The Shift in Close Air Support Strategy: The US Air Force and the A-10 Thunderbolt II

There's a significant debate surrounding the role of the A-10 Thunderbolt II in close air support (CAS) missions. Some argue that the US Air Force (USAF) should continue relying on the A-10, while others suggest that the US Army should assume this critical role. This article explores the reasons behind the USAF's decision to retire the A-10 and the potential for the US Army to take over the mission effectively.

The USAF's Decision and Its Justifications

The USAF is not abandoning the support of ground troops. Rather, it is retiring the A-10 Thunderbolt II due to its specialized nature and limited future applicability. The A-10 was designed to target Russian tanks during a hypothetical conflict in Europe, a scenario that has now largely become obsolete. While the A-10 remains effective against terrorists on camels and in pickup trucks, its primary weapon, the 30 mm Gatling gun, is considered overkill for these situations. This decision also aligns with budgetary considerations, as the A-10 is generally considered to be less cost-effective than other aircraft for most missions.

Why the US Army Might Be a Better Option

The US Army has its own fleet of helicopters that are highly effective for CAS missions. Helicopters provide reliable support and are more versatile than the A-10 for many battlefield scenarios. The Army's extensive helicopter fleet, including Blackhawk and Apache helicopters, can be quickly mobilized to support ground troops. This flexibility makes these aircraft more suitable for a wide range of missions, including ADA (Air Defense Artillery) and medical evacuation.

A Historical Perspective: The USAF-USA Army Compartmentalization

The historical agreement between the US Army and the USAF regarding fixed-wing aircraft is worth noting. After the Vietnam War, the US Army fielded several fixed-wing aircraft for observation and special operations support. However, an agreement was made that the Army would be prohibited from fielding fixed-wing aircraft, regardless of the mission. This agreement aimed to prevent command and control issues and overlapping responsibilities in airspace utilization.

While the agreement may have been a necessary measure at the time, it has since proven to be outdated. The USAF and US Army operate in different silos, and this disconnect can be problematic when it comes to coordinating air support. The USAF doesn't fully understand the CAS mission and the need for a specialized aircraft like the A-10. However, the USAF's decision is driven more by a cost-benefit analysis from their perspective, which may not align with the needs of ground troops.

Conclusion: The Way Forward

While the US Army has the capability to take over the close air support mission, it's important to recognize that this shift would require substantial reorganization and training. The US Air Force will need to provide the necessary support and coordination to ensure a smooth transition. The effectiveness of this mission will depend on integrating the US Army's aerial assets with the existing air support infrastructure.

In summary, the USAF's decision to retire the A-10 Thunderbolt II is a reflection of changing priorities and budget constraints. While the US Army has the potential to effectively support ground troops through its helicopter fleet, a seamless integration of these assets will be crucial. The path forward involves reevaluating the current compartmentalization between the US Army and the USAF and finding ways to enhance cooperation and coordination in the future.