Re:The Air Force Initiative to Replace the A-10 Warthog Is V...
by Warhawg01 on Saturday April 16, 2016 @12:33PM
(#11511193)
The inventory is rotting? Laughable. The Mission Capable Rates are in the 80-90% range. There haven't been "factory resources" for parts in decades, and yet the fleet still manages to fly at a high rate. CAD Files? Factory Tooling? You have very little understanding of how aircraft maintenance in the Air Force works. Ever heard of a sheet metal shop? Those dudes can make anything.
An A-10 flight hour costs <8K. Source: I managed a $54M, 7200 hour A-10 flying hour program. I have flown A-10s for 18 years.
Re:The Air Force Initiative to Replace the A-10 Warthog Is V...
by jasonwatkinspdx on Saturday April 16, 2016 @01:52PM
(#11511544)
I'm skeptical you are who you claim, but if so you know you're being hyperbolic. Airframes have a limited lifetime; fatigue adds up. Despite the overwhelmingly positive performance to date, an aging fleet that's more expensive on margin to operate than alternatives doesn't make sense.
Re:The Air Force Initiative to Replace the A-10 Warthog Is V...
by msbarnett on Saturday April 16, 2016 @01:59PM
(#11511580)
The AF just rewinged the A-10 fleet. Ranting about airframe fatigue in relation to the A-10 is nonsensical; the money has already been spent refreshing the airframes. Their current expected lifespan is until 2040.
Re:The Air Force Initiative to Replace the A-10 Warthog Is V...
by jasonwatkinspdx on Saturday April 16, 2016 @02:11PM
(#11511622)
Yup, at a cost of around $2billion to extend around 200 aircraft to 2040. It's exactly the problem I'm talking about: those wings cost ~10mm per aircraft, twice the base price for a brand new Texan.
I don't think that was prudent spending vs alternatives, but to be fair, it was a decision made a decade ago when the future was a bit more murky.
Re:The Air Force Initiative to Replace the A-10 Warthog Is V...
by Warhawg01 on Saturday April 16, 2016 @02:55PM
(#11511781)
Operations Officer, 25th Fighter Squadron, Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea 2011-2012. Drop me an email and I send you pdfs of all the proof you need. 'nbsheeran' at the google one.
8-hour fix rates, repeat/recur rates, flying schedule effectiveness rates and MC rates are exactly what they are. No hyperbole required. They get briefed every week.
Opinions about the merits and flaws of the A-10 are largely irrelevant: the inventory is rotting, and there are no factory resources for replacement parts, let alone new aircraft. Keeping the A-10's going would require what amounts to a reverse engineering and reproduction program comparable in cost to developing a new aircraft.
Even if you're the biggest fan in the world of them, it simply does not make sense to keep the A-10's going. Sentiment does not prevent the decay of the aircraft, nor does it whip into existence cad files and factory tooling that no longer exists.
The A-10 costs around 20k per hour to fly. The predator series drones, T6 Texan, and the Super Tucano all cost 1/5th to 1/10th that per hour to operate.