The USAF just issued a contract for new warthog wings. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-to-continue-a-10-warthog-wing-production-421567/
That's good news. There will always be a need for a "flying dump truck" attack aircraft. The A-10 is it; the F-35 would not have been. I think the 'hogs will be in service well beyond 2021.
Bob, Ian- The A-10 is already so slow they use a calendar for an airspeed indicator. More weight is just what they need.
That reminds me of one of the comments made by a bush pilot when he saw an old Stinson flown by a competitor. "Their airplanes are so slow that they had to paint an arrow on the side to tell which way it was going." I still love the Hog and I think it has to be a kick to fly. I hate being old.
Aren't most A10 units at this point reserve units? Setting aside for a moment our prejudices for or against the airplane....if possible, is it's constant new lease on life more due to the political ramifications of dispensing with reserve units in politically powerful districts or is it a genuine need? Having grown up in the SF Bay Area and understanding much of the military presence in Texas I know there is little about spending Defense Dept dollars that is not directly connected to political needs. I understand its role and potential need for that type of aircraft in the ME but are there other realistic options, or is this politics?
Well, to give you an answer to that it will take a bit of creative thought because as politicians we have to consider the taxation quotas in various pre-undetermined areas within the jurisdiction of officials yet to be elected by the ongoing caulkeration committee. You must understand that these appropriations have to be processed through these appointed bodies to verify the availability of funds that will be passed forward so that there is no chance for them to be rumsfeldicated and enculpilated by parties that have an association with the military establishment. So, to answer your question...now what the hell was your question?....it is necessary to run all of these acquisitions relentlessly through the committee process before you get an answer. As politicians we have no knowledge of military operations. Therefore we refer it to other members who might have no experience or knowledge. Your obedient servant in Washington.
Bob, thanks for clearing that up. A vote for Bob is a vote for.........caulkeration and enculpilating! Hurrah!
Brian- A lot of it is pure politics, plus the fact there is one A-10 driver and one A-10 driver's wife still in congress. The A-10 can only survive in a relatively low threat environment, but that is what we have in SWA. So USAF bowed to the inevitable and allowed it might be handy to have against ISIL, regardless of what needs to be done to keep them flying. With PGMs, the A-10 can stay mostly out of harm's way until the GAU-8 needs to be brought to bear. The GAU-8 is still the crowd-pleaser for the grunts. McCain piled on, too, since he will do anything he can to pimp the AF. Rumsfeld's recent book tour has made me want to throw up. The Iraq insurgency after the invasion can be laid squarely at his feet.
Fred- Bob and I are well past the die young, leave an attractive corpse stage, so we might as well stick around.
Here's a look at mission capable rates by aiframe from 2009 - 2013 Readiness declines in aging, overworked fleet
Taz, see my answer to Rifledriver re getting rumsfeldicated. Rumsfeld and Mac Namara were the worst. Is Kim Campbell in congress?i would love to meet that lady!
Jim- Rumsfeld did more damage and got more grunts killed than anybody except McNamara, who got grunts, seamen, and airmen killed by the thousands. I hated Cheney, too. He was SecDef when I was in Desert Storm and fired the AF Chief of Staff, Michael Dugan, and replaced him with worthless Tony McPeak, setting USAF back a decade. When the Thunderbirds are running the AF, things are really screwed up.
Taz, or anyone for that matter what do you think is the chance of a high threat air war to start. I'm thinking the chance with all of the economic ties between countries these days the it is pretty slim.
In any air campaign, the idea is that you have to go in and clean out the opponents air defense systems so that there is no high threat environment. The A-10 isn't survivable, but neither is the F-16, F-15 or any other fighter of that generation in a true high threat environment. Back in the mid 90's we were working on unmanned systems to take out the higher capability AA missile systems. Those included "Tacit Rainbow" and Extended Range (ER) Maverick with a SA radar. The general consensus at the time was that all of the front line fighters (F-15, F-16) could not survive and could not attack effectively a state of the art air defense system. The then current systems, like the HARM could be easily defeated by turning off the emitter for a minute or two and the missile would go dumb and that happened in Iraq a good number of times. It got to the point where allied pilot would call "fox one" and the Iraqis would shut down their emitters (to which the pilots responded by saying "fox one" into their radios as soon as they would get painted even if they weren't firing). Tacit Rainbow was a loitering drone that would wait up above the AA system and when the emitters were turned on then attack. ER Maverick had SA radar and could find the radar site even if it was turned off. The ER part was a turbine engine that was necessary to get the 30 mile standoff range needed to survive in a typical fighter of the time. At the same time the AF had the then secret "stealth fighter" (F-117) that was going to be used to take out the air defense systems so those unmanned systems didn't go anywhere. The scarf and goggles crowd felt they could do the job and at the time they could. But in the Balkans, even the F-117 typically traversed the route to their targets through a "corridor" that was cleared of AD systems and the bad guys figured that out and that eventually caused the loss of the F-117 there. In today's high threat environment not too much is survivable. They retired the F-117 for a number of reasons, but it was also becoming less survivable and that was all it had going for it. It worked great in Desert Storm, but it's not as survivable now. The threat evolves, but the concept of cleaning out the AA defense system so that the high numbers of older less survivable aircraft can operate in a low threat environment is still there. The unmanned systems didn't go anywhere but I'm not sure how survivable any aircraft is in a modern high threat environment. With proper surveillance and targeting, cruise missiles work on attacking an ADS, but that's an expensive solution at more than a million dollars per missile (in 1985 dollars), and if the system is mobile it only has to move a few hundred feet and that would require a new targeting set. Folks working currently in the industry can probably shed more light on it, but it costs billions to develop an aircraft and its generally a lot less expensive to find a way to see and kill it than it is to make a new airplane. As always there is a constant back and forth in evolving AA threats and how to neutralize them. It is a world in constant flux and there isn't a perfect solution that works for any protracted period of time.
How many planes in this day and age can take hits like this and still get the pilot home ? Personally I think it is stupid to spend ONE BILLION per plane, the standard stripped down model works just fine for me. I remember the first time I saw an A-10 in flight, Germany in the 70s. Straight into a box canyon, two of them. One did the straight up and over, the other put that baby in a bank rotated it 180 degrees on the left wing tip and came right back out the same way it went it. We all stopped, silent just staring with our mouths open. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Tomy- Easy to say by someone who never flew in combat. The "go simple" theory just does not work in modern air warfare. Even the A-10 has been updated with glass cockpit and 1760 bus so it can employ the latest PGMs. As far back as Desert Storm, the aircraft with PGM capability did nearly all the damage, and there were only three types in the USAF. The idea is not to come back with your aircraft full of holes. F-15s have come back with major pieces missing, too. Modern flight control systems are highly adaptive to lost surfaces and flight controls.
This picture of A-10 damage is Kim Campbell's airplane that she had to land using manual reversion. One of the few successful attempts to do so.
The famous case of the Israeli F-15 Eagle flying home while missing the entire right wing. The ENTIRE right wing. Nothing. Did not crash on landing... taxied in.
