Home » Air » Warthog Wing Cracks Under Control; AF “Gets” UAVs…

Warthog Wing Cracks Under Control; AF “Gets” UAVs…

By Colin Clark Monday, January 12th, 2009 4:36 pm
Posted in Air

Not many planes are as loved by ground troops as are the ungainly close air support warriors known as A-10s. With the war in Afghanistan heating up in October came potentially disastrous reports that many Warthogs, as the planes are affectionately known, were suffering serious wing cracks and would have to be grounded while the problem was studied.

Today comes word from Air Force Lt. Gen. Norman Seip, commander of the Twelfth Air Force, that most Hogs are back in the air or soon will be. But there are many planes still grounded, especially those with so-called thin wings. Seip told reporters this morning that the service has inspected 200 of 244 aircraft with thin wings. Of those, 40 percent remain grounded, 41 percent have been inspected and returned to flight and the remainder is “flyable and awaiting inspection.” All questions should be resolved by June, he said, reiterating the service’s earlier calculation on October that the planes should be fixed by then.

The so-called thick winged planes are faring better. Some 30 percent are still grounded, 23 percent will keep flying and the rest should be up by June. I asked the general if the Air Force had been able to meet demands for the A-10 from the combatant commanders. His answer was an unequivocal yes. “What started off as a pretty challenging logistical challenge, we’ve managed to bring it under control,” Seip said. He did concede that they had to work hard to manage the fleet so that the service could keep enough pilots trained up and still use them blow up stuff on the ground. But both jobs got done, the general said.

In other comments, Seip said the Air Force definitely gets the message that Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent about UAVs — namely that they need to get them into theater and they need to find the money to build more of them.
“The U.S. Air Force is all in. We understand Secretary Gates’ direction,” he said. As proof, he noted that 85 percent of the UAV capability is now in areas of responsibility, and 15 percent are in CONUS “to train future operators.”

Join the Conversation

	al bailey January 16th, 2009 at 6:52 am build them if we need to, we give all kinds of money away to other nations. we need to do all we can to protect the troops
	Russell January 16th, 2009 at 8:58 am That’s my grandpa’s plane! Go A-10!! Most people don’t know that all of these aircraft are 20+ years old. Congress extended the life of this airframe again because no other can preform the A-10’s job. We might need to consider starting the line up again to build replacement aircraft or at least major assemblies. Keep that plane in the air! Until you hear that burp from the GU-8 cannon you havn’t lived.
	wtpworrier January 16th, 2009 at 9:10 am If there was ever a bird that we need to keep, it’s this one. This is the only bird(that I know of)that can take a patch job on the fly without serious modification and still perform it’s mission, and it can take a hit to boot. Forget speed, I’ll take the warthog any day. May be they can modify the other birds we have in our arsenal to be as durable as the A-10, or may be they ought to build a sealth warthog.
	Do the right thing January 16th, 2009 at 1:09 pm The Warthog is like a red headed step child to the AF. And they are embarrassed to admit the plane is needed and performs its mission well. Gates ought to take away this program and give it to the Army. They would manage it better if for no other reason than they are the recipient of its services. Let the AF spend all its time developing their new jack of all trades, master of none J-35. Shall we build a new tanker? Oh, I don’t know. Shall we build more F-22’s? We aren’t sure. Can we build a multi-version J-35? Oh of course. Should we build a new rescue helo? We think so. Should we buy more C-17’s? Who knows. C-130J’s? Might make sense but we don’t know. How about a new bomber do in 2018 to replace the one we haven’t designed or built yet? Oh that’s the best idea we’ve had yet!!! That will give us something to do! The A-10 deserves much better but try to convince old guard AF that. Thank God we spend billions and occaisionally, accidently, get something right.
	Allan N. January 16th, 2009 at 8:18 pm I worked on A-10 Avionics from 1982–1992 when they closed England AFB. It is an absolutely outstanding platform. With 11 pylons in addition to the GAU-8, It can take out almost anything. The LASTE computer, added to the aircraft during Desert Storm, was not able to make it to the desert that time due to logistical problems, and she still kicked ass. The LASTE gave it CCIP (continuously computed impact point) for the GAU and for bombs. This improved the accuracy and power of the Aircraft by a power of 10. The only problem with the Warthog is that it’s not fast and it’s not pretty. Unfortunately, too many high-ranking AF Officers place much too much of a premium on those to characteristics. I agree — Give it to the Army.
	Semper Fi & Sua Sponte January 17th, 2009 at 12:44 pm I thought I had read Boeing was contracted to manufacture an entirely new A-10 on the Fairchild-Republic design…alas, they are only buiding new thick skinned wings to replace thin skin ones with cracks for $4 million a set. A-10’s are an indispensable, nearly indestructible powerhouse that has been out of manufacture since 1984. The Generals should learn from the lessons of battle and, instead of a new design or a patch, remake that which has proven success on the battlefield. Build a 1000 NEW A-10’s!!!!! At what price is American freedom and ideals no longer worth the cost???
	Verle E. Wenneker II January 17th, 2009 at 5:39 pm Can anyone please inform if as to whether or not the USAF has an aircraft planned to replace the A-10 “Warthog” and/or if there might actually be a new production run of the A-10 (thick winged model)??? I thank you all. VEWenneker@AOL.com Sargeant/USMC Vietnam/Combat Tanks/27 months “in country“ 1965–1969
	nilsplat January 17th, 2009 at 8:32 pm I live in Maryland and occasionally watch the boys fly their A-10s out of Martins State airport. Every time they fly over my house and peal off I get misty. These guys and the aircraft they fly are what its all about and jet noise is the sound of FREEDOME.
	pfcem January 18th, 2009 at 12:27 am Verle E. Wenneker II, The USAF HOPES to keep the A-10 until around 2040 (lots of spare parts in the boneyard) but reguradless of how long they ACTUALLY last, the A-10 will be ‘replaced’ by a combination of UCAVs & F-35s. That is unless something changes such that Congress & the DOD will ‘allow’ the USAF to develope & procure a dedicated A-10 replacement… Unfortunately (I am pretty sure) the A-10 tooling is long gone so no new build unless we go through the time & expense of rebuilding production tooling for them.
	JCitizen January 18th, 2009 at 7:37 pm Economics dictate that UAVs are the wave of the future; they are just too cheap to ignore. It costs a lot of money to build manned aircraft — money DOD just doesn’t have. With the economic climate the way it is, any other option is just flat off the table. I’m afraid the glorious days of men and their flying machines are to come to a close. The gutless American public refuses tc risk any lives either.
	Thomas January 18th, 2009 at 9:49 pm I agree with those of you wondering why the USAF has not either kept the A-10 in production, found a replacement with all its capabilities, or at least reclaimed some of the A-10s from Davis-Monthan’s boneyard. I am an Aerospace Engineering student at WVU. I do not consider myself an “expert” in anything yet but I do know that the A-10s, F-16s, F-15s, and other “legacy” aircraft are way past due for replacement (not just the F-35/F-22 type) by aircraft with similar, or better, capabilities in combat. I think back to the 1950s (from my research into the aero-defense industry and trends in fighter development) when before the F-84 even took its first flight, North American had a more-capable replacement on the drawing board in the F-100. I also recall the days of WWII when P-47s, B-17s, and B-24s would fly home from missions over Germany and France with 5-foot holes in their wings from exploding Flak shells. The days of durable aircraft need to return, and so do the days of aircraft meeting their design specs and criteria. The DOD needs to stop pumping billions of dollars into failure-projects that take 1980s technology into the mid 2000s (F-22) because of cost overruns and development delays. The F-22 is a great aircraft, don’t get me wrong, but there are needs for a more-capable fighter that can carry external ordnace after the enemy’s air defense network is defeated.
	Ed Reese January 19th, 2009 at 9:42 am I’m a retired groundpounder who used to work near the A-10 USAFR unit in Syracuse, NY. I thanked those guys and God for those aircraft every time I drove past the unit. The USAF wanted to do away with A-10’s. IDIOTS! Call them a warthog if you want, I think they are the most beautiful aircraft ever built; especially when they fly overhead to attack the enemy that can have me under fire.
	Harbor Pilot January 19th, 2009 at 1:34 pm I am a grizzled, old army warrant officer and remember (1960–1973) when the air force wanted to rid themselves of this “dinosaur” and the army was delighted. When told that they would then have warrant officers as pilots the air force changed its mind.
	DensityDuck January 19th, 2009 at 6:13 pm I know this is going to be unpopular, but…the A-10 really doesn’t do much in the Iraq War that the F-16 and F-18 don’t do. Or the B-52, for that matter, which can carry as many 500-pound JDAM as we’d use in a week. Or hell, Copperheads and Excaliburs from a five-inch SP. However, none of these things is a giant flying phallic symbol. I can see why they would be less popular!
	rebel3439 February 5th, 2009 at 12:48 am The A-10 was first flown by an Air Force Unit in October 1977. No way anyone was thinking of getting rid of them until the late 80’s. Gulf war stopped that. They do not need to build new ones. Just make new wings for the ones they have or modify and beef up the wings all ready in service.
	PLC February 5th, 2009 at 9:03 am If you look at the cost analysis between the UCAVs and the A-10 (minus the pilot), the pricing is close (A-10 $11.5M, predator $5.5M). I’d still trust the decision making and intuition of a real live pilot. Both beat the hell out of the $135M Raptor. The Pentagon needs to realize you don’t need high-tech stealth fighters when you’re fighting a low-tech war on the ground. I’m not a MASSIVE “HOG” junkie but I see the need for a low tech, heavily armed close air support fighter.
	Greg G February 5th, 2009 at 10:33 am “The Warthog is like a red headed step child to the AF. And they are embarrassed to admit the plane is needed and performs its mission well. Gates ought to take away this program and give it to the Army. They would manage it better if for no other reason than they are the recipient of its services.” This comment is as outdated as the old fart who wrote it. It’s been nearly 20 years since I first heard it and I don’t care for it anymore now than I did then. The aircraft has a nitch in the big picture that the brass understands and utilizes successfully, and there is no, none, zero indication that Army Aviation could manage the A-10 program better than the USAF.
	hersshawe February 5th, 2009 at 11:25 am stretch the fuselage add a cockpit for a W.O, add some more fuel and better imaging technology. You have made an already excellent grund support plane into a better one. f-16 f-18 too fast for Ops these planes do.
	SGT Thomas February 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm After having a A-10 overfly me, slow down, check me out then continue on its way. Then another time have been over flown my a couple F-16’s that never knew i was there, i will take a A-10 over my shoulder any day. I have seen holes in it you could climb thru and still fly. If the AF doesnt want it, our pilots would take it anyday!! Between us and the Marines, we KNOW ground support. If the AF doesnt want it, let those of us who know better have it!
	soares junior February 6th, 2009 at 6:40 pm i would like to buy some A-10 fairchild…i used to have them flying very low in england country side…its noise are amazing…kind of metal grinding and electric…thumbs up for the A-10…
	Jeff Dulin February 10th, 2009 at 10:51 am How I wish we’d had the A-10 in RVN in the 60’s. We had the Sandy and it did a great job but the A-10 was the next logical step. You could have even mounted XM-18 mini-gun pods on the wings for more lead in the air. What a great plane!!Fire power, visibility and TOT all in one easily maintained package for a lot less money than any fast mover. The problem seems that you can’t build a good retirement career with the A-10 because it already exists! How’s a soon to be retiring military bureaucrat in the Pentigon supposed to dig his way into a nice, highly paid “Consulting” position with a contractor if the damn thing is already there!!?? hurrumpff!! Everybody KNOWS you can only do that with NEW, Very Expensive long time running programs that will be around after you retire. I had the pleasure to work with the A-10’s out of TRUAX in Madison, WI during JATTZ missiions at Ft. McCoy and the Hardwood Range in Central WI years ago. What a great anti-anything on the ground (Where the War is) aircraft it is. That’s the AF’s problem: They’ve forgotten where the war is and are just in love with their ego’s and flying expensive iron. Not getting the job that needs to be done on the ground. Either the AF should build more or let the Army have it. Perhaps BOTH! After all, the AF doesn’t mind sharing Airframes with the Navy and Marines. Why not the same type of realationship with the ARMY? JD
	Chris February 10th, 2009 at 2:23 pm I worked at FRC from ’77 to ’86, from Tail Number 63 through the end of production, and you guys have it right, because the joke was that if it were an Army program, the run would be up to 4,000. Check out the Bermuda tri-service conference in ’62, in which the roles and missions were ironed out for what was coming in SEA. The payload and endurance of the A-10 are amazing, as is the commitment of the pilots to the CAS mission.
	Tim Dodd February 13th, 2009 at 1:57 am Maybe we should enforce immigration laws. Then we’d have enough money for all the projects.
	Sgt Schwartz February 18th, 2009 at 1:48 pm “DensityDuck January 19th, 2009 at 6:13 pm I know this is going to be unpopular, but…the A-10 really doesn’t do much in the Iraq War that the F-16 and F-18 don’t do. Or the B-52, for that matter, which can carry as many 500-pound JDAM as we’d use in a week. Or hell, Copperheads and Excaliburs from a five-inch SP. However, none of these things is a giant flying phallic symbol. I can see why they would be less popular!” Other planes cant do CAS (Close Air Support) like an A-10. Nothing can go lower and slower to protect ground assests. Ask any ground pounder or tanker crw what they want protecting them, not one would ask for anything else. and as far as other planes doing the same thing, these figures here should say something. n 1991, the planes proved their mettle in the Persian Gulf War, destroying more than 1,000 tanks, 2,000 military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces. Five A-10s were shot down during the war, far fewer than military planners expected. Most tanks would laugh at the 20mm rounds from a 16 or 18.
	jobro1313 February 18th, 2009 at 6:43 pm i like the idea of stretching the cockpit, better wings, upgrade the engines, more fuel, add a w.o and a remote controlled weapons platform for laser and or gun. mini specter! more eyes on target, the loiter time, ability to take punishment, ability to take out anything on the ground.… i am medicaled out of af but i think like a ground punder… sleek and sexy juts are great for movies, great for libido… they have cdi(chicks dig it) value but the truth is the a-12 had a better kill rate that the 16.. hopefully the usaf will always have the a-10 improved and upgraded. may it always be there for the guys that need it right here right now shtf!!! if the usaf wont let the army protect their own like they wanted… GOD BLESS ALL THOSE FIGHTING FOR OUR FREEDOM, OUR WAY OF LIFE.. PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THESE UNITED STATES… MAY WE SLEEP SAFELY AT NIGHT KNOWING YOU GUYS ARE EVER VIGILANT!!! AIM HIGH! SEMPER FI! HOOHAH! GO NAVY!
	DensityDuck February 18th, 2009 at 8:18 pm Sgt Schwartz: If “low and slow” is the critera, then the Apache is even better than the A-10! “Most tanks would laugh at the 20mm rounds from a 16 or 18.” Ah-heh. Most tanks are built to stand up to AP from a 105–why would they be worried about a 30 but not a 20? Look, I agree that CAS is a useful mission, but CAS as it has evolved is more like indirect-fire artillery than the kind of low-level ground-strafing action that people think of when they hear “close air support”. Indeed, why put the IFF blinds on everything if CAS is so great?
	Ted Taylor February 18th, 2009 at 9:07 pm Some very good reasons to keep the A-10 and the B-52. No good reason for the F-22, F-35, B-2, B-1. Pretty and fast have never won a battle. The F-22 is good in the air but with today’s toys, I would not let one get airborne. They would litter the ramp. the B-2 is stuck to hangers and is not an all weather bomber. Let it try to sneak through a rain cloud.
	Rhys F February 19th, 2009 at 4:12 am “Ah-heh. Most tanks are built to stand up to AP from a 105–why would they be worried about a 30 but not a 20?” Angle… most tanks are armoured to withstand attacks from the same level and in front. not to withstand hits coming down from above and the rear. if a tank had equal armour on all 6 sides (top bottom and all 4 around) then it would be too heavy to move, so most have heavy front and not-so-heavy but still respectable side armour, thin top and rear armour and just enough to hold off a mine on the underside. a 30mm from the sky through the thin rear topsides will knock out a tank just as well as a 120mm aimed at the thick frontal plate.
	Rhys F February 19th, 2009 at 4:15 am Oh yeah, also the –18 and –16 20mm is anti-air fuzed high explosive… make a pretty crater on the armour and blow off some paint… the 30 is solid penetrator solids, punch through from kinetic energy.
	Ken R February 19th, 2009 at 6:31 am I am prior service USAF, and just a dumb cop, but for effective CAS I would think the Warthog would be better with US Army on the side…forgive me my AF brothers and sisters. But just for combat control it would seem to take some of the time-lag out of calling in a air strike coming from the ground troops, rather than the sometimes lengthy process used now, with the prospect of confusion being increased or lost in translation, so to speak. I have seen the F-16’s in CAS and they are amazing, but just don’t compare with a “Hog”. Just my opinion…but we all know it is much quicker firing our own hand-cannon, rather than tell someone else where, when, and how many, you know?
	DDearborn July 22nd, 2009 at 6:44 pm Even if the Air Force actually did restart production they would dump so many requirements and “improvements” on the design that it would end up costing 50 million a copy. “Development” costs would be in the 10’s of Billions. It would fly like a pig, have at least one major design flaw. Maintenance would be a nightmare. Basically they would build a piece of crap. So in the end it would be just like every other airplane they have built in recent memory.

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

Warthog Wing Cracks Under Control; AF “Gets” UAVs…

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments