Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
14 August 2009
Messages
9,707
Reaction score
2,021
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Does this mean that the A-10 Thunderbolt II has been saved from the budget cutting block?

"Northrop Grumman Awarded U.S. Air Force A-10 TLPS Task Orders"
Published November 19, 2013 | By Marcel van Leeuwen

Source:
http://www.aviationnews.eu/2013/11/19/northrop-grumman-awarded-u-s-air-force-a-10-tlps-task-orders/

The U.S. Air Force has awarded Northrop Grumman Corporation two task orders under the A-10 Thunderbolt Life Cycle Program Support (TLPS) indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract vehicle. The total value of the task orders is nearly $24 million.

“Northrop Grumman is proud to continue to support the Air Force’s premier ground attack aircraft,” said John Parker, director, Northrop Grumman’s global logistics and modernization business unit. “Our focus is to always provide our customer with the highest level of engineering services possible to ensure superior program performance. We look forward to continuing our work with the Air Force and the A-10 Thunderbolt.”

Under the terms of the four-year aircraft structural integrity program (ASIP) Modernization V task order, Northrop Grumman and its teammates will support the A-10 ASIP modernization program on tasks required to keep the A-10 weapon system viable through 2028 and beyond. Teammates for ASIP include Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio. Texas; University of Dayton Research Institute, Dayton, Ohio; Borsight Inc., Ogden, Utah; and Prime Machine Inc., Salt Lake City.

Northrop Grumman will rely on its A-10 original equipment manufacturer experience for the two-year ASIP Legacy V task order, which will include tasks related to the original development and manufacture of the A-10. These tasks include damage tolerance analysis, materials testing, probabilistic and risk analysis, and stress and thermal analysis.

“Winning these task orders demonstrates our customer’s confidence in our ability to manage the extremely important engineering and logistics tasks required to keep the aircraft structure flight-ready throughout its lifecycle,” said David Gustafson, site and program manager, Northrop Grumman Clearfield aircraft engineering services center.

Northrop Grumman press release.
 
In case you were curious why Northrop Grumman is mentioned as an original equipment manufacturer of the A-10 Thunderbolt II:

In 1987, the ™A-10 OEM Team and all A-10 assets were acquired by Grumman Corporation from Fairchild Republic Company, and are now part of the Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems Eastern Region, presently partnered with Lockheed Martin Systems Integration as a member of the A-10 Prime Team.

The OEM Team has maintained continuous involvement in the modernization of the jet, integrating the Inertial Navigation System in the 1970s, developing and installing the Low Altitude Safety and Targeting Enhancement ground collision avoidance system in the 1980s, and the Night Vision Imaging System in the 1990s, and has demonstrated particular leadership in the planning and analysis required for managing the structural integrity of the airframe through the various changes in flight maneuver spectra, mission, and force structure.

Source:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/A10ThunderboltII/Pages/default.aspx

Confused why none of the aviation books I have read mention that the OEM Team and all A-10 assets were acquired by Grumman in 1987.
 
Triton said:
Confused why none of the aviation books I have read mention that the OEM Team and all A-10 assets were acquired by Grumman in 1987.

Now that you mention it, I was puzzled for a long time that the A-10 was no longer Fairchild Republic yet was not listed as anything else.
I seem to recall seeing the name Grumman around the time of the OA-10 proposal, but I must have figured it was the same as with the E-6 being Grumman: a systems integrator on somebody else's airframe.
 
Sorry, not trying to derail, does anybody else find it really annoying that this Air Force film, paid for by the American public is "owned and copyrighted" by Periscope films?
 
So, with an extra Precise A-10, a "borrowed" tail from a poorly injected A-10, some judicious sanding and shaping, a few extra underwing stores, and the inspiration from a picture of the 3 tail wind tunnel model I present...........
 

Attachments

  • A-10 3 Tail.jpg
    A-10 3 Tail.jpg
    387.7 KB · Views: 342
  • 3 TAIL A-10.jpg
    3 TAIL A-10.jpg
    97.9 KB · Views: 271
10 sorties a day with 40 min turnaround time for next mission in austere environment, busting tanks and supporting soldiers on the ground. That is very impressive. Will always need that type of capability no matter what the anti-A-10 "experts" say.
 
Firstly Hi to everyone on Secret Projects. Im building a scale model of HobbyBoss N/AW A-10. A decent kit, but
lacking in ordnance. Im looking for imagery on two Pods, Texas Instrument AAR-42 FLIR. Westinghouse WX-50 radar.
any help would be most appreciated.
 
Thanks TomS, just what Im after. probably will have to scratch build them. Under the precis of ( if it looks right, it is right).
 
Big and Brass.

Is the aircraft repairable?
 
Last edited:
The A-10 is certainly a tough plane, you could throw anything at it and it would still fly. I once saw a documentary about the A-10 talking about Desert Storm where it showed footage of the A-10 coming back with massive holes in the wings, flaps and tail surfaces, the pilot back back then still managed to land using the back-up controls this time thankfully with landing gear down.
 
Big and Brass.

Is the aircraft repairable?
I would assume so. The A-10 was designed to be able to do just what it did there, land without gear down, in case of battle damage. I don't recall that capability having to be put to the test before, but that looked pretty routine for an emergency landing, so it seems to me the design worked as planned.
 
Big and Brass.

Is the aircraft repairable?
I would assume so. The A-10 was designed to be able to do just what it did there, land without gear down, in case of battle damage. I don't recall that capability having to be put to the test before, but that looked pretty routine for an emergency landing, so it seems to me the design worked as planned.
Yes it was, during ODS.

US A-10 Warthog wheels up, hard stick landing Capt Rich Biley 79-0181 ODS 1991-02-22.jpg s,
 
Big and Brass.

Is the aircraft repairable?
I would assume so. The A-10 was designed to be able to do just what it did there, land without gear down, in case of battle damage. I don't recall that capability having to be put to the test before, but that looked pretty routine for an emergency landing, so it seems to me the design worked as planned.

As I recall, the main gear wheels don't fully retract to help in gear-up landings.
 
Big and Brass.

Is the aircraft repairable?
I would assume so. The A-10 was designed to be able to do just what it did there, land without gear down, in case of battle damage. I don't recall that capability having to be put to the test before, but that looked pretty routine for an emergency landing, so it seems to me the design worked as planned.

As I recall, the main gear wheels don't fully retract to help in gear-up landings.
Correct, I think a good third of the wheel, maybe more, sits out in the airflow when "retracted".
 
was the A.10 Thunderbolt ever pitched to the UK. for the RAF. ?
I understand Australia and W. Germany were interested in the type for possible procurement, it would be interesting as to any other interested countries ? I understand Iran ? Israel ?
 
Last edited:
The two seater would have been more useful possibly but that bit the dust.
 
I wonder if the upgrades will also include an armor-piercing round *without* depleted uranium?

It's certainly been discussed since at least 2018. In 2019, a huge amount of PGU-14 DU rounds showed up in a list of projectiles the Air Force wanted to dispose of.

The could field a tungsten API or Frangible AP round. Or for less money, they could just soldier on with the PGU-13 HEI round and drop the API entirely. For actual tank-killing, some form of PGM is clearly preferred, and for general suppressive strafing, HEI would seem to be superior.
 
The US based its European A10s in the UK with forward operating bases in Germany closer to US units.
The A10s trained with Army helicopter units and were closely tied to the defence of the Fulda and Hof Gaps.
In contrast BAOR in North Germany relied on a mixture of Harriers and Tornados but its main anti tank force was ground based Chieftains and Swingfire ATGW. It had small numbers of TOW equipped Lynx.
The Bundeswehr liked its little nimble Alpha Jets and Bo105 PAH helos with HOT ATGW.
A10s were pretty expensive and needed Maverick ASMs as well as their powerful and expensive main gun ammo.
Definitely out for the RAF but the Germans might have swapped their Alphas for A10s if the Cold War had gone on into the 90s and PAH2 had replaced the Bo105s.
 
Given that CAS was not a prominent feature of Israeli air doctrine this strikes me as odd.
Israeli air force probably points to Iran as the primary mission, with Osiris reactor strike being the defining historical strategic contribution.

Otherwise you can park a HIMARs in the middle of the country and provide fire support to every front in record time. Army apaches can also deal with Palestinian non-peer conflict better than AF as well.
 
Above, Phillis switched into Sandy, or the A-10 search and rescue (SAR) mode. He radioed that he saw a good chute and marked the ejection site coordinates. He radioed the nearby E-3 Sentry AWACS that his wingman was down and asked for more aircraft to come and help the SAR effort.

These steps are the typical duty of a wingman in a downed aircraft situation—but Phillis stayed. Radio traffic showed confusion as incoming aircraft were not clear where to head.

Phillis flew an orbit over the armored division to draw fire away from Sweet as he parachuted down. He radioed incoming A-10s, trying to direct them to his position since the aircraft did not have radar.

The incoming A-10s could not spot him, so Phillis fired flares from his A-10—drawing the attention of both the Iraqis and the incoming help.

After repeated attempts to help the incoming aircraft locate him, Phillis realized the increased danger of the situation. An Iraqi SA-13 hit Phillis’s A-10, lighting it on fire. He radioed to the incoming A-10s to leave, then radioed his own fate.

“Enfield 3-7 is bag as well,” Phillis radioed to the AWACS with a calm tone.

With the aircraft on fire and disintegrating, Phillis turns south in an attempt to get away from the Iraqis and Sweet’s ejection site. His A-10 ultimately crashed, cartwheeling through the Kuwaiti sand, and was totally destroyed.

 
was the A.10 Thunderbolt ever pitched to the UK. for the RAF. ?
I understand Australia and W. Germany were interested in the type for possible procurement, it would be interesting as to any other interested countries ? I understand Iran ? Israel ?
Even today, if usaf retires them, I’d think Poland would have a look, everything they do is around anti-tank.
 
was the A.10 Thunderbolt ever pitched to the UK. for the RAF. ?
I understand Australia and W. Germany were interested in the type for possible procurement, it would be interesting as to any other interested countries ? I understand Iran ? Israel ?
I think the A-10 was offered to Australia but I don't think there was ever any real interest.
 
Osiris reactor

Don't know for Egypt, but that Iraqi reactor was called Osirak (and at times: O-Chirac, because the late French PM and President was once a very good friend of Saddam Hussein, and France helped Osirak buildup a lot).

France helped Israel over Dimona in the 50's
France helped Saddam with Osirak
France helped Iran with EURODIF - before the revolution, and afterwards the Mullah deprived of money and technology sought vengeance - 1986 Paris terror attacks, former EURODIF boss, went to Renault - George Besse murder...)
France also helped Pakistan going nuclear.

Damn. Nothing glorious to brag about, really.
 
It just dawned on me that, from 1966 to our days, USAF relationship with the A-10 has been one of the most dishonest ever.

In 1966 they started it
- a) to screw the Army and its attack helicopters for CAS
- b) and only because the A-7D supposedly couldn't do the job, too expensive.

And from there, it has become more and more insanity.

In the early 70's a second atempt was made to screw the A-10 through the A-7D, but a 1974 fly-off silenced the Air Force - and the A-10 survived.

Then the Air force started complaining the A-10 was single-seat and day only. Republic created the A-10B to no avail, and the basic A-10 survived.

Soon thereafter, the Air Force started complaining the A-10 was too slow and vulnerable. This started the YA-7F program, a THIRD atempt to screw the A-10 with the A-7 (LMAO). The end of Cold War plus the A-16 (sic) and its gun pod screwed the A-7D, and thus the basic A-10 survived.

In Gulf war War One a F-16 with a podded Gatling gun was tested, once again in an atempt to screw the A-10. The pod vibrated terribly, and thus the A-10 survived.

In the 2010's the F-35 was to replace the A-10 (here we go again) and even if it couldn't, the A-10 fleet had to go to provide fresh money to the F-35.
This didn't worked as planned, and thus the A-10 survived to the present day.

Un-be-lie-va-ble, such dishonesty only matched by such a stuborness in killing that poor airplane across FIVE DECADES.

When you think about it this way, it sounds like a bad joke... "et le canard était toujours vivant !"
 
In the early 70's a second atempt was made to screw the A-10 through the A-7D, but a 1974 fly-off silenced the Air Force - and the A-10 survived.

Actually it was the A-7 that was screwed. It being a Navy plane, the USAF wanted to get rid off it. Never mind that the A-7D was almost brand new at the time and arguably USAF's best strike fighter. In the fly-off, the A-7 beat the A-10 in most missions, but USAF decided only those missions the A-10 won were relevant. Hence the A-7 fleet was quickly relegated to ANG units.

Soon thereafter, the Air Force started complaining the A-10 was too slow and vulnerable. This started the YA-7F program, a THIRD atempt to screw the A-10 with the A-7 (LMAO). The end of Cold War plus the A-16 (sic) and its gun pod screwed the A-7D, and thus the basic A-10 survived.

Well the A-10 was too slow and vulnerable in the interdiction role. Never mind the complete lack of avionics. No surprise though as that's what the '74 fly-off already demonstrated.
In the end, it wasn't a decision between A-10 and A-7 though, as the USAF announced any aircraft would be considered for the role, as long as it was an F-16.

In Gulf war War One a F-16 with a podded Gatling gun was tested, once again in an atempt to screw the A-10. The pod vibrated terribly, and thus the A-10 survived.

Well in Desert Storm the A-10 suffered high losses and was pulled from fighting the republican guard units. F-16s took over that role.
So in the end the assumption that the A-10 wasn't survivable in a high threat environment proved to be correct. It's just that an F-16 with a GPU-5 gun pod didn't work as a possible alternative/replacement.
What worked though were F-16s with Mavericks, cluster bombs and GP bombs.

In the 2010's the F-35 was to replace the A-10 (here we go again) and even if it couldn't, the A-10 fleet had to go to provide fresh money to the F-35.
This didn't worked as planned, and thus the A-10 survived to the present day.

The way I see it is the A-10 is mostly still around because fighting defenceless opponents has been going on basically permanently since 1991.

That is not to say the USAF doesn't hate the A-10. Anything that is not an F-15/F-16 back in the day, an F-22/F-35 later on or NGAD/MR-X even later must die.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom