Another reason not to retire the venerable A-10

[melax]

Bottom of the aircraft damaged ? No landing gear ? No canopy ?
No Problem Man. Tough plane

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/1...ms-miracle-landing-with-no-wheels-canopy.html

Air Force pilot performs miracle landing with no wheels, canopy
Published August 15, 2017
Fox News

Capt. Brett DeVries, an A-10 Thunderbolt II pilot of the 107th Fighter Squadron from Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan, was forced to make an emergency landing on July 20 after a malfunction. (Air National Guard)

Capt. Brett DeVries said he had to think fast when a “donut of gas” enveloped his gun and aircraft over Michigan’s Grayling Air Gunnery Range -- forcing him to make a dramatic belly-landing.

The 30 mm gun of his A-10 jet misfired just as the entire canopy of the aircraft blew off last month, the Air Force Times reported Tuesday.

DeVries, a pilot with the 107th Fighter Squadron of the Michigan Air National Guard, was exposed to winds approaching 350 miles per hour, officials said. The Air Force captain lowered the seat as far as it could go to offer protection from the air around him. The blown canopy had damaged the bottom of the aircraft too.

After assessing the damage, DeVries intended to belly-land the plane — with no wheels or canopy.

Expand / Collapse
The wingmen together made a 25-minute flight from explosion to runway after a malfunction forced an emergency landing.

As DeVries and his wingman made the 25-minute flight from explosion to runway, they “talked through every possibility and how he was going to land it.”

DeVries came in shallow and slow, landed centerline and got out of the badly damaged jet on his own, according to Air Force Times.

“In this case, the training took over and it is what made the difference,” he said.

 

[MikeD]

"The hatch just blew".

Interesting tidbit on the Hog. When performing a gear up landing, the jet CG-wise rests on the main wheels and the bottom of the vertical stabs. Since there are no main landing gear doors, the main wheels extend halfway out of their bays when retracted. On a gear up landing, the main wheels freely roll and the brakes work fine, allowing for stopping the jet as well as having a semblance of directional control on rollout. It's the only jet where I've seen one land gear-up intentionally due to a main landing gear emergency, and clear the runway on a high speed taxiway exit.

 

[MikeD]

The news around home here never ceases to deliver. First McCain and his terrible legislating for this state. Now the latest: congresswoman Martha McSally is requesting to join the AF Reserve at DMA as a traditional reservist O-6 (full Colonel, her retired rank), and get requaled in the Hog in order to fly with the Reserve RTU squadron here at DM, nearly $1 million in training. Meanwhile, her promise to have had the money for the replacement center wing sets for the A-10 all fully funded, apparently wasn't completely honest....


While Rep. Martha McSally’s experience as a former A-10 pilot was a strong selling point for voters in Arizona’s Congressional District 2, her latest request for $1 million in A-10 training, that will provide new campaign collateral, has USAF generals up in arms.

McSally is struggling to connect with the voters in Congressional District 2 (CD2). As a result, she has gone to great lengths to generate compelling propaganda. The venerable A-10 is beloved by nearly everyone but the USAF Fighter Mafia, so it the perfect vehicle for her to propel herself back into the hearts and minds of CD2 voters.

According to sources, McSally’s retraining would cost approximately $1 million. But no expense is too outrageous when you are in the race of your life.

Because she is the race of her life, McSally has misrepresented the funding she secured to keep the A-10 alive. In June, McSally announced that “she has successfully secured full funding for the A-10 fleet.”

She boasted that “$103 million for new A-10 wings, $17.5 million for other necessary upgrades, and $6 million for safety inspections” were included in both the House Defense Appropriations bill.”

Experts say that although McSally was able to get the House to authorize up to $103 million in the FY18 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for wings, this amount has not been appropriated and the amount falls short of what is needed to sustain the fleet.

Rather than keep up the fight she fought for the A-10 community and the personnel they serve such as JTACs with success two years ago, Capitol Hill sources say that McSally and her team have settled for issuing press releases that leave out damning facts.

McSally is accused of just going through the motions. The accusation is based on the fact that $103 million will not cover the cost of new wings. The $103 million would likely only cover the basic contract with the manufacturer and maybe 3 sets of wings. Wings, for the aircraft that has decimated ISIS, cost between $7 – $10 million a set.

An email obtained by the ADI, shows that her staff knew full-well that the $103 million was just a gesture and not a real solution. In that email, the question was asked if Congress provides the funding, how would the USAF go about re-winging the A-10s. A description of the process was also requested: The response her staff received is as follows:

The AF purchased new wings for 173 aircraft, the last of which will be installed in FY 18. These new wings along with some affordable service life extension programs and modifications ($3 to $5 M per aircraft), will enable them to fly into the foreseeable future. The FY18 PB at $340 million in the next five years to increase depot capacity and maximize the wing overhaul line.

The last of the optional Enhanced Wing Assembly (EWA) ordering periods on the Boeing Wing Replacement Program (WRP) contract expired on 30 September 16, therefore a new contract will be required to EWA behind on the 173 aircraft. A new contract could cost as much as $10 million per aircraft and would be late to need. Between 50 and 70 aircraft will ground in the FY 19–23 timeframe before a new wing contract could reach full rate production. If a new WRP were purchased by the AF it would take a year to get through the acquisition process and breach contract award. If a contract were awarded in FY18, the first article would be delivered in FY22. The estimated schedule for completing installation of the 110 new wings is approximately 11 years after initial award, but most of these A-10s will be replaced at that point.

In other words, instead of the USAF funding a contract for the A-10, they are hoping the maintenance depot can make all the repairs — which is not the case. The depot cannot make all the anticipated repairs and thus will start grounding A-10s in the timeframe of 2018-2019.

If McSally sticks only to issuing press release, and not doing the real work of getting funding, the A-10 will be a thing of the past. The fact that she has asked the USAF to expend $1 million on a propaganda stunt like requalifying her to fly the A-10 while misrepresenting the future of the plane should led to an investigation.

In her June press release, McSally told the truth when she stated: “The A-10 Warthog, which I flew, is a one-of-a-kind aircraft that is critical on any battlefield to keep our troops alive and rescue anyone trapped behind enemy lines. It is currently in the demilitarized zone protecting against North Korea aggression, destroying ISIS in the Middle East, and regularly deployed to Europe to support NATO and allies in the face of Russian aggression. It is crucial to keep the A-10 fully funded and upgraded until there is a proven, tested, replacement.”

McSally knows the USAF’s long term sustenance of the A-10 is deficient. Unfortunately, Arizona voters are only hearing her victory chants instead of the true state of the A-10 fleet.

https://arizonadailyindependent.com...a-10-funding-upsets-usaf-brass-with-pr-plans/

 

[Lawman]

The news around home here never ceases to deliver. First McCain and his terrible legislating for this state. Now the latest: congresswoman Martha McSally is requesting to join the AF Reserve at DMA as a traditional reservist O-6 (full Colonel, her retired rank), and get requaled in the Hog in order to fly with the Reserve RTU squadron here at DM, nearly $1 million in training. Meanwhile, her promise to have had the money for the replacement center wing sets for the A-10 all fully funded, apparently wasn't completely honest....


While Rep. Martha McSally’s experience as a former A-10 pilot was a strong selling point for voters in Arizona’s Congressional District 2, her latest request for $1 million in A-10 training, that will provide new campaign collateral, has USAF generals up in arms.

McSally is struggling to connect with the voters in Congressional District 2 (CD2). As a result, she has gone to great lengths to generate compelling propaganda. The venerable A-10 is beloved by nearly everyone but the USAF Fighter Mafia, so it the perfect vehicle for her to propel herself back into the hearts and minds of CD2 voters.

According to sources, McSally’s retraining would cost approximately $1 million. But no expense is too outrageous when you are in the race of your life.

Because she is the race of her life, McSally has misrepresented the funding she secured to keep the A-10 alive. In June, McSally announced that “she has successfully secured full funding for the A-10 fleet.”

She boasted that “$103 million for new A-10 wings, $17.5 million for other necessary upgrades, and $6 million for safety inspections” were included in both the House Defense Appropriations bill.”

Experts say that although McSally was able to get the House to authorize up to $103 million in the FY18 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for wings, this amount has not been appropriated and the amount falls short of what is needed to sustain the fleet.

Rather than keep up the fight she fought for the A-10 community and the personnel they serve such as JTACs with success two years ago, Capitol Hill sources say that McSally and her team have settled for issuing press releases that leave out damning facts.

McSally is accused of just going through the motions. The accusation is based on the fact that $103 million will not cover the cost of new wings. The $103 million would likely only cover the basic contract with the manufacturer and maybe 3 sets of wings. Wings, for the aircraft that has decimated ISIS, cost between $7 – $10 million a set.

An email obtained by the ADI, shows that her staff knew full-well that the $103 million was just a gesture and not a real solution. In that email, the question was asked if Congress provides the funding, how would the USAF go about re-winging the A-10s. A description of the process was also requested: The response her staff received is as follows:

The AF purchased new wings for 173 aircraft, the last of which will be installed in FY 18. These new wings along with some affordable service life extension programs and modifications ($3 to $5 M per aircraft), will enable them to fly into the foreseeable future. The FY18 PB at $340 million in the next five years to increase depot capacity and maximize the wing overhaul line.

The last of the optional Enhanced Wing Assembly (EWA) ordering periods on the Boeing Wing Replacement Program (WRP) contract expired on 30 September 16, therefore a new contract will be required to EWA behind on the 173 aircraft. A new contract could cost as much as $10 million per aircraft and would be late to need. Between 50 and 70 aircraft will ground in the FY 19–23 timeframe before a new wing contract could reach full rate production. If a new WRP were purchased by the AF it would take a year to get through the acquisition process and breach contract award. If a contract were awarded in FY18, the first article would be delivered in FY22. The estimated schedule for completing installation of the 110 new wings is approximately 11 years after initial award, but most of these A-10s will be replaced at that point.

In other words, instead of the USAF funding a contract for the A-10, they are hoping the maintenance depot can make all the repairs — which is not the case. The depot cannot make all the anticipated repairs and thus will start grounding A-10s in the timeframe of 2018-2019.

If McSally sticks only to issuing press release, and not doing the real work of getting funding, the A-10 will be a thing of the past. The fact that she has asked the USAF to expend $1 million on a propaganda stunt like requalifying her to fly the A-10 while misrepresenting the future of the plane should led to an investigation.

In her June press release, McSally told the truth when she stated: “The A-10 Warthog, which I flew, is a one-of-a-kind aircraft that is critical on any battlefield to keep our troops alive and rescue anyone trapped behind enemy lines. It is currently in the demilitarized zone protecting against North Korea aggression, destroying ISIS in the Middle East, and regularly deployed to Europe to support NATO and allies in the face of Russian aggression. It is crucial to keep the A-10 fully funded and upgraded until there is a proven, tested, replacement.”

McSally knows the USAF’s long term sustenance of the A-10 is deficient. Unfortunately, Arizona voters are only hearing her victory chants instead of the true state of the A-10 fleet.

https://arizonadailyindependent.com...a-10-funding-upsets-usaf-brass-with-pr-plans/

Oh the Irony....


The A-10s loudest proponent in Congress is a woman whose name is a fine at every squadron bar because of what she did when she was in the Air Force.

 

[deadstick]

"The hatch just blew".

Well, Gus, take all the junk out of your pockets!

Oh the Irony....


The A-10s loudest proponent in Congress is a woman whose name is a fine at every squadron bar because of what she did when she was in the Air Force.

Kinda like calling Apache pilots "Jake Preston?"

 

[A Life Aloft]

Funny enough, I had just been reading last week about the light attack aircraft that the AF is considering to perhaps replace the A-10.

Beechcraft AT-6

The Textron Scorpion

The Embraer Super Tucano A-29

The AT-6 Wolverine

I haven't had the time as of yet to even read up on these planes though. There's an exercise and testing going on this month at Holloman with these aircraft. They'll be looking at/testing for close-air support, search and rescue, strike coordination, and reconnaissance, avionics, sensors, combat maneuvers and various types of weaponry. That's about all I had time to read about thus far.

@MikeD Do you have any info/input?

Edit: Just looked for some videos on You Tube of the testing exercise, but not much uploaded yet. Found one, but doesn't show a whole helluva lot.

Saw another video celebrating that the 8th Fighter Squadron was just reactivated at Holloman too. Pretty cool.

 

[Lawman]

Well, Gus, take all the junk out of your pockets!





Kinda like calling Apache pilots "Jake Preston?"

Worse... so much worse.

 

[MikeD]

@MikeD Do you have any info/input?

Saw another video celebrating that the 8th Fighter Squadron was just reactivated at Holloman too. Pretty cool.
]

The 8th Fighter Squadron is my old squadron.

Regards this light attack plane, it's a nice bird but I question the utility we would have for it. We've purchased the A-29 for foreign air forces such as the Afghans, and I believe we still train their guys at Moody AFB, Ga. But as far as having our own fleet of these planes in the USAF, it's a lot of acquisition cost, for a very limited utility. These planes are only good for a low intensity, fairly low (anti-aircraft) threat combat situation: like an Afghanistan. Purchasing these planes for the Air Forces of these countries makes sense, as this is what those Air Forces will be doing day to day in their countries. For us, unless we in the USA plan on getting ourselves involved in more and more Afghan-style quagmires (hopefully not), then we don't have much use for this type of aircraft in our day to day operations, or anywhere that has any kind of moderate or greater air defense capability. These will somewhat work in a Syria scenario, but with robust truck mounted guns of moderate caliber and fixed ones of higher caliber, along with MANPADs, survivability will be an issue. And against a peer enemy, these will be out of the question.

My thought is that the AF is doing a cursory test of these planes, with the decision to not go with the program already a done deal, much like what was done with Piper's PA-48 Enforcer in the mid-1980s.

 

[WacoFan]

They are also looking at the Air Tractor 802U for the light attack plane. Which I am in favor of. The Air Force needs a taildragger. I think Mike would agree here.

 

[NovemberEcho]

How does the canopy blowing off damage the bottom of the plane?

 

[melax]

If you read the story well, the gun misfired, the gun is located under the cockpit "lower front", one can guess an explosion of some sort occurred, a shock wave would probably be omni-directional, as the pilot described a "donut" shaped cloud.... blowing up both the upper part and lower fuselage, not withstanding debris flying all over....... MikeD can probably explain it better ....

 

[MikeD]

If you read the story well, the gun misfired, the gun is located under the cockpit "lower front", one can guess an explosion of some sort occurred, a shock wave would probably be omni-directional, as the pilot described a "donut" shaped cloud.... blowing up both the upper part and lower fuselage, not withstanding debris flying all over....... MikeD can probably explain it better ....

Its happened a few times that I know of and is generally the result of a misfeed and a round exploding outside the barrel seat. When that happens, it generally destroys the gun drive area, as well as damages the nose landing gear which is right next to it when retracted, either preventing the nose gear from extending, or blowing it off the aircraft altogether. Either ejection or a all-gear up landing must be made, depending on the damage and controllability.

 

[Roger Roger]

Its happened a few times that I know of and is generally the result of a misfeed and a round exploding outside the barrel seat. When that happens, it generally destroys the gun drive area, as well as damages the nose landing gear which is right next to it when retracted, either preventing the nose gear from extending, or blowing it off the aircraft altogether. Either ejection or a all-gear up landing must be made, depending on the damage and controllability.

That makes sense. I was trying to piece together what all those had in common and the only thing I could figure was massive hydraulic malfunction.

 

[NovemberEcho]

The blown canopy had damaged the bottom of the aircraft too.

If you read the story well, the gun misfired, the gun is located under the cockpit "lower front", one can guess an explosion of some sort occurred, a shock wave would probably be omni-directional, as the pilot described a "donut" shaped cloud.... blowing up both the upper part and lower fuselage, not withstanding debris flying all over....... MikeD can probably explain it better ....

I did read the story well.

 

[MikeD]

It's the first time I've ever heard of a canopy jettisoning because of a gun malfunction though.

 

[deadstick]

It's the first time I've ever heard of a canopy jettisoning because of a gun malfunction though.

Soooo....the top fell off?