"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
11/27/2013 at 12:09 • Filed to: planelopnik
4
12|
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
11/27/2013 at 12:09 • Filed to: planelopnik | 4
| 12 |
Northrop Grumman was recently awarded with two contracts from USAF. The issue which is regulated by these contracts is a logistic support for !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , and the sum of money allocated to the aforementioned agreement is $24 million. The contract is called the A-10 Thunderbolt Life Cycle Program Support (TLPS), and includes indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract vehicle.
What is more, the contract includes ASIP (aircraft structural integrity program) Modernization V. Its assumption is to keep the A-10 flying through 2028 and beyond that date and it is possible that the aircraft will receive updated systems. In other words, this means that the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! will remain in the active service in large numbers even though after the sequester this was not so certain.
The process will at least be prolonged in time – even if the number of Hogs is to be limited, !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Even if the A-10 is still considered !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , its capabilities may be a bit limited is particular scenarios, as in the Pacific theatre. Furthermore, it is a purely single-purpose aircraft, as opposed to F-35.
U.S. Air Force operates 346 A-10s, half of those used by Air National Guard. The Congress protested against getting rid of 5 squadrons of A-10s last year, and it has already said that the protest is to be continued in 2014.
via !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
Tom McParland
> ttyymmnn
11/27/2013 at 12:11 |
|
YAAAAAY!
doodon2whls
> ttyymmnn
11/27/2013 at 12:11 |
|
...and all was right in the world....
Dukie - Jalopnik Emergency Management Asshole
> ttyymmnn
11/27/2013 at 12:14 |
|
Party-vi
> ttyymmnn
11/27/2013 at 12:17 |
|
IDIQ? Nice. This means NG has a nice $24M piggy bank to do the Govt work from. I can only assume there's an option to extend the contract for 4 option years?
pauljones
> ttyymmnn
11/27/2013 at 12:25 |
|
Conversely, that means the B-1B is likely to eat it. This is a bad thing considering that the B-1B is a more appropriate platform given our shift in focus to the Pacific. As much as I hate to say this, as I love the A-10, it's job honestly could be adequately accomplished by Cobras/Apaches on the low and slow end, though perhaps not as efficiently as the A-10 could.
On the other hand, there's really nothing that can do what the B-1B can do. The F-111s are long gone, and didn't have the payload or stealth capacity anyways. The B-52 is larger, slower, and again with an inferior payload. The F-15E doesn't have the range, payload, or stealth capacity, either; the same goes for any variant of the F-16. The F-35 has the stealth capacity, but range and payload for an interdiction mission would be an issue.
There's really nothing else in the inventory that can that can take on the B-1B's job of low-level, long-range, high-speed interdiction. On the other hand, Apaches and Cobras can do anti-tank and anti-personnel duties just fine.
Team6.1
> ttyymmnn
11/27/2013 at 12:26 |
|
Love the A-10. Like hey this gun is too big, let's build a plane around it, and paint a shark on the nose, and say "bring the thunder" every time it shoots something.
At a drift day earlier this year I saw 8 in a row taking off from Nellis AFB in Vegas. Couldn't get a decent picture but it was an awesome sight
Atomic Buffalo
> ttyymmnn
11/27/2013 at 12:58 |
|
When a plane is this much better at its single purpose, keep it. Especially when its single purpose is protecting troops on the ground.
Until they can eliminate the need for troops on the ground — ha! — the A-10's capabilities cannot be abandoned.
Triborough
> ttyymmnn
11/27/2013 at 15:05 |
|
Will it be in service as long as the B-52?
You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
> pauljones
11/27/2013 at 15:24 |
|
I would say that this can do anything the B-1B is capable of minus the supersonic flight.
I also don't believe that the helicopters are as capable as the A-10. They are definitely much more fragile and don't have nearly the payload capacity. And without looking it up to verify I would suspect the combat radius and loiter time of the A-10 are significantly greater than the helos, especially if refueling is available just outside the combat zone.
Destructive Tester
> ttyymmnn
01/27/2014 at 10:20 |
|
"The process will at least be prolonged in time – even if the number of Hogs is to be limited, it won't until a large number of F-35s is introduced..."
So you're saying indefinitely... I'm only saying that partially tongue-in-cheek, my work avails to me quite a bit of information on the status of the F35. As to my prognosis on it joining the active fleet in the near future, let me put it this way; when I watched The Avengers I was willing to accept a billionaire flying in a super suit, a genetically-engineered super soldier, the Norse God of Thunder, and a green rage monster but a FMC (Fully Mission Capable) F35 completely took me out of the movie. I had to call BULLSHIT on that...
|
ttyymmnn
> Destructive Tester
01/27/2014 at 10:57 |
|
The Pentagon has long been enamored with "silver bullet" technology, one system that can do everybody's job. It would be great if we could have one system for everybody, but it's obvious that with different branches and different missions, there need to be different planes (or guns, or APCs, etc.) We end up with a jack of all trades that is master of none.
|
Destructive Tester
> ttyymmnn
01/27/2014 at 11:44 |
|
The silver bullet theory went out the window as soon as the Navy was supposed to get the VSTOL version due to the necessary changes. That coupled with the fact that a combat aircraft is essentially designed to be about as repairable as the average iDevice (typed on an iPad) pretty-much dooms the aircraft to its fate of being the second coming of the F111.