USAF may have to eliminate the A-10 or B-1B

[Gary]

A-10, B-1 Vertical Cuts On the Table
The Air Force may have to eliminate an entire fleet of a particular kind of aircraft—possibly all A-10s or B-1Bs—in order to live within reduced budgets if sequestration persists into Fiscal 2014 and beyond, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said June 17. “It’s cheaper to cut fleets than it is to cut a few from a fleet: a lot cheaper,” Welsh said at an AFA-sponsored Air Force breakfast event in Arlington, Va. “So, it’s a way to recapitalize and modernize,” he added. Although Welsh cautioned that “we’re looking at everything” and “there is no coming together on a final decision…yet,” he told reporters that the logic underlying the last big round of aircraft divestitures still holds. The A-10, he said, is a “single mission airplane” and, pressed for cash, the Air Force must hold onto “multi-mission” aircraft—read F-16—as its first priority. Service officials have noted that retiring all A-10s would solve two financial problems. One is the expense and complexity of maintaining and operating two very different variants within the A-10 fleet: those with and without new wings, and with or without upgraded systems. The retirement also would allow avoidance of the cost of rewinging most A-10s. Welsh said the decisions on what to retire will be made “in partnership with Congress, the National Guard Bureau, with the Air Force Reserve….Right now, we are not limiting options at all.” Last week he said USAF may have to retire as many as 700 more aircraft.
—John A. Tirpak

Info from Airforce Mag

[romeo bravo]

Just what happened to the Harrier, all or nothing; I would how many will be banging on about the A10 or B1 in the way some people have here about the Harrier

[Ronald Reagan]

The A-10 must be a fairly cheap fleet in the scheme of things and the very best at CAS. The B-1 is a very costly aircraft, spends most of its time broken on the ground. Also many of its missions (not all) could likely be taken over by the B-2 and B-52. I love the A-10, its my favourite aircraft, the B-1 is my favourite bomber simply due to its share power.
I will miss either if they go, probably the A-10 far more but then again without the 81st in Europe its not likely I will ever see another.

[Malcolm]

Many of the A10's are now operated by ANG units. I can see there being a lot of opposition from Senators in states with A-10 ANG units unless a replacement type is offered. I guess that could be F-16's as F-35's replace them in frontline use, but that can't happen in 2014-15. It's been obvious for a long time that the Airforce high command don't 'like' the A-10, but if I were a Pongo on the ground wanting CAS, then I'd prefer A-10's to just about anything else.

[POL]

What can an A-10 do in a modern battlefield that an F-16CG/CJ cannot, at half the cost?

[RichC]

In today's theatre/operations, the B-1B is doing the job of "many" A-10s by conducting CAS as it's primary role rather than strategic bombing.
One B-1B with a SNIPER pod can do the work of a whole squadron of A-10s in one day. Granted it is not a dedicated CAS platform but it is being re-designed to do that role very well and it is doing it very well with the aid of the pods now fitted. Couple that with the heaviest bomb load of any USAF aircraft and the ability to stay on station all day long if required and never need to go back to home plate to re-arm or refuel. It is now a true multi-role aircraft and can get on "scene" a lot quicker than the A-10 can not to mention the range it has and endurance.
You need a couple of tankers, transports and the whole squadron of A-10s to deploy to conduct those single CAS missions over a several day period. By the time they are combat ready it would have been a week or so after leaving CONUS.
A B-1B can deploy fully armed and go straight into combat flying from CONUS with just AR support and then land at its deployed location ready to conduct more combat missions the very next day (If it isn't broke!!!). Going back onto the speed issue, it can cover the entire Afghan AOR in an hour, impossible in an A-10 so that requires even more aircraft to conduct the same mission in that area. Have a B-1B up north and a B-1B covering the south and they could do most, if not all CAS requirements in a single day.

I like the A-10 and the B-1B and although fully aware of the huge costs involved with the B-1B and the maintenance issues (it is a nightmare apparently) it would be cost affective to keep it in service and retire the single role A-10. The only thing the B-1B cannot do is Strafe with cannon and rockets. But with today's weapons available to the B-1B, it doesn't need too.

[jakdaw]

What can an A-10 do in a modern battlefield that an F-16CG/CJ cannot, at half the cost?

Fly with one engine taken out!!

[willow70]

If they bin the A10 we should put a bid in for them and all the spares etc and put them into the AAC.

[Malcolm]

The B-1B as a CAS is fine for the situations the USAF have found themselves in recently - Iraq and Afghanistan. Frankly you could put all the pods on a C-130/Airliner and do more or less the same job from FL250.It does rely on near total air superiority, reasonable weather, and low SAM threat. In a contested battle field, where the other side has (decent) SAMs, and/or helicopter threats (Mil-24/35) then as a soldier on the ground I'd rather have something like an A-10 roaming about. If the North Koreans decide to kick off then I'd rather have the 20 odd Osan based A-10's an hour away rather than a handfull of B1's 10 hours away in Texas.

A commander at Yeovilton during the Falklands told me he would much prefer to go into battle with 20 old Wessex 5's rather than 10 new SK4's. In a contested battlefield, if the enemy gets lucky and shoots down one aircraft you loose 5% of your force with the Wessex, but 10% with the SK4. Basically limiting the number of eggs you have in any one basket.

[RichC]

You could argue the same with the A-10 nowadays though, it needs total air superiority itself to operate effectively, we have seen that in recent conflicts. Today, the highly advanced systems like the S-300 and others would wipe an A-10 as easily as it would a B-1B however the B-1B would probably have a better chance being low observable, even though the S-300 is said to counter the low observable threat to a degree.
In recent theatres, the US/Coalition have always gone about gaining total air superiority within the first phase before they engage with ground forces which is normally a phase 2/3 operation.

The US and even European forces are constantly looking at ways of doing the job with "less" even in the ground role. It is now the same with the air side of the battlefield. Getting the job done with a few aircraft and sophisticated weaponry rather than sending over wave after wave after wave over the Atlantic (or Pacific). Why do you think they'd rather use BGM109s over aircraft? They are almost always the phase 1 (with the B2) to take out surveillance radars and SAM threat before the A-10s/B-1Bs go in to take out the second tier of targets.

In the Pacific, specifically the Korean theatre, you would have bombers (all three types) forward based at Guam, Okinawa and Hickam. They wouldn't need to continually fly from South Dakota or Texas.
I wouldn't want to be Osan "IF" a conflict broke out, it would be continually under bombardment from day 1....

[page_verify]

Both old Cold War elephants that should have been retired in the late 90s but managed to survive in an era of debt based financial freedom.

The A-10 is a great aircraft for a role that doesn't exist any more. Politics will stop great tank battles from happening now, not lead.
It's CAS role can be replaced, not directly but well enough, by UAVs.

Where do you start with the B-1B? A supersonic swing wing bomber designed to take nuclear short range missiles at low level into the Soviet Union.
It too has been able to save the day since that mission went, but in the next 20 years it'll be an over-priced luxury.
It's role can be replaced by B-2/B-52/JSOW/TLAM/UAVs/F-22/F-35 and F-16s.

Look at the strategic threats of the next 20 years: North Korea, Iran, China; the tactical threats: Africa and Syria.
Neither justify either of these aircraft.

[mh64@hotmail.com]

What can an A-10 do in a modern battlefield that an F-16CG/CJ cannot, at half the cost?

Hang around with a s***load of weapons