The USAF's justification for getting rid of the A-10 is still weak. For Operation:USELESS DIRT missions, it still scores high.
---
Critics accuse Air Force of manipulating data to support A-10 retirement
Sprey notes that of the 121,653 close air support missions conducted, “93 percent of them never drop a weapon.” Sprey says the Air Force is “counting a whole lot of fluff.”
“The Air Force is counting these missions or these activities in a way that biases strongly against the A-10,” said Winslow Wheeler, a former congressional staffer with more than three decades of experience working for both Democrats and Republicans. Wheeler is now with the Project On Government Oversight, a non-profit watchdog organization.
The Air Force is “not counting sorties where actual munitions delivery actually occurs,” he said. And they are “not distinguishing” between bombing fixed points on the ground from 20,000 feet and supporting troops that are moving while under fire from an enemy in close proximity. Wheeler said it is in situations like this “that really count” and where the A-10 outperforms all other aircraft.
---
Editors Note: These questions were submitted by PBS NewsHour producer Dan
Sagalyn to the Air Force. The answers were provided by AFCENT, the U.S. Air Force’s
headquarters in the Middle East, known as Air Force Central Command.
FROM: U.S. Air Force Central Command
TO: Daniel Sagalyn, PBS NewsHour producer
SUBJECT: Answers to questions about A-10
DATES: April 2014
Dan – here are the answers to your questions– bottom line is that the 80% CAS [close
air support] numbers you’ve heard apply to aircraft performing the CAS mission in
Afghanistan and Iraq since 2006. The questions you’re asking below don’t correspond
to that 80% number exactly.
In order to clarify, how we got to the previously discussed 80% number, our total CAS
missions in Iraq and Afghanistan (2006 - October 2013) are:
A-10: 19%
F-16: 33%
F-15E: 12%
B-1B: 8%
All other US fixed wing 28%
The kinetic data in #7 below explains the situation over Afghanistan back to 2009 - so
when looking at the 80% number for Iraq and Afghanistan (which goes back to 2006) -
these numbers are apples to oranges comparison and should not be used together. In
other words, for the questions you have asked, we only have fidelity on the Afghanistan
piece, so please understand some of these numbers are not an apples to apples
comparison and are unique in of themselves in each question and answer.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: What are these other fixed wing aircraft? Please
provide a detailed breakdown of exactly what these aircraft are. Are they
AC-130, MQ-1? What are they?
ANSWER: Other aircraft in our database which are show to have conducted CAS
are the AC-130, AV-8B, F-18, MQ-1, and MQ-9.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: Also, what percentage do they contribute to the CAS
mission? page 2
F-18: 22%
AV-8B: 4%
MQ-9: 4%
AC-130: Less than 1%
MQ-1: Less than 1 %
The current numbers are below.
QUESTION 1: When Air Force officials say 80% of the close air support missions flown
in Afghanistan are done by aircraft that are not A-10s, what is the air force counting to
get to 80%? How are they calculating that number? What are the assumptions? And
over what time period?
ANSWER: The 80% I’ve seen referenced by Air Force leaders is based on CAS
missions overall in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2006 – not just Afghanistan.
Comparatively, for Afghanistan only, A-10s have accounted for 24% of the U.S. CAS
missions since 2006.
We tabulate from mission reports after each mission. From Jan 2006-July 2007 there is
less information available and we made the assumption that CAS type aircraft were
performing CAS missions. We also removed all ISR and ground alert missions which
did not launch. These numbers do not include rotary assets from the Air Force and
other services.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: If A-10s have accounted for 24% of US CAS, Aircraft
on Demand, and SOF missions in Afghanistan since 2006, what percentage of
CAS missions were flown by other aircraft during this time period, 2006 to
now ? Please give a breakdown of the percentages and the actual number of
CAS missions flown by each aircraft from 2006 to now in Afghanistan.
ANSWER: From 2006 to present, 76% of CAS missions flown in Afghanistan
specific were accomplished by aircraft other than the A-10. Below is a full
breakdown:
A-10: 24%
F-18: 21%
F-16: 18%
F-15: 16%
B-1B: 11%
MQ-9: 6%
AV-8B: 3%
AC-130 and MQ-1: less than 1% age 3
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: For the dates 2001 to December 31, 2005, please
provide the number of CAS, Aircraft on Demand, and SOF missions flown by
aircraft type and what percentage of CAS, Aircraft on Demand, and SOF these
missions constituted. Please be sure to provide the same date for all the
aircraft, by aircraft in the category you called "All other US Fixed Wing."
ANSWER: Unfortunately we do not have information prior to 2006 available in our
AFCENT Combined Air Operations Center database.
QUESTION 2. Does that 80% count flying hours of aircraft flying close air support
missions in Afghanistan? Or is it counting something else, not flying hours but
something else?
ANSWER: Again, from what I’ve seen, the 80% number referenced by Air Force leaders
is based on CAS missions overall in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2006.
The way we count is the number of CAS missions, not the amount of flying hours. For
example, in Afghanistan right now, on one CAS mission two A-10s are typically planned
to fly 3-hours of CAS coverage whereas one B-1 will be planned to provide 6-hours of
CAS coverage, which does not include transit times. The reason we don't include flying
hours for this "CAS Mission" is because an A-10 could be departing its base at Bagram
Airfield relatively close to the fighting in an RC-E engagement; whereas a B-1 bomber
could be supporting a CAS requirement from a location based outside of Afghanistan.
The number includes missions, not hours.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: In this example, are you counting the two A-10s that
fly 3-hour CAS coverage as 1 mission or 2?
ANSWER: One mission.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: In this metric are you ever counting F-16 or F-15
missions as one mission when their might be two or more aircraft flying
together?
ANSWER: If F-16s or F-15Es are flying a 2-ship mission, it is counted as only one
mission. It is exactly the same for the A-10s.
QUESTION 3. If this 80% number is counting flying hours, which flying hours are being
counted? Does the clock begin when the aircraft takes off and stop when the aircraft
lands? Or does the clock start and stop only when the aircraft is over Afghanistan?
age 4
ANSWER: The numbers do not include flying hours. However, in the example given
above, the planned coverage does not include transit time.
QUESTION 4: Yes or no, does that 80% include aircraft flying that never attack targets
on the ground?
ANSWER: Yes; there are various methods used to achieve effects on the battlefield
which do not require weapons to be used.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: What are the various methods used to achieve effects
on the battlefield aircraft use when flying close air support missions?
ANSWER: This is a doctrinal answer and is best answered by Air Combat Command.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: Of the 80% CAS missions, how many missions involved
never attacking a target with ordnance?
ANSWER: The percentage of missions, aircraft specific, with an ordinance dropped is
classified. However, I'd encourage you to look at the overall theater of
operations data (March specific) online at:
http://www.afcent.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140320-002.pdf . You can
see historic figures from 2010-2014. For example, February of 2014 weapons
releases are down from 297 the year prior to 114 this year. A recent high
was in 2011 (341).
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: Between 2006 to the present, what percentage of B-1
CAS, Aircraft on Demand, and SOF missions involved no expenditure of
ordnance? Please also provide the number of missions flown.
ANSWER: *See answer to question 8.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: Between 2006 to the present, what percentage of F-16
CAS, Aircraft on Demand, and SOF missions involved no expenditure of
ordnance? Please also provide the number of missions flown.
ANSWER: *See answer to question 8.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: Between 2006 to the present, what percentage of F-15
CAS, Aircraft on Demand, and SOF missions involved no expenditure of
ordnance? Please also provide the number of missions flown. age 5
ANSWER: *See answer to question 8.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: Between 2006 to the present, what percentage of FA-18
CAS, Aircraft on Demand, and SOF missions involved no expenditure of
ordnance? Please also provide the number missions flown.
ANSWER: *See answer to question 8.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: Between 2006 to the present, what percentage of A-10
CAS, Aircraft on Demand, and SOF missions involved no expenditure of
ordnance? Please also provide the number missions flown.
ANSWER: *See answer to question 8.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: please provide the same data I've asked for in
question 9A for all the aircraft in the category you've called "all other US
Fixed Wing."
ANSWER: *See answer to question 8.
QUESTION 5: Does that 80% include Aircraft on Demand missions? Yes or No?
ANSWER: Yes, the number includes airborne alert aircraft on-call to provide CAS
effects. Ground alert CAS missions that were not used, were not figured into these
totals.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: Does the 80% count A-10s flown in support of Special
Operation Forces? I've been told that SOCOM missions are listed on the Air
Tasking Order as SOF, not CAS. Is that true?
ANSWER: The percentage includes all of the A-10 missions, regardless of who has
asked for them.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION: When you look at all the missions the A-10 has flown
in Afghanistan since 2006, what percentage of the missions are not called
Close Air Support? What are other missions A-10s fly that are not called
Close Air Support?
ANSWER: The percentage includes all of the A-10 missions. page 6
QUESTION 6: What is the percentage of Aircraft on Demand missions flown by A-10s
during the same time period as the 80% number?
ANSWER: The recorded mission type is categorized as CAS and does not differentiate
with respect to airborne alert aircraft on-call to provide CAS effects.
QUESTION 7. What percentage of kinetic events in support of troops in contact are
conducted by A-10s, F-15, F-16, B-1 during the same time period as the 80% number?
Please provide a breakdown of the percentage of kinetic events for each type of aircraft.
ANSWER: The kinetics data we track only goes back to 2009 and is for Afghanistan.
We did not include Iraq because our statistics are only tracked back to 2009. A-10s
have accounted for 29% of TICs (troops in contact) which involved kinetics. This
number is for only fixed wing aircraft and does not include rotary aircraft. This is
another area where it doesn’t work to compare these stats below to the 80% number
referenced in other venues.
A-10: 29%
F-15: 25%
F-16: 19%
B-1: 13%
F-18: 8%
Other fixed wing aircraft: 6%
Comparatively, for each unique target, some of which are not associated with TICs
(troops in contact), A-10s account for 24%. To be specific, this data accounts for each
specific target irrespective of how many passes or munitions were required. This is a
more accurate assessment for achieving positive kinetic effects.
A-10: 24%
F-15: 18%
F-16: 17%
B-1: 11%
F-18: 11%
Other fixed wing aircraft: 19%
Provided by:
VR//
Major David Faggard
Director of Public Affairs
U.S. Air Forces Central Command (Shaw)
9th Air Force age 7
&
ADAM J. GREGORY, Capt, USAF
Media Operations Chief, Air Forces Central Command Public Affairs
Macintosh HD:Users:danielsagalyn:Desktop:Afcent answers combined 1 to be posted with story
REV 2.docx
No comments:
Post a Comment