USAF Weighs Scrapping KC-10, A-10 Fleets

[ORAC]

Shades of the Jag/Harrier debate...... "“You only gain major savings if you cut an entire fleet,” Gen. Mark Welsh, Air Force chief of staff, told sister publication Air Force Times last week. “You can cut aircraft from a fleet, but you save a lot more money if you cut all the infrastructure that supports the fleet.”........

USAF Weighs Scrapping KC-10, A-10 Fleets (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130915/DEFREG02/309150004/USAF-Weighs-Scrapping-KC-10-10-Fleets)

Faced with steep budget cuts and the desire to keep existing procurement initiatives on track, the US Air Force is considering scrapping its entire fleet of KC-10 tankers and A-10 attack jets, according to multiple military and defense sources. Also on the chopping block are F-15C fighter jets and a planned $6.8 billion purchase of new combat search-and-rescue helicopters, these sources say.

While these proposals are far from final, the options show the magnitude of the decisions facing Air Force leadership as the service wrestles with the prospect of cutting billions of dollars in planned spending over the next decade.

“You only gain major savings if you cut an entire fleet,” Gen. Mark Welsh, Air Force chief of staff, told sister publication Air Force Times last week. “You can cut aircraft from a fleet, but you save a lot more money if you cut all the infrastructure that supports the fleet.”............

The four-month-long Strategic Choices and Management Review — a DoD effort that looked at ways the Pentagon might have to modify its military strategy due to budget cuts — found the Air Force could cut up to five tactical aircraft squadrons, DoD announced in July. The proposed aircraft cuts, particularly the 340-aircraft A-10 fleet, are sure to face scrutiny in Congress. About half of the A-10 fleet resides in the Air National Guard. An Air Force proposal to cut five A-10 squadrons last year faced stiff opposition in Congress and from state governors. The Air Force Reserve also operates A-10s, which were heavily used to provide support to ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. A-10s also are based in South Korea. Sources say the Army is interested in obtaining A-10s should the Air Force decide to retire the twin-engine jets, which have been flying since the 1970s.

The Air Force operates 59 KC-10s, according to a service fact sheet. The tri-jet, which is based on the commercial McDonnell Douglas DC-10 jetliner, is the workhorse of the Air Force aerial refueling fleet. The tankers — equipped with both boom and hose-and-drogue refueling systems — can refuel Air Force, Navy and international military aircraft on a single sortie.

Also on the table is an unspecified number of cuts to the Boeing F-15C Eagle fleet. The Air Force has about 250 of the fighter jets, which, along with the F-22 Raptor, make up the service’s air-to-air fighter arsenal..........

Retiring the F-15C would save maintenance and upgrade costs, Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS Research and a former USAF official, said. The service could then use those funds to speed procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. “It’s a gutsy move assuming a lot of risk, but there’s risk to all these scenarios,” Grant said. “It may be there is less risk retiring the F-15C right now than there is in getting the fleet we need some years down the road.”..............

The Air Force brass wants to continue funding Boeing KC-46A refueling tankers, Lockheed Martin F-35 joint strike fighters and development of a new long-range bomber. Pentagon officials do not want to break the fixed-price tanker contract that requires Boeing to pay for development or production hiccups. The bomber is a key component in the Pentagon’s long-term, Pacific-focused strategy, and the F-35 is the only fifth-generation US combat fighter aircraft in production.

In the end, Congress will have the final say. Lawmakers were less than thrilled with the Air Force’s 2014 budget proposal, reversing several big-ticket items.

[Trim Stab]

Sources say the Army is interested in obtaining A-10s should the Air Force decide to retire the twin-engine jets, which have been flying since the 1970s.

:eek::confused::ugh::rolleyes::D

[glad rag]

We should get a bid in quick. Around the same as the harriers I would surmise..

[BBadanov]

USAF went through the same process 20 years ago, they scrapped the F-111 fleet.

They didn't really want to, as there was no replacement for the F-111, but the funding for the F-22 couldn't be risked. Difficult decisions...

[kbrockman]

Looks like the USAF is finally achieving its 1970's dream of flying only big and heavy glamorous fighter-jets, they where stopped in their tracks with the introduction of the LWF (F16) program and the A10 back then, an option they don't have today, unfortunately.

[vascodegama]

So they want to scrap the best tanker in the world?

[air pig]

Just drop the KC10s at Brize and the A10s at Leeming Lossie and reopen Honnington, I'm sure the RAF will pay for scrap value.

[SASless]

Folks....all this is being driven by........the F-35 Program which is a very huge Money Pit that shows no promise of producing the aircraft being promised.

That is where this money savings is going to be dumped.....to no good end.

The USAF would be far better off cutting the F-35 program.

[Rosevidney1]

SASless you are wrong again. You keep trying to use logic, reason and common sense when it is clearly a political and financial problem. :\

[Bigpants]

Always admired its hitting power and thought it had performed well in Afghanistan so quite surprised they are thinking of scrapping it while the B52 (in a different role) soldiers on?

We live in strange times

[ShotOne]

Agreed, and in context, inexpensive to operate too! Interesting times. How much are they selling them for??

[melmothtw]

A10?

Always admired its hitting power and thought it had performed well in Afghanistan so quite surprised they are thinking of scrapping it while the B52 (in a different role) soldiers on?

We live in strange times


Agreed BP, but in the context of the US's shift in strategic focus away from SE Asia and towards AsPac, the B-52 has the legs to cover the mainly maritime theatre, whereas the A-10 does not. So perhaps not so surprising really.

[500N]

Mel

It's only Maritime until you hit the shore.

A B52 can't do what an A-10 does and vice versa.

[melmothtw]

Mel

It's only Maritime until you hit the shore.

A B52 can't do what an A-10 does and vice versa.

Absolutely agree 500N. I was only suggesting a possible line of reasoning as to why the B-52 might be spared the axe and the A-10 not.

[FakePilot]

I'm such an expert on this and all topics. I also don't mean demean the A10 but ...

I don't get the nostalgia for the A10 sometimes. It was designed in an era where the best general purpose armor killing gun was visually aimed. All the much talked about armor was to prevent it getting shot down by a common heavy machine gun that it would have to expose itself to during its attack.

Now sensors have gotten incredibly better. Computers too. One of the versions of cluster bomb is a case of independently targeting mini drones armed for one shot kills.

So if you don't need to get up close and personal you can lose the armor. Because of awesome high tech munitions you don't need the 30mm.

So, take the A10's remove the armor, gun and pilot. What's left? :)

[500N]

What about this line and I am prepared to be shot down in flames

The A-10 and what it does has been superceeded by

- Apache and other gunships

- Drones / UAV'd with Hell Fires, better sensors and much muchlonger loiter time for CAS if needed.

- FJ with LGB

[chopper2004]

I was told by an OH-58D driver at Le Bourget 01, that a decade earlier post Cold War and Desert Storm, the O/A-10 was on the verge of being retired and the Army decided they wanted the airframes. The Air Force quickly retracted their decision :ugh:

It was reminiscent of the 50s and 60s battle between the two branches over what fixed wing assets the army could or could not have :cool: as the army were experimenting with fast jet FAC. They came in the form of the Fiat G.91, the N-156 / F-5, Cessna T-37 Tweet and A-4 Skyhawk (with modified twin wheel undercarriage for hard landings on rough unprepared airstrips)

The KC-10 retirement does not make sense, unless with the hundred or so KC-135R they figured that be enough. Like with the thoughts regarding their bomber force with getting rid of the B-1B and keeping the BUFF and B-2A.

Cheers

[Lonewolf_50]

The KC-10 retirement does not make sense,
Agreed. Air to Air tanking is one of the Joint Force Multipliers that cannot be measured in dollar. Tanker assets are worth their weight in gold, many times over.

[N.HEALD]

I'm sure I have read somewhere that the A10 fleet were about to be fitted with redesigned new wings, so no doubt they will scrap them shortly afterwards

Edit: link here:- Fairchild A-10 Warthog ground-attack aircraft to get new wings in 20-year extended life upgrade (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/fairchild-a-10-warthog-ground-attack-aircraft-to-get-new-wings-in-20-year-extended-life-upgrade-208722/)

[The B Word]

So, take the A10's remove the armor, gun and pilot. What's left?

I don't know, but add a microwave and get this!

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130-spectre-44.jpg

The B Word :ok:

[The Helpful Stacker]

I'm not an airpower expert by any means so I'm not going to weigh in with an opinion on the relative merits of the A10 etc compared to whatever else is available but isn't this likely to be just the USAF playing politics, shaking the tree to see what outrage bus falls out?

"Look what Barry has reduced us to godamnit.."

Push come to shove the USAF will blink first if the DoD/Barry says "fine, just start delivering the A10s to the Army".

[racedo]

Remeber as a kid reading of A10 development and over many years and grey hairs seeing footage of it in action.................was one of those aircraft that if in a situation where A10's were attacking i figured best place to be is anywhere else.

Ugly it may be, effect it most certainly is, getting rid of it is even dumber than getting rid of Harriers.

[Courtney Mil]

Great ideas about the UK buying up the discarded A-10s, Harriers, Tankers, etc, but for one thing. We've been shedding fleets to pay for the F-35 as well. Anyway, the Dave model B will do all those roles for us, won't it?

[cornish-stormrider]

Sod the warthog, buy the spectre!
When you have to bring the rain - bring the sturm und drang.....

[CoffmanStarter]

Now what's that proverb about Eggs and a Basket (singular)... :rolleyes:

[glad rag]

Great ideas about the UK buying up the discarded A-10s, Harriers, Tankers, etc, but for one thing. We've been shedding fleets to pay for the F-35 as well. Anyway, the Dave model B will do all those roles for us, won't it?

You ain't no freekin ..

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130417191644/disney/images/thumb/7/70/Star_wars_yoda.jpg/640px-Star_wars_yoda.jpg

[PhilipG]

I always thought that the F35 was meant to take over amongst other things the role of the A10, call me thick but if the USAF gets rid of all its A10s makes most of the crews redundant, closes more bases etc, does this not mean that the number of F35s required ny the USAF reduces, dramatically, thus increasing the unit cost. More of the prospective death spiral...

[glad rag]

You ever seen flight of the Intruder? :hmm:

[Lonewolf_50]

You ever seen flight of the Intruder? :hmm:
That wasn't a documentary, in case you weren't sure. ;)

[Evalu8ter]

Yet again the Zoomies try to kill the A10....

What does it bring? Ask troops on the ground or a RW assault package what you want to have riding shotgun. F16? Nice - 'ain't got time to loiter cos we ain't got the gas' or payload or armour or two engines. Sometimes speed isn't everything - the ability to stay in the fight for a prolonged period and continue to deliver ordnance is often more important than racing in and dropping 2x LGBs and running for a tanker. AC130 is a wonderful platform, but vulnerable in daylight and/or opposed airspace - A10 is not as vulnerable. AH is a great asset but is sometimes too slow and is short on range. RPAS are in the same boat as the AC130 re vulnerability and is more weather dependant than manned platforms UAV Shot Down by MiG-29 | Military.com (http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/jet-fighters/uav-shot-down-by-mig-29/662903412001/)

Perhaps the Army will dust off the YAH-56; it's what scared the USAF into the A-X competition in the first place.

[glad rag]

That wasn't a documentary, in case you weren't sure. ;)

True, as is the fact I an not a septic.

Gettit septic tank. Living in a tank. In isolation.

No. Ah well.

[Lonewolf_50]

As I doubt you aren't actually cockney, why don't you use the term Yank? Maybe you have nothing better to do than be insulting.

Check the title of the thread. Got anything to say on that topic?
(PS: KA-6D tanker no longer in our inventory, by the way, for some years ...)

[racedo]

why don't you use the term Yank?

Lone

You Texans aren't really Yankees :=, least that was what an ex Texan GF told me.

[AtomKraft]

Skyraider anyone? ;)

Good then. Still good.

Ask yourself, what can a F-35 (or F-15/ F-16 etc ) do to an Arab, that a Skyraider could not?

Answer: Precisely nothing!

[GreenKnight121]

Except they do it far more accurately, and from high enough up so that the "Arab" can't damage them with his rifle/captured AA gun/manpad/etc.

And can RTB, re-arm/refuel, and be back on-station much faster than the Skyraider can.


Which brings us back to the A-10... which recently was upgraded to the A-10C. This upgrade converted the A-10 to a medium-altitude PGM cargo truck... taking it out of the "low-level CAS" operational posture, and making it just a slower F-16 in actual use.

[iRaven]

making it just a slower F-16 in actual use...

...but with a big F-off gun! :ok:

That gun is the be all and end all of the A10. As a direct fires weapon it can be used when other ROE forbids LGB and PGM use. Furthermore, you can engage a shed-load of targets with it and therefore reduce the frequency of going back to base to 'bomb up' with shells and LGBs/PGMs.

Cracking piece of kit and sooo much more capable at CAS than the Harrier ever was (for a variety of reasons - not just because the GR5,7 and 9 didn't have a gun!).

iRaven

[D-IFF_ident]

If the KC10s get sold off I'll bet that a couple of young Irish chaps would be all over buying as many of them as they could. Then leasing them back to the DOD for 7-10 years while the KC46 begins entry into service.

[bvcu]

Bear in mind KC10 isnt just a tanker , an impressive cargo capacity as well. For the size of the fleet i would guess it is one of the USAF's most productive aeroplanes. Would think in real terms the KC46 will only beat it on fuel burn. Think its only a budget target because its a relatively small fleet.

[ORAC]

Is there anything freight related CRAF and charter can't do? It's useful for integrated AAR/freight sets, but is that used in a war zone? The C17 fleet could probably take up the load as Afghanistan fades away, and the politicians will probably buy more anyway. My surprise is the lack of mention of the C5 fleet.

Ref the AAR role, they're tied into the KC-46 contract and have the AAR x and Y contracts to come. They probably think they can manage with the 135 fleet in the short term and ensure the later contracts take place.

[Mk 1]

Is there anything freight related CRAF and charter can't do? It's useful for integrated AAR/freight sets, but is that used in a war zone? The C17 fleet could probably take up the load as Afghanistan fades away, and the politicians will probably buy more anyway. My surprise is the lack of mention of the C5 fleet.



C5 would probably have been on the chopping block if not for the current upgrade (TF-33's being replaced by CF-6's plus avionics modernization). In terms of maintenance per flight hour the old C5A's and B's were a massive cost for little return.

Probably also points to a shift in emphasis and a shift in capability. Back in the 60's and 70's vast fleets of tankers to keep the masses of bombers and shorter ranged transports in the sky. These days now that the US is substantially drawing down its overseas presence, heavy airlift (particularly long range modern airtransports like the C5M and C-17 is more important - and there is less of a need to refuel them in flight. Maybe the increased availability of the C5M's will help compensate for the missing cargo role that the KC-10 used to provide. That's my guess.

[BEagle]

C5 would probably have been on the chopping block if not for the current upgrade...

Plus it's supported by Lockheed? Manufacturers of the F-35 money pit....

Coincidence?

[Heathrow Harry]

seems crazy to keep the KC-135's flying and scrap something a lot newer

[Not_a_boffin]

Lot more KC135s than KC10s - exactly the same "size of fleet" argument that was part of the H*****r vs GR4 debate. The savings are in losing a fleet, not numbers of airframes.

[ORAC]

Every fleet comes with a logistics tail. With a small fleet it's massive in proportion to the fleet; the larger the fleet the smaller the tail in proportion to the operational front end.

Check out how many KC-135s there are in service compared to KC-10s.

And the major cost savings are in removing the tail, not the paid for fleet.

[kbrockman]

They are talking about getting rid of the B1 fleet also to start paying for the future Bomber, 1 of the 3 think-tanks went for the B1 and the B52 fleets leaving only the B-2's and the Strike Eagles as support if necessary.
Retire B-1 Fleet to Save Future Bombers: Defense Experts | DoD Buzz (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/17/retire-b-1-fleet-to-save-future-bombers-defense-experts/)
A collection of defense think tank leaders said the Pentagon should retire its B-1 bomber fleet and cut near-term readiness money if it’s going to survive the next decade of sequestration.

...
One of the programs most groups chose to target was legacy bombers. CSBA and CSIS recommended retiring all B-1 bombers and AEI recommended retiring both B-1 and B-52 bombers, Harrison said.

[ORAC]

And on almost the same day.... I wonder if Boeing is trying to get the politicians to order some more.

End of the line for the C-17 (http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/boeing-to-end-c--production/article_d3bc97c6-3992-5af8-b53f-6e2650b108b5.html)

The end of the assembly line for Boeing Co.'s C-17 cargo jet has been approaching for years. On Wednesday the company put a date on it. The final C-17 will roll out of Boeing's factory in Long Beach, Calif., in late 2015, with parts-making in St. Louis to end a few months before then. The move, which will eliminate 3,000 jobs across the aerospace giant's workforce — including 300 here in St. Louis — and threatens 20,000 at suppliers, was all but inevitable as orders for the workhorse of the Air Force cargo fleet dried up.

“Ending C-17 production was a very difficult but necessary decision,” said Dennis Muilenburg, chief executive of Boeing Defense, Space and Security, in a statement. “Our customers around the world face very tough budget environments. While the desire for the C-17's capabilities is high, budgets cannot support additional purchases in the timing required to keep the production line open.”

The news comes less than a week after Boeing delivered its 223rd and final C-17 to the U.S. Air Force, which declined to order more several times in recent years amid Pentagon belt-tightening and the wind-down of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Boeing has extended production with a handful of international sales — including a $4.1 billion contract with India for 10 planes — but there's only so much demand out there for these planes, said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area think-tank. “The C-17 is an extremely capable aircraft, but most countries don't have a need to move large military forces across continents quickly,” he said. “And for the U.S., you reach a point at which you have all the airlift you need.”

Boeing now has 22 C-17s left to complete, said program manager Nan Bouchard: Seven for India, two for an unnamed foreign client and 13 that it's making without orders but hopes to sell.............