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

A-10's out of service
http://warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2472		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  FSPilot [ 26 Dec 2002, 19:08 ]
Post subject: 
Any idea when they plan on decomissioning the A-10 fleet? I heard 2010 but I'm not sure.
Author:  luke [ 26 Dec 2002, 19:53 ]
Post subject: 
The year I keep hearing is 2028. Considering the upgrades the A10 is going through and the work the test squadrons are doing on new systems (I have a friend who is a flight test engineer for A10s out at Eglin AFB) I can't really see the AF getting rid of them by 2010...
Author:  D.B. [ 27 Dec 2002, 09:11 ]
Post subject: 
The projected retirement date is based on many things. The 2028 figure was based in part on the annual flying hour use and the projected airframe life the A-10 has. Some of it is based on the remaining life of the other fighters. And another is the timing for intergation of JSF. Depending when JSF comes on line, it could be possible for retirement to start around 2014. You have to keep in mind that when it does happen, it won't be a specific date that we stop flying all A-10's. Unless something drastic changes, it will be a gradual tapering out or the retirement of a block of airframes to maintain whatever fighter strength and force structure the General leadership thinks it needs at the time.
I could go on and on but it's giving me a headache. That's one of the reasons I punched out of the "puzzle palace"
Life is too short to have headaches.
Cheers
db

Being responsible means sometimes pissing people off.
Gen Colin Powell ret
Author:  Peter [ 27 Dec 2002, 13:10 ]
Post subject: 
IF A-10 will go out from duty it will be the most stupid think in aviation history !!! Nothing can replace this plane (maybe in 2050)
Author:  TheLastRaven [ 27 Dec 2002, 14:05 ]
Post subject: 
Peter:
Keep in mind that more things other than capability go into account when the retire an airframe. If you look through some older threads (June I believe,) Dice posted an article where the first A-10 broke the 9,000 airframe hour mark, and the airframe is only certified to 6,000 hours (tested to 12,000 I believe.) So, without some structural engineering help, the jets physically won't be able to handle fly through 2028, which would roughly put them around 18,000 hours, I believe. Also, if the USAF thinks the JSF can out perform the A-10, then that is their resoning for replacement, despite what the rest of us realize. No matter what, it isn't up to any of us to keep them in service, just to keep them serviceable.

--Raven

"Work Hard, Party Hard, Hardly Sleep"
Author:  D.B. [ 27 Dec 2002, 18:03 ]
Post subject: 
Raven you hit it pretty close. The last revised airframe limit I'm aware of was upped to 16,000 hours. Hard to imagine. " Hog Up" is a definite need to make that happen.
What I get a kick out of, is that it is highly unlikely that you'll see any of the other fighter airframes come even close to that number.
Especially the L.Dart.
Cheers.
db
I like this...."it isn't up to any of us to keep them in service, just to keep them serviceable."
Well said!!


Being responsible means sometimes pissing people off.
Gen Colin Powell ret
Author:  FSPilot [ 27 Dec 2002, 18:59 ]
Post subject: 
So it probably wouldn't be smart to get an A-10 slot in 5 years, then fly for 10-15 years and have your airplane get retired. Too early for a deskjob, too late to train in another plane.
Author:  luke [ 28 Dec 2002, 01:16 ]
Post subject: 
2 things...

First, FSpilot, "get an A-10 slot in 5 years, then fly for 10-15 years and have your airplane get retired" Maybe in a pipe dream could someone stumble into the right string of assignments so as to fly the same plane for 10-15 years. It just does not happen. I am a T38 instructor now, it was my first assignment after pilot training. I will go to A10s next. There are guys who went to A10s first who are showing up back here to be instructors who got less than 500 hours in the A10. There are guys are pilots coming from all of the airframes like that. You pretty much can count on doing what is called an 'A tour' (in AETC) as an instructor. Then you have the increasing possibility of the predator or global hawk. That would suck. Then you have your one or two staff jobs for a couple years each. The average pilot who stays in for 20 years has flying assignments for 13-15 years and the others are non-flying. For a person to fly only one aircraft for those 13-15 years is almost not possible (it has probably happened but not often). As an officer you get a new assignment on average every 3 years (which means a lot of moving your family around). If you did have to switch aircraft there is not really a 'too old' unless you are about to get out or something. If you are a rated pilot then you have just as much chance as anyone else.

Second, the T38 has the same hours issues only more so. Originally the airframe limit was 4000. They bumped that up to 7000 with no modifications. Then they did some work on the wings and bumped it up to 15,000. We only have a small handful (out of about 100 jets) that are under 16,000 right now. They are extremely bent jets. All the student flying does not help :) They are doing avionics upgrades and intake upgrades to modernize the cockpit and get more thrust but the wings and fuselage are hurting for cash. With no replacements even being considered and planning that relies on the T38 until 2040 (!!!!) they better think up something quick or the high performance trainer that every fighter pilot goes through will fall apart. If that 2040 date ends up working out then the T38 is only half way through its life, has already helped train over 60,000 pilots, and as stated above, probably already has 16,000 hours or more.
Author:  Pilot22A [ 28 Dec 2002, 08:34 ]
Post subject: 
I thought the AF just bought some new models of the T-38 - shouldn't these be new machines that have a longer live?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
2 things...

First, FSpilot, "get an A-10 slot in 5 years, then fly for 10-15 years and have your airplane get retired" Maybe in a pipe dream could someone stumble into the right string of assignments so as to fly the same plane for 10-15 years. It just does not happen. I am a T38 instructor now, it was my first assignment after pilot training. I will go to A10s next. There are guys who went to A10s first who are showing up back here to be instructors who got less than 500 hours in the A10. There are guys are pilots coming from all of the airframes like that. You pretty much can count on doing what is called an 'A tour' (in AETC) as an instructor. Then you have the increasing possibility of the predator or global hawk. That would suck. Then you have your one or two staff jobs for a couple years each. The average pilot who stays in for 20 years has flying assignments for 13-15 years and the others are non-flying. For a person to fly only one aircraft for those 13-15 years is almost not possible (it has probably happened but not often). As an officer you get a new assignment on average every 3 years (which means a lot of moving your family around). If you did have to switch aircraft there is not really a 'too old' unless you are about to get out or something. If you are a rated pilot then you have just as much chance as anyone else.

Second, the T38 has the same hours issues only more so. Originally the airframe limit was 4000. They bumped that up to 7000 with no modifications. Then they did some work on the wings and bumped it up to 15,000. We only have a small handful (out of about 100 jets) that are under 16,000 right now. They are extremely bent jets. All the student flying does not help :) They are doing avionics upgrades and intake upgrades to modernize the cockpit and get more thrust but the wings and fuselage are hurting for cash. With no replacements even being considered and planning that relies on the T38 until 2040 (!!!!) they better think up something quick or the high performance trainer that every fighter pilot goes through will fall apart. If that 2040 date ends up working out then the T38 is only half way through its life, has already helped train over 60,000 pilots, and as stated above, probably already has 16,000 hours or more.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Author:  FSPilot [ 28 Dec 2002, 10:45 ]
Post subject: 
Oh ok, so my chances of getting stuck between a desk job and a jet are pretty low if not nonexistant. That's reassuring.
Except the part of the A10s being retured. :(
Author:  Coach [ 28 Dec 2002, 14:33 ]
Post subject: 
If you can get the aircraft of your choice and fly it for 15 years...nothing wrong with that, is there. I disagree with what Luke said, the majority of guys fly the same jet for most of their career. Sure, they may have to do an ALFA (AETC, IFF, ALO or UAV) tour, but operationally, most stay in the same MDS. In my unit of about 100 pilots, less than 20% have operational time in another fighter. Of those, most are ex-F-111 guys. Plus a couple with F-117 time. Another 20% have AETC time as IPs. The rest of them are all A-10 pilots, myself included. I started flying the Hog in 1983, have done two staff tours (3 years total out of the cockpit)and I just came back in after my most recent staff tour. It can be done.

If you start flying as a 2LT, two of your first three assignments will be in your weapon system, unless you go to Weapons School. If you want to maximize your flying, volunteer for a CONUS A-10, then volunteer for a remote to Korea, then volunteer to go to Eielson or Spangdahlem. That would be about 6.5 years of operational flying, if you are going make it in the A-10, you should have ample opportunity by that time.

Ask for what you want to fly. If you try to play the system, it will beat you and you will never have had the opportunity to do what you wanted to. The A-10 will be here plenty long to make it a career, the F/A-22 and JSF are still a long way off, in terms of significant numbers. The Hog will be here, in approximately its present numbers, until at least 2014, probably much longer. We'll have to see what the next couple of years hold in store.
Author:  luke [ 29 Dec 2002, 00:40 ]
Post subject: 
Coach...I did not say it could not be done but that it does not happen often. Of those 100 guys in your unit how many are in their 1st or second ops tour? Probably most. Not too much time to be in a different jet there. I also was counting A tours, UAVs, and staff jobs as an 'out of the A10' type of job. You are doing pretty good if in 20 years you have been in the A10 for 17 years that is pretty damn good. Are you a weapons officer type? That makes a HUGE difference. How in all those years did you dodge the ALO thing??

Today 90% or so get out when their commitment is up having 7-800 hours on some operational jet and maybe another 1000 hours in T38s or T37s. Of those that stay in...and I caution my statements as coming from a person who has been in AETC way to friggin long...I have seen a lot of guys who have time in multiple operational jets but not too many. My point was that in a 15-20 year stretch it is extremely rare to spend nearly all of it in an A10 but apparently it can be done :)

If things work out for me I will stay at DM for 3 years after RTU, then go to Korea, then come back to DM, spang or eielson for an assignment. My commitment will be up in during that last assignment so I will have to make up my mind there.
Author:  luke [ 29 Dec 2002, 00:44 ]
Post subject: 
Pilot22A...

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I thought the AF just bought some new models of the T-38 - shouldn't these be new machines that have a longer live?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The air force did not buy new T38s. They upgraded the avionics on very old jets. They are in the middle of putting new intakes on the engines to give them more thrust as well. They are also working on replacing wings but that is a few years away. The program is to modernize and extend the T38's life...not to build new jets.
Author:  Tomcat Tweaker [ 29 Dec 2002, 11:37 ]
Post subject: 
T-38 is an ageless classic.......Good to see that they will be around for awhile longer.

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!
Author:  Tomcat Tweaker [ 29 Dec 2002, 11:52 ]
Post subject: 
Well it is good to see that we are cashing in on all that "cold war capital" of the late 60's-70's-80's.......Look at the service lifes of other aircraft besides the A-10. The F-14A has been around 30 years, F-15 about as long.........The F-16 and F-18 proabably will be longer, and I dont need to mention the service life of the B-52 which will aproach the century mark before it is retired.

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!
Author:  bigross86 [ 29 Dec 2002, 13:15 ]
Post subject: 
You sure about that, TT? I would think that with the B-1B and the B-2, the B-52 will be killed any time now.

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. -General George Patton
Author:  TheLastRaven [ 29 Dec 2002, 18:50 ]
Post subject: 
The B-1B is a nightmare and doesn't remain as capable as the BUFF, and the B-2 is becoming a money pit for the USAF, as I hear it. This includes $1.8 billion project to re-do their radios because some company owns the freqs they use, or some crap like that...so the B-52 is still the way to go..

--Raven

"Work Hard, Party Hard, Hardly Sleep"
Author:  luke [ 29 Dec 2002, 19:09 ]
Post subject: 
Projected use of the B52 fleet...2040. Pilots around that time may fly an aircraft that their great grand father used to fly.
Author:  FSPilot [ 29 Dec 2002, 23:27 ]
Post subject: 
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This includes $1.8 billion project to re-do their radios because some company owns the freqs they use, or some crap like that...so the B-52 is still the way to go..<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
What!? Just bomb them into changing their frequencies!
Author:  M21 Sniper [ 30 Dec 2002, 04:19 ]
Post subject: 
I gotta go with Raven on this one.
I have had quite a few people associated with the Bone tell me that it is a total hangar queen.
Apparently after 17 years in service they still havn't managed to get the OAS/DAS systems working right either(that is public knowledge, btw).

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.
Author:  luke [ 30 Dec 2002, 11:37 ]
Post subject: 
...and the B1 could NEVER and will NEVER be an all weather bomber. The B1, despite its advanced technology, has the exact same icing restrictions as the 40+ year old T38. That is, it cannot fly with any known actual icing conditions and can only fly through the lightest amount of forecast icing (light rime). This is due to ice build up on the engine inlets. Most advanced modern designs have ways to lessen this effect and fly with worse conditions but for some reason they could not find a way around it in the B1. The B1 could never have flown on alert at one of those northern tier bases with snowy bad conditions.

Also, the B1 cannot fly high. It can carry WAY more than the Buff but only do that up to the low to mid 20s. Meanwhile the B52 is up in the 40ks much further from harm. The B1 was designed to carry its load in fast and LOW but now that low mission has all but disappeared so they come in at medium altitudes.

They cannot do the nuke thing because of some silly treaties signed a couple of decades ago. This means that the Russians have absolute power to come in and inspect planes to make sure they are not nuclear capable. They also have full access to the flying schedules of the B1 bases (I know a couple of pilots and WSOs who say there is a special computer terminal even that the russians have access to). In October we were supposed to have an airshow here at Sheppard last october and the B1 got here 36 hours late because as they were taxiing out to take off they were called back in for a surprise inspection by the russians. Now we do that to their air force as well but I think a plane so restricted really puts a hamper on its combat capability.
Author:  Tomcat Tweaker [ 30 Dec 2002, 13:41 ]
Post subject: 
The treaty you are thinking of is the Trust and Verify Treaty, which is a spin off of the SALT II cold war relic, we have the same access to their Backfires and Black Jacks if any are still flyable.

The Bone was designed as a low level pentration strategic nuke bomber, the ironic thing is that the B-58 aside from its payload defeciences could cary out the same mission with comparable results despite its low level altitude compromises with the delta design.

With smart weapon technology and stealth platforms to deliver, the go low fast doctrine is as dead as the need to use it. The Bone I feel should have been retired before the F-111. The F-111 atleast could be configured for EW warfare.




If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!
Author:  boomer [ 30 Dec 2002, 14:30 ]
Post subject: 
hhhmmm........and yet the B-1B delivered MORE JDAMs than the Buff in Afganland. We should also remember the Bone is still the 3rd stealthiest aircraft currently in service at about 1sq meter.
As to the OAS/DAS, as far as I know NO other aircraft has even approched what was called for in the B-1 program way back then, just WAY too ambitious. "cannot do the Nuke thing" as far as I know The B-1 is the only aircraft doing the stratigic nuke role right now?( if that role even exists anymore). The Buff sure cant penetrate anymore.
But it's too expensive to keep these days, so soon the B-1B money drain will be gone. Bring on the UCAVs!!

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>
Author:  bigross86 [ 30 Dec 2002, 14:34 ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, but how much ordnance can UCAV's carry? Heavy bombers can carry so much more!

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. -General George Patton
Author:  D.B. [ 30 Dec 2002, 14:54 ]
Post subject: 
You know, for all the headaches the Bone is, I still think it's been waaay over maligned. The F-16 has had more problems than the B-1, but the leadership is too in love with it to acknowledge it.
It is an awesome airplane.
One time I was in an exersise and a couple of B-1's flew sim attacks on us. The first time one of them blew over us low level in AB just about made me S**t my pants. I thought then that just the sight of that thing flying over the bad guys would be enough to make them surrender.
Cheers
db

Being responsible means sometimes pissing people off.
Gen Colin Powell ret
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/