Save the A-10: Give It to the Army

[DirkDiggler]

They probably didn't, but they were enormous dickhead prima donnas. I get Lawman's point - they hindered mission accomplishment all while saying, "###### off, we're above you" to all the Army bros. I have many reasons for joining the AF instead of the Army, but I think you can only go so far with the "well you made your choice" when it comes to something like this.

Checks

[GKinnear]

They probably didn't, but they were enormous dickhead prima donnas. I get Lawman's point - they hindered mission accomplishment all while saying, "###### off, we're above you" to all the Army bros. I have many reasons for joining the AF instead of the Army, but I think you can only go so far with the "well you made your choice" when it comes to something like this.

No shit. But it's an AF forum. I don't go into BCT HHQ and bag on the way they do business either, The WX guys may be my retarded little brother, and I pick on him a lot, but that doesn't mean you get to. Next time I'll add the /sarcasm/ tag...

[KState_Poke22]

No shit. But it's an AF forum. I don't go into BCT HHQ and bag on the way they do business either, The WX guys may be my retarded little brother, and I pick on him a lot, but that doesn't mean you get to. Next time I'll add the /sarcasm/ tag...

Yes it's an AF thread but the topic has turned to dumb stories of how the Army does business WRT aviation. I don't see a problem in throwing in a story of how some AF guys are assclowns when it comes to on the ground stuff sometimes.

[MD]

If we're going to criticize others, we'd better be able to take criticism as well as criticize ourselves just as well. Plenty of assclownery to go around for everyone.

AF is no exception. If the AF was an exception, then 85% of the gripe threads on this forum section would have to disappear........

[Hueypilot]

Having been in both branches, neither the Army nor the Air Force win awards for doing things the smart way these days...in my book at least. Both are being rapidly overtaken with institutional retardism.

[hobbitcid]

It just won't go away... even Sec Army is trying to put a fork in the idea :-)

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/02/25/army-not-interested-in-taking-a-10-warthogs-from-air-force/

[Clark Griswold]

Boeing has ideas for the A-10

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/06/16/boeing-looks-to-sell-retired-a-10-warthogs-abroad/?comp=1198882887570&rank=3

[12xu2a3x3]

Boeing has ideas for the A-10

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/06/16/boeing-looks-to-sell-retired-a-10-warthogs-abroad/?comp=1198882887570&rank=3

Peace Hawg

i wonder how many A-10 units will fly their jets direct to the countires that took their A-37s 25 years ago. oh wait, there's only one unit left that been flying them for that long.

[Clark Griswold]

Peace Hawg

i wonder how many A-10 units will fly their jets direct to the countires that took their A-37s 25 years ago. oh wait, there's only one unit left that been flying them for that long.

Hopefully none,

I don't see this actually happening but maybe this could light a fire under the USAF to come up with a COA other than divestment.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Clark Griswold

[Clark Griswold]

Another article on CAS & the A-10: http://warontherocks.com/2015/06/the-future-of-close-air-support-is-not-what-the-air-force-thinks/?singlepage=1

This was a rebuttal (sorta) of this article:http://warontherocks.com/2015/05/the-a-10-the-f-35-and-the-future-of-close-air-support-part-i/?singlepage=1

[busdriver]

An Air Force of A-10s and F-22s. Nice.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

An Air Force of A-10s and F-22s. Nice.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Gimme a mini-gunship too.

[Sledge Hammer]

The Air Force A-10 fighter aircraft divestment decision came out of a strategy-based, portfolio-wide review of alternatives used to develop the budget at lower than previously anticipated levels. The Department of Defense (DOD) and Air Force strategic guidance prioritized, among other things, fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-35, readiness, and multirole aircraft, while placing a lower priority on single-role aircraft like the A-10. In developing its fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Air Force examined its entire portfolio in light of this guidance and concluded that the benefits of divesting the A-10 outweighed the cost of retaining it. DOD reviewed and approved the Air Force A-10 divestment decision and submitted this as part of the fiscal year 2015 budget request.

The Air Force has not fully assessed the cost savings associated with A-10 divestment or its alternatives. In its fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Air Force estimated that divesting the A-10 would allow it to save $4.2 billion over its 5-year budget plan; however, our analysis found that the Air Force’s estimated savings are incomplete and may overstate or understate estimated savings. In presenting its budget to Congress, the Air Force provided a number of alternatives to A-10 divestment that would also result in approximately $4.2 billion in cost savings. However, these alternatives were rough estimates that were illustrative only and not fully considered as alternatives to A-10 divestment, according to Air Force officials.

Finally, Air Force divestment of the A-10 will create potential gaps in close air support (CAS)—a mission involving air action against hostile targets in proximity to friendly forces—and other missions, and DOD is planning to address some of these gaps. For example, A-10 divestment results in an overall capacity decrease in the Air Force’s CAS-capable fleet. This capacity reduction is mitigated by phasing A-10 divestment over several years and by introducing the F-35 into the fleet, but Air Force documentation also shows that the F-35’s CAS capability will be limited for several years. Air Force analysis shows that divestment of the A-10 would increase operational risks in one DOD planning scenario set in 2020. Divestiture of the A-10 could also contribute to gaps due to the training focus of its aircrews, its wide range of weapons, and its operational capabilities, including its ability to operate in austere environments and under the weather. Further, the A-10 is currently either the only or best Air Force platform to conduct certain missions, such as complex ones requiring aircraft specifically trained to coordinate rescue missions, escort helicopters, and suppress enemy forces or countering swarming small boats that could pose a threat to U.S. ships. In order to mitigate the loss of the A-10, the Air Force is considering a number of steps including transitioning A-10 personnel to F-16 and F-15E units that will have an increased focus on CAS and studying whether the F-16 or F-15E can replace the A-10 in some of its other missions. DOD is also planning on increasing the proportion of training that can be performed on simulators. As agreed with committee staff, GAO will be conducting a more-detailed assessment of these issues and report the final results later this year.

GAO - Preliminary Observations on Air Force A-10 Divestment

Edited June 26, 2015 by Sledge Hammer

[Majestik Møøse]

So the Air Force wants to cook the books, but sucks at it.

[ATIS]

"...the Air Force estimated that divesting the A-10 would allow it to save $4.2 billion over its 5-year budget plan; however, our analysis found that the Air Force’s estimated savings are incomplete and may overstate or understate estimated savings. In presenting its budget to Congress, the Air Force provided a number of alternatives to A-10 divestment that would also result in approximately $4.2 billion in cost savings. However, these alternatives were rough estimates that were illustrative only and not fully considered as alternatives to A-10 divestment, according to Air Force officials."

If you work in acquisition long enough, cost estimation is a rampant problem. Accurately predicting cost of a program or cost savings is a huge risk to any program counting on those figures for any APB or funding/approval. You build in some margin for cost growth, but that never truly represents the creep you will see. Plus the fact that when the boss's don't like your cost figures and you show them how they are based on historic programs of the same nature...with margin built-in....they send you away because the initial funding baseline is a lot less. I have been asked by some SES'ers..."can you test a entirely new aircraft with just one test asset"? Overestimate cost saving...low ball initial cost of programs, we are becoming a self licking ice cream cone that is pricing DoD out of business.

ATIS