Doomed A-10 Gets Life Extension - AVweb

News Discussion
1

Despite repeated attempts by Air Force brass to retire it, the A-10 Warthog is getting a billion-dollar lease on life. Boeing announced last week it had started delivering the first 50 of 112 sets of new wings for the close air support platform. The new wings will extend the life of the aircraft by 10,000 hours. In 2019, the company finished supplying wings for 173 Warthogs and two weeks later the Air Force announced it needed another 112, enough for the rest of the fleet of 281 with three spare sets. Boeing had to pull the tooling out of storage to build the wings.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/a-10s-getting-new-wings-as-air-force-tries-to-retire-them
2

Remember when, in the aftermath of 9-11, Chicago’s mayor asserted that Skyhawks flying over the city comprised an unacceptable danger to the populace?

Almost seems quaint now. Misguided, demogogic and purposeful. But quaint.

Flash forward. Will we embrace a paradigm that regulates flight activity by use? Drones delivering insulin, good; drones delivering pizza, bad?

With apologies to Capital One, “What’s in YOUR cargo compartment?”

Inventing technology is easy. Allowing people to (mis)use it? Much more challenging.

3

Would it be a violation of Section 363 if you used one of these INSIDE ? Cuz I think a couple of these would be pretty cool on ‘BattleBots.’ Maybe even miniature AIM-9X or other ordnance would make it so much more realistic. Maybe we could have two bots like Hypershock and Huge vs. The Wasp ?

We’re now going from the sublime to the ridiculous.

4

Weaponizing a drone IS illegal; but it’s NOT weaponizing if you use it responsibly and in a way that does no harm people or property. Unless it’s being used as a weapon or in a way that will do harm to people, then it’s NONE of the FAA’s business. Period.

5

If you attach an automatic weapon to a drone, you have weaponized it, even if its magazine is empty and even if you never fire it. And as you say, weaponizing a drone is illegal. So attaching a flamethrower to a drone is illegal, regardless of whether you actually harm people or property. So it is the FAA’s business. Period.

6

"Dangerous weapon, says the FAA, means ‘any item that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury.’ "

So much for crop-spraying apparatus, eh? Same for fire-suppression spray apparatus. WMD, for sure.

7

I sniff a whole new subset of ambulance chasing lawyers forming at the periphery. “Your honor … my client was seriously injured by a box that fell off the Amazon drone.” Those with deep pockets … beware. And … speaking of things falling off a drone, … “wanna buy this beer that fell off a drone on the way to the ice fishing shanty?” Gangs of unscrupulous kids will be laying in wait for the things. Drone hijackers will be snatching drones and holding them for ransom until you pay them with bitcoin. With a bit of tinkering, inventive electronics types could ‘spoof’ a GPS position and you’d have all the packages coming to your neighborhood dropped off at your house. When an EMP hits, the sky will be raining drones. Farmers Insurance will have to make some new commercials because – well – they’ve ‘seen’ a thing or two. Finally, the “bad boys” will be sure and follow all the FAA rules without fail … wink, wink. The permutations are endless.

Yeah … it’s a brave new world out there …

8

No, NO, NO! it’s not a “weapon” unless you intend to use it as a weapon.
You cannot say it’s a “weapon” unless you are using it AS A WEAPON.
Q.E.D.

9

Eight flying Un-shielded high speed rotor blade assemblies can cause “death or serious bodily injury” a whole lot faster than fire. Just intentionally ramming the that large sized drone into a person is an effective “weapon” so an object only becomes a weaponized if you USE IT AS a weapon.

10

You don’t have to argue about the meaning of “weapon.” The law the FAA cites defines “dangerous weapon” exactly as quoted in the article. Intent to use as a weapon isn’t a requirement. The fact that other devices might arguably meet the definition isn’t going to matter to the arresting officer or the prosecutor. Ultimately it will be up to a judge and jury to decide if one of these flamethrowers meets the definition, but unless you have a real, provable legitimate purpose for it, I wouldn’t want to roll those dice. A legitimate user can and should go through the hoops to get approval, not just for the flamethrower but for the non-hobby drone use.

11

There are no rules against a pilot carrying a weapon on their own aircraft.
I don’t even know of any rules against firing it in the air (as long as they take care to prevent damage people and/or property).
Heck, I have heard that there are even hog hunts from VTOL aircraft.
Dangerous weapons on private VTOL aircraft are legal.
It’s not “weaponizing” the aircraft.

12

The F-35 and A-10 roles have some overlap. But they are designed to operate in very different roles. The F-35 would be an expensive replacement that would eventually lead to the USAF re-learning lessons that resulted in the A-10 in the first place.

13

I’ll bet if Congress were to suggest transferring the mission flown by the A10 and the airplane to the Army, the Air Force generals would change their minds.

14

Having served on the A-10 Test Team back in 1975 at Edwards AFB, I find the incessant desire to end the airplanes life by Senior USAF types and their bean counters myopic. The F-35 will NEVER be able to provide close air support like the A-10. Their preoccupation with “stealth” has its place but the F-35 would have to fly ‘dirty’ to come anywhere near what an A-10 can do and even then it falls short. It’s A-10’s GAU-8 30mm cannon with potentially over 1,000 rounds aboard are a formidable weapon that the Ukrainians would likely give their eye teeth for right now. (They can’t have any by law). There’s a place for high tech and stealth and there’s a place for brute force. In this case – once again – the Congress did the right thing. In fact, the 281 airplanes are required BY LAW to be kept operational. The USAF Generals oughta get that into their thick skulls! I’d like to see the next General who wants to retire the airplane Court Martialed! The airplane cost less than $5M per airplane and the new wings costs ~$8.8M. Flying hour costs are less than $20K. A mere drop in the bucket when compared to the more than $110M cost of an F-35A and $27K per flying hour.

15

We tested two Piper PA-48 Enforcer prototype airplanes at Edwards AFB in the early 80’s. They strongly resembled a turboprop P-51. The USAF didn’t want them either, so they assigned the test function to the USAF Test Pilot school. The test pilots couldn’t be pried out of the things. The PA-48 was supposed to be a low cost version of the A-10. Years later, the USAF paid to have another airplane developed for the exact same function but at a larger expense.

Now the Navy Admirals have their own version of the A-10. Having just bought the Freedom Class Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), now they want to divest themselves of them by selling them to allies.

Who the hell is running our military ?? Woke Generals ??

16

Oh, come on. You know how the military works. They always spend big just before cancelling something. New hangars and runways on air bases closed a few years later. New avionics in a fleet that then has its retirement moved up. Refitting and upgrading a ship and then mothballing it. The list of this kind of thing is endless. It would be better news for the A-10’s future if the Air Force stopped spending on upgrades.

And, seriously, BOEING is doing this? Haven’t they got enough problems to deal with already, like the 737 MAX, the 777-X, the KC-46 cost overruns and technical problems, , the “Air Force One” cost overruns and delays, the potential slashing of F-15EX purchases, etc, etc, etc? At least the once-proud engineering company now dominated by beancounters has (probably) made sure sure that they’ll get paid in full for all the wingsets whether the USAF still needs them or not. I wonder how many of the 112 under contract will be delivered directly to AMARC and never get near an A-10.

Fairchild Republic’s biggest mistake was not finding a way to put a pointy nose on the A-10 and lobbying hard for it to get an F-for-Fighter designation to go with it. It’s been an outcast among the fighter and bomber mafias ever since.

The Air Force didn’t want it and they didn’t want the Army or Marines or any allies to have it instead of (or even as well as) the USAF. Now they want to replace it with prop-driven converted trainers with far less firepower and survivability.

The A-10s were bought and paid for long ago. There’s a huge amount of “corporate knowledge” among the pilots and maintainers about how to employ and support the A-10 to do CAS, assist CSAR, etc, etc. A new aircraft will reset most of that to zero – and they want a new aircraft that can’t do the job as well or give its pilots anywhere near the same chance to make it home alive.

One of their knocks on the A-10 is it “can’t operate in a contested environment”, but an AT-6 or an AT-29 will magically be able to do so? Gimme a break.

Years ago when the Piper PA-48 Enforcer was pitched to the Air Force as an A-10 replacement, the company published a photo of one with all of its specs listed at the bottom. I saw one posted on the bulletin board of an ANG unit that was converting from the F-4E to the F-16C. Under the printed specs, somebody had neatly written “Combat Life Expectancy: 2 minutes.” Someone else had added, “You’re such an optimist!”

Remember the USAF general who accused the pro-Warthog lobby of treason? What happened to him? Which corporate boards is he sitting on now?

17

Calling everything and everyone you don’t like ‘woke’ is nonsense and is getting tiresome. Meanwhile, in a world of increasingly ubiquitous shoulder-fired missiles, close-air support and attack may be going the way of the dodo.

18

Boeing built 173 replacement wings for the A-10 starting in 2010. This is a contract for additional wings sets.

19

As a retired USAF pilot, I am personally convinced that the upper brass gets all hopped up over the latest shiny toy often to the detriment of “what works”. Unfortunately for the grunts on the ground, and many others, the latest shiny toy is ALWAYS very costly, gets bought in limited numbers, then gets restricted in where it can go and what it is allowed to do because of the cost, complexity and availability.
In 1974, CSAF Gen Brown ordered the demise of the T-29, the C-131, the C-118 and all other “piston engine” aircraft. Okay, his reasoning was to limit the cost of providing both avgas and jet fuel. Even though plans were underfoot to convert them all to turboprop’s ( jet fuel!) he nixed those plans because he wasn’t in favor of props. That eliminated a very rich source of moving small to midsized groups of people / parts / cargo over short to midrange distances. I flew those aircraft and they would have filled niches very nicely in the transport needs. They could have all gone to the guard or reserves and still be flying today. Note: studies proved they had an almost unlimited life span.
They did the same thing with the C-141 in 1994. They, and Congress, rejected the Lockheed overhaul / upgrade, fixed price deal with a 25K hour guarantee on the work because they wanted more shiny new C-17s. The -17 is a good aircraft but is finally getting near the weight-range specs in the original contract after years of work and tons of money. Oh, and to add to the issue, the C-141 met it’s contract specs on day one and could carry items that are too long to fit on the C-17. Note that that required use of the C-5M vice the C-17 to carry those items. I also flew the C-141A & B for 6600 hours.
Congress screwed up the C-5A from the git-go and the AF brass screwed up the B model when it came out. The AF insisted on using more of the under powered engines already on the “A” even though they knew that most of the “As” were getting re-winged after the “Bs” were out. Lockheed wanted to use the CF-6-50E2 already in use and proven on the 747 and KC-10. Nope, can’t do that. Years later, they did that at much greater cost…
Nope… between Congress and the military brass, common sense will in no manner affect how business is done.

20

The comments are about misplaced procurements to favor a pet project or a big employer are right in line. Those in the military would rather have weapons that WORK instead of an expensive weapon that DOESN’T WORK.

It’s not "calling everything and everyone you don’t like “woke”–it’s simply using “woke” as a metaphor for something that requires convoluted reasoning to rationalize.

“Woke” is the new “Politically correct”–going along with a dubious proposition instead of saying what you really think.

When lives and outcomes are at stake–like the military–those of us who served would much prefer that those in command do what is RIGHT rather than what is “IN” at the moment–and will call these projects what we really think of them.