I said in the next sentence. I'm not sure what your
point is here.

------
johansch
As a foreigner.. I don't get it. Is it all about pork/creating jobs in various
states rather than over-all value to the country?

~~~
jakelarkin
yes and the US Air Force is too much in the pocket of defense contractors and
out of step with forces that actually wage combat in the current conflicts.
They drag their feet on effective and low-cost solutions like the A-10 and
drones and want spend all trillions on vanity "air-superiority" aircraft, for
winning hypothetical dog fights with next-gen China/Russia fighter jets.

------
eximius
It is amazing how terribly managed our military resources are. I cannot even
fathom where to begin to fix it.

~~~
maxerickson
Note the J in JSOC, discard the existing branches of the military and build
integrated units around desired tactical capabilities.

I guess you'd still have room for a Navy doing it that way, but you get the
idea.

~~~
mentalpiracy
This is easier in theory than it is in practice. While obviously each branch
puts together its own integrated units for various missions, th8e real
detriment to this kind of idea is what you would lose when breaking down the
larger command/logistics backbone of the Army/Marines/AF/Navy.

I totally agree that the current system is not maximally efficient, but how
would these new integrated units be managed logistically? Would each unit
field its own logistics personnel? That might make sense, but then you end up
with a lot of duplicated effort for little marginal improvement. Would we need
an entire separate command structure for the sole purpose of heavy equipment
movement and base management/support? If no, who might be the logical choice
for this role?

~~~
maxerickson
I'm being a little sarcastic, but you could have units organized around
providing logistics. Get this here, get that there.

Realistically, you might just end up with even more bureaucracies defending
their own turf and resisting change.

The other thing that might happen is that you end up with less redundant
capabilities and better integration. It's kind of stupid that the presence of
a jet engine dictates that close air support be under a different command.

------
jasonwatkinspdx
These articles just get worse and worse.

Opinions about the merits and flaws of the A-10 are largely irrelevant: the
inventory is rotting, and there are no factory resources for replacement
parts, let alone new aircraft. Keeping the A-10's going would require what
amounts to a reverse engineering and reproduction program comparable in cost
to developing a new aircraft.

Even if you're the biggest fan in the world of them, it simply does not make
sense to keep the A-10's going. Sentiment does not prevent the decay of the
aircraft, nor does it whip into existence cad files and factory tooling that
no longer exists.

The A-10 costs around 20k per hour to fly. The predator series drones, T6
Texan, and the Super Tucano all cost 1/5th to 1/10th that per hour to operate.

~~~
Warhawg01
The inventory is rotting? Laughable. The Mission Capable Rates are in the
80-90% range. There haven't been "factory resources" for parts in decades, and
yet the fleet still manages to fly at a high rate. CAD Files? Factory Tooling?
You have very little understanding of how aircraft maintenance in the Air
Force works. Ever heard of a sheet metal shop? Those dudes can make
_anything_.

An A-10 flight hour costs <8K. Source: I managed a $54M, 7200 hour A-10 flying
hour program. I have flown A-10s for 18 years.

~~~
jasonwatkinspdx
I'm skeptical you are who you claim, but if so you know you're being
hyperbolic. Airframes have a limited lifetime; fatigue adds up. Despite the
overwhelmingly positive performance to date, an aging fleet that's more
expensive on margin to operate than alternatives doesn't make sense.

~~~
msbarnett
The AF just rewinged the A-10 fleet. Ranting about airframe fatigue in
relation to the A-10 is nonsensical; the money has already been spent
refreshing the airframes. Their current expected lifespan is until 2040.

~~~
jasonwatkinspdx
Yup, at a cost of around $2billion to extend around 200 aircraft to 2040. It's
exactly the problem I'm talking about: those wings cost ~10mm per aircraft,
twice the base price for a brand new Texan.

I don't think that was prudent spending vs alternatives, but to be fair, it
was a decision made a decade ago when the future was a bit more murky.

------
fixxer
The Air Force attitude to the venerable A-10 has always struck me as pure
budget bloating. I love that flying pig.

------
hudibras
All I'm going to say is that the A-10 fanboys win the argument at the
unclassified level, but it might be a different story when the discussion
moves behind closed doors.

~~~
dsr_
"If you only knew what I know, you would agree with me."

"Okay, what is it?"

"I can't tell you."

This is not an argument which ever works. Don't try it.

~~~
engi_nerd
If you know those sorts of things, it is generally best to stay away from
arguments about capabilities. It isn't an argument that works, you're right.

