Here's a little something for the Instapilot...

By The Armorer on August 17, 2006 | | Comments (8)

...since he popped in and out last night.

Staff Sgt. Shannon Hughes (left) hands Senior Airman Damon Johnson a tool as they work on an A-10 Thunderbolt II during its phase inspection at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. The Airmen are deployed from Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. The 455th Expeditionary Maintenance Group is working on the airplanes around the clock, to ensure consistent ability to meet the demand for the airframe in theater. (U.S. Air Force photo/Maj. David Kurle)<br />


Staff Sgt. Shannon Hughes (left) hands Senior Airman Damon Johnson a tool as they work on an A-10 Thunderbolt II during its phase inspection at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. The Airmen are deployed from Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. The 455th Expeditionary Maintenance Group is working on the airplanes around the clock, to ensure consistent ability to meet the demand for the airframe in theater. (U.S. Air Force photo/Maj. David Kurle)

For you aficionados/modelers out there - a higher-res version.

Share This Article:

Categories:

8 Comments

By Instapilot on August 17, 2006 7:59 AM
Gaaahh!! Deployed phases!!! Gaaaahhh! (I'm quoting the CMSgt who had to do mine at Aviano.) Bless his heart...and this is deja vu all over again. That's not a Spang jet, though...
 
By Jack on August 17, 2006 8:17 AM
I recall hearing a few years ago that the A-10 was going to be taken out of service. Is that still true, and if it is, what is planned to replace it? From what I've heard, this is an incredible aircraft, staying aloft when shot to pieces, and there is nothing else like it. Seems to me that taking it out of service would be the exact *wrong* thing to do.
 
By Blake Kirk on August 17, 2006 8:38 AM
One of the stories about the non-demise of the A10 is that the Army told the AF that we would happily take all the A10's they wanted to get rid of, since WE didn't think it was anywhere near obsolete. So the AF "reconsidered," and decided that maybe the decision to get rid of the Hawgs was "premature." It got redesginated as the "A/O-10" so they could put FAC's up in them, and whaddaya know, they worked pretty good as FAC aircraft, since it's a great deal easier to spot stuff on the ground when you're tooling around at slow speeds than it is at 900kts IAS. And they ARE survivable. And have tight turning circles ('cos they don't go so fast,) and they haul lots and lots and lots of things that fall off the wings and go "BOOM!" Which endears the poor old Hawg to the infantry no end. The problem the Hawg has always had in the AF is that it isn't sexy-looking and doesn't go fast. Hell, it's probably the ugliest military aircraft since the JU-52. My own considered opinion is that the AF would just as soon get out of the close-air-support business, but they just can't stand the idea of letting the Army have armed fixed-wing assets again.
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2006 9:06 AM
As I recall the story, Blake - the AF *did* offer the A10's and GSE - but not the force structure, nor the trained bodies, a poison pill offer we did not find acceptable. But I could be wrong. Dusty prolly knows.
 
By ry on August 17, 2006 8:56 PM
JAck, here's what I've heard. The A-10 was intended to be sent to pasture first around 2005 and then again around 2010. It was to be replaced by the F-35 using things like JDAM from high altitude(the tests are being done as we speak on the feasability of this) and high speeds(which has caused many a Crunchy to come up out of a verbal foxhole to brain the Smart Guys with a trenching tool.). The replacement AF dedicated ground attack plane was canceled in entirety. The NAvy's one(the A-12 I think it was) never got off the drawing board before it was cancelled(i.e. there's no replacement for the (E)A-6(on its way out as we speak. I predict we shall miss 'The Queer')) or the AV-8B, which is near the end of its lifespan---it's all Super Hornet all the time. I like the Super Bug, but jack of all trades are not for 'when you care, send the very best' situations.). The removal from service has now been slated for the mid-to-late 2020s with the 35 and UAVs supposedly picking up the slack along with the 'loitering' munitions that DARPA's been working on for 2 decades. Let's now give thanks to Congress(and a black eye or two.). Since, you know, supporting the troops isn't just when we're at war or when its a political slogan meant to not cost you votes. There is truth in 'you go to war with what you got at the time, not what you wish you had.'
 
By ry on August 17, 2006 9:30 PM
Further, actually there are at least 2 systems that are somewhat comparable to my knowledge(though it may get me stomped by Instapilot for impugning the Hog by giving it unworthy competitors). One is the USMC's Harrier. A Brit I know called them un-exciting bomb trucks. They aren't fast. They aren't sexy. They live in hides close to the front, or are supposed to, or from L-ships in the littorals, so the guys at the point of contact can get help fast. They blow chit up real good. Many variants on load out and one of which carries a belly gun for use against ground targets. The other is Sukhoi's Su-25. Something John and Sanger never wanted to see when stationed in Germany(particularly not when riding in an APC with the aerial up). The Afghans know all about this one (along with the infamous Hind). Brevity sucks. (pout)
 
By John of Argghhh! on August 18, 2006 6:12 AM
Ry, as mentioned in the *other* thread you whined about - I didn't say *you* have to be brief. Good lord, boy, it ain't all 'bout chu, 'k?
 
By ry on August 18, 2006 5:48 PM
(Dons uniteard and applies patcholi) Yes, but I want to free everyone of the horrible constraints that is brevity. It isn't about me. It's about freeing all of you from your horrible hang up about verbosity. Say it with me, 'It's okay to be wordy.' Again. Again. Again. Now go to your happy place and embrace the Life Spirit. Breath. ;) I'm paring down five pages to something more managable on that other thread(luckily I lost my passwords last night, yes?), though some of what I wanted to talk about got into the pt3 comments by others. Talking to other arms(My Low Intensity Conflict Guy that you helped out last year) I've got a different perspective than yours that makes a case of using the cluster munition or even FASCAM make sense in an urban environment. Or do you want editorial control before I put something like that up? I can see some of what I say truly and surely pissing some people off(but it ain't intentional).