To the editor:
I disagree with the characterization of the A-10 as a fighter aircraft. (See “Defense bill could retire Selfridge jets,” Page 1, March 16) The A-10 is not and never has been a fighter. It was designed from the landing gear up to be a Close Air Support bird. It could defend itself against a fighter.... but I wouldn't put money on it. Fighters are built to dominate airspace with their guns or air to air missiles. While the A-10 has a 30mm gatling gun and a couple of Sidewinder Air To Air missiles for self defense....that ain't much. Fighters are fast and armed heavily with weapons to kill other fighters, bombers, or attack planes or helicopters. The A-10 ain't that fast, compared to the F-16 it's slow.
But that lack of speed allows it to be incredibly accurate when dropping bombs, launching missiles, or strafing with the 30mm. The Russians have considered the A-10 a MAJOR threat for decades. All of the people we have fought or possibly could have fought since the A-10 came on line fear it. The A-10 has saved countless American lives from Desert Storm to present. Seriously; the A-10 can put the steel on target more accurately than the F-16, F-15, F-17/18, or F-22.
This is from a ground pounders perspective. In Desert Storm I was the control station for some SF Recon Teams far north of the Euphrates River; deep in bad guy country. The teams that were discovered and had to be extracted under fire were kept alive by A-10's that were able to stay on station till the extraction helicopters could get there. They have continued that role to this day.
The A-10 can really do that Timex thing of taking a licking and keep on ticking. It’s designed from the tires up to sustain battle damage that would leave any of the a fore mentioned fighters as smoking holes in the ground.
The Air Force has NEVER been thrilled about the A-10. Since the Key West Agreement of 1949, the Air Force has stopped the Army from having its own armed fixed wing aircraft. After Vietnam the A-10 was created to fit that void between the fighter role and dedicated air to ground strike capability. Fighters or fighter-bombers fly too fast to adequately support ground troops. If you look at the record of blue on blue air to ground tragedies... I don't believe the A-10 will be prominent, if at all.
There is nothing in the production pipeline to replace the A-10. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a camel cross bred with a mule.
Most ground combat organizations like that Association of the US Army and others have been lobbying Congress hard to keep the A-10 because they know how important it is.
As we enter into a period of what is perceived to be “peace In our time,” the Air Force, as is all the military services, is scrambling to make budget. The Air Force hierarchy is depending on the yet to be delivered and proven F-35 JSF to fill the void left by retiring the A-10.
After serving with Naval Aviation units, Army Aviation units, and working closely with the Air Force through my career I can put little trust or faith in a multi-role aircraft when it lacks the weapon versatility of a specialist type aircraft.
Bottom line is that to retain the A-10 the Air Force would have to expend funding on it at the expense of other systems it understands better.
For all its myriad failings Congress does do something right occasionally. In opposing the Air Force, Congress is correct in opposing Air Force plans, for the good of those men and women still serving and will serve in harm’s way; Crain’s should support the efforts to keep as many A-10s flying in the active inventory as possible.
Sincerely;
RetPara
Master Sergeant
Army of the United States
Retired
Former Sergeant of Marines