US Test Lands an A10 on Michigan Highway

Video clips in the link here

breaking911.com...

Why would they be doing this so late in the aircrafts lifespan? The rising tensions with China have something to do with it? A little surprised this wasn't commonly tested during the cold war?

originally posted by: solidshot
Video clips in the link here

breaking911.com...

Why would they be doing this so late in the aircrafts lifespan? The rising tensions with China have something to do with it? A little surprised this wasn't commonly tested during the cold war?

Did it take back off from the highway?

I would think it may be an attempt to save the A-10 in our arsenal or to sell them to another nation.


but maybe those more informed have different opinions

Maybe they put on this dog & pony show because the Russians have done that for years, landing on roads.

I lost the link, but I saw one not long ago where a Mig 29 landed on the perfectly flat top of a dam of some sort. The cool part was the subsequent take off, perpendicular to the dam. Max power and giving up much altitude, off he went.

Nice to see the A10 landing on the road.

a reply to: solidshot

Short cut.

a reply to: putnam6

Yes they turned it around and it took off. It's the second Twitter video from the link.

Edit: just watch the first video I linked above.

That's cool as all get out.

The A-10 is such a versatile aircraft, hard to believe they can't find a reason to keep it in production.

did I hear somewhere about having enough trained pilots?

ALLLLL of NATO is doing Cold War Drills

they're practicing landing on roads, highways, Grassy fields, deserts, everything

Yeah.. its definitely about a virus though

Yeah that’s pretty cool.

I live about 3 miles from Selfridge ANGB where that plane and the 127th Wing is based, I see the A-10s flying all the time.

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
ALLLLL of NATO is doing Cold War Drills

they're practicing landing on roads, highways, Grassy fields, deserts, everything

Yeah.. its definitely about a virus though

your video is from

F-104 Lands On Highway - Stops On Grass...
232,565 views May 3, 2010

How is that relevant to 2021 11 years later?

a reply to: putnam6

The A-10 is such a versatile aircraft, hard to believe they can't find a reason to keep it in production.

they did get a extended lifetime for the remaining planes. the last hog got new wings in 2019, and major upgrades are ongoing, or at least they were suppose to, and will extend their life until 2030.

The new upgrades come after the completion, at the end of July 2019, of a first re-winging program that saw the installation of new wings, built by Boeing, on 173 A-10s, 162 of which were installed by the 571st Aircraft Maintenance Squadron at the Ogden Air Logistics Complex at Hill Air Force Base and the remaining 11 were re-winged at Osan Air Base in South Korea. According to the Air Force Materiel Command, the upgraded wings should last for up to 10,000 flight hours without requiring a depot inspection. One month later, the U.S. Air Force awarded Boeing a second contract, worth up to 999M USD, that will provide up to 112 new wing assemblies, completing the re-winging of all 281 A-10s currently in inventory.
The A-10C Warthog Gets New Upgrades To Be Ready To Fight In Future High-end Conflicts

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
ALLLLL of NATO is doing Cold War Drills

they're practicing landing on roads, highways, Grassy fields, deserts, everything

Yeah.. its definitely about a virus though

your video is from

F-104 Lands On Highway - Stops On Grass...
232,565 views May 3, 2010

How is that relevant to 2021 11 years later?

In every possible imaginable way

LINK

originally posted by: solidshot
Why would they be doing this so late in the aircrafts lifespan?

Because you keep working capabilities until the last one flies into the Boneyard. Just because it's late in their life cycle doesn't mean that they're not still useful. Prior to today, the only way their pilots got practice flying off roadways was going to Europe for exercises. If we can get some roads we can occasionally use here, it skips that step, and lets the pilots get practice in. A lot of these pilots are going to go to other platforms when the A-10 is retired. Those other platforms may need to use roads too, at some point. So not only do you prove the A-10 can do it, you get pilots experienced doing it moving to new platforms, so it skips the training step too with them.

a reply to: putnam6

It's actually a lot older than that. The Luftwaffe retired the F-104 from service starting in the 1980s, when they started to get the Tornado. The last flight of a German F-104 was May of 1991. However, from 1987 until 1991, the only flying examples in Germany were with WTD 61, which was part of their Technical Directorate. The last operational F-104 left the Luftwaffe in October of 1987. So this video had to be some time in the early 1980s. They had a brutal safety record, especially in German service, so seeing that one end up in the grass is no surprise at all.

Lived on an A10 base. Sure do miss seeing and hearing them.

a reply to: hounddoghowlieThere are two main reasons why the USAF and congress want to retire the A-10... F-35 and drone projects.

The USAF suffers from the "Buck Rogers" syndrome or fighter mafia mentality only wanting fast loud and expensive airplanes. They feel the A-10 was beneath their dignity to operate and have tried several times to off-load it on the Army. They will never utter words of popularity and effectiveness of the "HOG" in combat. It is a proven CAS platform unlike the F-35s.



Congress wants the political influence and kick-backs from new aircraft projects. This get votes for re-election and money under the table from the aeronautical influence peddlers. They never consider protecting the troops on the ground just the benefit of being responsible for building a 100 million dollar fighter.

I say repurpose the A-10 into a fire retardant air tanker. Add an internal and external hot dog tank. Fast to the fires, and with the maneuverability to get into and out of tight spots.

a reply to: Zaphod58
The old joke from the USAF was that the F-104 had killed more German pilots than the allies during WW2. I remember that the Luft. flew F-84s the few times I visited in the middle 1970's. Sadly, this must have been too of a performance jump at one time.

a reply to: buddah6

At least partly thanks to Congress, the Air Force has stayed largely stagnant in terms of fleet, while potential opponents are modernizing at amazing paces. Our fighter fleet age, even with all the F-35s that we've got now, stands in its mid to late 20s, or early 30s (I haven't looked lately, but it was godawful high 13 years ago). The F-35 has helped with that, but Congress won't allow the retirement of aircraft that would help even more with it. I love the A-10, and always have. But it's time for it to go. The plan that Congress currently plans to completely reverse, would have retired all of 44 aircraft, leaving over 200 still in inventory. That would free up maintainers and personnel that could then go to the F-35s, allowing for a faster stand up of some squadrons.

Instead, under the SASC plan, no A-10s would be retired, they'd be required to spend almost $130M in maintenance on the fleet, possibly bring some back and upgrade them, and meet an 80%+ mission capable rate. Every time the Air Force tries to retire anything that's not going to stand up well in a peer or near peer conflict, Congress decides it's vital to the service, and refuses to allow them to get rid of it. But they're getting rid of KC-135s, KC-10s, and C-130s, all while the KC-46 won't be ready to fly active missions in any kind of combat zone until 2025 at the earliest. And that's only for new build aircraft. Realistically, you're looking at 2030 before the fleet is ready to fly combat support. But let's get rid of our existing tankers that actually work. Because it's not like we have had a tanker shortage for 30 years or anything.

a reply to: 38181

It wouldn't make a good air tanker though. The payload capacity wouldn't be great. About the only place you could put a decent sized tank would be where the gun is, and you'd have to plumb to a dispersal system, which would be an extensive modification, and you couldn't carry much retardant.

a reply to: buddah6

Four Luftwaffe F-104s crashed in 1962, practicing for the "introduction to service" flyover. By 1966, 61 had crashed, with 35 fatalities. By the time they were retired, out of the 916 that they had bought, 292 had crashed, killing 115 pilots. They averaged 10 crashes per year, with a peak of 15-20 a year between 1968 and 1972.