Nice article on A-10 developments

Aviation news and discussion for anything aviation related.
Post Reply
User avatar
ysmajor
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:55 am
Favorite Aircraft: Curtiss P-40B Warhawk
Location: Shanghai
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 105 times
Contact:

Nice article on A-10 developments

Post by ysmajor » Sun Feb 15, 2015 4:35 am

Hi all,

found a nice site with defense news and this article below I thought worth sharing:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/at-wha ... 1685239179

Hope you like it and please share if you have more info on this.

User avatar
Gunny
Business Class Membership
Business Class Membership
Posts: 3239
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:17 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Any thing with a prop.
Location: New Iberia.LA.
OS: Windows 10 & XP SP3
Has thanked: 578 times
Been thanked: 768 times

Nice article on A-10 developments

Post by Gunny » Sun Feb 15, 2015 5:46 am

Unfortunately this has been a pattern of conduct since the birth of the Air force some 60 odd years ago starting with Gen. Curtis LaMay.A better strategist or air war fighter you could not ask for but woefully lacking in administrative or interpersonal skills.He set the tone for how the Air Force would deal with Congressional funding right up to this day.At the time his way was rooted is trying to get the fledgling Air Force up and running as a separate entity from the old Army Air Forces not an easy task since the war had ended and defense spending was at a premium for all the armed forces.And the Navy as always was at the top for funding considerations list and the Army was still jealous of having its air power roll subjugated to the new Air Force.But as the new kid on the hill the Air Force was dead last for funding.So Gen. Lamay had to resort to creative ideas so the first thing he did was quash any dissenting idea from the ranks of his own service and the second thing he did was create an atmosphere of elitism in the Pentagon.
And as a further piece of strategy was to us that old military hack phrase "For the good of the service" .So it surprises me not a whit that the Air Force is willing to kill the A-10 as a sacrifice to the newer F-22 and F-35 programs that have cost America Billions of dollars in cost over runs.And since the F-35 is supposed to replace the A-10 for close air support they need to prove its combat effectiveness in the real world.And that is hard to do when the A-10 fills that roll superlatively and is already in the field proving itself every day.In other words in order to get the second string in the game they have to get rid of the first string already playing and winning.
Image[/align=centre]

User avatar
ysmajor
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:55 am
Favorite Aircraft: Curtiss P-40B Warhawk
Location: Shanghai
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 105 times
Contact:

Nice article on A-10 developments

Post by ysmajor » Sun Feb 15, 2015 6:21 am

Why can't the Army or Marines buy the A-10's instead?
If the Air Force is reluctant to do the job required of them, but instead focuses on the economics and profitability of war as a business, the A-10's could be taken over and take a seat next to the choppers and fixed-wings already in service.

It's strange why the A-10 needs to be killed for the F-35 which isn't even operational yet. Having both would seem a better option.
Good to see more senators are voicing opposition to this now... SNAFU anyone?

User avatar
Gunny
Business Class Membership
Business Class Membership
Posts: 3239
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:17 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Any thing with a prop.
Location: New Iberia.LA.
OS: Windows 10 & XP SP3
Has thanked: 578 times
Been thanked: 768 times

Nice article on A-10 developments

Post by Gunny » Sun Feb 15, 2015 6:29 am

A good question Major and I do not have an answer for it.Its possible that the Marine Corps does not want to inherit so many old aircraft to maintain.They have a bunch of air hours on the airframes and an inter service transfer would be a logistics and supply nightmare for both services.But that is just conjecture on my part.
Image[/align=centre]

User avatar
Ace Lord
VFA-49
VFA-49
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:45 pm
Favorite Aircraft: B-52H Stratofortress
Location: Freedomland
OS: Windows 10
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 145 times

Nice article on A-10 developments

Post by Ace Lord » Sun Feb 15, 2015 7:08 am

A good piece of equipment can never truly be replaced...such is the case with most Cold War era gear.
Image

User avatar
Gunny
Business Class Membership
Business Class Membership
Posts: 3239
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:17 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Any thing with a prop.
Location: New Iberia.LA.
OS: Windows 10 & XP SP3
Has thanked: 578 times
Been thanked: 768 times

Nice article on A-10 developments

Post by Gunny » Sun Feb 15, 2015 7:28 am

I have to disagree with that Ace.I have no sentimental attachment to the old 782 personal combat web gear.It was cumbersome and heavy and when it got wet it was worse and that was 75% of the time.The new gear is much lighter and water proofed much more effectively and the new helmets although goofy looking are much more effective than the old tin pot I wore as well as the new flack jackets.
Image[/align=centre]

User avatar
Dragon029
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 601
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:09 am
Favorite Aircraft: F-35A
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Nice article on A-10 developments

Post by Dragon029 » Sun Feb 15, 2015 8:50 am

ysmajor wrote:Why can't the Army or Marines buy the A-10's instead?
If the Air Force is reluctant to do the job required of them, but instead focuses on the economics and profitability of war as a business, the A-10's could be taken over and take a seat next to the choppers and fixed-wings already in service.

It's strange why the A-10 needs to be killed for the F-35 which isn't even operational yet. Having both would seem a better option.
Good to see more senators are voicing opposition to this now... SNAFU anyone?
If the USAF gives the A-10 to another service, they lose funding as part of their ability to provide CAS; the reason they want to get rid of them however is simply because it'd provide them with better leverage to obtain funding for newer platforms like the LRS-B, F-35 and UCAVs.

The reason they want to get rid of A-10s right now though is because there's only something like 300 mechanics for the USAF F-35 fleet and they need roughly 1100 for IOC in late 2016. There's a fair few going through training right now, but it's going to be tight, which is why they've put 36 A-10's into flying storage in order to free up a bunch of experienced technicians.

From what I've seen personally; the US military has a bit of a problem with being reliant on human experience - technicians will find better ways to do their jobs, or identify problems in manufacturer instructions, but fail to report the problems or document their methods, instead simply just showing the next guy how they need to do their job. For example; the RAAF has operated the Super Hornet for only about 1/3 as long as the US Navy, yet we've submitted in total roughly 10x as many issues with the documentation, etc.

And so; when it comes to the F-35; if you guys don't have experienced techs ready to carry over their tips and tricks to this new platform, there may be problems with the quality assurance and operational performance of new squadrons. The last thing the military wants now is a repeat of the F-16's introduction.

Edit:

I should add too; when it comes to close air support, the A-10's good, but it's main advantages are the amount of ammo it carries for it's gun, and it's reputation. Other aircraft can give their pilots better views, or have more accurate guns, carry more weapons, etc. Today, most CAS is done by jets like the F-16; the A-10 typically only makes up ~10-15%, primarily because while it's born for it, it's simply too prone to getting shot at or shot down. It can survive a lot of abuse, but it's far cheaper and effective to avoid getting hit in the first place; if it gets hit by a MANPADS or SAM, it doesn't matter whether or not it's still flying, simply because it's not going to be capable of fighting any more, and after it 'lands', it'll never fly again.
Per Ardua Ad Astra
>>> Dragon Addon Pack <<<
(PAK-FA, F/A-52, F/A-36, MQ-21)

User avatar
NeurAxaL
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:50 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Avro Vulcan B.Mk.2
Location: Madchester, UK
OS: Windows 10
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Nice article on A-10 developments

Post by NeurAxaL » Sun Feb 15, 2015 3:48 pm

does anyone think that RAF may have a say in where they go if they do (which they shouldn't) retire this? ;)
the Harrier is great but maybe cut back to just the sea harrier, as we really dont do the VTOL thing that much on the land.......
just an idea.
also the Gau-8 makes me feel tingly inside....... :lol:
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests