Warthog Territory Forums
http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/

A-10 FLY TO 2040
http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13939		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Carl [ 11 Jun 2012, 20:06 ]
Post subject:  A-10 FLY TO 2040
So it might be 2040 before the Air Force’s fleet of A-10 Warthog attack jets is replaced by the F-35 and whatever drones emerge in the coming years.
Check out this solicitation for tooling necessary to keep the jets flying until 2040.
Here are the basics:
The Government is contemplating to contract for engineering services on behalf of the A-10 Systems Program Officer (SPO). The services contemplated include the following:
1 — Develop plan to identify available A-10 Tooling that will be needed to support and sustain the A-10 Aircraft until 2040.
2 — Prioritize tooling based on need and critical nature of tool.
3 — Develop Teamcenter product structure and workflows to properly link and manage the engineering data, scanned data and physical tools with the Air Force Global Logistics Support Center and A-10 production facilities.
4 — Digitally scan the tools according to the priority list and validate prior to linking to engineering data in the A-10 Teamcenter Database.
5 — Develop CAD/CAM interface data by reverse engineering (scanned data) where needed.
This would put the invaluable Hog up there with workhorse jets like the B-52 Stratofortress and KC-135 Stratotanker as planes that will serve until 2040.
This may be due to the fact that the A-10 is such a unique and cost effective weapon. It’s a relatively simple plane that’s tough as nails and can do everything from kill tanks to loiter low and slow over a battlefield dispatching enemy insurgents.
While it’s pretty easy to see the F-35 performing the ground attack and fighter missions of jets like the fast-moving F-16s, it’s harder to see the JSF rolling in slow and unleashing a torrent cannon fire on a beehive of enemies. Do you really want to risk getting a stealth jet all shot up on CAS runs?
Furthermore, could this be a sign that the service is considering slowing of reducing its F-35 buy in favor of keeping more Hogs in service and while focusing on using the JSF to replace F-15s and F-16s, (at least initially)? This last one may be a stretch, but who knows?


Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/07/22/a-10- ... z1xVsRabU9
Defense.org
Author:  Bacon Bits [ 11 Jun 2012, 21:01 ]
Post subject: 
Good news if true, but mixed messages sent out especially after the announcement of the cut of 100 Hogs from inventory :?:
Author:  Weasel Keeper [ 12 Jun 2012, 06:49 ]
Post subject: 
Well, since the A-10 is a proven asset in all recent wars, if the government wants to cut budgets and save money they'll probably save a lot by doing this over the F-35 program. Put the F-35s on hold for a little while.
Author:  Old Chief [ 20 Jun 2012, 21:15 ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Good news if true, but mixed messages sent out especially after the announcement of the cut of 100 Hogs from inventory


The budget cuts the Air Force has proposed are far from a done deal. The Guard is pushing back and pushing back hard. I think Congress is waiting for the new Chief of Staff to be sworn in before they do anything though they've already told The Secretary and the COS that the proposed budget is unacceptable in its present form.

OC
Author:  Weasel Keeper [ 21 Jun 2012, 05:06 ]
Post subject: 
Old Chief wrote:
Quote:
Good news if true, but mixed messages sent out especially after the announcement of the cut of 100 Hogs from inventory


The budget cuts the Air Force has proposed are far from a done deal. The Guard is pushing back and pushing back hard. I think Congress is waiting for the new Chief of Staff to be sworn in before they do anything though they've already told The Secretary and the COS that the proposed budget is unacceptable in its present form.

OC


Not just the COS...the House of Representatives and the Senate Defence Committee have already put a hold on any aircraft cuts, so this is a little bigger than the original plan to cut 100 acft from the inventory. A new government in office may just change everything (I hope!). We don't need a smaller military, and we definately don't need to lose A-10s anywhere across the board.
Author:  Terpfan [ 03 Jul 2012, 00:22 ]
Post subject: 
This is awesome news and I hope it's true!
As far as the cuts in the Hawg go, I hope we can keep as many as we can, but if it's true that the contract for the new wings is only for 250 sets and we have 350 Hawgs flying.......I'm not a genius or anything, but I can do simple math. I hope I'm wrong on this one though.
Author:  Coach [ 03 Jul 2012, 03:45 ]
Post subject: 
I think the wing contract was for 242 (+/-) because there were about 120 aircraft with thick skin wings still in service at the time.

Not sure of the status of the contract or the plan on which actual aircraft will be placed in long term storage (retired).

Coach
Author:  Old Chief [ 09 Jul 2012, 15:12 ]
Post subject: 
You're dead on with the number Coach, 242 was the original contract. That number was based on several factors including UTE rates, F-35 coming on-line and a couple of other things. It was determined that some airframes would exceed the total airframe hours (can't remember the exact number but 12k sticks in my alleged mind) to be modified. Keep in mind an airframe that reaches 16 thousand hours is going to be retired, no matter what...not bad for an aircraft that was originally purchased with the idea that 7000 hours would be the service life.

OC
Author:  Old Chief [ 09 Jul 2012, 15:12 ]
Post subject: 
You're dead on with the number Coach, 242 was the original contract. That number was based on several factors including UTE rates, F-35 coming on-line and a couple of other things. It was determined that some airframes would exceed the total airframe hours (can't remember the exact number but 12k sticks in my alleged mind) to be modified. Keep in mind an airframe that reaches 16 thousand hours is going to be retired, no matter what...not bad for an aircraft that was originally purchased with the idea that 7000 hours would be the service life.

OC
Author:  prkiii [ 10 Jul 2012, 11:17 ]
Post subject: 
Old Chief wrote:
.....Keep in mind an airframe that reaches 16 thousand hours is going to be retired, no matter what...not bad for an aircraft that was originally purchased with the idea that 7000 hours would be the service life.

OC


At the rate we're flying the old girl 16k will be here quick!
Author:  Weasel_80-204 [ 24 Jul 2012, 17:32 ]
Post subject: 
prkiii wrote:
Old Chief wrote:
.....Keep in mind an airframe that reaches 16 thousand hours is going to be retired, no matter what...not bad for an aircraft that was originally purchased with the idea that 7000 hours would be the service life.

OC


At the rate we're flying the old girl 16k will be here quick!


My old jet was at about 12,5xx last summer when it was on the Demo team. It's got to be getting close to 13,000+ now.
Author:  Weasel Keeper [ 26 Jul 2012, 11:43 ]
Post subject: 
Weasel_80-204 wrote:
prkiii wrote:
Old Chief wrote:
.....Keep in mind an airframe that reaches 16 thousand hours is going to be retired, no matter what...not bad for an aircraft that was originally purchased with the idea that 7000 hours would be the service life.

OC


At the rate we're flying the old girl 16k will be here quick!


My old jet was at about 12,5xx last summer when it was on the Demo team. It's got to be getting close to 13,000+ now.


661 and maybe 944 are pushing 13k at my base. I have 10,7xx on mine (217).
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/