After years of obstruction, Congress is finally approving the Air Force’s plan to retire the A-10 Thunderbolt. That is the best call, because the A-10 is not any longer suited to America’s geostrategic needs. Nevertheless, we should always not simply get rid of this venerable plane; within the hands of our international partners, it might proceed advancing the national interest.
The U.S. government created the A-10 within the Nineteen Seventies to supply close-air support to American ground troops. On the time it was an efficient counterweight to the specter of Soviet tanks, and within the many years because it has served the military faithfully.
The A-10 proved especially useful within the Gulf War, when it flew 8,100 sorties and destroyed 1000’s of Soviet-era combat vehicles and equipment. Later, it helped the U.S. destroy hardened enemy positions within the war on terrorism.
But major military operations within the Middle East have ceased. Today, our biggest adversary is communist China, whose tanks and emplacements are rather more advanced than those utilized by the Soviets or Islamic terrorists.
To arrange to counter Beijing in a future conflict, we must make one of the best possible use of our limited hangar space and procurement dollars. To do this, we must retire the A-10, as senior military leaders have called for. This may make room for aircraft just like the F-35 Lightning II, and free funds for the event and construction of next-generation missiles and missile defense systems, which shall be invaluable in any future Indo-Pacific conflict, whether that’s in Taiwan, the South China Sea or the Korean Peninsula.
Nevertheless, the A-10 can still do quite a lot of good if transferred to allies and partners in need of it. Probably the most obvious example is Ukraine, which is preparing to mount a counteroffensive against Soviet-era tanks and entrenched Russian positions.
On the recent G7 summit, President Joe Biden stated he supports training Ukrainian forces to operate F-16 Fighting Falcons, a primary step to allies providing the planes to Ukraine. But even when we accept the president’s position, there’s good reason to wonder if an air-to-air fighter makes essentially the most sense. Ukraine’s defense intelligence chief, for one, believes Ukraine would fare higher with A-10s. Furthermore, F-16s require 6,000 feet of tarmac — increasingly rare in bombed-out Ukraine — to take off and land, while A-10s only require 4,000 feet of dirt runway.
Beyond Ukraine, potential beneficiaries of an A-10 transfer program include African countries within the Sahel fighting ISIS and Boko Haram, and even Latin American nations combating paramilitary rebels and drug cartels within the jungle.
Such a program could be neither unprecedented nor unusual. The U.S. manufactures and sells vehicles and platforms the U.S. military not uses on a semi-regular basis. For example, production of the A-29 Super Tucano employs a whole lot of Floridians in Jacksonville and supports counterterrorism operations in Africa and Colombia.
Simply put, phasing out the A-10 by transferring it to allies and partners is the smart thing to do. Not only would it not help America adapt to the challenges of the twenty first century, it will also help our friends confront their very own challenges without deep U.S. intervention. That’s killing two birds with one stone — one of the best sort of public policy.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is vice chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and services on the Foreign Relations Committee.