Air Force Says F-35 Glitches Mean the A-10 Will Keep Flying 'Indefinitely' (jalopnik.com)

The A-10 aircraft "is just too effective to get rid of," wrote one defense blogger -- especially in light of ongoing issues with the F-35. schwit1 quotes Jalopnik: Strategists have feared that the jet will be axed in favor of funding the F-35, but the U.S. Air Force recently confirmed that it plans to keep the A-10 flying "indefinitely." While the Air Force is theoretically supposed to be diverting the A-10's operating expenses to feed the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the people in charge are now planning to keep the plane running...

Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski told AviationWeek in a interview, "Our command, anyway, is approaching this as another airplane that we are sustaining indefinitely." While the beancounters and product planners are trying to push the A-10 off the board, Materiel Command is going to keep on keeping the planes in peak condition, which will give the A-10 it's best chance of proving its worth over and over again. And it seems to be working -- the A-10 posted a 5% increase in its availability rate from 2014 to 2015, and the Air Force seems to keep postponing its demise.
In Congress one representative has even suggested an operational testing "fly-off" between the two aircraft -- a jet-vs-jet competition to determine whether any more A-10s get retired.

Comments

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[AK Marc]

Nothing has ever proposed to do what the A-10 can do. The F-35 was just supposed to get sufficienlty similar results. Just not doing so flying so low and slow that the pilots can recognize individual targets, ensuring fire solely on the enemy. "Air strikes", as we learned in Vietnam, don't care who they hit, they just hit the target area. So cal in one too close, you are dead. Call in your own coordinates, not the enemy, and you are dead (yes, it's happened). But such errors with an A-10 are often less, as the A-10 pilot is low enough and slow enough to be able to visually verify a target. The tactics of the ground troop have adapted to the A-10. If they know they can call in support, they try to engage the enemy first. Get them into a defensive group. Close and moving. Then the A-10 mows them down. With explosives-based air support from an aircraft outside visual range, you call in coordinates of the enemy, and bomb them from afar. This reduces the kills, includes more civilians, and is generally worse than the tactics used with an A-10 nearby.

A-10 works with corrdinated ground and air attack. Most other air support is mutually exclusive with ground support (except on massive fields of engagement we haven't seen in 50 years).

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[ShanghaiBill]

The fact that lots has been invested in the past should be ignored.

Yes, it should be ignored for accounting, but it should not be ignored for accountability. The F-35 program has been a disaster, for mostly predictable, and predicted, reasons. It was a "kitchen sink" boondoggle, designed to be everything for everyone. It is even designed to take off vertically, like a helicopter, which inflated the cost and compromises its ability to do almost everything else. It was designed to fight "yesterday's war", while the future is obviously unmanned drones. But the USAF top brass are pilots, so they simply put on their blinders and ignore the future, so they can get the new toys and wear those snazzy leather flight jackets.

A lot of people should lose their jobs for this fiasco. But more importantly, we need to learn some lessons about project management and strategic planning, so things like this don't continue to recur.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[slarabee]

1. Are they cheap or are they old? You point out the last airframes came off the production lines 30 years ago then say they were built cheaply. I do not think still being operational decades later, especially considering their operational tempo over most of this time, is indicative of cheap.

2. Pork wing program or falling apart? If they are 'falling apart' then I do not think a program to remediate that would be considered pork.

3. A bunch were lost in 2003? Please enumerate. I know of only one combat loss of an A-10 in Iraq since 2003.

4. The A-10 has a slightly lower rate of blue-on-blue incidents than other aircraft performing close air support. In any case, the numbers of friendly fire incidents by aircraft of any type are astonishingly low compared to the number of sorties flown. Statistically minimal.

5. What WWII CAS aircraft exceeded the A-10 in speed? The big CAS birds of that war, Junkers 87 and the II-2 were both a couple hundred miles per hour slower. The P-47 was at least in the same ball park as the A-10.

6. How often is a CAS mission called for and time from base is a factor? Fine, in that case send a Strike Eagle. For all the other times, that loitering plane is ready to go no matter if it is sub or supersonic.

7. A-10 was designed to not need full size airbases. Strong gear. High engines. Soft tires. They are made to work from short, damaged and improvised fields.

So what are the really capable CAS aircraft existing today?

Why do grunts and marines commonly differ with you?