Top 3 reasons to keep the A-10
The A-10 has been the most effective platform to conduct Close Air Support (CAS) missions since the Gulf War. Due to fiscal constraints and the Air Force’s investment in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, it has been a popular default for the Air Force to put the A-10 on the chopping block to make way for, and be replaced by the JSF. Retiring the A-10 would be a grave mistake, because its role and position in the mission of Close Air Support is irreplaceable amongst all fighter or bomber air craft in the American or NATO Coalition inventory. Below are the top three reasons to keep the A-10.
1. The Design. The A-10 was literally built around its GAU-8 Avenger. The 4000 pound, 7-barrel rotating cannon, fires a 30 millimeter bullet at a rate of 70 rounds per second, or 3900 rounds per minute. This design feature is unique to the A-10. The power and precision of this weapon when matched with the avionics of the airframe itself, provide the quickest reaction and devastating results for whatever the target is. Its ability to loiter at low speeds and altitudes give it reactionary similarities to a helicopter, yet it’s titanium “bathtub” and bulletproof bubble canopy make it much more survivable for the pilots should they be engaged. These features keep the pilots safer, and allow for the troops on the ground to be more efficiently protected while physically and psychologically annihilating the enemy. This aircraft is, and can continue to be upgraded and modernized with technology to enhance and refine its capabilities. No other jet propelled aircraft was designed specifically for CAS, and because of this, no others are equipped or piloted to conduct the CAS mission better than the A-10.
2. It’s Cheap. The thrifty operational costs of the A-10 are minor in comparison to the other platforms in contention to absorb the role of the A-10 in the CAS responsibility realm. According to the Council on Foreign Relations and data from Air Force Fact Sheets (2012), the A-10 costs just $23M and only $17,716/hr to operate. Compare that to the AC-130, B-1B, F-15E, and F-16 you see the balloon in costs at $221M and $46k/hr, $399M and $58k/hr, $44M and $36k/hr, $26M and $30k/hr respectively from those platforms. Considering that the F-15E, F-16 both fly and cruise at extremely fast speeds and prefer high altitudes cost several more millions of dollars and tens of thousands more dollars to operate, is replacing the A-10 for CAS really a viable option, tactically or fiscally? Consider the costs of B-1B Lancer, who brings an incredible payload of bombs to the fight, but works in very high altitude blocks and cannot react quickly to dynamic targets on the ground, make it more appealing to replace the A-10? I think not. Every JTAC loves the AC-130, but one must recognize how truly vulnerable that platform is from enemy fire. The C-130 is a Cargo frame air craft. You can add an ‘A’ for ‘Attack’ to the C-130, but it’s nothing more than C-130 with guns and artillery on board. It is important to note, that because of it’s vulnerability, the AC-130 primarily operate at night only. This is a problem for conventional Army and Marine ground forces who conduct operations in daytime hours. Consider that in conjunction with funding that an individual AC-130 costs nearly 10 times more than an A-10, and almost 3 times more to operate per flight hour. The money doesn’t lie. Perhaps the A-10 isn’t the problem? Regardless the politics involved, the conclusion is clear, the A-10 not only out performs all other aircraft who are tasked to fulfil the CAS role, but it’s much cheaper to the U.S. taxpayer. This fact, only buffers the point that the A-10 should not be retired, but rather revamped and upgraded for continued usage in future conflicts.
3. It is proven in combat. Troops that conduct dangerous missions on the ground and who have been in a pinch and in need of air support, understand and can attest to the A-10s ability to neutralize the threat of enemy forces. In the documentary “Grunts of the Sky” by Air Force Combat Camera, following a Company of soldiers on a mission in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom, a troops in contact (TIC) situation occurs and A-10s arrive to provide a show of force and a few 30mm strafe passes on enemy fighters who began to engage the ground force. Much can be said about the unmistakable audible presence of the so-called “flying gun.” The spectral whistle of the twin engine exhaust intakes whizzing in the sky to maneuver into a deliberate dive that cause the engines to roar thunderously before the pilot squeezes the trigger, raining hundreds of rounds into the target, followed by the signature “BRRRRRRRRT” sound of the gatling-style cannon at the nose of the aircraft. The soldiers, hunkered down behind cover, cheer and rejoice. This moment is captured and then reflected on by Air Force Tactical Air Control Party (TACP) member, and Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC), SSgt Joseph Hauser in his interview. “That sound is so distinguishable… It’s the sound of ‘Don’t mess with me.’ Eleven-Bravo’s go nuts for it, it’s amazing.” When TSgt Sean Deam, fellow TACP and qualified JTAC was asked about the impact of the A-10 and where it ranks in preference to other platforms, he said “To win a war, you need boots on the ground, and to have boots on the ground, you need support… the right kind of support, and honestly, it’s the A-10.” He continued and went on to say that the effect was even psychologically assuring for his customer, the Infantry when they ask what kind of air support they can expect for the mission. When he tells them, the men will have A-10 coverage, they are visibly and verbally relieved and energized. This dynamic is also unique to the A-10. It isn’t that other platforms haven’t been deadly successful in repelling enemy attacks or that the men that have been saved by them aren’t grateful; it’s that they understand first hand that A-10 pilots are more dialed into the ground scheme of maneuver and the JTACs have a contract of trust with the A-10 pilots, or “Hog Drivers” that is unmatched by other platforms. The fact of this relationship isn’t meant to cast aspersions on other platforms or their pilots/crews, who do provide excellent support when asked to, but rather to underscore that the margin of trust and reliability isn’t the same. It can’t be. A-10s were made for CAS, and JTACs sole purpose is to coordinate and conduct CAS. If a JTAC endorses a particular platform, you can all but book it as the most trusted, tried, tested, and proven asset to execute the CAS mission. For these reasons, the A-10 must not be retired or replaced by a multirole air craft, but maintained, upgraded and enhanced in order to continue its storied success in the purpose of CAS, killing the enemy, and safeguarding friendly forces.
David Axe
Ben Fernandes
�yW2�m�
