End looms for US Air Force's 'Warthog' ground-attack jet
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC:
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!
(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
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)?
Bloomberg weighs in
Combat Vets Champion Warthog Plane Brass Wants Scrapped - Bloomberg
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.
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.
Give them to the Ukrainians as aid.
It's an ill wind as blows nobody any good, right?
It's an ill wind as blows nobody any good, right?
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
ILA Berlin
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
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
An interesting update covered in the Military Times ...
Full story here ...
Military Times : HASC Approval : A-10 Future
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.
Military Times : HASC Approval : A-10 Future
An interesting update covered in the Military Times ...
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.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.....