My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.

I'm a big fan of the A-10 Warthog (i.e.: the "Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II"). FFI, see URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_ ... derbolt_II

I know about the immanent retirement of the A-10, and strongly disagree with it. I wish there was a way to use "social media" to convince Obama and Sec of Defense Chuck Hagel to not only stop the retirement, but to upgrade the A-10. Instead, Hagel seems inclined to use the A-10 funds to buy a few F-35As (groan).

In my wildest dreams, I would like to see the abolishment or modification of the "Key West Agreement", where the Army agreed to NOT have fixed wing aircraft. (i.e.: This would leave open the door for the Army to refurbish the A-10 for their own use.) FFI, see URLs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace-Finletter_MOU_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-Mc ... nt_of_1966

I understand that there were 716 built (or 2+713, depending on your sources).
I also understand that the Air Force is currently on track to (at least) reduce the number of aircraft to 283.

I hear about all the troubles withs ISIL, ISIS, etc., and I can't help but wonder if the A-10, or a modified 2 seat version (the one, single A-10B example) would be a great help out there.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gerrit_ko ... 296721760/
[It's now on display at the Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC) Museum at Edwards AFB.]



I also wonder: In the same way that a book can have a copyright, that can be sold, inherited or transferred...

Who "owns" the design of the A-10?

Would it be the U.S. Air Force?

What about The Fairchild-Republic company?
Technically, it does still exist.
(See URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Aircraft)
As a result of a bankruptcy, their assets are owned by "M7 Aerospace", who in turn is now owned by the United States subsidiary of the Israeli defense contractor Elbit Systems.

Could the Iraqis turn to Elbit and offer to buy some newly build A-10Bs?
(Hehehehehe... What a thought. Note that I did NOT say would the Iraqis, I said could the Iraqis..)

I imagine the answer must be NO; the US Defense Dept. would exert their control over the design.

Hmmm... 713 minus 283 equals 430.
From a selection of 430 unused airframes, even those at the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base,
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%8 ... Force_Base)
...but especially those most recently withdrawn from active service... There must be SOME reasonable inventory of A-10s that could be transferred to the Iraq Air Force. (OK, OK, please try to not laugh so hard at the idea of an Iraqi Air Force.)


When the idea of the US getting involved in fighting ISIS/ISIL, I observed that one day we would need to have forward observers on the ground. I suspect that ruling out even FOs was a mistake on Hagel and Obama's part.
Failing Forward Observers however, having A-10s loitering in the air over there could help out a great deal. Especially two seaters, where one could be a US pilot, and the second could be an Iraqi.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Below are some more links.
Go ahead, flame away.



ERR


==================================================

The Air Force's Rationale For Retiring The A-10 Warthog Is Bullshit
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-us ... 1562789528

REPUBLIC NIGHT/ADVERSE WEATHER A-10 (YA-10B)
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsh ... sp?id=3206

.

I can't flame away since I have nowhere near enough knowledge on the subject to have an informed opinion.

I don't know how much financial effort would be needed to keep the A-10 fleet flying for instance and how cost effective they would be in relation to newer aircraft. Have the airframes reached or even passed their design lifetimes? Can they be maintained without what amounts to a complete rebuild? Can drones fulfill the ground attack role as perceived as necessary when taking the current threat situation into account?

One thing I can say though: I too find the A-10 exceedingly cool and will miss them.

I am sure they will go right into the military aircraft hall-of-fame.

Ensign Re-read wrote:I'm a big fan of the A-10 Warthog (i.e.: the "Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II"). FFI, see URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_ ... derbolt_II

I know about the immanent retirement of the A-10, and strongly disagree with it. I wish there was a way to use "social media" to convince Obama and Sec of Defense Chuck Hagel to not only stop the retirement, but to upgrade the A-10. Instead, Hagel seems inclined to use the A-10 funds to buy a few F-35As (groan).

In my wildest dreams, I would like to see the abolishment or modification of the "Key West Agreement", where the Army agreed to NOT have fixed wing aircraft. (i.e.: This would leave open the door for the Army to refurbish the A-10 for their own use.) FFI, see URLs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace-Finletter_MOU_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-Mc ... nt_of_1966

I understand that there were 716 built (or 2+713, depending on your sources).
I also understand that the Air Force is currently on track to (at least) reduce the number of aircraft to 283.

I hear about all the troubles withs ISIL, ISIS, etc., and I can't help but wonder if the A-10, or a modified 2 seat version (the one, single A-10B example) would be a great help out there.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gerrit_ko ... 296721760/
[It's now on display at the Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC) Museum at Edwards AFB.]



I also wonder: In the same way that a book can have a copyright, that can be sold, inherited or transferred...

Who "owns" the design of the A-10?

Would it be the U.S. Air Force?

What about The Fairchild-Republic company?
Technically, it does still exist.
(See URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Aircraft)
As a result of a bankruptcy, their assets are owned by "M7 Aerospace", who in turn is now owned by the United States subsidiary of the Israeli defense contractor Elbit Systems.

Could the Iraqis turn to Elbit and offer to buy some newly build A-10Bs?
(Hehehehehe... What a thought. Note that I did NOT say would the Iraqis, I said could the Iraqis..)

I imagine the answer must be NO; the US Defense Dept. would exert their control over the design.

Hmmm... 713 minus 283 equals 430.
From a selection of 430 unused airframes, even those at the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base,
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%8 ... Force_Base)
...but especially those most recently withdrawn from active service... There must be SOME reasonable inventory of A-10s that could be transferred to the Iraq Air Force. (OK, OK, please try to not laugh so hard at the idea of an Iraqi Air Force.)


When the idea of the US getting involved in fighting ISIS/ISIL, I observed that one day we would need to have forward observers on the ground. I suspect that ruling out even FOs was a mistake on Hagel and Obama's part.
Failing Forward Observers however, having A-10s loitering in the air over there could help out a great deal. Especially two seaters, where one could be a US pilot, and the second could be an Iraqi.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Below are some more links.
Go ahead, flame away.



ERR


==================================================

The Air Force's Rationale For Retiring The A-10 Warthog Is Bullshit
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-us ... 1562789528

REPUBLIC NIGHT/ADVERSE WEATHER A-10 (YA-10B)
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsh ... sp?id=3206

.

I don't think the reasons are BS. Exagerated yeah, but not BS. Add the age of the frames and I can understand.

The main problem is the multi-use concept.

I'd love to see them redesign it. It's always been my favorite plane. A true example of brute power can make anything fly.

A-10 Warhog Attack Run
http://youtu.be/1rGcn2XGr48

Ensign Re-read wrote:I'm a big fan of the A-10 Warthog (i.e.: the "Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II"). FFI, see URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_ ... derbolt_II

I know about the immanent retirement of the A-10, and strongly disagree with it.
...

The USAF has been trying to retire the A-10 since before I retired in 1989. I wouldn't get too outraged until they actually mange to get it eliminated from the budget -- which they haven't as far as I ca tell.

The A-10 may become the little brother of the B-52 and be flown by three generations of pilots -- I certainly hope so. But the A-10 design is 40 years old and so are most of the airframes. I don't know what will replace the Warthog, but something will replace it, just as it replaced the A1E's as the premier ground attack and CAS asset.

Weird Harold wrote:

Ensign Re-read wrote: I'm a big fan of the A-10 Warthog (i.e.: the "Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II"). FFI, see URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_ ... derbolt_II

I know about the immanent retirement of the A-10, and strongly disagree with it.
...

The USAF has been trying to retire the A-10 since before I retired in 1989. I wouldn't get too outraged until they actually mange to get it eliminated from the budget -- which they haven't as far as I ca tell.

The A-10 may become the little brother of the B-52 and be flown by three generations of pilots -- I certainly hope so. But the A-10 design is 40 years old and so are most of the airframes. I don't know what will replace the Warthog, but something will replace it, just as it replaced the A1E's as the premier ground attack and CAS asset.

The F-35 may replace it if the lemon can be squeazed out of it.
http://airwingmedia.com/pilots/2014/pie ... f35-lemon/

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-ai ... b2cef00361

Why the USAF hates the A-10
http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013 ... -replaced/

Weird Harold wrote:

Ensign Re-read wrote:I'm a big fan of the A-10 Warthog (i.e.: the "Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II"). FFI, see URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_ ... derbolt_II

I know about the immanent retirement of the A-10, and strongly disagree with it.
...

The USAF has been trying to retire the A-10 since before I retired in 1989. I wouldn't get too outraged until they actually mange to get it eliminated from the budget -- which they haven't as far as I ca tell.

The A-10 may become the little brother of the B-52 and be flown by three generations of pilots -- I certainly hope so. But the A-10 design is 40 years old and so are most of the airframes. I don't know what will replace the Warthog, but something will replace it, just as it replaced the A1E's as the premier ground attack and CAS asset.

My understanding of the A-10 design (and I too love the plane) is that it was to counter the massive Soviet advantage in armor in Europe. Effectively the plane is build around the central depleted uranium tank busting cannon, with additional hard points for other ordinance. With the demise of the Soviet Union, is there still a primary mission for the A-10? I agree that the F35 is not going to be an adequate replacement for the roles that the A-10 filled (and before that the F22, and before that the F16, all of which the AF has called adequate to fill the A10 role). The real problem the AF has with the A10 is that it doesn't fly supersonic, filled with lots of gee-whiz electronics. It is ugly as hell, but superb at its job. The Army may well be resigned to losing their A10s, and planning on replacing them with helicopter gunships, which they will control, not the flyboys in blue.

Annachie wrote:I don't think the reasons are BS. Exagerated yeah, but not BS. Add the age of the frames and I can understand.

The main problem is the multi-use concept.

I'd love to see them redesign it. It's always been my favorite plane. A true example of brute power can make anything fly.

I'll address the frame issue in a moment...

The "Multi-use" concept is a bag of male bovine excrement. No multi-use aircraft, with the possible and marginal exception of the F/A-18, has ever done all of its jobs very well. The big problem with a close air support aircraft is that it needs to be ARMORED, and it needs to have a LOT of "loiter" time. Neither one of these requirements are filled by any other (US) aircraft.

As for the frame, as I understand it, Helicopters are susceptible to vibration wear and tear throughout the entirity of their frame. Airplanes on the the other hand (and yes, this IS an over simplification) tend to have most of their vibration wear and tear on their wings.
Guess what... The A-10s DO have a wing replacement program already set up. Yes, it's true that it's primarily aimed at the earlier production serial numbers (there was a design change), but it's my (layman's) understanding that it can and has also been used for the later serial numbered frames.

Let's not forget that there is still plenty of room to upgrade the plane. Upgrades that the Air Force doesn't want to spend money on. For those of you who have not read it, check out the link to the foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com story. He/they do a much better job than I ever could of just how upgradeable the airframe is.

OK then, Obama and/or Hagel could rip up the Key West Agreement, and transfer the planes to the Army (and/or Marines). Heck, even the Navy could use them as land based players in the African Piracy conflict(s) {Example: P-3 Orion}.

BTW, back to one of my earlier questions... Just WHO OWNS THE DESIGN of the A-10? In theory, could the Elbit Systems company have the right to build new ones?


ERR


.

cthia wrote:Why the USAF hates the A-10
http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013 ... -replaced/

Kudos to you cthia.

The Defense Issues article you referenced (see above) does just as good of a job as the foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com article, but in a somewhat more condensed and polite format.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-us ... 1562789528




.

Ensign Re-read wrote:snip
BTW, back to one of my earlier questions... Just WHO OWNS THE DESIGN of the A-10? In theory, could the Elbit Systems company have the right to build new ones?
.

They probably do, but they almost certainly will not get the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) approvals to export them outside the US, and there is no customer inside the US that wants to (or will be allowed to) buy them. I addition, is there still a central mission to the A10 as currently designed. Would it not be better to refine the design, since the requirements for a CAS are totally different that those required for an air superiority fighter, which is all the Air Force really wants - they just can't justify building a new air superiority fighter when the F22 can already blow anything anyone else has out of the sky. They also want control over everything that flies (at least fixed wing). So the A10 has to go, since it doesn't fit their vision of the what aircraft should look like. I wouldn't be surprised if sometime in the future they attempt to convince some president that the Navy shouldn't have pilots - we'll just put some AF pilots on board the aircraft carriers, and the Navy can just run the ships. And eventually, try to get all of the helicopters under their control as well - "It'll be much more efficient if all of the flight training is centralized in one service".