U.S. AIR FORCE PHOTO BY STAFF SGT. PAUL LABBE
The service seems determined to send the A-10
Warthog to the boneyard.
By Kyle
Mizokami Jan 20, 2018
More than a third of the U.S. Air Force’s fleet of A-10
Warthogs will end up permanently grounded if the service doesn’t find the money
to buy them new wings, and the senior civilian in charge of the A-10 says
that’s not going to happen. Such a decision would be another nail in the coffin
of the beloved close air support aircraft, which the service has been trying to
retire for nearly three decades.
The A-10 Warthog was first introduced in the late 1970s
to counter Soviet tank formations that threatened to steamroll Western Europe.
While the A-10 never flew in combat over Germany, it has flown thousands of
combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heavily armed, heavily armored
twin-engine jet is a favorite of the ground troops, capable of laying down a
protective barrage of cannon fire, rockets, missiles, and bombs.
In 2007, according
to Flightglobal, Boeing won a $2 billion contract to deliver 242 new wing
sets for the 280-strong A-10 fleet, replacing worn-out wings that would render
the airplanes unflyable. Here things get a little confusing: Boeing says it has
delivered 173 kits with several more on backorder, while the defense reform
watchdog Project on Government Oversight (POGO) says only 171 have been
delivered. Despite the 242 number, Boeing says the Air Force never extended the
contract beyond 173 sets.
At any rate, that leaves approximately 110 aircraft that
still need new wings. In December, Secretary of the Air Force Heather
Wilson supported the re-winging, saying that although it wasn’t in
the Air Force’s budget the service would do it if the funds were included.
Wilson concluded her remarks on the matter by saying, “I happen to be kind of a
fan of the A-10 myself.”
That fanhood has its limits, however. As The
War Zone points out, the Air Force placed the re-winging effort in its
“unfunded projects” category. That category is usually a laundry list of items
an armed service would like Congress to pay for but are not important enough to
earn a line in the service’s budget. It’s the Pentagon’s version of, “I’d take
it if someone gave it to me, but I’m not paying for it myself.” That hardly
suggests that keeping large numbers of A-10s in service is a priority.
The 2018 defense budget, which has not yet become
official, allocates $103 million to establish a new production line and build
four sets of wings as a warmup, with more wings to be produced if the money is
found. However, the looming threat of a budget shutdown, and the likelihood
that the government will be funded by yet another continuing resolution, would
push back any decision until February.
All of that may be moot, however, as apparently the
service is walking back its commitment to the re-winging effort. The War Zone
reports that Todd Mathes, the A-10 Program Element Manager for Air Combat
Command, “made the service’s position clear at a routine review meeting."
From The War Zone:
"Todd Mathes stressed that a rebooted re-wing
program for the Warthogs “was not going to happen,” the anonymous individuals
told POGO. This in turn would allow the Air Force to eliminate three A-10
squadrons, reducing the total number from nine to six. This is an idea the
service floated
in 2017, only to meet significant resistance from the aircraft’s supporters
in Congress."
The Air Force has been trying to retire the A-10
Thunderbolt II for nearly three decades, since the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf
War. The A-10’s popularity with ground forces and Congress has kept it in
service despite repeated attempts to kill it. Air Force critics charge that
refusing to pay for the re-winging effort is yet another attempt to squeeze and
ultimately retire the A-10, this time out of budgetary neglect.
The majority of A-10s have already received new wings and
will remain airworthy into the 2030s, but for more than 100 planes, a third of
the fleet, the future is uncertain.
Original post: popularmechanics.com
Related articles:
A-10 Thunderbolt: Details
No comments:
Post a Comment