Also via Shayne Clausen CQ NEWS – POLICY, Aug. 6, 2013 – 6:55 a.m. Plan to Replace A-10 Fighter Prompts Concerns About Gap in Close Air Support, By Frank Oliveri, CQ Roll Call The Senate Armed Services Committee has asked the Air Force to conduct a study to determine whether the retirement of the A-10 ground-attack fighter and its replacement by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would lessen the service’s ability to provide close air support to ground forces, potentially raising the question of whether the military needs an additional kind of fighter jet in the future. The military has billed the F-35 as a multi-role fighter capable of replacing F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, A-10s, AV-8Bs and more for the Air Force, Navy and Marines. But that assessment was made 12 years ago. Congressional aides directly involved in the writing of the provision in the report accompanying the fiscal 2014 defense authorization bill (S 1197) said the study could lead to the Air Force drawing a number of conclusions, perhaps including a requirement for a new lower-cost, ground-attack aircraft in the mold of a slower-moving and long-loitering fighter optimized for the close air support (CAS) mission, in which fighters are deployed to support and defend troops engaged in ground combat. The study will be conducted in the context of a fiscally constrained Air Force, already hard-pressed to find the funds for a host of new developments that include the F-35A variant, a tanker and a bomber, among other major acquisitions that it plans over the next few decades. In fiscal 2013, the Air Force proposed to retire five squadrons of A-10s, but Congress blocked the move. The service had hoped to retire all A-10s by the late 2020s. The request for the language was particularly noteworthy because it was generated from the offices of Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who has no parochial interest in preserving the A-10 Warthog or displacing the F-35 since pilots are training on the new jet at Eglin Air Force Base in the Florida panhandle. “This was really something the committee felt was important to fully investigate,” one congressional aide explained. “Sen. Nelson is a strong supporter of the F-35 program and the CAS mission. He believes the aircraft is important for multiple services.” F-35 Doubts Close air support has been a bone of contention between the Air Force and the Army for decades. When the Air Force first broached the idea of retiring the A-10s, there was some discussion of whether it should to turn the fighters over to the Army. The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its fiscal 2014 report language, noted that the F-35, while intended to replace the A-10, is not optimized like the Warthog for the close air support mission. “The A-10 has served as the Air Force’s primary close air support asset, having been designed for that specific mission with characteristics that permit it to operate and maneuver at low altitude and slow speeds,” the panel wrote. “The aircraft is also heavily armored to ensure the highest survivability for the pilot and vital aircraft systems.” Without disparaging the F-35, the panel stated that it wants to ensure that “the Department of Defense is not heading toward a situation where there may be gaps in capability to meet close air support requirements when the A-10 is retired.” The committee directed the secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the secretary of the Army, to conduct a study to determine whether there will be any shortfalls in capability that will be incurred when the Air Force transitions from a fleet having A-10 aircraft to a fleet consisting entirely of F-22 and F-35 aircraft. “If there are any gaps between capabilities and requirements, the secretary of the Air Force should present alternatives for meeting those requirements,” the report stated. “The secretary shall submit this study with the fiscal year 2015 budget submission.” Aides said the Air Force could decide to seek a new aircraft, stay with A-10s for a longer period, convert some other aircraft to the mission or simply live with a gap. The A-10 carries a host of guided missiles but was literally built around the 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger gatling cannon that fires depleted uranium shells, which easily slice through armor. But one senior congressional aide suggested concerns about replacing the A-10 are overstated. The GOP aide argued that the fast-moving F-16 and its 20 mm cannon have performed admirably in the close air support mission, as has the B-1 bomber. Indeed, one answer to a gap may be a decision to buy more F-35B variants, which are expected to take off vertically and hover like the AV-8B Harrier they are expected to replace, the aide said. But, in 2012, the Air Force determined that the F-35B may not be able to generate enough sorties to meet the mission. The aide concedes that the F-35 is not optimized for close air support. “But good enough may be enough,” the aide said. A-10 pilots are protected by a titanium shell, while the fighter employs quadruple-redundant systems throughout, making it highly survivable in combat. By contrast, the F-35 has high speed, stealth and a virtual cockpit that allows pilots to see through the floor and other parts of the jet as if they were not there. But skeptics also raise the question of cost. The unit price for an F-35 currently stands at approximately $160 million. Some question whether the Air Force would be willing to risk such a costly aircraft in an inherently dangerous low-altitude environment. Nonetheless, aides who support looking at the issue argue that there is no harm in a study. “If we don’t look at it early, we won’t be ready,” one congressional aide said. frankoliveri@cqrollcall
Posted on: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 22:05:08 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015