F-35 to replace A-10?

[hornetfinn]

When we talk about CAS are we talking about close support for armor or close support for (dismounted) infantry?

The crucial difference is that the US Army, with the arrival of the A-10 completely changed the way it was going to engage Soviet armor. The target priority list for tank hunting teams (including Army aviation) changed to focus
on the "funnies" i.e. air defense elements and battery command vehicles.

Things like Copperhead were developed to focus on those high value targets and a lot of the
anti-armor weapons were going to be initially focused on SEAD. The scheme was going to eventually include
mortar delivered IR screening/obscurants against Soviet MANPADS positions.

In this sort of CAS, opposing forces are separated by kilometers so things like "danger close" (<= 200 m)
for supporting infantry are less relevant.

Post-2003 Iraq and Afghanistan have featured dismounted infantry-on-infantry battles which drove
the need for precision artillery and things like SDB FLM. And have featured aerial cannon more extensively.

For the Soviet threat the big concern was less local air defense units and more Soviet Frontal
Aviation leakers with look-down-shoot-down.

Now you bring up very interesting point. If you do CAS with fixed wing aircraft like A-10 or Su-25, then SEAD is very crucial for survival and successfully accompishing missions in high threat environments. Of course it's also important for helos but they can better use terrain masking to avoid most threatening AD systems. Especially so if they can use their weapons without direct LOS to enemy units. For example AH-64 Apache can use Spike NLOS, Brimstone and possibly JAGM like that. It seems like Israel has been very keen to k

One big problem besides MANPADS for slow and low CAS is that IFVs nowadays have very capable anti-aircraft capabilities with 30-40 mm guns, thermal imaging sights, laser rangefinders and even getting air situation picture from AD sensors on their own screens. They are perfectly capable of shooting down aircraft and helos that come within range and there is usually a lot of them in ground formations. Nowadays Russian and Chinese vehicles are getting these capabilties and they are likely to become more widespread. In that kind of environment, a stealthy high-altitude platform like F-35 with great sensors and targeting systems would definitely be preferred. Especially so if enemy also has heavier AD systems and capable air force.

During Cold War the Soviet Frontal Aviation would definitely have posed a problem for NATO CAS and strike aircraft. But I think that the main threat would've still been the AD systems as the Soviets only had limited number of aircraft with real look-down shoot-down capabilities. Of course for example MiG-23 with rather limited capabilties in that area has shot down helicopters which proves that they would've definitely been a credible threat especially with their 4 IR guided missiles. So it depends on whether NATO was more capable in shooting down enemy aircraft or doing SEAD.

[XanderCrews]

Generally A2G sorties out of ~3300 sorties in total (Author cited below being Kenneth Pollack). Pretty good sortie rate for a 200+ fleet. But 67 is not really a good citation for CAS considering the effectiveness of the aircraft back then. A single sqn of A-10s in that turkey shoot would do a lot more damage than the entire IAF did in 67.

Aircraft involved in 1967 war were definitely not very well suited to CAS and A-10 would've done great there as the air defences were very poor then (only SA-2 and ZSU-57-2 for dedicated systems). Of course A-10 entered service a decade later and even Yom Kippur war would've already been much tougher with SA-7, ZSU-23-4 and SA-6. Naturally that was still pretty much the kind of threat environment where A-10 was envisioned to be used and likely would've done pretty well but taken losses like it did in Desert Storm against those same systems. Of course Iraqis also had newer MANPADS (SA-14/16/18) along with SA-9 and SA-13, all of which proved dangerous especially against A-10s.

I think nowadays A-10 is perfect for use in Iraq and Afghanistan where there the threat level is very low and land area large. So A-10 has a lot of advantages compared to helos with longer reach/endurance and faster response time against long distance targets.

When we talk about CAS are we talking about close support for armor or close support for (dismounted) infantry?

The crucial difference is that the US Army, with the arrival of the A-10 completely changed the way it was going to engage Soviet armor. The target priority list for tank hunting teams (including Army aviation) changed to focus
on the "funnies" i.e. air defense elements and battery command vehicles.

Things like Copperhead were developed to focus on those high value targets and a lot of the
anti-armor weapons were going to be initially focused on SEAD. The scheme was going to eventually include
mortar delivered IR screening/obscurants against Soviet MANPADS positions.

In this sort of CAS, opposing forces are separated by kilometers so things like "danger close" (<= 200 m)
for supporting infantry are less relevant.

Post-2003 Iraq and Afghanistan have featured dismounted infantry-on-infantry battles which drove
the need for precision artillery and things like SDB FLM. And have featured aerial cannon more extensively.

For the Soviet threat the big concern was less local air defense units and more Soviet Frontal
Aviation leakers with look-down-shoot-down.

yes the A-10 was designed for "Battlefield air Interdiction" BAI. What it would have been doing against IVAN in the Fulda Gap is not what we would term today CAS. And things have changed. For example we trust PGMs more than we do platforms. It seems to go completely unnoticed but one of my friends (no longer with us I'm afraid) was tagging along with American Forces in the early days of the 2001 Special Forces operations and was describing B-52s doing CAS. Thats remarkable, and it seems to have taken place without many civilians noticing what a "sea change" that was. Also cool story he was there to cover the soviets withdrawing over a decade prior.

[weasel1962]

Battlefield networks are down to squad level which means that the location of friendlies are a lot more easily identified. CAS with PGMs can occur much more effectively at the FLOT esp during maneuver warfare. But with RSTA sensor improvements + increased range of weapons, the targets will also be further away from the FLOT. At that distance, Army already has a lot of firepower to deal with those threats from army aviation to arty. With increased engagement distances, I would think more BAI than CAS is needed/useful.

Marauder brings up a good point. Define CAS more narrowly and distinguish it from BAI. F-35s with its sensors execute BAI very well, better (more survivable) than legacy A-10s.

[michaelemouse]

Now you bring up very interesting point. If you do CAS with fixed wing aircraft like A-10 or Su-25, then SEAD is very crucial for survival and successfully accompishing missions in high threat environments. Of course it's also important for helos but they can better use terrain masking to avoid most threatening AD systems. Especially so if they can use their weapons without direct LOS to enemy units. For example AH-64 Apache can use Spike NLOS, Brimstone and possibly JAGM like that. It seems like Israel has been very keen to k

Winged vs rotary seems analogous to ballistic vs cruise missiles: Winged/ballistic has higher altitude, time-on-station, speed, range, payload while rotary/cruise has higher stealth thru terrain masking.

Unless someone can find some other major advantage, it's interesting to me that altitude (and therefore one's own sensor range), time-on-station, speed, range, payload are all sacrificed for contextual (terrain-dependent) stealth.

[marauder2048]

Unless someone can find some other major advantage, it's interesting to me that altitude (and therefore one's own sensor range), time-on-station, speed, range, payload are all sacrificed for contextual (terrain-dependent) stealth.

Just about all SAMs have altitude minima. There have been several cases where the AH-64s survived MANPADS and
other SAM attacks by staying under the altitude minima.

[michaelemouse]

Unless someone can find some other major advantage, it's interesting to me that altitude (and therefore one's own sensor range), time-on-station, speed, range, payload are all sacrificed for contextual (terrain-dependent) stealth.

Just about all SAMs have altitude minima. There have been several cases where the AH-64s survived MANPADS and
other SAM attacks by staying under the altitude minima.

You're right, thanks.

I suppose cruise missiles can also benefit from SAM altitude minima, thus only leaving laser/bullet-based defenses which are short-range, LoS and less amenable to networked warfare.

[weasel1962]

Tech has improved. All Russian SAMs' minimum engagement altitudes are generally 10-15m. That includes the S400 and Buk, not just the manpads. Even the Pechora has gone down to 20m. There's even new weapons like Pishal.

Russia now uses mobile small sized radar like the 1L122-1E and dedicated low altitude radars like Kasta 2E2 which together with network sharing means one may not spot an emitter until its ready to engage/within engagement range supplemented by EO detection. Low level air ops is more likely to be prohibitive in most potential battlefields.

The decision to go medium altitude with the F-35 is a sound one. A-10s can do it at medium altitude but they lose their survivability there. The only fallacy is assuming that stealth with speed is sufficient. imho, sead may still be needed.

[marauder2048]

Tech has improved. All Russian SAMs' minimum engagement altitudes are generally 10-15m. That includes the S400 and Buk, not just the manpads. Even the Pechora has gone down to 20m. There's even new weapons like Pishal.

Doesn't seem problematic given that 10m attack altitudes were not at all unusual for GW1-era Apaches.
And Pave Low IIIs were able to do under 5m in the 90's (albeit under NVG friendly conditions).

How-low-can-you-go in all-weather/all-conditions is where all intensive work on the Degraded Visual Environment +
TF/TA sensors will take us. So that all gets coupled with the route planners which are pretty sophisticated.

Russia now uses mobile small sized radar like the 1L122-1E and dedicated low altitude radars like Kasta 2E2 which together with network sharing means one may not spot an emitter until its ready to engage/within engagement range supplemented by EO detection. Low level air ops is more likely to be prohibitive in most potential battlefields.

Do you mean visually spot the emitter? I tend to think the greater danger to helicopters is really acoustic sensors;
the AH-64E is supposed to have a real-time acoustic footprint overlay display for this reason.

But definitely passives coupled with the harder to spot ATGM teams and towed AAA will be a big threat.

But that's where your long range fires like PrSM and ER-GMLRS are supposed to come in.

[weasel1962]

It does help to extend the reach of the Apaches (e.g. Spike NLOS). ER-Hydras anyone?

[element1loop]

The only fallacy is assuming that stealth with speed is sufficient. imho, sead may still be needed.

Why? When F-15C sensors and weapons can't lock up and fire on a visual F-22 in exercise, I'd say the smaller newer F-35 picking its way through system sensor bubbles with EA, countermeasures and a towed-decoy is going to get through for a long time to come. Unless improving EO detection, tracking and targeting is what you refer to. In which case an engine upgrade optimized to fly higher and maybe a bit slower (uses less fuel, for more range and loiter) in colder air, cooling the leading edges and engine more at greater range will get it done for another generation of SAMs. We still don't see Russian kit in SAA shooting down a lot of F-16s and F-15s in the ME at medium altitude. As always the tactics matter more.

[doge]

Will the replacement finally begin?
https://www.airforcemag.com/air-forces- ... ings-cuts/

Which Wings Would Lose A-10s Under USAF Plan
June 22, 2021 | By Brian W. Everstine
The Air Force’s plan to cut 42 A-10 Warthogs in fiscal 2022 targets Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., and the Indiana Air National Guard. Those wings would lose Warthogs, but they would pick up new missions.
USAF wants to cut the Warthog fleet by 22 percent, from 281 aircraft to 218, in order to gain money and manpower for other needs. Even after the cut, however, A-10s would still outnumber F-22s, ensuring the close-air support jet will still be there if needed into the 2030s. Beyond that, USAF officials believe the Warthog will no longer be viable.

Retiring 63 A-10s over the next two years “frees up nearly a thousand Airmen, maintainers, and operators that we can then transition into future platforms, specifically the F-35,” said Lt. Gen. David S. Nahom, the deputy chief of staff of the Air Force for plans and programs, during a June 22 Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee hearing. “As we look at the F-35, we are having resource issues, mostly with manpower… We have to start replacing some platforms.”
The first retirements will come at the 122nd Fighter Wing at Fort Wayne, Indiana, and the 355th Wing at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. Under the plan, the 122nd FW’s 163rd Fighter Squadron will convert back to F-16s, which the Indiana Guard unit flew before transferring to the A-10 in 2010. Since then, the “Blacksnakes,” with their signature snake nose art, have been active, deploying several times to the Middle East.

The Air Force said Davis-Monthan would lose one operational A-10 squadron, with plans for the follow-on mission there still in the works.
The Air Force aims to come down from nine operational squadrons to seven and keep one “full-up” operational squadron at Osan Air Base, South Korea, Nahom said. Back home, there will be three Air National Guard squadrons, two Active duty, and one Reserve. Those squadrons would be “in a rotation,” he said, enabling the Air Force to always have at least one A-10 squadron available to combatant commanders.

[doge]

A top USAF general says.

Air Force general warns of ‘extreme problems’ without some A-10 cuts as lawmakers back the popular aircraft
BY COREY DICKSTEIN• STARS AND STRIPES • JULY 15, 2021

A top Air Force general defended the service’s plan to cut dozens of its vaunted A-10 Thunderbolt II attack jets next year, telling lawmakers this week the Air Force must move resources and airmen from the A-10 fleet to shore up its growing F-35 formations.

“The A-10 is a wonderful airplane. It’s done incredible things for our nation,” Air Force Lt. Gen. David Nahom, the service’s plans and programs chief, told the House Armed Services Committee’s tactical air and land forces subpanel on Tuesday. “But we have to start repurposing some of the resources out of the A-10 into some modern capabilities — specifically manpower. If we don’t reduce the A-10 slightly this year, we run into extreme problems.”

The service wants to cut 42 A-10s from its 281-jet fleet in 2022. The Air Force made the request in its fiscal 2022 budget request submitted to Congress in May, telling lawmakers the move would save the service some $344 million. On Tuesday, Nahom said the Air Force plans to cut another 21 A-10s in fiscal 2023, reducing the fleet to 218 aircraft.

Several lawmakers have already expressed opposition the proposed cuts to the A-10 fleet, the military’s most proven close-support aircraft designed in the 1970s specifically to fly low over front-line troops to provide firepower from the air. In recent years — including last year when the Air Force proposed cutting 44 A-10s, known as Warthogs — Congress has routinely blocked the service from retiring any of the jets.

Among his top concerns, Nahom said A-10 maintainers need to be shifted to the F-35 fleet to keep the advanced, multirole stealth fighter jets flying as the service’s inventory continues to grow. [size=bAir Force leaders believe the F-35 is the cornerstone of its future fighter jet fleet and critical in potential major combat operations against the likes of China or Russia and their formidable air defense systems.[/b]

Air Force officials argue the A-10 remains useful today in fights against low-tech adversaries, but they do not believe it would be useful in a high-end fight against a near-peer adversary with similar capabilities to the U.S. military. Service officials have said they believe the F-35 could ultimately take over close air-support missions.

The Defense Department has completed a study comparing the abilities of F-35s and A-10s to conduct close air support, but its results are classified, said Raymond O’Toole, the Pentagon’s acting director for operational tests and evaluation. He did say the F-35 has showed some signs of improvement in that role, but “in many areas [the F-35] still falls short of the required threshold.”
The A-10 was the first aircraft built specifically to conduct close air support. It flies low and slow, capable of operating below 1,000 feet and carrying a number of air-to-ground bombs and its most famous weapon — the 30mm GAU-8/A cannon, a seven-barrel Gatling gun that fires 3,900 rounds per minute. It has been used extensively to support ground operations in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, where it was used in Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom and most recently against the Islamic State in Operation Inherent Resolve.

It is designed to take direct hits from armor-piercing or high-explosive rounds without destroying the aircraft, according to the Air Force. It can continue to fly and land even after it loses hydraulic power.

Lawmakers argue the F-35 has yet to prove itself capable of withstanding enemy attacks at low range as does the A-10 while delivering devastating airpower against enemies fighting close-in battles with American forces.
The F-35 program also has faced substantial delays and cost overruns, military officials have acknowledged. It has also proven more costly to fly and maintain than expected, though officials have said some of those costs have improved in recent years.

Among the A-10’s top supporters in Congress, Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., has questioned the F-35’s close air-support capabilities. Kelly, a former astronaut and Navy fighter pilot who flew combat missions during Desert Storm, warned President Joe Biden in a June 8 letter provided by his office that retiring any A-10s without a capable close air-support replacement “would leave a severe capability gap within our military.”

[...]

Read more: https://www.stripes.com/branches/air_fo ... 61466.html

[doge]

Kendaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall...

Could Tyndall AFB F-35 plans be grounded? Sen. Rubio expresses concern in letter
Jim Thompson Northwest Florida Daily News Jul. 19, 2021

TYNDALL AFB — U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, is worried that a provision in the proposed federal defense spending and policy bill for the upcoming fiscal year could jeopardize plans to remake Tyndall Air Force Base into a "base of the future" centered around three F-35 squadrons.

Rubio's concern is based on a current draft of the defense authorization bill that would prohibit the Air Force from divesting itself of 42 A-10 aircraft, which provide close air support to friendly ground troops and attack enemy tanks and armored vehicles.

But keeping those aircraft, Rubio wrote in a letter to the leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, could "jeopardize the strategic basing of three F-35 squadrons at Tyndall."

Specifically, according to Rubio's office, the Air Force has planned to divest the A-10 aircraft to free up the billets, or personnel slots, required for the establishment of the three F-35 squadrons planned for Tyndall. The Air Force has a hard number for personnel, meaning that there can be one set number of people in the service. With regard to the F-35 squadrons, required personnel go far beyond pilots to include maintenance personnel and other support positions.
Frank Kendall, the Army veteran with a long history at the Pentagon and in the defense industry who has been nominated to serve as the secretary of the Air Force, has been at least somewhat supportive of the A-10, noting its "unique" capabilities in a recent session of the committee, according to a report in Air Force Magazine.
But an Air Force public affairs account paraphrased Kendall as saying the service "must make difficult decisions to balance the use of 'legacy' systems (like the A-10), while also allowing the introduction of newer aircraft and other hardware."

Beyond those comments from Kendall is the fact that part of the A-10 fleet has been outfitted with new wings, a move aimed at extending their service lives.

Nonetheless, in his letter to Sens. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, and James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, Rubio says that as the United States continues to pivot its national defense strategy away from counterterrorism toward "near-peer" adversaries — Russia and China specifically — the F-35 will become a more critical element of U.S. air power.

"The F-35 is our fifth-generation fighter designed to meet and beat our near-peer competitors in kinetic air warfare," Rubio notes in his letter.

[...]

The Air Force announced its decision to make Tyndall the home of three new F-35 squadrons in March, based on infrastructure capabilities and quality of life for airmen, among other factors, as the installation is transformed into a future-focused base.
Under current plans, the F-35s will be delivered to the three fighter squadrons in multiple phases, with the first aircraft planned to arrive in September 2023. Each of the squadrons will be assigned 24 of the fifth-generation stealth fighter aircraft.

Read more: Source: https://www.nwfdailynews.com/story/news ... 014896002/

Rubio Urges Key Senate Committee to Remove Provision that Harms F-35 Platform, Tyndall AFB
JUL 20 2021
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) sent a letter to Senate Committee on Armed Services Chairman Jack Reed (D-RI) and Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) urging them to ensure the Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) protects the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) commitment to rebuild Tyndall Air Force Base as the F-35 base of the future. Specifically, the Chairman’s mark, which is scheduled for committee consideration this week, contains a provision that would jeopardize the strategic basing of three F-35 squadrons at Tyndall Air Force Base in Panama City, Florida.

“It is my understanding that language is included in the Chairman’s mark of the FY22 NDAA that would prohibit the divestment of 41 A-10 aircraft at the expense of Tyndall’s F-35 squadrons,” Rubio wrote. “As you know, the A-10 is a close air support aircraft designed to operate in a non-contested air warfare environment. The F-35 is our fifth generation fighter designed to meet and beat our near peer competitors in kinetic air warfare. As the United States continues to pivot our forces to focus on a near peer conflict, we must prioritize our next generation capabilities.”
Following the devastation caused by Hurricane Michael in October 2018, Rubio worked closely with the administration, and his colleagues, to build support to rebuild Tyndall AFB. The reconstructed base will serve as a strategic hub of the future for F-35 based air warfare.

Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Inhofe:
As the Senate Committee on Armed Services is set to mark-up the Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I urge the committee to withdraw, and/or deny, any provision or funding that would counter the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) commitment to rebuild Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) as the F-35 base of the future.
As you know, on October 10, 2018, Hurricane Michael made landfall in Florida’s panhandle as a Category 5 hurricane with sustained winds in excess of 160 miles per hour. The storm devastated much of Northwest Florida, including Tyndall AFB, and the community continues the process of rebuilding. While this storm was catastrophic, it provided the U.S. Air Force with a unique opportunity. Tyndall AFB is now being reconstructed as a strategic hub of the future for F-35 based air warfare. The installation will be a force multiplier to the skill and capacity of the Air Force’s F-35 pilots. To date, this committee has been instrumental in securing the resources necessary to rebuild Tyndall, and I appreciate your leadership over the past three years.

It is my understanding that language is included in the Chairman’s mark of the FY22 NDAA that would prohibit the divestment of 41 A-10 aircraft at the expense of Tyndall’s F-35 squadrons. As you know, the A-10 is a close air support aircraft designed to operate in a non-contested air warfare environment. The F-35 is our fifth generation fighter designed to meet and beat our near peer competitors in kinetic air warfare. As the United States continues to pivot our forces to focus on a near peer conflict, we must prioritize our next generation capabilities. As such, I urge the committee to remove, or reject, any provision or funding that would jeopardize the strategic basing of three F-35 squadrons at Tyndall. Including such language would have significant impact on the Air Force’s F-35 pilot output, our strategic capacity to field F-35s in the event of a conflict, and have grave, long-term implications for the national security of the United States.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Source: https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/ind ... yndall-afb

[doge]

To me, it appears to have been a pointless test. (Because it's classified. )
https://www.defensedaily.com/three-year ... air-force/

Three Years and Counting, No Results Available from F-35A and A-10C Comparison Testing
By Frank Wolfe |05/02/2022
U.S. Air Force officials told lawmakers last week that a report is out on the results of comparion testing between the Lockheed Martin [LMT] F-35A and the A-10C close air support aircraft–testing that finished in March 2019, but it was unclear whether those…

Other A-10 articles.
https://www.businessinsider.com/f35-wil ... ion-2022-5

F-35s will have to learn to do the risky mission that made the A-10 famous, former F-35 test pilot says
Constantine Atlamazoglou May 4, 2022
The US Air Force plans to begin getting rid of its A-10s over the next five or six years.
The service has tried for years to shed the A-10 to focus on high-end jets, but Congress has blocked it.
With the A-10's exit looming, other jets could soon have to fill its main role: close air support.

One of the world's most unique aircraft could soon be decommissioned for good.
The US Air Force now plans to retire its entire A-10 Thunderbolt II fleet of 286 aircraft over the next five to six years, Michael McCord, the Pentagon's top civilian budget official, said during the March rollout of the 2023 defense budget.
Introduced in 1972, the A-10 is a twin-engine, subsonic attack aircraft designed to provide close air support to ground forces.
Known affectionately as the Warthog, it's the only operational US aircraft built from the ground up for that mission, and it has never been flown by any other country.
For years, the Air Force has sought to shed its A-10s and focus on developing high-end aircraft. That effort has been blocked, largely by opposition from Congress, but with the Warthog's looming departure, other aircraft may have to fill that role.

All things must go
n addition to the A-10's increasing age, performing close-air support missions is expected to become harder as the US shifts its focus to the Pacific, where China's anti-aircraft weapons could quickly bring down the Warthog. (Even against Soviet defenses, the A-10 was expected to take heavy losses.)
Speaking to the press on March 28, Under Secretary of the Air Force Gina Ortiz Jones said the A-10 is "limited in its ability to contribute" effectively to the mission of US Indo-Pacific Command.
The Air Force wants to ensure that it has the right mix of aircraft "that are survivable, effective, and can provide" the best chance of winning in that region, Jones said.
Additionally, as the legendary aircraft reaches its 50th year, maintaining it becomes harder and costlier. The ongoing replacement of the wings on many remaining A-10s has been particularly expensive, running about $10 million a set.
The Air Force had tried to reduce its A-10 fleet and start replacing it with F-35s, but Congress has prevented it from doing so. The Air Force's continued deployment of the A-10 while reducing or canceling investments and upgrades for it has led to accusations that the service is "sabotaging" the fleet.
As part of the Pentagon's annual budgets in 2016 and 2017, Congress required the Air Force to compare the close-air-support capabilities of the A-10 and the F-35 before the A-10 fleet could be reduced. The Air Force completed that evaluation in 2019.
The service now plans to gradually decommission A-10s beginning in fiscal year 2023, which starts on October 1, 2022. The process will begin with the divestment of 21 A-10s that will temporarily be replaced by F-16s before the F-35 takes over the Warthog's mission.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/04 ... hog-fleet/

A-10 official issues warning over US Air Force’s ‘devastated’ Warthog fleet
By Stephen Losey Friday, Apr 29
WASHINGTON — A U.S. Air Force official managing the A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft says the service is “hollowing” its Warthog fleet by starving it of resources amid a push to retire the aging attack plane — but still continuing to heavily fly it.
In a March 31 briefing, Pamela Lee, the A-10 systems manager at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, said the Air Force has “resourced the A-10 to divest yet flew it like an enduring fleet, rapidly accelerating [the] decline toward today’s hollowing fleet.”
The watchdog group Project on Government Oversight posted the slides Tuesday. The Air Force confirmed the slides are authentic, but said they were prepared for internal discussion and that Lee declined to comment.

The A-10, designed during the Cold War to be a tank-killing aircraft, was flown heavily in the Middle East and Afghanistan over the last 20 years to provide close-air support. But the Air Force has long warned the A-10 would not survive a high-end fight in contested airspace and has since 2015 repeatedly attempted to retire the fleet, either in full or in part, to free up funding.
“The A-10 is a great platform for a [permissive] environment,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown told the House Armed Services Committee in a Wednesday hearing. “I don’t see very many [permissive] environments that we’re going to roll into in the future.”

Although Congress rejected all the service’s efforts, Lee said the Air Force’s decisions have “devastated” the fleet and left it “dealing with perpetual challenges.”
The “A-10 lives in the shadow of [fiscal 2015] divestiture decisions,” Lee said in the briefing’s summary.
Lee’s briefing slides said the service deferred the A-10′s “hogback” fuselage structural repair work from 2013 to 2019, which she said left 120 jets at risk of being grounded. The number of A-10s heading to depots for major maintenance was also cut by more than half, she added.

Lee said the A-10′s aging engine nacelles are quickly becoming a significant problem, representing a bigger threat to the aircraft’s readiness than its wings.
And she said the A-10′s re-winging efforts are falling short, with new wings purchased for only 173 of the service’s 281 Warthogs. Lee said this means 145 A-10s wouldn’t be able to fly a six-month deployment.
According to the slides, the Air Force has until the second quarter of FY23 to buy more wings before it risks a “stalled recovery.” Fixing the wing, depot issue and other shortcomings would take at least a decade, she said.

If Congress doesn’t grant the service’s request to start retiring the A-10, Lee said, it will have to quickly act to mitigate the worst of the problems that have come from these decisions.
In the committee hearing, Brown said the service plans to buy replacement wing kits for about 218 A-10s. The service called for retiring 21 A-10s as part of its FY23 budget request, leaving the service with 260 Warthogs; Brown said those will not be re-winged.
Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., expressed confusion about the Air Force’s apparent intention to not buy enough wing kits for all remaining A-10s and asked if only 218 planes needed new wings.

“Depends on how many A-10s we keep,” Brown said. “What we don’t want to do is buy more wing kits than we’re going to need if we’re going to start retiring A-10s.”
Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall added that even if those remaining 42 A-10s wouldn’t get replacement wings, they would still be able to fly.
Kendall also said the Air Force, if free to do so, would retire the A-10 fleet by the end of the next five-year plan.

It is Chaos.
https://rollcall.com/2022/05/13/gop-app ... 50-planes/

GOP appropriators blast Air Force plan to jettison 250 planes
The service says it needs to take older planes out of service to make way for modern replacements
By John M. Donnelly Posted May 13, 2022
House Republican appropriators pushed back hard Friday against the Air Force’s proposal to retire scores of aircraft in the next fiscal year — in some cases long before newer models will be available to replace them.
The $194 billion fiscal 2023 budget request for the Air Force would be substantial — a 7 percent hike over the fiscal 2022 enacted level. The Air Force’s share is $169.5 billion, and the Space Force’s is $24.5 billion.
The service would buy dozens of new aircraft and other systems, including the first of its fleet of B-21 Raider nuclear-capable bombers.
But Republicans on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense were more focused Friday on the Air Force’s proposal to retire in fiscal 2023 some 150 aircraft and send 100 MQ-9 Reaper drones to another, unnamed government agency, which could mean the CIA.
At the House panel’s hearing, GOP members made the case that it is too risky to retire large numbers of planes before the service knows that more modern replacements are coming on line.

‘Deeply troubled’
GOP members of the Defense panel put hard questions about these decisions to the Air Force’s leaders: Secretary Frank Kendall, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. and Chief of Space Operations Gen. John Raymond.
For example, Ken Calvert of California, the subcommittee’s top Republican, said he was “deeply troubled” by the overall Defense Department budget request. He criticized, in particular, the Reaper decision and a proposed slashing of 33 F-22 fighter jets from the inventory.

Kay Granger of Texas, the ranking Republican on the full House Appropriations Committee, asked skeptical questions about the Air Force’s decision to request just 33 F-35A fighter jets, almost half the level Congress has been ordering in recent years. The F-35 final assembly occurs at a plant in her district, and some of the jets will be based there as well.
Republicans Tom Cole of Oklahoma and Steve Womack of Arkansas took aim at the Air Force’s proposal to retire 15 of its 31 E-3 AWACS early-warning aircraft as it prepares to welcome the likely replacement, the E-7 Wedgetail — but not for another four years.

Arizona Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick, whose district is home to 89 A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, argued in favor of continuing to rely on A-10s, which are known as “Warthogs,” and replacing their wings to modernize them.
The Air Force, by contrast, has fought Congress unsuccessfully for years to phase out the planes. On Friday, Brown said the Air Force removed A-10s from Syria because of concerns that they could be taken out by Russian aircraft.
The A-10 “is not survivable against modern threats,” Kendall said.
For fiscal 2023, the service wants to retire 21 Air National Guard A-10s from Fort Wayne, Ind. The Air Force leaders tried to explain that enemy anti-aircraft missiles could easily shoot down AWACS aircraft, just as these missiles can threaten A-10s.
Minnesota Democrat Betty McCollum, the panel’s chair, backed up the service’s proposed retirements.
“This is a bold plan, and I am with you on that,” she told the Air Force brass at the outset of the hearing.

Risk
The Republicans, for their part, said they are not opposed to modernizing the service’s aircraft. Rather, they said, they worry that a capability gap will arise between old programs and new ones — and, they contended, this risk is being taken merely for lack of money.
Cole made that point with respect to retiring almost half the AWACS aircraft before the replacement plane is ready.
“This idea of retiring this many now and hoping that we’ll have what we need in four years is a big risk to me — and one that I think is not wise to take,” Cole said. “Again, we are putting you in that spot, in my view, by not giving you the budget that you need to add capabilities or replace capabilities in a timely fashion.”
Womack concurred: “I do believe we need to increase spending in order to buy down some of that risk.”
Texas Republican John Carter made a similar point.
“It looks like you’re just taking down an awful lot of platforms in hopes that we get to the future quickly, but our history is, we don’t,” Carter said.
In the fiscal 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress allowed the Air Force to retire a substantial number of aircraft: 160, although the law barred retirement of A-10s.
Judging from the sound of lawmakers so far this year, Congress may not be quite so open to jettisoning older aircraft in the forthcoming fiscal 2023 authorization and appropriations bills.

Chaos.
https://www.stripes.com/branches/air_fo ... 11468.html

Air Force ‘starving’ A-10 fleet of needed upgrades, documents show
By DAVID WICHNER THE ARIZONA DAILY STAR • May 15, 2022
TUCSON, Ariz. (Tribune News Service) — The Air Force has for now dropped plans to retire most of the A-10 ground-attack jets that form a major mission at Tucson’s Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, after the plan was rebuffed by Congress last year.
But the Air Force is again moving to retire some A-10s, and recently revealed documents show more than half of the A-10s in service aren’t deployable overseas because the Air Force is starving the aging fleet of critical maintenance and upgrades.
The Pentagon in its recent fiscal 2023 budget request has proposed retiring 21 A-10s from the Indiana Air National Guard, contending it needs to start retiring older platforms like the A-10 to invest in weapons that can meet modern-day threats posed by peer adversaries like Russia and China.
Last year, Congress blocked the Air Force’s plan to divest 42 A-10s, including 35 at Davis-Monthan, as part of a plan to turn D-M into a center for combat search and rescue units.
The retirement ban in the fiscal 2022 National Defense Authorization Act marked the fifth time since 2014 that Congress has rejected all or part of the Air Force’s A-10 retirement plans, led in large part by members of the Arizona congressional delegation.
D-M is home to the largest contingent of A-10s in the fleet, with 83 Warthogs flown by two active-duty squadrons under the host 355th Wing and one Air Force Reserve A-10 squadron.
Supporters of the A-10 — affectionately known as the “Warthog” — say the Air Force must keep the A-10 flying because it has no replacement for its specialized capabilities for close air support of ground troops.

Unfit to fly?
As recently as last year, the Air Force said it plans to keep 218 combat-capable A-10s flying into the 2030s.
But a report by the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight (POGO) shows that the Air Force has essentially hollowed out the A-10 fleet by starving it of critical maintenance including new wings and upgrades to a central computer system.
The group published a slideshow briefing by the head of the A-10 maintenance program at Hill Air Force Base in Utah dated March 22, detailing how the Air Force has delayed maintenance including a wing-replacement program needed to keep the A-10s flying, put off installations of an upgraded onboard computer system required for deployment, and shifted maintenance resources away from the fleet to create a massive backlog of repair work.
As a result, the Air Force briefing by A-10 system program manager Pam Lee, 145 of the remaining 281 Warthogs are “non-deployable” — meaning they do not have enough flying hours left before major maintenance is required to serve a six-month overseas deployment.
But long after the Air Force first called for the A-10s retirement in 2014, the Warthog continued to be deployed to Afghanistan and against Islamic State militants in Syria.
A-10s also have been sent to Europe in recent years as a demonstration against Russian aggression — 10 A-10s based in Maryland were recently sent to Eastern Europe for a major annual exercise even as the war rages on in Ukraine.

‘Hollowing’ fleet
The POGO report notes that the Air Force briefing sums up the effect of neglected maintenance: “Take Away: AF resourced A-10 to divest yet flew it like an enduring fleet, rapidly accelerating decline toward today’s hollowing fleet.”
The Air Force did not respond to requests for comment on the report by POGO, which is part of the nonprofit Center for Defense information in Washington, D.C., which was founded by retired military officers in 1971.
The Air Force confirmed to Air Force Times that the A-10 briefing slides were genuine but declined to comment.
Dan Grazier, senior defense policy fellow at the Center for Defense Information at POGO called the Air Force’s actions “demolition by neglect.”
Grazier, a former Marine Corps tank captain who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said the nation has no other platform dedicated to the close air support of ground troops and there is no reason why the A-10 cannot continue to serve.
“There’s nothing inherently wrong with old aircraft — if an aircraft was well-designed originally and then maintained properly throughout the years, you can get a lot of use out of it,” Grazier said, citing upgrades to the 1950s-era B-52 bomber expected to keep the bomber flying into the 2050s.
Developed in the 1970s to provide close air support against targets including armor, the A-10 flies low and relatively slow and has high visibility to allow it to precisely target its 30-millimeter nose cannon. It has often been used for forward air-traffic control and to support combat search-and-rescue operations.
The latest version, the A-10C, has been upgraded with many modern electronics, including helmet-mounted targeting systems and the jamming and targeting pods.
But without new wings and other required upgrades, many Warthogs will be grounded, the Air Force briefing shows.
Not only has the Air Force slow-walked needed A-10 maintenance and upgrades, Grazier said, but the service has failed to launch a program to develop a new aircraft to fill the Warthog’s role in close air support.
“We shouldn’t be talking about retiring the A-10, we should be talking about retiring the A-30 now — we should be two or three generations beyond the A-10 by now,” Grazier said.

Pushing for answers
A former A-10 pilot said he was outraged by the tone of the Air Force briefing published by POGO, though it reflects what he’s heard from the A-10 community.
“It came across as very flippant, like the Air Force is going to do whatever they want regardless of what Congress or the people want,” said Tom Norris, a Tucson-area resident who retired as a lieutenant colonel in 2008.
“They are pulling parts off one aircraft to put on another, literally,” said Norris, an A-10 pilot at D-M who served in Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Norris and Grazier said the Air Force’s argument about the A-10 being vulnerable to modern air defenses is bogus, noting that A-10s operate near troops and missions in contested area would typically include suppression of air defenses before A-10s or rescue units arrive, for example.
Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, a former Navy pilot who helped block the A-10 retirements last year as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is aware of POGO’s A-10 report and has serious concerns about it, his office told the Star.
“I’m concerned that the Air Force is not following through on its duty to maintain our active A-10 fleet — many of which are at Davis-Monthan — and am continuing to push for answers and accountability,” Kelly told the Star in an emailed comment. “At the same time, I’m working alongside DM50, the larger Davis-Monthan community, and the Air Force to ensure there is transparency and adequate planning for current and future Davis-Monthan missions.”
D-M is home to the 355th Wing, which includes one active-duty A-10 combat squadron of 24 planes, an active-duty training squadron, and an Air Force Reserve A-10 training squadron.
Kelly succeeded in attaching an amendment to the omnibus federal spending bill passed in March, requiring the Secretary of the Air Force within 30 days of the submission of the president’s budget to submit a report detailing any proposed A-10 divestments over the next five years.
The report must include “new budget and strategy details on how they will mitigate mission or personnel impacts,” Kelly’s office said.
The Biden administration submitted its budget to Congress on March 28; Kelly’s office said he is still awaiting the Air Force’s report.

Slow-walking upgrades
In a letter to President Biden last June supporting the A-10, Kelly and other members of Arizona’s congressional delegation asked why in fiscal 2021 the Air Force had spent only $15.6 million, or about 15%, of $100 million funds requested and appropriated to sustain the A-10 fleet into the 2030s.
Kelly was joined in the letter by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, and Democratic Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick, Ruben Gallego, Tom O’Halleran and Greg Stanton, along with Republican Rep. Debbie Lesko.
“I’m concerned about the Air Force’s plans to reduce the A-10 mission without a clear plan to replace its close air support capability,” said Kirkpatrick, who raised questions about the A-10 maintenance program with the Air Force in 2020 and again last year. “While I understand the requirements of a high-end fight, the Air Force has yet to demonstrate a capable replacement for the A-10 in the close air support mission.”
Kelly recently submitted questions to Air Force leaders asking why the service is not asking for any new funding for A-10 wing procurement in its 2023 budget request, when the Air Force has only procured enough wings for 218 planes.
He also asked about reports that the Air Force intends to replace some A-10 wings with used wings from “the Boneyard” — the 309th Aircraft Maintenance and Regeneration Group at Davis-Monthan, home to 101 mothballed Warthogs.

Backing the A-10
Kelly’s advocacy of the A-10 continues a long, bipartisan tradition of Arizona congressional members supporting the Warthog and D-M, including former Rep. Ron Barber, a Democrat; former Representative and Sen. Martha McSally — a Republican and former A-10 combat pilot; and the late Sen. John McCain, a former Navy aviator.
POGO’s Grazier said he hopes his report will lead to a full investigation into the Air Force’s handling of the A-10 and its defiance of Congress.
“Congress should be hailing a number of Air Force officials from over the years to answer for their open defiance of multiple pieces of legislation,” he said. “The actions of the Air Force go totally against the long tradition of civilian control of the military (by Congress), beyond the arguments surrounding the A-10 and close air support.”
He noted that in 2018, the Air Force under orders from Congress held a “fly-off” between the A-10 and the F-35 next-generation fighter to compare their effectiveness at close air support.
The Air Force has yet to deliver to Congress a report on the flyoff, Grazier said, adding that sources have told him that the A-10s performed well without any aircraft losses during the simulation.
Norris, the former A-10 pilot, said he hopes Congress holds the Air Force accountable, calling for an audit of the A-10 program.
“As a taxpayer, the Air Force didn’t do what the intention of Congress was and not only that, they withheld information,” he said, citing the importance of the close air-support mission.
“What we’re talking about here is life and death, no hyperbole — when our ground troops need support, I think they need the best.”

Davis-Monthan future
The lawmakers’ ban on A-10 retirements last year prompted the Air Force to pause plans to move additional combat search-and-rescue units to D-M from Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada to turn D-M into a “center of excellence” for search and rescue.
The DM50, a longtime group of Tucson-area civic and business leaders that support Davis-Monthan, had supported that plan as a way to guarantee the base’s future as the A-10s are eventually retired.
But that plan was contingent on the retirement of 35 A-10s at D-M.
DM50 member Stephen Fleming, a University of Arizona technology and business-development leader who sits on the group’s public-policy committee, said the group wants to see the A-10 fly as long as possible but the base needs to be positioned to take on new missions when they are finally retired.
“We want to see more flying missions come to our base, because we have a lot of a major infrastructure and support that a lot of bases don’t have,” Fleming said. “We don’t want the Air Force thinking of D-M as just ‘the A-10 base.”
Besides the A-10 mission under the 355th Wing and the 309th AMARG “Boneyard,” D-M hosts a major combat search and rescue contingent, including the 563rd Rescue Group; the Air Force’s only electronic combat group; and the headquarters of the Twelfth Air Force, the air component of the U.S. Southern Command. D-M, also hosts a contingent of F-16s that perform homeland-security missions, a major U.S. Customs and Border Patrol base.
D-M has been a finalist but has been passed over so far as a base for the next generation F-35 stealth fighter, after Air Force environmental studies showed it would have significant noise impacts on neighbors of the urban base.
Kelly and other members of the Arizona delegation say they will continue to push for new missions to secure D-M’s future, while preserving the A-10 in the absence of any suitable replacement.
“We’d welcome the (search and rescue) Center of Excellence and are working on what is needed to support it, and I’m continuing to lead conversations with the Air Force about additional missions well-suited for the base, including next generation fighters,” Kelly said.
(c)2022 The Arizona Daily Star (Tucson, Ariz.)

[charlielima223]

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... to-europe/

Hard to knock on a good purpose built design that has lasted this long (thanks in large part to political meddling). The A-10 wouldn't my aircraft of choice to send to Europe at this time. I would have sent just about any other combat aircraft to Europe over the A-10. Either way I am sure the presence of A-10s should send a clear message to Russian tank forces...