A-10 to be retired.

MikeD said:
Congress needs to change the doctrinal restrictions that preclude the Army from flying armed fixed-wing aircraft, send the A-10s to the Army, and the AF can wash it's hands of the CAS mission as a core mission. The Army can be like the Marines and do their own, with the AF supporting them with other aircraft as-needed and situationally. But the Army being primary responsible for their own CAS. That way, the AF can focus on air superiority, interdiction, strategic bombing/strike, space, airlift (strategic and tactical, but not all tactical), and other roles.

But alas, as much as the AF pays lip service to CAS, they don't really care for it that much, and worse, they don't want to lose the money that comes along with that mission. It's the worst case of "we don't want this toy, but it's our toy and therefore no one else can have it or play with it". Same thing the AF did with the C-27, which the Army could've and should've been operating to do their own intra-theatre light airlift, but the AF took the program, then just decided they don't want it anymore and are sending 2 year old airframes to the boneyard.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. It's hard to like this post, because I don't like what is happening,but yes, I agree with you!
 
MikeD said:
It's not the retardant and the engines, necessarily, it's a CG issue. In the design of the A-10, the rear mounted engines are offset by the entire 30mm gun system which takes up nearly the forward half of the airplane. One of the reasons the A-10 retains it's emptied shell casings when it fires its gun (they rotate to the back of the ammo drum) is for CG purposes. In fact, when flying with a lite ammo load or empty, if you look into the nose landing gear bay, you'll see metal plates bolted to the side of the gear well, also for CG purposes. In a Firehog, the entire gun system would have to be removed, then a retardant tank installed on the middle-underside of the aircraft (replacing station racks 5/6/7). This tank would already be aft of where the normal CG is with the gun installed, and when you drop that load......lets assume for sake of argument 1000 gals at 10lbs/gal......that's 10,000 lbs of weight difference with a resultant aft-CG shift that would have to be accounted for. There's not enough ballast ability in the nose area to do that...even with a major rework, and that wouldn't be cost effective.
Click to expand...

How much retardant could you carry in external stores?
 
MikeD said:
Congress needs to change the doctrinal restrictions that preclude the Army from flying armed fixed-wing aircraft, send the A-10s to the Army, and the AF can wash it's hands of the CAS mission as a core mission. The Army can be like the Marines and do their own, with the AF supporting them with other aircraft as-needed and situationally. But the Army being primary responsible for their own CAS. That way, the AF can focus on air superiority, interdiction, strategic bombing/strike, space, airlift (strategic and tactical, but not all tactical), and other roles.

But alas, as much as the AF pays lip service to CAS, they don't really care for it that much, and worse, they don't want to lose the money that comes along with that mission. It's the worst case of "we don't want this toy, but it's our toy and therefore no one else can have it or play with it". Same thing the AF did with the C-27, which the Army could've and should've been operating to do their own intra-theatre light airlift, but the AF took the program, then just decided they don't want it anymore and are sending 2 year old airframes to the boneyard.
Click to expand...


When I came in back in the early 90's I remember hearing that there was a plan for the AF to transfer the A-10's to the Army... With which the Army was going to fly them directly to the boneyard. I think it had something to do with the AF wanting more F-16's. I seem to remember that in that plan the Army wasn't going to get any increase in manning or funds to operate/maintain them. Of course this could all have been a bunch of crap too. I was a Private back then!
 
jtrain609 said:
How much retardant could you carry in external stores?
Click to expand...

I guess not enough to cover the cost of using that airframe. From the earliest days of airtankers, tests were run using underwing hard mounts, cropduster style, to using droppable external stores. Neither were exceptionally effective; which is why you see Air Tractor type crop dusters being used for firefighting, having a tank instead of using a dusting type-system. Better coverage, mass, etc.

Flymh47 said:
When I came in back in the early 90's I remember hearing that there was a plan for the AF to transfer the A-10's to the Army... With which the Army was going to fly them directly to the boneyard. I think it had something to do with the AF wanting more F-16's. I seem to remember that in that plan the Army wasn't going to get any increase in manning or funds to operate/maintain them. Of course this could all have been a bunch of crap too. I was a Private back then!
Click to expand...

AF was coming out with the A-16 back then, featuring a 30mm GE centerline gun pod, to get the same effects as the A-10. This pod was used a grand total of once in combat by the NY ANG's girls of Syracuse unit in Desert Storm (a former A-10 unit), and they didnt' like the fast moving to the ground as they tried to employ it. So much fo the vaunted "Fast Ass CAS" that the A-16 was supposed to be.

AF wanted rid of the A-10, but didn't want anyone else having them, most especially being flown by some non-officer Warrant types (though they never said that publically, you could feel the disdain). Second, the AF was worried that the Army "wouldn't utilize the A-10 correctly". Really? Who gives a crap? Do you worry what a new owner of your used car is doing with your car after you've sold it to him?
 
hook_dupin said:
Doesn't mean the A-10 isn't bad-ass... it is. So were the P-47 and the A-1. I just don't think we need an all-CAS platform the way that we did in 1985 or 1991.
Click to expand...
Seems like every time we decide we don't need a whatever aircraft, we go fight somewhere and then find out that we still do need it.
 
MikeD said:
AF was coming out with the A-16 back then, featuring a 30mm GE centerline gun pod, to get the same effects as the A-10. This pod was used a grand total of once in combat by the NY ANG's girls of Syracuse unit in Desert Storm (a former A-10 unit), and they didnt' like the fast moving to the ground as they tried to employ it. So much fo the vaunted "Fast Ass CAS" that the A-16 was supposed to be.

AF wanted rid of the A-10, but didn't want anyone else having them, most especially being flown by some non-officer Warrant types (though they never said that publically, you could feel the disdain). Second, the AF was worried that the Army "wouldn't utilize the A-10 correctly". Really? Who gives a crap? Do you worry what a new owner of your used car is doing with your car after you've sold it to him?
Click to expand...


Ahh, that explains it. Seems like that'd be a lot of weight hung out there in the breeze.
 
MikeD said:
Congress needs to change the doctrinal restrictions that preclude the Army from flying armed fixed-wing aircraft, send the A-10s to the Army, and the AF can wash it's hands of the CAS mission as a core mission.
Click to expand...
What's the timeframe for retirement? Does this announcement mean that they aren't going to make it to 2040 or if they are going to be phased out quickly? Were all airframes upgraded to C's? Did all the airframes get new wings?
 
Pilot Fighter said:
What's the timeframe for retirement? Does this announcement mean that they aren't going to make it to 2040 or if they are going to be phased out quickly? Were all airframes upgraded to C's? Did all the airframes get new wings?
Click to expand...

I heard that the A-10 school here at DM has stopped taking initial qualification students. Only requal's are coming through now. If that's true, the Hog doesn't have a lot of time left. 2 years or so, I'd guess.

I'm going to miss watching their landing lights come on in sequence for the ILS 30 at DM from my backyard.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
What's the timeframe for retirement? Does this announcement mean that they aren't going to make it to 2040 or if they are going to be phased out quickly? Were all airframes upgraded to C's? Did all the airframes get new wings?
Click to expand...

The remaining ones were converted to C; last of the A models had been in Korea. The wing mod had been completed earlier. Looking at end of FY14
 
Q
MikeD said:
I guess not enough to cover the cost of using that airframe. From the earliest days of airtankers, tests were run using underwing hard mounts, cropduster style, to using droppable external stores. Neither were exceptionally effective; which is why you see Air Tractor type crop dusters being used for firefighting, having a tank instead of using a dusting type-system. Better coverage, mass, etc.



AF was coming out with the A-16 back then, featuring a 30mm GE centerline gun pod, to get the same effects as the A-10. This pod was used a grand total of once in combat by the NY ANG's girls of Syracuse unit in Desert Storm (a former A-10 unit), and they didnt' like the fast moving to the ground as they tried to employ it. So much fo the vaunted "Fast Ass CAS" that the A-16 was supposed to be.

AF wanted rid of the A-10, but didn't want anyone else having them, most especially being flown by some non-officer Warrant types (though they never said that publically, you could feel the disdain). Second, the AF was worried that the Army "wouldn't utilize the A-10 correctly". Really? Who gives a crap? Do you worry what a new owner of your used car is doing with your car after you've sold it to him?
Click to expand...

Well, if the Army guys would take pay cuts so they were more cost effective maybe they could under bid...

...wait, wrong career path.
 
MikeD said:
The remaining ones were converted to C; last of the A models had been in Korea. The wing mod had been completed earlier. Looking at end of FY14
Click to expand...
Wow, that's fast. While the A-10 evolved into a pretty sophisticated attack platform I can't help but think that big cannon is going to be missed in a future battlefield.
 
Roger Roger said:
Seems like every time we decide we don't need a whatever aircraft, we go fight somewhere and then find out that we still do need it.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping we do less "going and fighting somewhere." Your Air Force will figure out a way to kick ass and win the battles regardless of equipment. It's our job and we're good damn at it. Winning the wars to achieve America's national objectives is a much more elusive task...
 
lol a-10 designed to for a world with a bunch of zsu-23s farting around in the open, not a network of trained srebians hopping around with an endless supply of sa-6 missiles.

it's all lasers now … f-35s high-up with lasers. that's teh ticket.
 
The Fez said:
I heard that the A-10 school here at DM has stopped taking initial qualification students. Only requal's are coming through now. If that's true,
Click to expand...

It is true -- a handful of recent graduates in my sq at Vance have been re-assigned from A-10s to other airframes in the last three weeks or so.
 
ozziecat35 said:
http://americanmilitarynews.com/2013/09/r-i-p-a-10-warthog/

I haz a sad.
Click to expand...

We'll see. They've been talking about 86ing the warthog for years.
I love the argument. It only does one thing. Yeah, well, so Koby only plays hoops.
What they should really do is let the Army fly fixed-wings and move 'em over to the Army. Oh, wait... then no contractor would make big bucks fixing what's not broken. I guess I need a refresher course.
 
Crop Duster said:
What they should really do is let the Army fly fixed-wings and move 'em over to the Army.
Click to expand...

MikeD said: ↑
"Congress needs to change the doctrinal restrictions that preclude the Army from flying armed fixed-wing aircraft, send the A-10s to the Army, and the AF can wash it's hands of the CAS mission."

Ah, rats. Guess I shoulda read the whole threat before shooting off my big GAU mouth.
 
But Keeeyyy West!
  • The Navy would be allowed to retain its own combat air arm "...to conduct air operations as necessary for the accomplishment of objectives in a naval campaign..."
  • The Army would be allowed to retain aviation assets for reconnaissance and medical evacuation purposes.
  • The Air Force would have control of all strategic air assets, and most tactical and logistic functions as well.
 
Minuteman said:
But Keeeyyy West!
  • The Navy would be allowed to retain its own combat air arm "...to conduct air operations as necessary for the accomplishment of objectives in a naval campaign..."
Click to expand...


Meow, we gotta make sure that "naval campaign" is broadly interpreted lest the US starts losing air supremacy. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top