Military Review

"More will serve": Senators forbid the Pentagon to reduce the number of A-10 attack aircraft in 2021

54
"More will serve": Senators forbid the Pentagon to reduce the number of A-10 attack aircraft in 2021

The US senators, having studied the draft military budget for 2021, were concerned that the Pentagon was proposing to implement a program to reduce the number of obsolete and outdated military aircraft.


In particular, the draft military budget contains data on reducing the fleet of A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft, which is motivated by the following: the production of such aircraft was discontinued 36 years ago. It is added that every year the maintenance of these attack aircraft, repairs and maintenance takes up more and more money. It is planned to send for disposal 44 such attack aircraft next year.

This argument was not accepted by the Senate Armed Forces Committee (SASC). Senators intend to block proposals that relate to planned reductions in the US Air Force.

A package of changes to the budget project for 2021 is proposed, providing for the following:

prohibit any reductions in the A-10 Warthog attack aircraft fleet;
postpone liquidation aviation the KC-135R and KC-10A tankers until system problems on the KC-46A are resolved.


It should be noted that in 2021 the Pentagon was going to get rid of 13 air tankers KC-135R and 16 KC-10A.

Additional measures that the US Senate is ready to take: prohibit the disposal of U-28A Draco multipurpose turboprop aircraft before developing a program for a manned light attack and reconnaissance aircraft.



The Senate also considers it necessary to finalize the program for reducing the number of B-1B bombers. For 2021, it is planned to reduce their fleet in the US Air Force by 17 units.

The Pentagon planned to “compensate” for all these reductions with additional purchases of fifth-generation F-35 fighters of various modifications (a total of 95 aircraft). The Pentagon considers it necessary to abandon the purchase of the MQ-2022 UAV in 9 in favor of developing the new MQ-Next UAV program. But this review is not ready to accept in the upper house of the American Congress.

The majority of the senators of the aforementioned committee (SASC) came out in favor of revising the initiative of the military department. Senators believe that the aircraft and drones mentioned above will still serve the interests of the United States.
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 12 June 2020 07: 04 New
    +2
    "More will serve": Senators forbid the Pentagon to reduce the number of A-10 attack aircraft in 2021
    Sorry. Flying iron, electronic warfare is almost not affected by it.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. hydrox
      hydrox 12 June 2020 10: 24 New
      0
      It’s good that these A-10s will not reach us if the senators are going to process mumbo-jumbo tribes on them. But it is surprising that lawmakers are making such sound judgments about the suitability of weapons for years to come ...
      1. Pete mitchell
        Pete mitchell 12 June 2020 11: 39 New
        +2
        Quote: hydrox
        It’s good that these A-10s will not reach us ...

        They have already been spotted at Emari's base ... are constantly based in Germany.
        1. hydrox
          hydrox 12 June 2020 12: 10 New
          -2
          I think that this is of little concern to us and the next war will do without the use of hundreds of thousands of hp and tank armies.
        2. hydrox
          hydrox 12 June 2020 16: 41 New
          0
          Pete, it’s not by chance that I mentioned the mumbo-jumbo people - what does Russia have to do with it? ...
      2. Alex777
        Alex777 12 June 2020 14: 06 New
        +1
        it is surprising that lawmakers are making such healthy judgments about the suitability of weapons for years to come ...

        A-10 is left because they are not sure about the combat effectiveness of the F-35. There is no other reason.
        And tankers are another story.
        On older aircraft, the operator was located in the tail and visually controlled the gas station.
        On new tankers, the operator sits in the cockpit and controls the refueling through the cameras. When they were already built a lot, it became clear that the camera does not determine the distance well by cameras. This led to a sharp increase in accidents. How they will correct such a problem is a separate issue. hi
        1. ycuce234-san
          ycuce234-san 12 June 2020 14: 28 New
          0
          How they will correct such a problem is a separate issue.


          The helmet of virtual reality, which is now used in games - it can even be supplemented with an ordinary video image by artificial images according to radar data or from special telemetry from a partner aircraft and refueled in fog or complete darkness. True, the intensive use of such a helmet puts eyesight on and literally provides a headache, nausea.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 12 June 2020 15: 44 New
            0
            At F35 have already come to automatic refueling. On Su57, it seems, too.
            1. ycuce234-san
              ycuce234-san 13 June 2020 08: 22 New
              0
              The operator sits in the cab on new tankers

              And still, a special person for automation "looks after" in case of unforeseen situations. It’s better - imagine that everything works at full automation in the mess of real life - for example, in the next Asian “Vietnam”. Yes, even the corny moldy and clogged-up system of special television can still be repaired knee-deep or somehow adapted to it, but complex independent automation is not always possible.
        2. Yarhann
          Yarhann 13 June 2020 17: 02 New
          0
          Of course, you are well done comparing the attack aircraft of direct support and IFIs. Functional A10 can be performed only by an attack helicopter - that is, Apache, but they are more designed for the destruction of armored vehicles (because they have many inexpensive ATGM helphires), and these turntables are very expensive. Attack aircraft are essentially universal in direct support. A10 in the US Army was supposed to replace the MQ-9 UAV, but they did not cope with this task, it is very expensive to use the WTO when cutting baramaeal, and they can not use anything other than the WTO UAV.
          It is by the totality of all the characteristics and in the army of the Russian Federation that the Su25 is still in service, although there is also a Mi28 drummer.
          There will be a replacement for attack aircraft in the future, but it will be a heavily armored UAV with a 30-50mm gun and a wide range of unguided and guided weapons.
      3. hydrox
        hydrox 12 June 2020 14: 12 New
        -1
        Interestingly, and what is this sofa again undertook to minus me?
        Is that a good word to the senators?
  2. Lopatov
    Lopatov 12 June 2020 07: 12 New
    +4
    When senators, at the request of lobbyists, indicate to the military what kind of weapons they need, this is a strange situation. But I welcome this in every way laughing
    1. Avior
      Avior 12 June 2020 07: 24 New
      +1
      It is unlikely that anyone is lobbying for an airplane that has not been produced for 36 years.
      1. Liam
        Liam 12 June 2020 07: 51 New
        +2
        Quote: Avior
        It is unlikely that anyone is lobbying for an airplane that has not been produced for 36 years.

        And all 36 years flies without spare parts, MOT, etc., or does someone do this for a lot of money and cancellation put an end to the process?
        1. Avior
          Avior 12 June 2020 08: 01 New
          +1
          Such a decision from a broad shoulder can be justified by lobbyism.
          Is it too easy?
          Instead, they offer to purchase f-35.
          In this case, the money is much more.
          And lobbyists are much higher in level and quantity.
          But they decided to maintain the A10.
          1. Liam
            Liam 12 June 2020 08: 06 New
            -2
            Quote: Avior
            And lobbyists are much higher in level and quantity

            Are you well aware of who the A-10 lobbyists are?)
            LM lobbyists are already on horseback, and for A-10 manufacturers, it’s a matter of life and death.
            1. Avior
              Avior 12 June 2020 08: 15 New
              -1
              Therefore, LM touchingly decided to abandon profits.
              I suspect that you do not know who the current owner of the former manufacturer A10 is.
              This is the Israeli Elbit Systems through the M7 Aerospace.
              For them, the manufacture of spare parts for the A10 is not a matter of life and death.
              If there are small manufacturers of spare parts, then their lobbying opportunities are very low.
              1. Liam
                Liam 12 June 2020 08: 34 New
                -1
                Quote: Avior
                Therefore, LM touchingly decided to give up profit

                Why did you get this. LM is powerful but not omnipotent. America is strong and strong, because no one has a monopoly on anything.
                Quote: Avior
                I suspect

                I suspect that before my post about lobbyism, you were not aware of who lobbies the A-10. And I’ll inform you before writing, so you suspect in vain)
                Quote: Avior
                For them, the manufacture of spare parts for the A10 is no matter of life and death.

                Seriously? And what, besides the A-10, do they have from the US Air Force manned? The write-off of A-10 for them is the loss of space in a very bread market.
                PySy. Regarding fashionable theories about the need for a battlefield attack aircraft, light helicopter attack aircraft against a heavily and slightly armed enemy and other rubbish, Turkey has taught and is now teaching some people a master class in Syria and Libya for what systems this niche is in the 21st century
                1. Avior
                  Avior 12 June 2020 09: 47 New
                  0
                  If you were aware, as you wrote then, that spare parts for the A10 are for Elbit a matter of life and death?
                  The reasons for making such a decision are obvious without any lobbyism, and if you want to primitively reduce all their decisions to lobbyism, I won’t interfere.
                  hi
                  1. Liam
                    Liam 12 June 2020 10: 00 New
                    -2
                    Everything seems to be obvious. If Elbit is thrown out of the manned aircraft market, they will never be able to return there
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 12 June 2020 10: 48 New
                      +1
                      Elbit is engaged in avionics and is not tied only to a10.
                      Anyway, prolonging the operation of the a10 is a temporary measure
                      But this is an empty argument
                      Your argument is that I do not consider the decision to extend the operation of the a10 as a result of lobbying, but not of a real need, corresponding to reality and do not see what to discuss here.
                      hi
                2. Pete mitchell
                  Pete mitchell 12 June 2020 11: 53 New
                  +1
                  I'm wildly sorry
                  Quote: Liam
                  And before I write, I am informed
                  and since when wiki are a source of information?
                  Children with Tewson will agree with Amer’s lawmakers, as well as those who are feet on the ground ... 'Informed'...., you would see what souvenir guys from 355 they dragged from Iraq, parked near the headquarters
                  Quote: Avior
                  Your argument is that I do not consider the decision to extend the operation of the a10 as a result of lobbying, but not of a real need, corresponding to reality and do not see what to discuss here.
                  Agree
                3. Yarhann
                  Yarhann 13 June 2020 17: 10 New
                  +1
                  oga, of course, Turkey showed the Americans the UAV application class))) it’s not funny itself. Americans have long been using UAVs in military conflicts and police missions, and they missed all the flaws of this weapon. The same Reaper was supposed to displace the A10 - but did not cope with the task. Therefore, the A10 still successfully cuts baramaeal in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The main disadvantage of all UAVs is that they are able to use only the WTO, which is relatively expensive and often its use is not justified.
    2. Nehist
      Nehist 12 June 2020 07: 27 New
      +7
      Hmm ... Or maybe there are sane people in the Senate ?! The United States has no warthog analogs, as in principle, and we have rooks. So they decided everything correctly, this is a battlefield plane and even UAVs will not be replaced soon by efficiency
    3. Nehist
      Nehist 12 June 2020 07: 39 New
      +1
      Well, in our military-industrial complex, the Ministry of Defense indicates what kind of armament is needed ... So everything in comparison is known)))
  3. DVR
    DVR 12 June 2020 07: 17 New
    +2
    Ay-yai-yay, how so. The F-35 was supposed to replace everything. A rusty piece of iron can not replace. How so?
    In fact, the aircraft is successful, but this does not change the meaning of what has been said.
  4. Avior
    Avior 12 June 2020 07: 33 New
    +5
    There are 2 reasons for this decision.
    1. The Senate directly speaks to the Pentagon; first bring the new to mind, and then the old write-off.
    It’s convenient for the Pentagon to write off the old one, so that it would be easier to knock out money to fine-tune the new one. But the old refueling tank is not there, but it is needed, so give money to fine-tune the new one without further ado.
    It is as if Arly Beret was written off when Zamvolt was lowered into the water.
    2. The military in the United States is used to not really counting money.
    They do not need an inexpensive and practical A10 helicopter attack aircraft or a helicopter attack aircraft against a lightly armed enemy, such as a banned igil; they must submit an expensive f-35 with high-precision expensive weapons.
    But what is it like hammering nails with a microscope? They don’t care.
  5. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 12 June 2020 07: 38 New
    +5
    The aircraft and drones mentioned above will still serve the interests of the United States.
    A-10 is really a successful American attack aircraft, which was recognized by Soviet aviation experts. Once the senators have decided, they will serve, but it is desirable that in the United States.
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 12 June 2020 07: 58 New
      +2
      Not just lucky! And in many ways surpasses our su25 unfortunately ... A10 is a more multitasking aircraft than Grach. We don’t have any analogues, so they will squeeze out everything that is possible from these machines! They are from A10, we are from Su25
      1. K-612-O
        K-612-O 12 June 2020 08: 07 New
        +4
        Well, not that it would be better, there is no possibility of using explosives in principle, as well as the use of ST and 500 caliber bombs, but these two aircraft are unique in their own way and they basically have no analogues. An airplane on the battlefield and direct support is expensive and necessary for infantry.
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 12 June 2020 08: 11 New
          +3
          And 10 is a pure attack aircraft, but our Su25s are not clear that, frankly, 7 tons A10 is preferable to 3,5 Su 25! As you can see, patriots gave me the minuses already stuck)
          1. K-612-O
            K-612-O 12 June 2020 08: 18 New
            0
            Well, SM3 loads as much as 5 kopecks, and the usual version is up to 4400. But our range is wider, with better armor protection. And do not forget that the 25th is basically smaller and lighter
            1. Nehist
              Nehist 12 June 2020 08: 30 New
              +2
              The most serious drawbacks are range and speed ... In general, there’s nothing to argue about, the planes are unique, UAVs are now trying to plug their niche, but it turns out to be more expensive and not so effective
  6. yfast
    yfast 12 June 2020 07: 47 New
    +3
    We survived, they have already outdated MQ-9, and we have not yet given birth.
    1. K-612-O
      K-612-O 12 June 2020 08: 10 New
      0
      We gave birth to Orion, and the ripper really has been flying for 20 years, but recently, especially in Afghanistan, they often, through no fault of their own, stick into the ground.
  7. Africaner79
    Africaner79 12 June 2020 07: 52 New
    +3
    Surprisingly agree with the senators. And I honestly do not understand the desire to replace the old weapons systems with new ones in some cases. Often a replacement for the sake of replacement to cut the loot.
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 12 June 2020 08: 04 New
      +2
      To our MO this also applies, even more so! They have at least brought to mind a new endeavor, but with us having thrown to the floor the paths begin to invent a new child prodigy
      1. dvina71
        dvina71 12 June 2020 08: 31 New
        +1
        Quote: Nehist
        and having thrown us on the floor, they begin to invent a new child prodigy

        For example?
        1. hydrox
          hydrox 12 June 2020 10: 42 New
          0
          Yes please!
          It has already been announced that the Su-57 is designed as a platform for the creation of a 6th generation fighter, and the plane has not yet been adopted for service and combat pilots do not yet have ANY opinion about its flight and combat qualities, and even less can express their opinion .
          1. dvina71
            dvina71 12 June 2020 10: 48 New
            +1
            Quote: hydrox
            Yes please!

            No, thank you, no.
            On June 27, during the ARMY-2019 International Military Technical Forum, a state contract was signed between the Ministry of Defense and the Sukhoi Company (part of the UAC) for the supply of a batch of 5th generation Su-57 fighters, the UAC press service reports.

            They didn’t leave halfway, they brought it to the serial ..
            About 6 pc.
            “It is not planned to create an unmanned version of the Su-57, but it tests individual systems of the sixth generation fighter, which in the basic version will be unmanned and only optionally manned,” a source in the aviation industry told TASS. He explained that we are talking about control equipment for the aircraft and its weapons, navigation equipment.
            1. hydrox
              hydrox 12 June 2020 11: 46 New
              -1
              I don’t put the cart in front of the horse and I do not recommend this to anyone ...
              The aircraft is not a combat aircraft, pilots do not have a raid and experience in combat use - what do the properties of a 6th generation apparatus look like on a flightless aircraft?
              1. dvina71
                dvina71 12 June 2020 19: 13 New
                +1
                Quote: hydrox
                I don’t put the cart in front of the horse and I do not recommend this to anyone ...

                And I conclude ... that you are not reading carefully yet ... Su-57 will not be 6 pcl .., it will work out equipment for the aircraft 6 pcl .. And what else?
  8. Vasyan1971
    Vasyan1971 12 June 2020 08: 03 New
    -1
    And against the background of all this, they are trying to giggle about our "antiques" ... wassat
    https://topwar.ru/172084-rossijskie-tu-95-proletevshie-rjadom-s-poberezhem-ssha-nazvali-antikvariatom.html
  9. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 12 June 2020 08: 04 New
    0
    Of course, senators know better what weapons to leave and what to write off ... Military, they don’t understand anything ... wassat
  10. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 12 June 2020 08: 14 New
    +4
    Something, but to call the A-10C "obsolete", the language doesn’t turn around. But if we are talking about the A-10A, then yes. That's just the A-10A is gone, all patched to A-10C.
    There is no replacement for the typewriter and is not expected, therefore it is impossible to cut it!
    1. dzvero
      dzvero 12 June 2020 09: 17 New
      0
      If you can’t, but really want to, then you can. Let's see if the military will be able to circumvent the Senate ban.
  11. Dmitry Makarov
    Dmitry Makarov 12 June 2020 08: 32 New
    -7
    A-10 is an excellent machine for suppressing Negro riots, it has a 6-barrel Vulcan cannon on it, the accuracy of fire is really low, but it is suitable for the destruction of mass protests.
    Senators are rooting, it will be necessary to protect their pitchforks and ranches from the impoverished black-and-white mess.
    1. Bad thing
      Bad thing 12 June 2020 09: 20 New
      0
      There is no volcano, there are 7 trunk trunks.
    2. Pete mitchell
      Pete mitchell 12 June 2020 13: 20 New
      +3
      Quote: Dmitry Makarov
      A-10 is a great car

      You should stop at that, then you would get a logical comment, and so everything else was written in vain ...
  12. Ros 56
    Ros 56 12 June 2020 09: 30 New
    -1
    Who among our liberals lisped about the old Su-25?
  13. APASUS
    APASUS 12 June 2020 09: 50 New
    0
    In the USA they recommend the Pentagon and the executive branch, and their recommendations are translated into laws. But in which case it is in the executive branch that they are looking for the guilty ................... paradox
  14. grumbler
    grumbler 12 June 2020 12: 57 New
    0
    There was a very informative article "Sabotage. The US Air Force is against the idea of ​​an easy attack aircraft" (https://topwar.ru/155817-sabotazh-vvs-ssha-protiv-idei-legkogo-shturmovika.html). The meaning of the [confrontation between the US Army and the Air Force. Coarsening: Army attack aircraft are needed to support the infantry. Afghanistan has shown this - ground groups need the ability to call for help - a tool high enough-speed (to quickly reach the place), but low-speed enough and able to barrage over the battlefield (to visually figure out where "on the spot" their own, and where enemy). Very survivable (as it often acts within the range of small arms destruction). And possessing firepower sufficient to crush the enemy and allow his infantry to complete the task.

    Thus, for now, - high-speed helicopters (such as Sikorsky S-97 Raider); UAV tactical support; barrage and adjustable ammunition; and their joint use, the attack aircraft did not completely supplant (although it is clear that everything will come to this), then the latter there’s nothing to replace on the battlefield (right now) .

    Plus, army attack aircraft are subordinate to the Army. And the Air Force wants to keep all of the aircraft in their hands (obviously they are more interested in buying expensive F-35s than relatively cheap attack aircraft). And there is also the Marine Corps, Naval Aviation with its specific requests. Everyone has their own requests, everyone has their own traditional suppliers and close ties (it is known that many American senior officers, retiring, go to work in the military-industrial complex and / or analytical structures that "determine the appearance", that is, determine what will be procure Army, Air Force, Fleet, ...).
  15. veritas
    veritas 12 June 2020 14: 55 New
    +1
    "More will serve": Senators forbid the Pentagon to reduce the number of A-10 attack aircraft in 2021

    The Pentagon did not share with the senators.
  16. toha124
    toha124 13 June 2020 19: 00 New
    0
    Online it’s fashionable to scold the concept of an armored attack aircraft. Say, such dinosaurs as SU-25 and A-10, due to leave the stage. Like, to keep such planes in service - this means preparing for the last war. But who told us that the war of the future will not be protracted and massive? But what if supporters of the small-scale war are preparing for their past wars - local conflicts of the second half of the 20th - the first XNUMX years of the XNUMXst century? Well, how if it rumbles in an adult way?

    Of course, the great war of 20XX will be little similar to September 1939 or June 1941. In its first days it will not. And if after that no one dares to press the "button"? And then the war will begin in the spirit of the unforgettable Tom Clancy. It is obvious that the shock capabilities of modern universal tactical aircraft are based solely on the power of guided weapons. But guided weapons have some drawbacks: they cost horse money, their production requires the efficient operation of hundreds of defense enterprises (which the enemy will obviously not spare), and there are not so many in warehouses (remember the results of the work of the anti-Qaddafi coalition aviation). That is, if the conflict drags on and is large enough, then guided missiles will quickly end, and their manufacture in wartime will be difficult in a known manner. They will quickly launch production of adjustable bombs based on existing stocks of cast iron. If they can. But not at once. And what - multi-functional fighters will hang at low altitudes above the battlefield?