End looms for US Air Force's 'Warthog' ground-attack jet [Archive]

ORAC

14th Dec 2013, 13:54

A-10 Supporters Include Protective Language in NDAA (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131212/DEFREG02/312120009/A-10-Supporters-Include-Protective-Language-NDAA)

WASHINGTON — Proponents of the A-10 close air support aircraft have inserted language into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that should protect the plane through the end of 2014.

Section 143 of the bill also protects Northrop Grumman’s RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV from further cuts, the latest blow to Air Force attempts to divest itself of the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platform.

The language prohibits that any funds appropriated by the NDAA “or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2014 for the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended to make significant changes to manning levels with respect to covered aircraft or to retire, prepare to retire, or place in storage a covered aircraft.”

In plain terms, that means that if the NDAA passes as is, the Air Force will be unable to spend any money to prepare to divest itself of either the A-10 or the RQ-4 for fiscal 2014. To drive the point home, further language stipulates that the same rule applies to the A-10 through the end of calendar 2014 as well, ensuring that the first three months of fiscal 2015 are covered as well.............

Speaking Wednesday at the American Enterprise Institute, Gen. Mark Welsh, Air Force chief of staff, expressed frustrations with what he called a “strange situation.”

“I find myself arguing to get rid of things that I don’t want to get rid of to pay a bill we’ve been handed, and the people telling me I can’t give up anything to pay it are the people who gave us the bill,” said Welsh, a former A-10 pilot himself. “You can’t continue to defend everything and pay a $1.3 trillion bill. It won’t work.”.........

DITYIWAHP

14th Dec 2013, 13:54

@500N

I believe that the damage you can see was caused by an exploding artillery shell or SAM - the lines of small holes are consistent with such a fragmentation pattern. I was also in Jaber that night and heard the reports of what happened to the A-10 but I never got to see the jet first hand (I was a bit busy....).

ORAC

14th Dec 2013, 14:03

They don't bring them all home.....

mD3Y_Qcqulw

500N

14th Dec 2013, 14:04

Dity

Thanks for that.

I have just gone and done a search and found a write up of what she was hit with
and apart from numerous bullets and shrapnel from AA, it was a SAM that almost brought her down.

500N

14th Dec 2013, 14:23

ORAC

14th Dec 2013, 14:35

(I think it said the first one died trying, the second one
the aircraft broke up and fireman pulled him from the burning wreckage).

OA-10 77-0197 (Destroyed) (http://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/abdr-197.htm)

A-10 79-0181 (Destroyed) (http://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/abdr-181.htm)

500N

14th Dec 2013, 14:44

ORAC, thanks.

racedo

14th Dec 2013, 15:18

TinyURL to the rescue:

From the archives: The OIF story of "Killer Chick" ~ Warthog News (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmilitary-aircrew%2F529840-end-looms-us-air-forces-warthog-ground-attack-jet.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2Fmm24b8f&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmilitary-aircrew-57%2F)

Lady drive with PMT..............

Jokes aside coming back in that state bet ground crew just looked and said, its ok will buff out.

Kudos to anybody bringing it back in a state like that. :D:D:D

Love the Warthog as its one of those aircraft where its stated intention is clear, no nice lines, no PR needed, just in your face with attitude.

racedo

14th Dec 2013, 15:27

In reading up on Kim Campbell, I notice that she is one of the few pilots
to have landed an A-10 in manual authority ? and one of the few to have
survived doing it (I think it said the first one died trying, the second one
the aircraft broke up and fireman pulled him from the burning wreckage).

I do like that aircraft.

Me too

If it was a current movie it would be a party where everybody dressed in Tuxs and someone comes in badly dressed, bad haircut and just walks to the bar and orders a beer when everyone drinking champagne after parking on the manicured lawns.
Then lady of the house walks up, smiles and just says "Nice parking".

If it was a western movie it would be the cowboy who everybody hates but wants on their side and when turns up the gunslingers get religion and gamblers get honest.

If a TV series it would be Jack Bauer/Chuck Norris but without sense of humour and easy going attitude.

Self Loading Freight

14th Dec 2013, 15:57

In the mid-80s, I worked at Milton Hall just north-east of Cambridge. The first I ever knew that such a thing as an A-10 existed was when I looked out of the office window and saw one go past just below eye level. (Milton Hall is the highest point for miles around).

Left a profound impression. The only way they could be more terrifying was if they also played the bagpipes... don't know what they do to the henemy, but...

Turbine D

14th Dec 2013, 17:28

The Warthog was one of the greatest airplanes to have been designed for a specific combat mission. It was designed around the gatling gun, 19 1/2 feet long that took up nearly all of the forward fuselage cavity. Every thought was given to what the A-10 was intended to do in combat with emphasis on survival of plane and pilot. One of my early career assignments was to design the casting process for the gun's projectile transfer housing, a complex casting. Later, I worked on turbine blade casting designs and various casting issues.

I think the one video showing the pilot ejecting and subsequent plane crash was a testing mission where the oxygen-free gaseous discharge from the gun was ingested into at least one of the TF34 engines, causing it to flameout. This was an early problem on the Warthog and was solved by re-designed engine combustor igniters that came on automatically when the gun was fired.

http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q609/DaveK72/gau-8-a-30mm-gatlin-gun-vw-beetle-comparison_zps24833185.jpg (http://s1166.photobucket.com/user/DaveK72/media/gau-8-a-30mm-gatlin-gun-vw-beetle-comparison_zps24833185.jpg.html)

MadsDad

14th Dec 2013, 17:40

SLF. I had a similar 'low level' encounter with the A10. At my MILs house in Suffolk I was on the first floor (floor 2 for the cousins) when I heard a noise. Looked out of the window to see 2 A10s flying towards the house. They climbed over the house* then I turned to the opposite window to watch them descend and carry on at first floor height across the fields opposite.

(* If they hadn't climbed you would have read about it at the time).

500N

14th Dec 2013, 19:07

Decided to re read the Wiki page on it which I had done before
and Turbine's "The Warthog was one of the greatest airplanes to have been designed for a specific combat mission"

1967 Request for information
1969 detailed specifications for the proposed A-X project including
The specifications also demanded that each aircraft cost less than $3 million :rolleyes:

1970 More detailed RFP
May 1972 first flew
June 1973 Gun selected
October 1975 first production A-10 flew
March 1976 deliveries to the Air Force commenced
March 1977 Introduction

Not a bad time frame at all.

racedo

14th Dec 2013, 20:20

500N

Given it was designed specifically (correct if wrong) for European Theatre against Soviet and Warsaw Pacts armour then it was a needed as soon as possible just in case.

Kinda glad never required as Stage 2 was some buckets of sunshine and that can really ruin lunch.

$ for $ its probably one of most effective US planes in last 50 years with a tendency to make problems in front just go away.

500N

14th Dec 2013, 20:36

"$ for $ its probably one of most effective US planes in last 50 years with a tendency to make problems in front just go away."

Yes, although my info is all anecdotal, others like you probably have
a far better insight.

I wonder if the Apache also fits into that criteria.

Over the full life, would the F14, F15 and F16 be considered
good value for money ?

mmciau

14th Dec 2013, 20:46

What was the shell size/dimension for the Gatling?

500N

14th Dec 2013, 20:53

I didn't realise that the same gun that is in the A10 is also
the gun used by the Goalkeeper CIWS.

19 feet long :rolleyes:

Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling cannon with 1,174 rounds

up to 4,200 rpm (rounds per minute)

GAU-8 Avenger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger)

MightyGem

14th Dec 2013, 21:03

Ha! Recollect trying that at Leeming - except they weren't A10s
So, what was it that looked like an A10, but wasn't.

galaxy flyer

14th Dec 2013, 21:12

ORAC,

The A-10 -1 (flight manual) specifically stated that a manual reversion, single-engine landing hadn't been tested and may NOT be possible. It recommended ejection, which should have done in 0197's case.

GF

racedo

14th Dec 2013, 21:24

Over the full life, would the F14, F15 and F16 be considered
good value for money ?

My point was at €3 M a pop v €13 M for first apaches value for money view.

Interesting that Hans-Ulrich Rudel of Luftwaffe WW2 was used as a reference point in development of A10.

air pig

14th Dec 2013, 21:39

SASless,

I would suppose the RAF is exactly the same....except it does not have a real CAS aircraft in the Inventory anymore.

Maybe the RAF would give 80 or 90 of the reworked ones a good home, after all we foolishly sold you the GR 9 Harriers, damn politicians. Don't suppose the the US Army would find a home for them as a tag team for the Apache's or is that in the too hard box.

racedo

14th Dec 2013, 21:51

If all A10's become Air National Guard then that avoids their deletion................correct ?

As ANG is State Govenors plaything funded by US Senators from the state.....that is my understanding of it but perhaps some in the know will clarify.

Turbine D

14th Dec 2013, 23:59

Over the full life, would the F14, F15 and F16 be considered
good value for money ?

IMHO, yes! The thought prior to the development of the F-15 was the F-111 was going to fulfill all three roles, McNamara's folly.The key is to design an aircraft to fulfill a specific role, not one aircraft for multiple diversified roles. When this happens, compromises decrease the value verses both cost and capability.

West Coast

15th Dec 2013, 01:37

If we're talking about getting the most for the taxpayers money, the buff and the herk have to be included in the conversation.

500N

15th Dec 2013, 01:42

I thought the Marines were going to take some ?

Like the Harrier, they could end up with a nice reserve of aircraft ready to go and another nice reserve of aircraft at that designated storage site.

Agree re Herc.

Iroquois would be another ????

rigpiggy

15th Dec 2013, 02:09

lets see 6000grs/3200fps roughly 152000# energy X50/second.

Thats a world o hurt, even without explosive shells.I understand their SOP for fighter intercept is turn into them, and hose em, probably shoot down any incoming missile too.

West Coast

15th Dec 2013, 06:53

As nice as the A-10 is, it's doesn't fit nicely into the Marines expeditionary doctrine. Neither does the FA-18D model one could argue but someone in DC got enamored with it.

500N

15th Dec 2013, 07:08

West Coast

Good point. I just looked at the list of units that had them,
no US Marine units.

tdracer

15th Dec 2013, 07:15

The key is to design an aircraft to fulfill a specific role, not one aircraft for multiple diversified roles. When this happens, compromises decrease the value verses both cost and capability.

You mean like the F-35? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

I've always been impressed with the A-10. I've seen pictures of the shells - they have so much powder they look like 2 liter Coke bottles with a big stopper http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif But the Air Force brass has always hated it and tried to get rid of it, dating back pretty much to it's introduction - claiming an F-16 could do the same job http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/bah.gif

But I'd bet serious money that if you told an AF pilot he/she would be going into harms way, doing close air support in an area of heavy anti-aircraft defense, 10 out of 10 would pick the A-10 over an F16.:rolleyes:

500N

15th Dec 2013, 07:19

"10 out of 10 would pick the A-10 over an F16."

Those links to the two aircraft "landings", I went through the rest of the pages on that page and read each story.

Capt Kim Cambell's aircraft was damaged but some of the other A-10's
on those pages were in some ways worse but still got back. One was the
A-10 that was hit by a S16 SAM, bloody amazing how it survived.

Obviously a very tough aircraft.

Heathrow Harry

15th Dec 2013, 11:09

and if you are in trench under fire would you rather have A-10's in support or F-16's........................... I know what my choice would be

Basil

15th Dec 2013, 12:29

So, what was it that looked like an A10, but wasn't.
No idea, but there were two of them about 10k below and they were going faster than a flat-out JP4 in a dive :{

p.s. I didn't say they LOOKED like A10s, I said 'they weren't A10s'.

tonker

15th Dec 2013, 12:49

I talked to my brother-in-law(A RSM) about tanks, and were they out of date now.

He absolutely agreed, right up until the point where somebody started firing back, and then all the neigh sayers who went on about how we should have lighter more mobile armies, looked for the nearest tank to..

1. Fire back.

2. Then hide behind.

His point was, and it reminds me of the "should the Apache have the 30mm cannon fitted" discussion, that when the real nasty fighting starts wether your Sharpe in the Peninsula war, or a Marine stuck under heavy enemy fire in Afghanistan, nothing replaces the ability to loiter around blowing the **** out of the enemy with large amounts of mark one eyeball guided lead.

SASless

15th Dec 2013, 13:10

Watched a documentary on a US SF Team that got compromised while Scud Hunting in Iraq. They took cover in a Ditch and called for the Zoomies.

Four F-16's from the South Carolina Air National Guard appeared over head and started providing support....and had the Devil's own time locating the Friendlies down below. That they were hanging at 15,000 feet might have had something to do with that. They ultimately won the day by dropping ordnance "Danger Close" but the whole time they were recounting the day's events on video....it was always about how they feared they had hit the friendlies on several of the passes.

Had they used A-10 tactics....and got really low.....all that would have changed.

Back during Vietham....when we got Air Force TacAir support....we hoped it would be either A-1 Sky Raiders (Spads) or F-100's flown by old guys.....not F-4's who sometimes appeared to have problems hitting within the same Province much less anywhere near the Target. It was not unusual to see an F-100 Jet Jock with his O2 mask dangling....and a Cigar stuck in his mouth as he whizzed by on his run. One had to look well up to even see the F-4's.

The USMC F-4's on the other hand....got down and dirty and moved serious Mud.

But then the Marines are into serious "CAS" of other Marines!

racedo

15th Dec 2013, 13:17

As nice as the A-10 is, it's doesn't fit nicely into the Marines expeditionary doctrine. Neither does the FA-18D model one could argue but someone in DC got enamored with it.

Hmmm thought combat was about writing to rules to suit you and not letting someone else write them.
A10's and Harriers are kind of their aircraft, complementary as well..............

racedo

15th Dec 2013, 13:21

The USMC F-4's on the other hand....got down and dirty and moved serious Mud.

Is it true that unless you came back with some green flora and fauna attached you had questions asked about how low you really were ?
or is this an Urban myth...

Basil

15th Dec 2013, 13:36

Is it true that unless you came back with some green flora and fauna attached
Happened to one of our Argosies which turned up the wrong valley through the mountains - the one that stopped and not the one which went all the way through :ooh:

There were other contributing factors. :(

Wetstart Dryrun

15th Dec 2013, 14:04

design process went - target (T62), weapon (37mm cannon) means of carriage in hostile environment (warthog).

not much wrong with that.

other option is look good at airshows.

werts

500N

15th Dec 2013, 14:16

The A-10 was designed with survivability with other factors such as placing the engines up and back. The Apache also seems to have been built with survivability.

Have any other aircraft been built like these.

SASless

15th Dec 2013, 14:55

Black Hawk for sure.

racedo

15th Dec 2013, 14:59

SR71........................

500N

15th Dec 2013, 15:05

racedo

Can you expand on what they are for the SR-71 ?

racedo

15th Dec 2013, 15:33

Can you expand on what they are for the SR-71 ?

Its height and speed.

500N

15th Dec 2013, 15:36

I thought you might say that.

Isn't that a different class to what we were talking about
with the A-10 and the Apache ?

Willard Whyte

15th Dec 2013, 15:44

Its height and speed.

And stealth.

West Coast

15th Dec 2013, 16:50

Racedo

Given the Marines emphasis on expeditionary warfare, an aircraft that needs a host airport to operate at doesn't fit the model. As the Marines return to esatblished doctrine and move the Marine Corps away from being just another land army as it was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan the focus in aviation is towards expeditionary. While convential capabilities will still exist, the focus is looking towards the NEO roles along with day 1 capabilities. I know the Marines did informally look at the A-10 decades ago, but it never progressed as it would have been a case of doctrine bending to adopt the plane instead of the plane complimenting the doctrine.

racedo

15th Dec 2013, 17:37

Isn't that a different class to what we were talking about
with the A-10 and the Apache ?

In a sense yes but we also talking of specific task orientated aircraft this did what it was supposed to do.
Given its speed, stealth and height there was no real enemy given Warsaw pact really didn't have capacity for building something with single aim of bringing it down. They not build something with such a low % of achieving its aim.

Rosevidney1

15th Dec 2013, 17:40

galaxy flyer wrote:
The A-10 -1 (flight manual) specifically stated that a manual reversion, single-engine landing hadn't been tested and may NOT be possible. It recommended ejection, which should have done in 0197's case.

Are you looking at an early edition of the -1?
Mine states:
Manual Reversion Flight Control System.
The MRFCS is an emergency system for use when dual hydraulic failure is impending or has occurred. The mode is adequate for executing moderate manouvers and for safe return to base and landing.

racedo

15th Dec 2013, 17:43

Given the Marines emphasis on expeditionary warfare, an aircraft that needs a host airport to operate at doesn't fit the model. As the Marines return to esatblished doctrine and move the Marine Corps away from being just another land army as it was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan the focus in aviation is towards expeditionary. While convential capabilities will still exist, the focus is looking towards the NEO roles along with day 1 capabilities. I know the Marines did informally look at the A-10 decades ago, but it never progressed as it would have been a case of doctrine bending to adopt the plane instead of the plane complimenting the doctrine.

In a sense yup I can see where you are coming from but think the presumption almost exists there is that Marines would be operating in a stand alone role with no carriers in support. They would like to believe that would happen but doubt that it will be ever allowed unless world goes nuts.

West Coast

15th Dec 2013, 18:38

There are scenarios during which the Marines will likely be the only force or represent the majority of combat forces in place, NEO as an example. If it can't operate off the boat, the Marines are moving away from it as they return to doctrine. By the boat, I don't mean a CVN, thus the emphasis on the F-35 and its (alleged) capabilities. Last I checked, the A-10 isn't a sea going aircraft.
If your inference is the Marines won't go alone on an Iraq sized operation, you're correct. However one must understand how Marine expeditionary forces are organized. With that understanding one recognizes that the basis of operations comes from the MEU'S level composition as the building block around how larger operations at the MEB and MEF levels are organized.
At the basic MEU level, the plan is for the Marines to provide most if not all of the combat element and that mindset continues further up the ladder at the MEB and MEF level. Any additional capabilities when the baloon goes up such as the A-10 is great, but only replicates capabilities in place.
There are MEU's floating around the world's oceans composed and sized for immediate action at whatever hotspot kicks off tomorrow. The immediate nature of such operations doesn't allow for the logistical, political and diplomatic efforts required to get an aircraft like the A-10 in theatre.

racedo

15th Dec 2013, 19:27

West

Thanks for detailed explanation, does make sense.

tartare

15th Dec 2013, 23:36

Mother of God - that VW picture really puts the GAU in perspective.
West Coast, not knowing much about the Marines, are you saying that for the A-10 to fit in with the way they fight, it'd either have to be carrier capable, or be able to self-deploy from austere airstrips?

500N

15th Dec 2013, 23:45

" Mother of God - that VW picture really puts the GAU in perspective."

Agree :ok:

You just don't realise how big it is.

West Coast

16th Dec 2013, 05:03

Tartare

Not meaning to sound flippant, but yes and no. The Marines have and will continue to take advantage of the A-10's capabilities. The A-10 however would never have Marines written on the side of it.

Bevo

16th Dec 2013, 12:29

I’m not sure folks appreciate the size of the GAU-8 30mm round. While I was stationed at Eglin AFB they were testing new nylon bands around the bullet. I got a dummy round that I have kept with me. Below is a picture to give some idea of the size.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r209/TurboBob/Military/GAU-8Round_zps48c3b72c.jpg

CH2

16th Dec 2013, 14:20

A large pointy thing (does it come with batteries), with some disposable towels and a mug of tea.......Ann Summers could market that!

Basil

16th Dec 2013, 14:36

they were testing new nylon bands around the bullet
I noticed that somewhere; surprised nylon can stand the temperature.

racedo

16th Dec 2013, 14:41

A large pointy thing (does it come with batteries)That goes off with a bang, with some disposable towels and a mug of tea.......Ann Summers could market that!

Added a bit

500N

16th Dec 2013, 15:20

Bevo

Very nice indeed and also probably quite rare to have in a collection :ok:

The "driving bands" (the plastic parts) that swage down really do reduce wear
on the barrel with such a high rate of fire weapon.

Heathrow Harry

17th Dec 2013, 10:04

500N wrote

"The A-10 was designed with survivability with other factors such as placing the engines up and back. The Apache also seems to have been built with survivability.

Have any other aircraft been built like these"

Su-25 looks handy.

SASless

17th Dec 2013, 13:27

The Nylon bands are not exposed to heat very long....the time lapse from leaving the magazine entering the Barrel....and exiting the noisy end is....well....rather short you know!

Basil

17th Dec 2013, 20:36

.the time lapse from leaving the magazine entering the Barrel....and exiting the noisy end is....well....rather short you know!
Yes, just being Devil's advocate Luddite; certainly saves on copper.
Bas - one time 25pdr gunfitter. Just had a thought: there must be tons of the stuff scattered around historic artillery ranges - and, at todays prices :hmm:

500N

17th Dec 2013, 20:56

"Yes, just being Devil's advocate Luddite; certainly saves on copper"

I think you'll find the biggest saving is not the copper saved by putting
two plastic bands on the bullet but the amount of barrels saved from needing
replacement because of reduced wear.

reynoldsno1

17th Dec 2013, 21:00

other factors
ISTR that nearly all the panels on the A10 are reversible i.e. a starboard bit can also be fitted on the port side. Now that's what I call joined up thinking ...

500N

17th Dec 2013, 21:05

I read that again the other day. Very clever thinking.

racedo

17th Dec 2013, 21:07

ISTR that nearly all the panels on the A10 are reversible i.e. a starboard bit can also be fitted on the port side. Now that's what I call joined up thinking ...

Bet the team who designed this got a kicking for this, no multiple spares, designed to last longer etc etc

Almost as if they did everything to run counter to everything else designed for flight.

500N

17th Dec 2013, 21:14

Yes, probably, but what if it was a major selling point against the other aircraft.
Some business is better than none.

Also, battlefield damage repairs, 2 aircraft shot up on different sides,
makes it easier to replace and get one going and ship the other one back
to the US for repair.

Those photos of the soldiers repairing them are very interesting.

racedo

17th Dec 2013, 21:24

But it seems to have been a mindset of design and build so pilot would have a pretty good chance of survival even after aircraft getting blasted to pieces.

It appears unique among what is flying today.

awblain

17th Dec 2013, 21:27

4200 shots per minute (10 per second per barrel, 14ms/16m apart leaving the gun), 2.3-m long barrels and an 1100m/s muzzle velocity, the acceleration down the barrel is 26,000g for 4ms - there's a round in any one barrel for 4% of its time, and one in the gun for over a quarter of the time.

It's quite an impressive machine. Even more impressive on a ship under radar control dealing with incoming problems on a five second timescale - unless the problems have jammers, in which case lidar might still tip the scales in favor of the goalkeeper.

Turbine D

16th Jan 2014, 13:54

Hmm, The Warthog may not be going away anytime soon, or at least quietly:

The Air Force's plans for the A-10 have brought together an unusual alliance of interests looking to protect the planes from Pentagon budget cutters. Opposition to the Air Force proposal is being led by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.), whose husband was an A-10 pilot who flew combat missions in Iraq. Joining Ms. Ayotte and more than two dozen other lawmakers is the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based nonprofit group that typically is a forceful advocate for defense cuts.

Ms. Ayotte temporarily blocked confirmation hearings for the administration's nominee to be Air Force secretary late last year until the Pentagon addressed some of her questions. She also ensured that the recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that outlines defense policies, contained language preventing the Air Force from severely paring the A-10 fleet this year.

"Is the A-10 the best airplane to perform close air support? Absolutely," said Maj. Gen. Paul T. Johnson, the Air Force director of Operational Capability Requirements who has flown more hours in the A-10—about 3,000—than many other pilots working at the Pentagon.

Air Force officials acknowledge that getting rid of the A-10 could lead to higher deaths, longer battles and even defeat on the battlefield. "There's a risk that attrition will be higher than it should be—that's a clever way of saying more people will get hurt and die—and extreme risk is that you might not win," Gen. Johnson said.

"The Air Force is simply using sequestration and sensible budget constraints as an excuse to kill a system it never wanted in favor of the overpriced, behind-schedule, less-capable boondoggle that is the F-35" fighter jet, said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.

Eliminating the Warthog—so named because of its ugly, snub-nosed design—is one way the Air Force is looking to deal with its need to trim more than $50 billion from its budget over the next five years as part of a broader congressional mandate that the Pentagon cut $500 billion over the next decade. Air Force officials say retiring the entire fleet of about 300 A-10s by 2020 would save a total of $3.7 billion.

racedo

16th Jan 2014, 14:45

Politicians shouldn't eliminate something because its Ugly..............Hilary would have had to have been gone.........hmmmm need to reconsider that idea.

NutLoose

16th Jan 2014, 17:08

Quote:
other factors
ISTR that nearly all the panels on the A10 are reversible i.e. a starboard bit can also be fitted on the port side. Now that's what I call joined up thinking ...

Yes a very clever design, semi retractable wheels so it can land gear up, triple main spars for survivability, engines protected by the wing and a titanium tube for the cockpit.

Another cleverly designed aircraft was the Mooney, the rudder was the same as the elevators.

rigpiggy

17th Jan 2014, 15:45

Both the Dakota, and 1900 have "semi-conformal wheels". The Budgie as I recall could swap elevators, and ailerons side/side. The Dash-8 the geardoors are the same as well I think. Reducing the spares pipeline always pays dividends

TBM-Legend

18th Jan 2014, 04:00

A-10 - Titanium tub for pilot with "plastic" lid. Rolls in on target round enters via "lid" and hey presto an instant blender as round looks for way out!:rolleyes:

barit1

19th Mar 2014, 23:01

Given V. Putin's recent ambitions regarding former eastern bloc states -

I bet that citizens of Poland, Hungary, et.al. might wish the A-10 was still within the NATO arsenal.

Maj. Jack Hudson, the AF Museum director and an A-10 pilot, recently spoke at an engineers' luncheon, and had great praise for the aircraft and weapon system.

barit1

19th Mar 2014, 23:09

Regarding maintenance & repair: Constant-chord "barndoor" wing means all ribs come from the same dies. Ditto the fuselage formers. Building new wings (per Boeing contract) is about as simple as a late-model airplane gets.

500N

19th Mar 2014, 23:18

I was reading somewhere about the A-10 and battle damage and apart from both sides being the same and wings described as above, instead of shipping some wrecks back to the US they made one working aircraft out of three damaged ones. I wish I could find the link again.

rh200

19th Mar 2014, 23:25

Given V. Putin's recent ambitions regarding former eastern bloc states -

I bet that citizens of Poland, Hungary, et.al. might wish the A-10 was still within the NATO arsenal.

Was sort of thinking the "new" smaller Ukraine might like to take a few off you. There armed forces have been neglected for several years.

ORAC

20th Mar 2014, 07:12

Why Congress May Let Air Force Retire The A-10 (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/03/why-congress-may-let-air-force-retire-the-a-10/)

Image in original article too large to paste here (http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/03/A-10-retirement-chart.jpg)

CAPITOL HILL: Aside from Sen. Kelly Ayotte, the reaction from Capitol Hill to the Air Force plan for retiring the ugly and beloved A-10 has been relatively muted and may remain so. Why would Congress, beloved for going slightly nuts whenever the military tries to retire a ship, aircraft squadron, or anything else that means jobs in their districts or states, not rail against this sweet plane going quietly into the night? They will be replaced at most A-10 bases by F-16s, C-130Js or KC-135s so few or no jobs or money will be lost.

The Air Force has crafted a plan in stark contrast to its efforts last year to trim assets. And the reaction to this one has, so far, been quite muted. The slide above, which depicts the shifts and their timing, was part of a detailed briefing to professional staff and Military Legislative Aides in the last week that included classified assessments of the various tradeoffs the Air Force considered to save the $3.7 billion the Air Force expects to save. Among the scenarios gamed: sending the entire B-1 bomber fleet to the boneyard; pushing 40 F-35 As to the far out years; and retiring 356 F-16s. The Air Force, Chief of Staff Mark Welsh told me after today’s House Armed Services Committee hearing, ran war games to assess the impacts of each action. The retirement of the A-10 fleet was found to be the least disruptive to America’s global capabilities.

Members did discuss the A-10 today at today’s House hearing, including Rep. Vicky Hartzler. Whiteman Air Force Base, home to an A-10 Reserve unit, sits in her district. She was not convinced by the Air Force’s arguments saying she did not ”agree that a B-1″ can do the same job as an A-10. The Air Force argues that precision weapons have replaced the need for the A-10′s depleted uranium cannon shells. Hartzler said she believes ground troops “want to see the A-10 coming over that horizon.”

Several other members voiced what sounded like pro-forma objections to the A-10′s retirements. When Welsh answered their objections they appeared to accept his explanations. Gen. Welsh brings a certain authority to the issue, having been an A-10 pilot himself.

Here’s how the transfers will work. In 2016, for example, the National Guard A-10 unit at Selfridge will switch to KC-135s. And Hartzler’s Reserve A-10 unit at Whiteman would receive F-16s from Hill. So the bases will switch missions and aircraft, but few people or money will be lost. Those are deals to which Congress may well agree.

barit1

20th Mar 2014, 12:54

Sounds like adjusting the mission to match the resources, and not the other way 'round.

:=

barit1

20th Mar 2014, 13:00

ORAC: (Rep. Vicky) Hartzler said she believes ground troops “want to see the A-10 coming over that horizon.”
When it comes right down to it, that's an excellent argument for transferring the Warthog to the Army. They know better than anyone what they require!

melmothtw

20th Mar 2014, 13:14

When it comes right down to it, that's an excellent argument for transferring the Warthog to the Army

I see your point barit1, but I'm not sure what that would achieve in this instance.

If the problem was with the level of A-10 service that the USAF is providing the army, then transfer of control would make sense, but that's not what's at issue here.

The issue here is funding, and the army has its own pressures to contend with. Given the option of supporting its Abrams or the A-10, it also might well choose to cut the A-10 for the very same reason that the USAF is.

GreenKnight121

20th Mar 2014, 22:17

Reality is that every service is being reduced in size. That is a final reality.

The only question is: "What are we going to cut?"

Do we keep what we have (aging, and designed for the Cold War mass-combat scenario) and completely cut the new replacement aircraft that are more capable and adaptable (with the exception of the A-10's single narrow specialty)?

Do we cut the current force in order to built a more-capable and flexible replacement (even though in smaller numbers)?

And if we choose the latter, then more choices are needed:

Do we cut the large numbers of useful modernized multi-role aircraft to keep a single-role aircraft?

Or do we cut the "niche" aircraft and keep those useful in a wide range of missions and scenarios?

glad rag

21st Mar 2014, 08:55

Do we keep what we have (aging, and designed for the Cold War mass-combat scenario) and completely cut the new replacement aircraft that are more capable and adaptable (with the exception of the A-10's single narrow specialty)?

Oh yeah, so what new aircraft might that be do tell....your ultra vulnerable F35 by chance:ok:

tdracer

8th May 2014, 00:55

Combat Vets Champion Warthog Plane Brass Wants Scrapped - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-06/combat-vets-champion-warthog-plane-brass-wants-scrapped.html#disqus_thread)

Take a look at the comments - many are very insightful...

Bottom line, would the ground pounders be better off with a few hundred A-10s, or a couple dozen F-35s.

Heathrow Harry

8th May 2014, 10:01

seems odd to cut the Warthog just when the Russian hordes are massing again

Maybe NATO should buy them..................................

Wander00

8th May 2014, 11:23

Swap them for the Harriers we gave the Yanks for peanuts.............hat, coat...............

rh200

8th May 2014, 12:43

Maybe NATO should buy them...

Give them to the Ukrainians as aid.

Lonewolf_50

8th May 2014, 15:21

Give them to the Ukrainians as aid.
I like the way you think. :ok::E

racedo

8th May 2014, 17:20

Give them to the Ukrainians as aid.

And would be flying in someone elses Air Force in less than a year as Ukranian arms dealers take a nice big cut and declare they were not suitable.

Lonewolf_50

8th May 2014, 18:29

It's an ill wind as blows nobody any good, right? :ok:

racedo

8th May 2014, 18:46

It's an ill wind as blows nobody any good, right? :ok:

Figure they would get used but likely against US...................politicians will say that it was unrealistic to have seen that outcome.

Mechta

9th May 2014, 17:50

http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mPm1aFUx9juJTjFcTCJWXNQ.jpg

Bill Sweetman's A-10 book gave me a real soft spot for the aircraft. As with all this series, he gave a detailed account of the design philosophy.

The designers were given, if I recall correctly, a maximum price of $80 per Lb for the airframe. If it couldn't be met, they had to use a cheaper material or process.

As others have mentioned, the A10 was designed to continue flying with a tailplane half, engine and outer wing panel all shot away.

barit1

9th May 2014, 22:20

I was on the TF34 development/deployment team, & visited Farmingdale when the prototypes were being assembled. The cost and survivability disciplines were very much in evidence. I even met Kartveli, who maintained a desk in the engineering office. He thought it the ugliest aircraft ever, but fully understood the mission and requirements.

The unique and biggest airframe/engine integration issue would be gun gas ingestion into the engines, but the GAU-8/A gun was the be-all and end-all of a successful program. GE had a lot of work in solving the inevitable ingestion problems, but got the job done. :)

chopper2004

10th May 2014, 08:14

Apparently in a week and half at IlA Berlin there are is an A-10 making an appearance , I'm attending anyhow so will find out more!

Cheers

Rhino power

10th May 2014, 11:08

Supposed to be two A-10's attending ILA, guess they're coming from across the pond, since the 81st packed it in last summer...

-RP

CoffmanStarter

10th May 2014, 12:08

An interesting update covered in the Military Times ...

WASHINGTON — The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) early Thursday unanimously approved a measure that would authorize just over $600 billion in 2015 US defense spending and block plans to retire the A-10 attack plane.

Full story here ...

Military Times : HASC Approval : A-10 Future (http://www.militarytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014305080031)

racedo

10th May 2014, 14:58

An interesting update covered in the Military Times ...

Comes down to the decision been made and ever body saying Yes, Yes Yes etc

Then they talk to the people who use it and the response was "Like F*** you are retiring it.

Yessers decided need to relook at program.

PhilipG

10th May 2014, 16:02

If the A10 had been retired before there were F35s to replace it and the bases that it operated from shuttered, there would not be a need for so many F35s, thus the program unit cost goes up, or was the plan to retire the A10, keep the bases open fully staffed with no planes?

Surely if there was a plan to retire a platform, most if not all the infrastructure associated with the platform will be retired and crews reassigned or released from service, unless the training pipeline was to have been turned off whilst the A10 crews are retrained onto an intermediate aircraft (F15 and F16?) until the F35 gains IOC and is in full rate production.....

GreenKnight121

11th May 2014, 01:52

Even at the USAF's most optimistic F-35A plans, there were still always going to be fewer F-35As than F-16s+A-10s.

So if retiring the A-10s meant being able to hang on to more F-16s, then there would still be no need for any "empty squadrons".

typerated

11th May 2014, 02:31

If I remember correctly the USAF was keen on getting a batch of B models for CAS - seems that plan got dropped.

glad rag

11th May 2014, 20:04

If the A10 had been retired before there were F35s to replace it

Ahh there may a subtle fault with that plan...

GreenKnight121

12th May 2014, 01:28

If I remember correctly the USAF was keen on getting a batch of B models for CAS - seems that plan got dropped.

The only Air Force I have seen having an official plan to buy both F-35A and F-35B is the Italian Air Force.

Almost a decade ago I saw a proposal (from a think-tank, I believe, or maybe some congresscritter - not the USAF) for the USAF to buy F-35Bs to replace the A-10s, to provide the capability to operate from austere/damaged airfields.

This was immediately "shot down" by the USAF headquarters - and I haven't heard anyone with any real influence even mention the scheme in over 6 years.

typerated

16th May 2014, 22:49

Thanks GK,

I just found this - USAF: F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10 - 5/16/2012 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-f-35b-cannot-generate-enough-sorties-to-replace-371985/)

interesting to read the comments about sortie rate WRT the B and A models

also found this from the marine corps times - 2004

The Air Force will buy some of the Marine Corps variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that are able to take off and land on short and rough airfields, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper announced Thursday at the Air Force Association?s Air Warfare Symposium at Lake Buena Vista, Fla.

Jumper said the decision to buy the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variant of the JSF was made as a result of the continued need to provide close-air support to the Army.

Jumper noted that some airfields in Iraq and Afghanistan are often in too rough to support jets such as the F-16 and the other variant of the Joint Strike Fighter that the Air Force will buy, the conventional-takeoff-and-landing version.

The Marine version, the STOVL JSF, can land and take off on roads or rough landing strips.

Jumper said it is yet to be decided how many the STOVL F-35s Air Force will buy and that the Air Force will continue to buy the conventional takeoff and landing JSF.

Development of training and tactics for the STOVL version of the JSF will be in conjunction with the Marine Corps, Jumper said.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

16th May 2014, 23:16

So, Gen. Jumper gets the job of announcing STOVL developments.

Is this an extreme case of nominative determinism, or does the USAF top brass have a sense of humour after all? ;)

Will the later reduction of the F-35 buy be announced by Gen. Shafted, or Gen. Thank-F#ck-For-That ?

barit1

17th May 2014, 01:42

What of the alternate application for the A-10, proposed a few years ago, as air tankers for fire fighting?

Hardly a technically competent summary, but an overview:A10 Firehog (http://www.aviationtrivia.info/A-10-Fire-Hog.php)

GreenKnight121

17th May 2014, 11:26

Thanks for that, typerated - it seems that there was a more welcoming attitude by the USAF than I had remembered.

Within the first article we find: But while the USAF had at one time considered the variant as a potential replacement for the A-10, given the fiscal constraints the services faces and the need to generate more sorties, the USAF will not buy the F-35B, he says.

So the remaining question is - when did they drop the idea?

By at least 2009 the USAF was back to "F-35A only", as shown in this May 2009 CBO study:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/101xx/doc10113/05-13-fighterforces.pdf

typerated

18th May 2014, 06:16

I think it hovered somewhere between an intention and a definite plan.

I wonder if the USAF really wanted them or there was a bit of pressure to help out the Marine buy? If the USAF had gone ahead you would assume they would have been at the expense of the A-10? At least in the long term.

I do think the USAF is heading for a procurement train crash as it will need lots of finance to buy a large quantity of F-35s along with KC-135 and T-38 replacements in the next few years. Money that seems not to be there. Irrespective of if they keep A-10s or not.

Robert Cooper

23rd May 2014, 19:27

The House approved a Fiscal 2015 defense authorization bill of more than $590 billion on Thursday that largely ignores White House concerns, with a vote of 325-98.

The House bill moves funds from operations and maintenance accounts to keep the A-10s flying.

However, White House officials said they would recommend President Barack Obama veto the legislation if it continued to reject proposed cuts and reductions such as divestiture of USAF’s A-10 fleet.

The Senate is now marking up its version of the legislation.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Bob C

GreenKnight121

24th May 2014, 05:48

Hmmm... large but "hollow" (reduced maintenance/training/supply/operations) military - or slightly smaller but "robust" (properly maintained/trained/supplied/operational) military?

I know which one I'd rather have - the smaller one with the excess equipment properly "mothballed" for quick re-activation.

racedo

24th May 2014, 09:23

Lots of politics still to happen on this and figure in 4 years time it will still be flying.

Robert Cooper

26th May 2014, 03:54

Today, there are two arguments for cutting the A-10.

The first argument from the Air Force is that in an era of shrinking budgets and pared-down ambitions, the military needs a more flexible, multi-role aircraft to do more jobs—not an airplane that's perfect for a smaller number of them. But The F-35 doesn't have the capability to linger over a battlefield for a substantial time, nor does it have the ability to take ground-fire yet stay airborne. The A-10 is capable of flying with half a wing, one tail fin, one elevator, and one engine torn off. It’s also cheaper to fly and can fly more frequent missions than the aircraft that the Air Force proposes to replace it with: the F-35. It's a classic case of a dedicated tool versus a jack-of-all-trades tool; for any specific job, a dedicated tool is better. The main theoretical advantage of a jack-of-all-trades tool is cost savings, but when the marginal cost of an F-35 is ten times the marginal cost of an A-10, that argument goes out the window.

The second argument against the A-10 is that the close air support mission, once provided almost exclusively by manned aircraft like the Warthog, can now be served more effectively by drones like the MQ-9 Reaper and the Army’s MQ-1C Grey Eagle. Drones can stay on station for 14 hours or more with a full load of weapons—the Reaper can carry up to 3,000 pounds of missiles and laser-guided bombs. While the A-10 can carry more than four times that payload in addition to over a thousand rounds of 30-millimeter ammunition, it can only loiter overhead for about two hours before it needs to refuel. Drones fill in some of the gaps left by the F-35 in terms of capabilities, but they don’t begin to match what the Air Force currently gets from the A-10. That appears to be a shortfall that the military leadership is willing to live with in order to keep the F-35 program alive.
Besides, drones aren't exactly the end all be all. They are fairly easy to shoot down if they are close enough to provide CAS and because they are so popular, best believe everyone is working on tech to shoot them down easily.

14 hours of time on target with weapons means nothing if you are shot down in the first 30 minutes.

Anything that can do CAS (Close Air Support) competently is, by its nature, vulnerable to SAM's and air defense-- A-10's, Apaches or Super Tucanos. The things that make a plane resistant to air defenses also make them bad for CAS. That is not an argument for giving up on CAS; that is a demonstration of the importance of coordinated strikes. That's what top cover and SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) is for.

CAS is one thing that a set of human eyeballs on the scene is good for, for precise aiming and responding to situations without the lag or limited perspective of remote sensors. While I agree a lot of it can be done with drones, the part that cannot be is precisely the part that the F-35 can't do either.

CAS – the immediate, extremely accurate and persistent fire support and observation for troops directly engaged in combat-is the most effective way air power can impact the land battle and therefore the war. Also known as "MAS" (Maneuver Air Support), its most important characteristic is at the "people" level: Air and ground commanders--at all levels--must want it to occur, and the air and ground operators performing CAS must "live among each other's armpits" in order to understand each other's tactical needs, achieve split second implicit communication and innovate ever new and increasingly powerful ways of combining air and ground assets. Wherever cooperation this close has occurred, CAS has been overwhelmingly successful in saving the lives of troops in contact with the enemy, greatly reducing the "friendly fire" events that devastate units at the moral, mental and physical levels, and achieving operational victory.
If the Air Force succeeds in "divesting" the A-10 fleet, the existing cadre of dedicated, highly skilled CAS experts will be dispersed, leaving only partially trained multi-mission pilots with weak ties to the ground forces: that is to say, pilots who will see CAS as a secondary mission and who will necessarily perform it from inappropriate altitudes and distances, at inappropriate speeds, from inappropriate aircraft. Because of their inherent vulnerability, maneuverability and other limitations, the helicopters in the Army and Marine Corps, the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing jets of the Marines Corps and "fast mover" fighters and bombers of the Air Force cannot replicate the capabilities of the A-10. In particular, the Air Force's and the Marines' new multi-role jet, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, cannot match the A-10 on virtually any the primary characteristics of an effective close air support aircraft; for CAS it is a major step backward.

Bob C