It’s Too Soon to Cut Funding for A-10s, Lawmakers Say

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H, walks to a meeting with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on October 14, 2013

Evan Vucci/AP

AA Font size + Print

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H, walks to a meeting with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on October 14, 2013

The A-10’s capabilities are too great to pass off to jets and too cheap for the Pentagon to turn its back on the fleet just yet, according to eight senators. By Ben Watson

Eight leading senators appealed to the Senate Appropriations Committee to save the Air Force’s controversial A-10 aircraft fleet from the Pentagon budget’s chopping block as lawmakers inch closer to a final draft of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015. The proposal to retire the fleet of 353 A-10s, Air Force officials have said repeatedly in both interviews and recent testimony on Capitol Hill, will save the service more than $3.7 billion of the $12 billion mandated by sequestration.

“There is no doubt that the Air Force confronts difficult budget decisions,” the letter, published Friday and signed by Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., as well as six other Republicans and one Democrat, reads. “However, cutting the Air Force’s most combat-effective and cost-efficient CAS [or, close air support] aircraft is not the best way to address those challenges.”

The question of how to manage the mandatory budget cuts imposed by sequestration has plagued the Air Force for months. Some of the most persistent criticism has come from Ayotte, whose husband, Joe Daley, is a former A-10 pilot who flew combat missions in Iraq.

“The Pentagon’s decision to recommend the early retirement of the A-10 before a viable replacement achieves full operational capability is a serious mistake based on poor analyses and bad assumptions,” Ayotte said in a statement in February.

The A-10, the senators said, “is the Air Force’s most cost-efficient CAS aircraft. According to the Air Force, the operational cost per flying hour for the A-10—which takes into account sustainment costs—is significantly below the F-15E, F-16, B-1, AC-130, or the B-52.”

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh has explained the decision in multiple interviews, calling it “clearly the lowest-risk option.”

“It’s not emotional. It’s logical, it’s analytical,” Welsh said. “It makes eminent sense from a military perspective – if you have to make these kinds of cuts. Nobody likes it. Not me, nobody.”

(Read More: Future Threats Will Require Much More Than the A-10)

In their letter, the senators agree that the A-10 will eventually have to be replaced. “However, we should not divest the A-10 until a capable replacement reaches full operational capability. The Air Force believes the F-35A will assume the current roles of the F-16 and the A-10 as it replaces them in the fleet.  Yet, the F-35A is not scheduled to achieve full operational capability before 2021—leaving at least a two-year gap between the final divestment of the A-10 and its planned replacement achieving full operational capability,” the letter said.

(Related: Air Force Chief Explains Why He’s Retiring the A-10)

On Monday, the House Armed Services Committee attempted to forge something of a compromise on the question of the A-10 when it released its NDAA markup for FY 2015. That markup stops short of the Air Force’s recommendation to fully divest the A-10 fleet. Instead, House members are leaving a door open to lawmakers like Ayotte by opting to put the entire fleet in what’s called type-1000 storage—rendering them ready to be called upon if needed.

Close [ x ] More from DefenseOne

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Ongoing Efforts in Veterans Health Care Modernization

    This report discusses the current state of veterans health care

  • Modernizing IT for Mission Success

    Surveying Federal and Defense Leaders on Priorities and Challenges at the Tactical Edge

  • Top 5 Findings: Security of Internet of Things To Be Mission-Critical

    As federal agencies increasingly leverage these capabilities, government security stakeholders now must manage and secure a growing number of devices, including those being used remotely at the “edge” of networks in a variety of locations. With such security concerns in mind, Government Business Council undertook an indepth research study of federal government leaders in January 2017. Here are five of the key takeaways below which, taken together, paint a portrait of a government that is increasingly cognizant and concerned for the future security of IoT.

  • Coordinating Incident Response on Posts, Camps and Stations

    Effective incident response on posts, camps, and stations is an increasingly complex challenge. An effective response calls for seamless conversations between multiple stakeholders on the base and beyond its borders with civilian law enforcement and emergency services personnel. This whitepaper discusses what a modern dispatch solution looks like -- one that brings together diverse channels and media, simplifies the dispatch environment and addresses technical integration challenges to ensure next generation safety and response on Department of Defense posts, camps and stations.

  • Forecasting Cloud's Future

    Conversations with Federal, State, and Local Technology Leaders on Cloud-Driven Digital Transformation


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.