Pierre Sprey and I have authored an analysis of Secretary of Defense Chuck
Hagel's statements this past Monday on the A-10. It follows:
Chuck Hagel's A-10
Legacy
By Winslow T. Wheeler
& Pierre M. Sprey
When he spoke
about next year's defense budget on February 24, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel
addressed his decision to go along with the Air Force and retire all existing
A-10 close air support aircraft.
In that statement, he made the following
assertions:
·
"To
fund these investments [the new long range bomber, the new tanker and the F-35],
the Air Force will reduce the number of tactical air squadrons including the
entire A-10 fleet. Retiring the A-10 fleet saves $3.5 billion over five years
and accelerates the Air Force's long-standing modernization plan - which called
for replacing the A-10s with the more capable F-35 in the early 2020s."
·
"The
'Warthog' is a venerable platform, and this was a tough decision. But the A-10
is a 40-year-old single-purpose airplane originally designed to kill enemy tanks
on a Cold War battlefield. It cannot survive or operate effectively where there
are more advanced aircraft or air defenses. And as we saw in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the advent of precision munitions means that many more types of
aircraft can now provide effective close air support, from B-1 bombers to
remotely piloted aircraft. And these aircraft can execute more than one
mission."
·
"Moreover,
the A-10's age is also making it much more difficult and costly to maintain.
Significant savings are only possible through eliminating the entire fleet,
because of the fixed cost of maintaining the support apparatus associated with
the aircraft. Keeping a smaller number of A-10s would only delay the inevitable
while forcing worse trade-offs elsewhere."
Many of these statements are questionable; several are poorly informed;
at least one of them is materially incorrect.
In saying "the
A-10's age is also making it much more difficult and costly to maintain," Hagel
is implying, if not saying directly, that the A-10's "40-year" age is making it
so expensive compared to other aircraft that it makes little sense to keep on
throwing so many more dollars at the program.
The
Air Force maintains a data base on the cost to operate and support its
aircraft. It's called the "AFCAP"
database which is a part of the Air Force's Total Ownership Cost (AFTOC)
program. It is available on public
request from the Air Force Comptroller's office. Data from the 2013 version of the AFCAP
database, the latest available, is at the POGO website at http://www.pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/08/03.xls.
We
have worked with this annually available data for the last few years, using it
for analysis, reports and articles.
While it has not been yet verified by an independent audit by an outsider
like GAO, it is the most comprehensive data available on the operating and
support costs for Air Force aircraft. It includes all known Air Force costs to
keep its aircraft operating, as well as contractor supplied logistics and
services. One variation of the
cost estimates, known as "Ownership" cost, even includes the cost to modify
aircraft with upgrades.
(If
you are hoping for a peek into the cost to support the F-35A, you will be
disappointed. As it was explained
to us the F-35 data is too incomplete and preliminary; none of it is yet
available. Moreover, flying costs
for programs in their early stages are typically astronomical, and the Air Force
is hardly enthusiastic about releasing preliminary data that will stun even the
skeptics of the controversial F-35 program.)
The
data for every operational aircraft in the inventory are available,
however. The data address multiple
issues: the total and operational number in each fleet of aircraft types, the
number of hours each fleet has flown in a given year; the total cost to operate
each type, and-perhaps most usefully-the cost per flying hour (CPFH) for each
type of aircraft. It is the latter
that amortizes total operating costs across each aircraft in each fleet and
gives an apples to apples comparison across different aircraft types; it is a
measure that has been used inside DOD by specialists for decades; that it is
publically available is significant.
The
Air Force contends that fighter-bomber and even long range-heavy bomber aircraft
can perform the close air support mission effectively enough to allow the A-10,
and its "difficult and costly" maintenance burden, to be fully retired. Thus, it would be appropriate to
compare the A-10's cost per flying hour to both existing fighter-bomber and long
range bomber types, both stealthy and un-stealthy-for those who think stealth is
an essential survivability characteristic on modern battlefields (more on that
later).
See
the data, from the Air Force Comptroller's office in the figure
below.
At
an "Ownership" cost per flying hour (CPFH) of $19,736, the A-10 is the cheapest
in the inventory of aircraft the Air Force asserts is capable of close air
support. All other aircraft, including the most prevalent version of the ground
attack-capable C-130, are almost twice or more to operate-except for the
F-16C/D, which at $22,954 is only slightly higher than the A-10.
A-10 operating costs have been just above or just below their 2013 level
for years, making the statement "age is also making it much more difficult and
costly to maintain" nonsense.
Note
the extraordinary costs to operate stealth aircraft.
The F-22 costs $68,262 for every hour of flight, and it has cost close to
or above that level for every year of its operational existence.
2013 is no outlier. Note
also the astronomical cost to operate the B-2A: $152,871 for each hour of
flight. However, it is
lunatic to think that the Air Force would be willing to consider trading in
either of those aircraft to preserve the A-10.
On
the other hand, consider the B-1B.
The Air Force is just beginning $1.8 billion dollars in electronics
upgrades for the B-1B, and Air Force Comptroller data shows that operating the
B-1B fleet of 66 aircraft currently already costs $1.4 billion, or more, per
year. Ever since its debut in
1986, the B-1B has been beset with major problems: it
failed to meet its range threshold and has a combat radius 24 percent
less than a B-52;
it failed to meet its stealth requirement; its supersonic dash capability is so
short as to be unusable; it has a high accident rate; its major electronics
problems began long before the current upgrade, and it is only "mission capable"
57.9 percent of the time (compared to 75.3 percent for the
B-52). The Air Force has already retired a third of the fleet
and has completely withdrawn it from any nuclear missions-for
which it was originally designed.
Given
the B-52H fleet's better performance, higher reliability and superior utility in
both conventional and nuclear missions, we would lose much less combat
capability if we retired the B-1B fleet rather than the A-10, and we would save
every bit of the $3.5 billion that Secretary Hagel says he needs from retiring
the A-10.
Moreover,
the A-10 has just finished a major and expensive program to give the aircraft a new wing;
to retire it now would be to squander the $1.1 billion just spent.
Other upgrades are also just now being installed for the A-10
program.
The
uniquely low cost of the A-10 aside, it is widely held conventional wisdom that
the A-10 cannot survive on the modern battlefield.
Secretary Hagel expressed that widespread thinking by saying, "It cannot
survive or operate effectively where there are more advanced aircraft or air
defenses." And, it is well beyond the pale of conventional thinking to assert
that the A-10 can survive as effectively as stealth aircraft.
That
presumed sagacity is contradicted by the facts.
In
Operation Desert Storm in 1991, six A-10s or OA-10s were shot down and 14 were
significantly damaged. Meanwhile
no stealth F-117s were either killed or damaged, and they were the only aircraft
to penetrate what the Air Force described as the heaviest air defenses of the
Iraqi air defense system over downtown Baghdad.
Doesn't
that prove the conventional wisdom?
In
a 235 page unclassified report, GAO extensively assessed the Desert Storm Air
War. That report
evaluated the aircraft survivability data in some detail.
The casualty figures cited above are indeed accurate, but GAO also found
that the stealthy F-117 flew so few combat sorties and the A-10s flew so many
that their survival rates were statistically indistinguishable: GAO found
that "This calculation showed that 0 hits would be the most likely outcome for a
non-stealthy aircraft [including the A-10] conducting 1,788 strikes [the number
of missions performed by the F-117]. This indicates that although there were no
F-117 casualties in Desert Storm, the difference between its survivability and
other aircraft may arise from its smaller number of strikes as much as other
factors."
GAO
also found the total casualty rate
of the A-10 (for aircraft both shot down and damaged) was extremely low, just
0.0023 aircraft per sortie, and that it was zero for the missions the A-10 flew
at night-the only environment the F-117 was able to operate in.
Significantly, the A-10 flew sorties more frequently at night than did
the F-117, and it faced both daytime and nighttime defenses more lethal than the
type deployed around "downtown Baghdad" that the F-117 typically flew against,
according to GAO.
While
it may fly in the face of accepted wisdom in Washington that the A-10 is too
slow and primitive to survive modern air defenses, it has already survived such
defenses, precisely as it was designed to. In addition, it has done so at a rate
that equals or exceeds that of more sophisticated (complex and expensive)
aircraft, such as the F-117. And,
there is reason to believe that if a thin-skinned and highly flammable aircraft
like the F-35 attempted to perform all elements of the close support mission, it
would prove far, far more vulnerable than the A-10.
Third,
as it has in multiple conflicts, the A-10 also flew multiple mission types in
Desert Storm, including not just tank busting and close support against infantry
but suppression of enemy air defenses, combat search and rescue, battlefield
search, and even air-to-air combat-against helicopters, against which the A-10
is extremely lethal. GAO also
found the A-10 to be extraordinarily effective against that wide variety of
targets, just as Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans persistently report it is
today.
In
1991, Iraqi war prisoners told DOD interviewers that the A-10 was one of two
aircraft they feared the most; the other was the B-52.
Also,
while no one was looking, the A-10 has been totally modernized, now using a
variety of guided munitions, the latest video displays and improved radios,
essential for direct contact with troops-and missing from other Air Force
aircraft.
To
dismiss the A-10 as an ancient "single-purpose airplane originally designed to
kill enemy tanks on a Cold War battlefield" is hogwash.
The
fourth key element of Secretary Hagel's argument against the A-10 is that "the
advent of precision munitions means that many more types of aircraft can now
provide effective close air support."
That statement ignores essential elements of the close support mission.
Far
more than hitting a specific target list is involved, if and when guided
munitions, such as GPS-guided JDAMs or laser guided bombs (LGBs), can do
that. (In its study of the Desert
Storm Air War, GAO found that LGBs could not be used in any adverse weather
conditions--or even Persian Gulf levels of humidity--or against certain types of
targets. The probability that a
technologically competent enemy will render GPS guidance unusable in the future
is considered high by experts.)
More
importantly, as pilots and ground force leaders made clear at two seminars on close air support in late
2013,
there are essential elements to the close support mission that high speed, high
altitude, delicate, multi-role fighter-bombers and long range heavy bombers can
do only poorly or not at all.
Due
to their un-maneuverability and vulnerability to small arms fire, bombers and
high speed jets cannot operate in mountain valleys or under 1000 foot cloud
ceilings, exactly the conditions enemy forces favor for attacks against our
troops. Video, radar and infra-red sensors in high speed planes at 10,000 feet
and above have resolution too poor to reliably find targets requested by ground
troops or to find threatening targets the troops can't see. Nor can they safely
separate friends from enemies, or combatants from civilians.
Even
more importantly, effective close support requires pilots who have an intimate
understanding of ground tactics and the constantly shifting ground
battle--skills obtainable only through specialized and dedicated close support
training and combat experience.
Crucial is direct, constant professional exchange with ground troops
("living in each others' arm pits") to develop the bonds and implicit
communication essential to cope effectively with the split second decisions and
stress of land combat. A-10
pilots, focusing only on supporting ground combat, do these things as a matter
of routine. Multi-role fighter pilots, let alone long range bomber pilots, do
none of that. The dispersal of
this uniquely skilled close air support A-10 pilot cadre will be the biggest
loss of all if the air force gets its way on the a-10 controversy.
It is that which Secretary Hagel seems to understand the least.
As
a combat veteran and non-commissioned officer of the Vietnam War, Chuck Hagel
should understand these things. It
would seem that he suffers not from the fog of war but from the miasma of being
too long at the upper regions of politics and from the sludge being served up to
him by Air force leaders too eager to drop their moral obligation to American
soldiers and marines engaged in combat-now or in the future.
Mediocre close air support is not what those troops deserve.
We should like to see what Secretary Hagel tells the family of the next
American serviceman killed in action because he let the brass convince him our
country could only give soldiers and marines second rate
support.
The
A-10 should stay in the inventory of the American armed forces for however many
years it takes for us to field a plane that does an even better job of
supporting the troops.
Winslow
T. Wheeler is the Director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project
on Government Oversight. He spent
31 years working for the Government Accountability Office and both Republican
and Democratic Senators on national security
issues.
Pierre M. Sprey, together with Air Force Cols John Boyd
and Everest Riccioni, brought to fruition the F-16; he also led the design team
for the A-10 and helped implement the program. He is one of a very small
number of Pentagon insiders who started the military reform movement in the late
1960s. 
Posts
“Bugging
out” is exactly what our friends and foes alike in the greater Middle
East think the United States is doing after more than a decade of war in
the region. And perceptions are just as important as realities in
international politics. Players in the region saw that the United States
withdrew its forces from Iraq in 2011 only to have the country return
to the grips of sectarian violence. Many anticipate that the United
States is soon to do the same by leaving few, if any, forces in
Afghanistan to significantly increase the prospects for an upswing in
Taliban violence.
