Warbird Information Exchange

I agree. Just ask the grunts on the ground.
But really, I don't understand the AF argument. They can spend a couple of billion on some "fits all" fighters but, not tone that down with some mission specific aircraft? History has shown that when politicians try to fight a war things get real stupid. (Vietnam, Somalia, Hitler playing tactician,goes back even to the Revolutionary war in some specific instances). When the A-10 first came out, Congress (generically speaking) didn't like it because it was too slow. With it's 400mph, max. speed. Called it a "boondoggle". Too which some General replied," I've never seen a 400 mph tank".

We seem to keep relearning lessons learned the hard way. Like you mentioned in Korea. We needed mission specific aircraft. Look at the aircraft on a carrier deck in the 1960's, there's about 8 different types of aircraft.

This junk goes back to "we don't need guns on our aircraft, that's WWII stuff". So, we found out there was a significant need for a gun and put it back on the aircraft. (F-4E).
(McNamara): We don't need manned bombers anymore. ICBM's will do all that now.
So, how old is the B-52?
If you ask me, a "fits all" aircraft is the "boondoggle". A classic case from history is the He-177.
Yeh, I know, if I'm so smart why aren't I running the country. Probably because I'd fire half those bozos.

L2Driver wrote
The last I read, 200 sets of new wings were produced to extend the service life of the Hog out to 2028+.

That doesn't mean much with our bumbling government. There have been a few programs like that; started because some politician wanted jobs in his district and there being no real intention of using the product. When I was at AMARC 20 years ago. They were bringing in brand new missile launch trailers and scrapping them. The program had ended but, the production contract was not canceled, so they were building new trailers for the scrapper.

Cubs the cynic

By the way, I'm not criticizing or trying to flame anybody in this thread, I just have a 'hot' opinion about our government ineptness.

yes, 8000lb+ in the 802F. 9000lb+ in the 802A

Big trucks with wings.

Since they already have these A/C developed and multiple Ailrliners coming on line the A-10 Fire Attack A/C doesn't seem profitable.

But A different utilization is the A-10 Fire Attack with KC-10 or converted Airliner as a Retardant Tanker and A-10 refilling after drops rather than landing.
Stage near a large fire and get multiple drops on each flight. Have a couple tankers so one is recharged on the ground while one is orbiting on station.

Or turn them into drones.

_________________
Rich Palmer

Remember an Injured Youth
benstear.org
#64- Stay Strong and Keep the Faith

BOOM BOOM, ROUND ROUND, PROPELLER GO

Don't Be A Dilbert!

I grew up next to an airport with an Air National Guard that flew A-10's in the early 80's. I enjoyed the times watching them peel off for a landing or take off going right over our house. When I was in the army some of my fondest memories where watching them roll in on a target! They will be missed.

IMHO, the A-10 was the most perfect implementation of a specific battlefield role (CAS) of any weapon system ever built, both mission capable and cost effective, and as such the A-10 fleet should be kept in service at the very least until AFTER the entire B-52 fleet is grounded and scrapped - after all, the A-10 is essentially some 25 years or more "younger" than the B-52!

That's my 2 cents.... (Compared to the government's "logic" which involves billions of dollars and no "cents" at all!)

_________________
“To invent the airplane is nothing. To build one is something. But to fly is everything!” - Otto Lilienthal

Natasha: "You got plan, darling?"
Boris: "I always got plan. They don't ever work, but I always got one!"

Remember, any dummy can be a dumb-ass...
In order to be a smart-ass, you first have to be "smart"
and to be a wise-ass, you actually have to be "wise"

I wouldn't write off the A-10 just yet. The AF has proposed retiring this airframe many times over the decades and it's tough to argue eliminating it for budgetary reasons when Big Blue is floating huge $$'s for development of a new strategic bomber. Congress has never appeared convinced the A-10 needs to be retired.

In the tactical aviation world, the A-10 is relatively inexpensive to operate and the wing replacement program pretty much eliminates the "worn out" argument. The A-10 is not without problems but no more so than other platforms.

Looking at proposed aircraft for the Army, there seems to be increased interest in the tilt-rotor concept. Maybe the Army is positioning itself to provide its own CAS while playing in the grey area of the Key West agreement?

Below is the proposed Bell V280 -- a scaled down version of the V-22. Touted as a possible replacement for the UH-60, I find it interesting that their conceptual drawing is configured as an attack aircraft.

Here we are in the 21st century. The F-35, possibly the last manned platform,
is teething at Eglin. The Navy sersion has no internal gun. The USAF platform
has a gun with 100 rounds. How many young aviators do we kill to relearn
the lessons of 40 years ago?

Oh yeah, it only has one engine. A second is a mighty nice thing to have in
blue water ops.

I pray every day for my brothers and sisters in RAG VFA-101. I don't want
casualties....

Owen

I think we should kickstarter our own air force.

_________________
What is red, furry and on your six?

A follow-on order for another 173 new wings was just placed... Not sure how many the original order was for.

If I read this correctly, the total in-place order is now 173 replacement sets of wings with the potential for a total of 246 sets.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-to-Build-56-Additional-A-10-Wings-for-US-Air-Force

Whether USAF officially tries to retire the Hog or not isn't clear. At this point, it's just generals posturing about the need to retire the A-10 for budgetary reasons. With the huge cost overruns and fielding delays of the F-22 and F-35 programs, combined with a near-zero CAS capability of either platform, Congress is not likely to allow USAF to retire an entire, proven fleet while we have troops on the ground. More so given the recent revelations of a 10+-year commitment in Afghanistan after our supposed pullout in 2014.

Interesting one page editorial from the Reserve Officers Association magazine:

http://browndigital.bpc.com/publication/?i=182383&p=51

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

I am in Afghanistan most of the year and have been working there on rotating deployments since 2007. The A-10C is the best thing ever, especially at night because no one can hear it when it's on station. Night attacks at our base dropped off dramatically after C models Hogs arrived. The -10C's replaced F-15E's that you could hear from 50 miles away. The bad guys don't know what's overhead so they don't try anything unless the weather goes 0-0 with snow/ Ice or blowing dirt.
Try and fly a Sandy mission with a F-35? Don't make me laugh. Read "into the mouth of the cat" about Lance Sijan, if (when) we get into a shooting conflict with any halfway sophisticated opponents we are going to be in big trouble if loss rates are even a fraction of what they were in Vietnam.

And more Air Force brilliance: $600 Million down the drain. I have friends who worked the G222 Program, they were "Ordered" to report the planes unairworthy even though there was nothing wrong with them.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/C-2 ... rce-05094/
C-130's for the afghans? wonder whose making millions off that deal?

_________________
All I did was press this red button here...

I admit there is a "big picture" I don't have access to. The little picture I do have tells me that no one's hand is on the steering wheel in DC.

In the early 90's the USAF purchased on squadron of C-27A's for Howard AFB. When the base closed, the nearly new airplanes went to the boneyard and I believe they are still there. http://www.flickr.com/photos/49589823@N05/8274280398/

Later, with the advent of the C-130J, someone decided that the C-27J would be the greatest thing since sliced bread. During deployments in 2008 and 2010, we routinely filled out mission recap sheets that detailed how many pallet positions we used on every sortie. I am convinced that this was a move to gather metrics simply to justify the purchase of the C-27. Never mind that the fuel load to get to base Z outside Afghanistan, plus 3 heavy pallets, put the C-130 at the limit for the IFR climb gradient at Kabul ... all it showed was that we were using 3 out of 6 positions, so the airplane had only 50% utilization. Never mind that a C-27 could not have flown the leg, period.

As far as the Afghans getting C-130s, they're 1970's vintage H-models. I don't know that we're doing the Afghans any favors ...

Bottom line, I believe there is a use for a USAF C-27, but DC turns these fights into "all or nothing" events. In the case of the C-27J, they bought X-number of airframes and the latest news is that Army Special Ops will take them from the AF and the USCG might take the rest. Why does no one seem to grasp that the taxpayers still have to maintain these birds and put fuel in them no matter what paint they wear? What is really saved?

This was not meant to hijack the A-10 discussion, which is an important one. What's the old saying about, "This proves you're either incompetent or unethical"? Either way, the nation and the taxpayers, again, get the shaft.

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."