A-10 Thunderbolt - The Future Is Uncertain
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- Wish to donate to support my channel? - Paypal link: paypal.me/Matsimus
The A-10 Thunderbolt has a uncertain future. In this video we discuss it.
The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is a single seat, twin turbofan engine, straight wing jet aircraft developed by Fairchild-Republic for the United States Air Force USAF. Commonly referred to by its nicknames "Warthog" or "Hog", its official name comes from the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, a World War II fighter that was effective at attacking ground targets. The A-10 was designed for close-in support of ground troops, close air support (CAS), providing quick-action support for troops against helicopters, vehicles, and ground troops.
The Thunderbolt II can employ a wide variety of conventional munitions, including general purpose bombs, cluster bomb units, laser guided bombs, joint direct attack munitions or JDAM, wind corrected munitions dispenser or WCMD, AGM-65 Maverick and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, rockets, illumination flares, and the GAU-8/A 30mm cannon, capable of firing 3,900 rounds per minute to defeat a wide variety of targets including tanks.
Over 367 A-10 aircraft are in service with the US Air Force, Air Combat Command, the US Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard.
Hope you enjoy!
-------------Please Like, Share and Subscribe!-----------------
Come chat with me! Get Discord Free! Here is my server: / discord
Add me on Steam: Matsimus
Facebook: www.facebook.c...
Twitter: @MatsimusGaming
Please help support my Patreon: www.patreon.co...
Matsimus Gaming
A-10 Thunderbolt
This is why i love matsimus because he has had combat experience and knows what he is talking about unlike most youtubers
Leopold III can I just say I never said I was a expert at knowing about this aircraft as stated in the video. I just like to talk about things from my perspective and opinion. That's all :-)
Leopold III gotcha :-)
completely agree, he's also open to other opinions, I agree with him a lot on this and on most things but if I didn't I wouldn't feel so alienated
should look up devil dog gamer to add to your list
No disrespect Mats but this vid was 14 minutes of "I don't know".
I remember back in 1992 when they were going to retire it... the SECOND time.
SteelbeastsCavalry well if HIGHCOM has any idea what there doing they won't Ret the 10 but were askin a lot with that ain't we?
SteelbeastsCavalry Well if they do retire it, they will learn really quick what happens when you fuck with the wrong fans. Just saying.
I smell fanboy autism. And a little bit of I-don't-know-what-that-can-do-but-I-know-what-this-can.
"they will learn really quick what happens when you fuck with the wrong fans" So you're gonna make a petition on change.org? Maybe write a blog post? USAF top brass must be shaking in their boots.
Nick Smith Hey, it was more a obligatory statement about how people like the A-10 a lot. If you're gonna shit your pants writing dumb ass replies, then go ahead. I don't care.
F35 vs A10:
Appearance:
F35 Pretty
A10 Pretty Badass
Designed for CAS?:
F35 LOL
A10 Hell Yeah
Can use stealth?:
F35 Yes
A10 Why hide?
Do tanks fear it?:
F35 ???
A10 Tank could not be reached for comment.
Fuck yeah! Tank cannot be reached for comment. ROFLMFAO
hi M N...
haha both A-10 and F-35 are big different designs airplanes
@@bestamerica then why is the F35 tapped to replace the A10? It cant fill the role.
go with the plane with the biggest gun, because thats what matters.
Has a tagline:
F35 WTF?
A10 BRRRRRRRRRRRT!
In capiltalist America, Gun have plane
Leohard18 Or M1 Abrams have wings....
In Soviet Russia tank have wings
*Soviet Russia has left the Game*
In Germany Guns have Tracks
Gun is plane
The A-10 is capable of doing what previously needed entire flights of fully loaded heavy bombers to do in WWII. Accuracy, precision, payload, survivability, etc. It's also cheap, compared to its current alternatives. It's one of the most cost-effective weapons the US weilds in any air war. For any Air Force top brass to even come close to CONSIDERING taking this aircraft away should be considered treason. There's absolutely no good reason at all to replace the Hog. Period.
so this vehicle is the air-force equivalent to replacing the 1911 back in the day. Duly noted.
To view having an unpopular opinion as being treated as treason, you fit well in an army of a dictator. I encourage you to, as objectively posible, take a look at the pros and cons of this magnificant machine and try to let go of the feels.
It's not an opinion, it's military leadership trying to get rid of something that saves lives. That is objective, period.
The reason you exclude discussion is the very reason you experience no power in real life. Now that ofcourse is an assumption, but one i'd put money on.
watdeneuk I never excluded discussion. You can think and say whatever you want, just as I have. If you don't like it, you're free to mount your high horse and commit to ad hominems all you want. That's called free speech. However you didn't refute my point so I'll in turn assume that you have no clue what you're talking about.
if they want info to see if they need to keep the A-10 in service. talk to the troops on the ground
animal16365 I would have to agree here. But I can see kinda where the USAF is going with it. I just think the A-10 will still have some fight left in it! Thanks so much for watching :-) have a great day!
Thing is... People focus on that big Gatling gun in the nose, and the brrrrrrph sound... That is not the way to analyze a system.
"talking to the troops on the ground"... I am 99,9% sure that the troops on the ground don't care one bit if they have airsupport from an A-10 or any other fighter/bomber/gunship or artillery (and a guy who knows how to use it). Now if one was putting a few 12,7 mm mashine guns on a cessna, as well as a few bombs, the result in the environment that the A-10 works in right now, might very well be the same for the troops on the ground...
The A-10 is awesome, and it would be a real shame to lose it! But the same thing happened to the Harrier, and a modified Harrier was arguably a better system for the army to operate (if they were to get their own aircraft).
One thing that you might not be considering +bandholm is the fear that the sound the a 10 makes with that big gattling gun, a sound that would not be replicated (and therefore the fear factor for the enemy) with your cessna example.
"talk to the troops on the ground"
Wouldn't they just say: "give us an aircraft that can do what the A10 does, preferably even better"?
I mean, the A10 is great, but it can only fire for a few seconds. Granted, whatever it hits is dead but it must die withing teh few bursts the A10 can fire. Compare that to the Spooky which can linger for hours above a target. As a ground troop I'd prefer to have spooky above me that can open fire literally in seconds after getting a call, and can keep up the fire while the A10 has to fly back and forth and has to reload, possibly at the worst moment.
The A10 is good, but not necessarily best.
@@MrBandholm wat kind of argument is that, "putting a 20mm GAU on a Cessna" thats not even possible considering how heavy that gun is and the A-10 design was specifically centered around the GAU and not the other way around.
the only replacement for this should be A-10 M2
Anti Master can I ask what that is :-)
Everyone will never forgive the air force if they kill the hawg. The hawg is not just a aircraft. It's an experience.
Matsimus Gaming i don't know what the engineers are gonna come up with for A-10 M2 version. the joke here is that A-10 would only be replacable by a better version of itself
For me, as an inexperienced civvie, it seems like the A-10, per aircraft, has its own personality. Don't know why, it just does.
Scribe Hammar
well its nickname is the warthog
honestly, if the USAF wants their fighters then just give the A10s to the Army and creat a own airfleet for the US Army the same way the Marines have it after all the Army benefits a lot mroe from it then the airforce
John Fox the army has supposedly been wanted these suckers because these things are fuckin effective once you got air sup from the F-22 then this monster will wreck damn near anything, remember this sucker was planned to fuck up those commie sobs back in the Cold War if it got hot and it was in the same roll as the SU-25 Frogfoot was pullin the same roll for the Russians
SU-25 is not as intimate air support as A-10 though.
Nick Dzink
thats what you say
John Fox That's exactly my thoughts. I bet the soldiers on the ground would love to have US Army pilots flying them if the airmen will not. Loiter time! Can these F 35s spend a lot of time loitering over the enemy? I'd imagine they haul too much ass to spend a lot of hang time over the enemy. And if we do end up getting rid of them why just scrap them? I figure sell them to all the NATO countries. All those A10s in Europe would definitely be an extra deterrent against Red armor. Since Trump won there could also be a possibility of extra funds going towards the Warthogs? Thoughts? I know the F 35 is the new baby but I've been hearing a lot of conflicting data on this new jet.
Charles Jannuzi I could see them nailing them with zsu and s300 s400 etc etc but what about them being used after we knocked out their anti-air? I'd assume the reds' s400s can knock out our F35s too?
What sound does a cat make?
Meow...
What sound does a dog make?
Wuff, ruff, wuff..
What sounds does a pig make?
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT
quantomic1106 you mean a warthog?
U mean a hog?
The pig would just "GET SOME"
And If you hear "BRRRRRRRT" and you know A-10 isn't on your side you're fucked
if you hear "BRRRRRT" that means its not shooting you... this time at least.... bullets travel faster than sound
Geez you just had to ruin the fun
Another 3 lol
Matsimus Gaming sorry for deleting your previous comment it was an accident
Unless it's friendly fire which has happened
Jesus Christ just make a modernised A-10 and designate it as the A-20 or some shit
Money, dude, it would take a lot of them. Besides it's apparent that the current A-10 hasn't yet outlived it's usefulness. The recent low intensity conflicts are actually a fresh breath for it.
It would make sense.... if they weren't replacing the damn thing with a even more expensive jet
Enclave Soldier they already have. but by 2040, (if it does last that long, it will pretty much be a 100 year old aircraft.
nah m8 we gotta make it denk
a-69 30 missiles 20 bombs 4 20 mm autocannons and a special wobbly head figure
Enclave Soldier by then the A 20 would probably by a big bombing drone
My father served with the British Army for 36 years (no, that was not a mistake).
He utterly agrees with you. He also loves the A10....
alganhar1 thank you for watching and thank your father from me for his service. I appreciate it. Thank you for watching and long live the A-10 lol! Have a great day!!
Since it was born in the 70s the Majority of the Air Force does not want this jet. Air Force Brass always wants expensive, super fast, high tech. But those have real problems doing close air support near our troops. Which was why in Vietnam the Air Force was forced to borrow Navy 1945 Vintage A1D Skyraiders that had cannon, could haul a lot of bombs, hang around for hours for the call, and go slow enough to see the targets and hit them without hitting our troops.
The A10 has been the Red Headed Step Child of the Air Force since it went into operational servce back when I was in High School. Too cheap, too low tech, too slow, too old fashioned for the Air Force. For a long time being sent to an A10 squadron was the end of your career in its early days.
The Air force dumped them to the reserves as soon as they could. But they were forced to call them into action in the Gulf Wars. And they did exactly what they are supposed and were designed to do.
I am a big fan of this aircraft. But the A10 community has been fighting to stay alive its entire life.
The trouble with fast and fancy fighters doing close air support is that one tiny hit from a rifle can knock down a 30 million dollar jet. They go so fast they cannot see the guys hiding and they burn fuel so fast when they are low that they cannot stay around on station to support the guys on the ground properly. So you need way more of them to do the same job.
I hope it will remain in service until they can actually design a new and proper aircraft to replace it. The F35 is not a Hog..
p51mustang24 the war on terror will never end
@@p51mustang24 "War on terror ending?" Haha, you're cracked.
The point of fancy fighters is no te be able to be hit by rifles. They are not meant to be a better hog but a whole other type of close air support. The US army has got to complesant. If they go with the a10 against anything with an AA sistem the are going down
The point of fancy fighters is no te be able to be hit by rifles. They are not meant to be a better hog but a whole other type of close air support. The US army has got to complesant. If they go with the a10 against anything with an AA sistem the are going down
Feels like the modern day stuka
it was apparently based off of the stuka
Hachi Roku God no.
+flinchfly57
yes it actually was.
medium.com/war-is-boring/stuka-and-sturmovik-the-aircraft-that-inspired-the-a-10-8c8d885d61db
"It is the Sturmovik, along with the German Ju-87 Stuka dive bomber, that fathered the A-10. “The World War II close air support successes of both the Stuka and the Sturmovik had a major-and inspiring-influence in convincing all of us early A-X/A-10 proponents that close support was by far the most important mission of air power, certainly more so than strategic bombing,” A-10 designer Pierre Sprey tells War is Boring."
Saying that the A-10 is based off the Stuka is like saying the AR-15, Scar, or any other number of assault rifles were "based" off of the STG.
And Sprey did not design the A-10. He was at most an adviser, and even that isn't entirely accurate. There's a reason why it's called the "Thunderbolt II". The A-10 was inspired mostly by the P-47, especially by it's reputation to carry a massive payload and ability to return to base despite massive chunks of it's engine and fuselage missing.
Seriously, take any quote from him with a massive grain of salt. He's a loon.
"Inspired by" is more accurate than "based off of". Even the B-2 was inspired by a ww2 german flying wing stealth bomber. Not one thing was copied besides the general concept though.
There needs to be a new production run of the A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog."
There is no replacement.
There is no constant maintenance upkeep cost justification.
The only replacement for the A-10 is a brand new production run that at the very least keeps the full features of the original, and where able at least triples or more improves the overall performance of the new air frame thanks to updated and modernized technologies.
What say you?
The F35 will never be able to replace an A-10 in terms of:
- Loitering time
- Number of rounds carried
- Low operating costs
- Pilot and airframe survivability
- Types of ordinance carried
In fact, I can't think of another platform so well suited for such a critical role. If they're simply getting old -- THEN BUILD NEW A-10s.
I agree with you there. However, from what I understand, the manufacturing facilities that produced parts specific to the A-10 have been discontinued or repurposed.
@@facelessman9224 Then they should redesign a platform for CAS that matches what the A-10 provided. Starting with a titanium bathtub for the pilot.
Not the case in regards to ordinance or survivability.
How so?
@@jklappenbach Klappenbach While the "tub" does provide limited protection (at most 23mm. cannon fire ), it doesn't protect the engines or any other part of the fuselage. And even if the pilot survives the aircraft being hit, there is no certainty he'll survive the crash unless he ejects. The _A-10_ has been lost in the CAS role in space with a ground-to-air missile or gunfire threat. The _F-16_ has not when taking over for the _A-10_ in CAS, and the _F-35A_ is simply supplementing and eventually replacing the _F-16._ The _F-16C/ D_ and _F-35A_ both have larger potential payloads for similar combat range. The _F-16_ and _F-35_ both have the speed, sensor suites, and countermeasures to effectively deal with that threat if its present when conducting CAS missions.
May be late but im a A-10C Crew chief i strip this plane apart to inspect it and reapir it with a team and we absolutely love out of Whiteman, AFB Missouri 🤙
The A-10 has always given hope to the guys on the ground and destroyed the enemy's morale, it is so iconic on the battlefield that it would be odd to not hear that beautiful roar of the cannon.
What if the Air Force SOLD the A-10 to the Army? The Army is the one who should operate it, and then the Air Force might have the funding needed to get the F-35 ironed out. I don't really think this could happen... I mean has there ever been equipment sold back and forth between the services?
The US Army by law cannot operate fixed wing aircraft. Sad but true.
The BRRRRTT machine shall not be replaced!
i for one dont want to see a $90m plane into a cas role when we got a $18m plane that does the job better.
I love working this jet and I am glad it is here for sometime. I also love how they did everything they could to have the F-35 win in the fly off and the A-10 still came out on top.
why not develop a new plane that's like the A-10 but more advanced even with the same gun. if it's not broke don't fix it
Because the military industrial complex can't make money off a simple effective attack aircraft. Screw the taxpayer!!
I agree, what's needed is a purpose built replacement for the A-10, something that's capable of flying low and slow, carries a ton or ordnance, and take a beating and keep on flying. But as much as like the GAU-8 cannon, I don't think that it absolutely needs to have it, having it would be nice but it's not like it's the A-10's primary armament.
The cannon was it's intentional primary armament.... but that was back when T-62s were abundant on the battlefield. Today you have to close within 0.5 kilometer slant range to kill a tank with THE GUN but it will still do it. : D
Golem_trainer The gun was almost never used in operation Iraqi Freedom, the A-10 just slung a lot of missiles. The gun has been extensively used in Afghanistan, but you have to ask yourself if a smaller attack plane like the OV-10 would work better... and much cheaper.
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/instead-we-could-and-should-have-procured-and-deployed-1764432671
McPuff wow, those photos remind 'e of those B-17's in ww2. Making it back with chunks gone.
Once again hats off to Mastimus. The A-10 a.k.a as the warthog is an excellent weapons platform. It has been
The saving grace of many a grunt. It has an amazing gun that can take out a tank or scores of enemy units.
It is a simple jet built with a simple purpose. It was designed as a close in air support weapons platform.
It has shown its self to be reliable and sturdy. It can carry hellfire anti-tank missiles or various bomb types.
Because of its mission role it was designed to take damage and keep flying. The pilot is protected by a
Titanium bath tub that makes it almost impossible to kill the pilot. The 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger rotary
Cannon uses uranium depleted rounds that could defeat tank armor or demolish a building. I think
This jet should remain in service. It can loiter over an area for extended periods of time thus offering
More support to ground forces. Personally I think it should get upgrades to extend its life. It is a cheap
And proven weapons platform. The pentagon and congress would do well to give it to the air national
Guard in the United States so that it can remain active . If given to the guard it can be called into
Active duty when needed.
the F-35 is cool....but can it Brrrrrrttt?
Scuzzy Bear HAHA it can but just not as loud or as big haha! Thanks for watching :-) I appreciate it.
Very formidable flying tank. Sturdy, angry and scary. It's furious spiteful roar is one of the most unforgetable sounds of war. This plane have spirit.
The A-10 is an outstanding plane, but it is very old, and it needs to be replaced. That said, I don't think the F-35 is an appropriate replacement. I realize it's expensive to develop an entirely new vehicle, but what the USAF needs is a dedicated ground attack/CAS aircraft that can carry the same presence as the A-10 while performing the same job at a superior level.
A-10s fly over my city all the time. Many a day we'd sit out in the tankyard and watch these fly over, sometimes so low you could see the pilots. The most amazing thing was you didn't hear them till they were right above
I'm sure there are quite a few people in the defense industry that profit more from the F-35 than from keeping the A-10 and they throw their weight around. Nothing new about that. Budget wise keeping the A-10 would be cheaper I imagine.
It's a brilliant flying gun and ultimately the best close support platform 👍
I've had the A10 support me in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is amazing. The F35 simply does not have the same close air support abilities. The A10 would be at a disadvantage against a traditional army.
georgia bowhunter I know right! Such an amazing jet. But I can see where the USAF is coming from. I just think the A10 still has some punch left in her for smaller conflict zones. ISIS controlled for example. Thanks for watching :-) really appreciate it. And thank you for your service!!
You only bring in something like an A10 in when you have air superiority. But then again, you shouldn't be bringing in ground forces without air superiority. Let the F15 - 35 take on the job of establishing air superiority. But after, when the important job of taking the fight to the ground is at hand, there's no substitute for the characteristics of an A10.
I love the A-10. Such an amazing jet. So, many amazing stories about these jets too.
I personally think there is no airplane at the moment that is as capable as the A-10. The A-10 was designed for CAS. Its able to fly at a speed lower then 200kts to be able to stay close to the Troops it is supposed to support, and fly narrow circles around the Point of interest to be able to assist quickly if necessary. For me one of the most important points that speaks for the A-10 is its endurance. I dont know much about the F 35 to be honest, but all high speed Jets ( like the F-15 or F-16) have the Problem, that they can stay at the AO for 30 minutes to lets say 60 minutes depending how far they have to travel to the AO. The A-10 can stay 2hrs + if necessary without the need to refule. In todays combat scenarios where you have to face assymetric warfare the most time it is a great adventage to have an airplane that can circle around your troops for a long time to provide support while they advance. One negative point, resulting from the CAS role of the A-10 is its lack of self defence capability against enemy air assets. The A-10 is able to defend itself, but against a modern fighter, the chances for the A-10 to survive are very slim. The F 35 would have an adventage here. But again, todays Battlefields arent the same as a few years ago. You have to fight combatants instead of soldiers. You dont fight an Army, you fight Rebells or Terrorists or wahtever you want to call them. As soon as the Airspace is secured and you have air superiority, the A-10 ist the best choice to support your ground troops. The A-10 is old, thats a fact. Its been updated to the latest C version. At some point an airplane is at its limit and cant be upgraded anymore. Maybe the A-10 is at that limit right now. But the F-35 is no adequate replacement. Like other People already mentioned, there should be some sort of A-10 Mk2. Take the current A 10 as a reference, and build a new CAS only aircraft
The general idea is that we are currently leaving these asymmetric wars, so hopefully we will not get into another. therefor a-10 is less needed. A new version may one day be useful though.
They want to replace a flying tank with a flying computer who cant even fly on a rainy day
This jet is like the Mona Lisa! Never gets old to see this jet in action
It cannot be expected to fight against Russian or Chinese anti-air systems. for small wars, a turboprop attack plane would do an even better job. it could stay on station longer, and require much fewer resources to keep flying.
That's what the Air Force has been saying from practically the day they adopted the A-10 and yet it's survived everything thrown at it so far, which, granted, hasn't been top of the line Russo-Chinese air defense systems but it has gone against more than just rifles and machine guns. The thing is, it's not ever going to going against some of the best AD systems out there because most of those systems aren't designed to protect the battlefield but large targets like factories and cities, targets which the A-10 won't be attacking. Besides, anything that can take down an A-10 will take down pretty much anything else. The F-35 is no less vulnerable to MANPADS than the A-10 and will be far more vulnerable to AAA fire.
No one is really writing doctrine that says the f-35 should be used for strafing runs. Standoff munitions will be the primary way the F-35 handles tac-air.
john harker But precision standoff munitions aren't always the best or most viable option. What happens when you have a good bead on your target, or your target is a bunch of guys here and there with no one good thing to lase? Or what if all you have with you is a good 'ol fashioned FAC with nothing more than a good pair of binos, a map, and his radio? That's when you need something that can dip below 30,000 feet and slower than .5 MACH to really get down in the mud and drop bombs, rockets, or strafe your target with friendly troops in contact. For all other occasions an A-10 can use the same precision standoff munitions that the F-35 can, but it has more of them and can hang around for longer.
Actually an OV-10 would be a better option, though it would have to be upgraded of course. But it's a good choice since it's an aircraft that can fly at slow speed but also carry a good amount of stuff. And it's been deployed before with a turreted cannon, thus could operate like a mini ac-130. But one that can also drop bombs, fire rockets, and also drop a few people.
Though such weapon systems only work in calm skies, since slow aircraft are easy to kill. Plus these things don't pack huge amount of ECm, nor can be deployed as stealth aircraft.
Riceball01 of course they aren't always the best or most viable option. That is why I'm advocating a turboprop option. The A-10 main claim to fame is the avenger cannon. But what we often forget is, that in Gulf War 2 The A-10 barely ever used it. It became a maverick launcher. We were too scared that we would lose them to ground fire.
So in a large nation state war, even one where we have total air supremacy, The A-10 can't go in the mud and support the grunts. It is stuck using precision standoff munitions. Sure, it can carry more of them, but is that really the selling point? I don't think so. We are keeping a billion dollar a year airfleet going for that?
The A-10 really shines in sub-national conflicts like Afghanistan. But is there anything it does that a turboprop couldn't do? 30mm seems a bit much for cavemen with AKs.
en.m.wikipedia.org
This is the plane we just bought for the Afghan airforce.
If we canceled the A-10 tomorrow, we could buy 714 of them this year. Not that the company is capable of filling that order.
I have a family member who served in afganistan and he did not feel the same way about the A-10. While he was there a canadian unit was strafed by an A-10. Not long before that another canadian unit was bombed by an f-16. He did not feel the same love for his USAF allies after that. Fearing friendly fire from above left him feeling less than positive about the A-10. He operated the radio and called in air strikes and he always expressed to me his greater appreciation for the army apaches. If I remember correctly he said he was able to speak directly to the apache pilots in real time, while communication with fast air was less intimate. He also described the same situation you did, where the taliban would scramble to hide from the incoming apaches.
Personally I love the A-10. I think it would be a grave mistake to replace the most specialized ground attack plane of all time with a jack of all trades.
However I wonder what role attack helicopters might have in pushing ground attackers off the table. Does the apache contend with the A-10? Or are they completely separate roles?
Did somebody order BRRRRRRT with a side of freedom.
every gatling gun goes brrrrt
only if its aimed at fbi
I love, love, LOVE this plane, and always have. I know it's been on the chopping block for a long time, but it continues to survive. Here's hoping it continues to do so. :D
brrrrrrrrrt
THE AIRMEN RAGER haha Roger that! ;-) thanks for watching!!
Matsimus Gaming a10 sending shivers down the spines of enemy tankers sense the cold war
THE AIRMEN RAGER *DAKKA* *DAKKA* *DAKKA*
Summed up quite nicely Airman.
A-10 Warthog is absolutely a workhorse and iconic legacy aircraft which one of the best few Close air support aircraft I ❤️ to watch and wish to extend it's service life even more...👍🏻
Modify them into drones, problem solved.
Mandalorian Gaming CoD Ghosts Style
Best Friend Venom fuck no
With A-10's flying in support all of my people on the ground felt safe. As my people would tell me constantly "That A-10/Warthog/BUSF is our security blanket, Sir!"
Is the A-10 indeed irreplaceable? I don't think so as many people like to claim.The A-10 isn't prepared to face state of the art anti aircraft defenses.The emergence of the Rheinmetall Defence's High Energy Laser (HEL) proves it in practice capable of using energy directed weaponry as a means to destroy low flying aircraft.Modern heat seeking missiles are less prone to confusion by countermeasures such as flares,being capable of analyzing the size,trajectory and source of an emission to reject false readings.A clumsy,large A-10 will have a hard time maneuvering against a much smaller agile missile.IIRC the F-35 has a greater combat radius.The emergence of the Small Diameter Bomb which can reduce collateral damage and allow aircraft to carry a larger no. of smaller,more accurate bombs.Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) and JSOW-ER will permit aircraft to engage targets within the safety of exceeding a missile defense system's range but still be able to deliver precision strikes.The F-35,the A-10's supposed replacement can carry more ordnance w/ external hard points,at 18 000 lb compared with an A-10's 16 000lb,and can fly faster,carrying more fuel being thick and designed to fly in the low observable fashion.Satellite guided munitions which are unhindered by adverse weather and need not be laser designated by ground troops means independent targeting.The 30mm GAU-8 auto cannon actually achieved I believe 8% of armored target kills in the Gulf War,with >90% being credited to Mavericks,thus the trump card of the A-10,the GAU-8,isn't as useful as predicted.The A-10 is simply unprepared to fight wars of the near future,against competent,advanced 1st world opponent w/ not only a capable air force but potent air defense systems.Ground support will be derived through precision strikes by low observable aircraft in a modern war.The success of the A-10 has been greatly sensationalized but let's realize the context of its success: Against poor,3rd world countries.
The A-10 can do is job.But are there _better_ means? Most certainly,this is the 21st century.
F-35 Lightning II CAS is possible only when air suppremacy is a given. The F-35 is a futile attempt to circumnavigate that military wisdom. When push comes to shove, the A-10 provides CAS much better than any fast mover. It can loiter and when necessary it can go down to support the troops. The F-35 isn't able to sustain damage from small fire arms and never will be the morale booster the A-10 is. In order to understand that last aspect you have had to be under hostiles fire and see the effect of the Warthogs on the enemies. Besides that it's relatively cheap to operate. It's a far better ambassador for air power than the jsf. But it will take a grunt to point that out. Shame on USAF top brass.
Pincer88 You are incorrect.With respect,your logic is not in line with the 21st century threat environment.What I'm about to tell you is unlike what you've presented to me,it isn't an opinion,the following are facts.
The precision of modern dual mode,and in some cases tri-mode seekers have greatly reduced Circular Error Probability (CEP) of PGMs over the last decade.Usage of 2 way data link significantly reduces the risk of fratricide,and have allowed singular weapons systems e.g. JSOW to accomplish the complete kill chain on their own,which does include risk assessment.This is significant as dual GPS and INS guided systems possess a CEP of 3m,this in effect obliterates the target every time it is aimed at.Whereas GPS guided only weapons,whose _publicly stated_ CEP is 13m,will only obliterate the target 85% of the time and cause Level B damage.3m CEP is significantly lower than say a GAU-8.
Modern CAS will be provided from a much higher altitude,where the small arms fire threat will be nonexistent,thus airframe vulnerability is non crucial.Sensor fusion and superior sensors which will aid the F-35 in CAS through equipment such as DAS and AESA radar capable of scanning for surface threats.In 2017,Lockheed Martin will test Advanced EOTS on a surrogate aircraft which'll eventually be mounted on the F-35.Advanced EOTS will be more sophisticated than any targeting pod developed.The computational power of the F-35 which can characterize threats,cross referring them to threat databases and rejecting false ones,combined with a network centric approach will allow for a much quicker development of situational awareness,and the on board computer can assist pilot decision making with very limited pilot input.If you have a group of F-35s,Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) will be used to share information constantly and securely to develop a perfect and constant situational awareness as MADL is Low Probability of Intercept (LPI).CAS *is not* only possible when air superiority is achieved.Against peer or peer like adversaries it is safe to say that foreign technology will prove a roadblock to the immediate establishment of air superiority by the United States,thus an advanced Generation 5 asset is desperately needed to overcome the growing A2/AD threat yet still provide CAS.Furthermore,the F-35 is also faster and flies further,being thick and designed to fly in the VLO fashion leaves plenty of room for fuel,for even the F-35B variant carries more fuel than the A-10,and the F-35 does possess a larger combat radius.In the event you _could_ use an A-10,it'd indicate the superfluity of VLO characteristics,thus stealth is not needed.Therefore,the F-35 will be able to mount external weaponry totaling 18 000lb,which is more than the A-10's 16 000lb,and the latter needs to sacrifice 1 hard point for a targeting pod,2 more for fuel tanks if it needs the range.
When you draw the comparisons between the F-35 and the A-10,and objectively analyze what both platforms can bring to CAS,the F-35 is undoubtedly the superior platform as it can adapt to the 21st century threat environment,and if used against technologically backward foes,can bring to bear more armament.Thus,the A-10>F-35 at CAS argument is rooted more in emotion than fact.The mathematics are determinate.
P.S. If you're skeptical of my information,do tell,I'll link you all relevant sources.The JSOW assessment was form the University of Tennessee,and the other pieces of information regarding CAS is from an article published by Defence Horizons concerning CONOPS in the 21st century threat environment and relevant concept of air and military operations.
Dear F-35 Lightning II.
Thanks for the elaborate and kind reply. Let me reply in the same fashion.
Why waste such very expensive weaponry on insurgents or even well armed hostile infantry, if a couple of hundreds 30mm rounds can do the job as well? That's my first point. HEL, all kinds of precision guided munitions can do everything just as wel, but against what cost? War is costly enough (also in terms of human lives and devastation), why make it even more expensive?
Second, the F-35 has been designed from the outset to be a very much improved F-117A Nighthawk with a decent air-air self defence capability (albeit mainly BVR). And though it was conceived to be a replacement for the A-10 as well, we now have lots of reasons to assume it won't be doing the CAS-mission just as efficient as the A-10. All the munitions you spoke of can be carried by the A-10 as well and the A-10 can carry them at say one tenth of the sustainment cost of a F-35.
I'm not so much an opponent of the F-35 per se, as I am an opponent of the idea that you will have to replace good, (still) sustainable and efficient aircraft by very high tech, multi milion dollar aircraft, that eat up the entire USAF budget. Why would anyone do a mission with a F-35 that can be done with an A-10, thus freeing the F-35 to do the job it was originally designed for: a first day of the war entry fighter-bomber, knocking down the door for more conventional aircraft?
I know whay any LM shareholder would love to believe us that it's necessary and unavoidable, but that's money talking, not comon sense.
Look at the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, Syria and so on. There wasn't a single aircradt so much adored by ground troops (even USMC grunts sing the praise) as the Warthog.
So, in a permissive environment the A-10 can still do the job. And in my mind it is the job of the F-35 (among others) to create such an environment.
This isn't to say the A-10 will never need replacement of course. It will, simply because MANPADS and low level air defences are getting more advanced and proliferate as well. But that's not an argument for the F-35 to do CAS in my view, rather an argument to develop a more advanced aircraft with more or less the same strengths as the A-10 and with less of its vulnerabilities. But then again: there's a lot ECM can handle that doesn't require a multi million RAM-caoting imho.
Kinds regards.
Pincer88 You are correct with regards to permissive airspace.
But to address some points:
A-10 lacks weapon compatibility with JSOW and SDB (II),to name a few,F-35 can mount a greater variety of weaponry.
Usage of the F-35 is costly,but doing so is worth it as it implies saving troop lives.The sooner CAS is delivered,the less casualties one sustains.The 30mm is adapt at neutralizing soft targets,but doing so requires the pilot to know exactly where the enemy is,and point the aircraft in the right directions.SDBs and superior sensors would prove vital in narrowing the window gap in time from when CAS is requested and delivered.Higher altitude implies a larger area covered by sensors,so not only can you acquire more targets and build situational awareness more quickly,you can engage several targets simultaneously.
I would caution against claiming the F-35 won't be able to deliver the CAS role as effectively as the A-10 as its been ascertained that it can bring a greater array of sensors and weaponry to bear on foes.The computer of the F-35 is awe inspiring,24 million lines of code to do the job of processing information for the pilot.He sees everything through his helmet which can project images through the aircraft floor and neutralize multiple targets simultaneously.
Building on the A-10 is highly limited.Modern air defence systems e.g. MEADS presents full 360 degree radar coverage w/ no blind spots,and thrust vectoring SAMs which can reject false flare readings.I have no authoritative data here,but it could possibly be more costly to develop the A-10.Why so? Because the A-10 would only be effective against insurgents and weak foes,whereas the F-35 can perform multiple roles against varying threat levels,and in fact exceed the A-10's CAS capabilities.
Issues with ECM on legacy platforms: Takes up hard points,requires aid from other legacy platforms,not self sufficient.Home on jam technology present to counter ECM threat,future systems may be much more resistant to jamming,ECCM also a means to at least mitigate effectiveness of ECM.Computational power and EW along with cyber warfare capability needed to remedy the growing threat and perform SEAD.
Regarding RAM: F-35's RAM isn't multi million dollar.In fact,VLO characteristics are baked into the airframe,and the RAM it uses is revolutionary with lower maintenance costs and curing times.It is a weak approach to conceal an aircraft from radar through one method as it simply doesn't cut the mustard.A perfect weapons platform needs PGMs,computational power,air to air and air to surface capability,EW and cyber attack attributes,VLO characteristics,radar evasion through passive *_and_* active means.USS Zumwalt is a prime example of the need to have multiple defensive facets.It lacks significant hard kill capability for missile defence despite having plenty of soft kill capability.This is simply insufficient to defend against a saturated and hypersonic ASM threat.
Still,I believe the F-35's passive stealth features need a massive upgrade to keep up w/ emerging radar wavelengths.Hopefully soon,we'll see the application of Negative Index Metamaterial if possible.And with regards to ECM,the F-35 is prepared to deal with modern radar threats through the use of its computer.It can in fact,in future when the software is upgraded,attempt a form of cognitive EW to defeat digitally programmable radar.The computer will,through learning algorithms adapt to different radar wavelengths.Computational power is so important to Generation 5 aircraft,something legacy aircraft lack,as present and future combat will be in line with the needs of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA),something the F-35 was designed to satisfy the tenets of.An advanced weapons platform is needed to be able to counter emerging threats and remain relevant,something software upgradeability is meant to achieve.
www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/01/most-important-technology-f-35/125228/
P.S. 8 million lines of code is the commonly cited figure,but some reports cite 24 million.
@F-35 Lightning II Well said sir. Finally someone with more than 2 brain cells connected together presenting facts instead of bashing the F-35 without solid evidence to back it up. I'm just glad the higher up in the chain of command never listened to those persons begging to keep our legacy fighters and throw the F-35 to the trash bin.
I rather not see this jet go. It has helped not only you but others who needed the help. It clearly still has its place in our armed forces and is definitely still worth its weight in salt. This is hands down my favorite jet. I rather not see it trashed and left to rot some where. It's a beautiful plane and definitely a great defender or our troops
If the US have to be engaged in a war against the Russian or the Chinese, the A10C would be too much limited since it couldn't survive in high threat environment.
But since the US is engaged in low threat environement for their aircraft the F35 is overkill.
You don't need to drop GBU-12 on a jeep, or use Mavericks against moving trucks.
You just need a gun with cheap bullets and good resistance to small caliber.
You don't need an afterburner or a supercruise, you need to be on station as long as possible.
The thing is that today the main contender of the A10 is not the F-35 but the AC130J.
And for CAS mission with 120mm and 30mm guns and more and more option for bombs and missile the US couldn't dream of a better platform for CAS missions in low threat environment.
Well i think the US govrement is prepearing for all the possible scenarios that could happen. If that means bombing a Toyota in the desert or i don't know a T-90 or T-14 Armata in Europe i guess is up to each and eveyone to decide for themselves or debate.
AC130 are not made for combat, it may have worked in vietnam, but nowadays, those who can afford a technical can easily buy a portable SAM. AC130s are big sluggish craft, they won't have time to evade once they used up all their flares on multiple missiles.
Plus, they are huge targets, those same people have ZSU-23s, with a bit of luck or training, they will rip appart the slugish planes.
Nah, to be fait, against low value targets or in low danger zones, they should use Prop planes.
Nowadays turbocharged prop planes can easely carry enought weapons to perform CAS mission.
They are small and agile, quite fast, and are way less colder than Jet planes, for IR missiles, it's quite a plus.
But for sure, they would get decimated if they were to encounter a real threat such as real army.
A-10 would absolutely survive a high threat environment. You're clueless.
Yeah for sure an A10 could defeat sa10 and 11, no problem...
Or even defeat the air cover from ennemy fighters.
I don't see the Russian defending their front with any radar sam system...
S Skyler No one said that shit, you thing. An A-10 would never be deployed to defend itself against those aircraft. If an A-10 is ever in a "high threat" scenario, it has fighter cover.
I worked on this beast in the 80's. Nothing like it.
If we mothball the A-10, we'll pay for it simply because the smart bombs they want to replace it with have roughly a 60% failure rate. Smart munitions lose track if they have to deal with dust, humidity, or high heat, so basically anywhere outside of a lab. The only way to make an accurate strike with heavy munitions is to get within spitting distance of your target. That's the way it's gonna be for the foreseeable future. But this is all no surprise, our military has a long standing tradition of poorly equipping and screwing over the front line troops ever since the American Civil War. "We have guided missiles now, who needs guns on fighters anymore?", "The average soldier needs to be able to engage out to 600 yrds, never mind that he can't even see that far, so let's sabotage the AR-15 so a bunch of ordinance corps guys can keep their jobs.", "Don't issue lever actions, the troops will shoot too much ammo and we'll have to take a pay cut!", "Let's replace the A-10 with the F-35 even though it should have been disqualified from the X Planes contest for being WAAAAAAAY over budget, and even though it's smart munitions are only gonna have a 40% success rate because were all in bed with Lockheed Martin." It's the same shit, and it get's people killed who didn't have to die, all sacrificed to the careers of a bunch of college educated officers who've never so much as handled a rifle in their lives.
"Don't issue lever actions, the troops will shoot too much ammo and we'll have to take a pay cut!"
Reading this really peeved me. Those lever actions wouldn't have required the officers take a pay cut to pay for the ammunition it would have required them to personally bankrupt themselves to purchase them in sufficient quantities, which in turn would be a nightmare because they would run out of ammo. Not because said ammo couldn't be afforded but because there literally would not be enough ammunition in existence! Plus even if that were the case actually getting those munitions to the troops would create a nightmare of a baggage train. Do remember that even with the (often outdated) muskets being the primary issue there were still ammo shortages for a lot of guns. Now replace all those with Spencers (assuming such a thing was even possible) and you get a logistical nightmare that I wouldn't wish upon any respectable military force.
So nice to hear that. I'm in love with this plane too. Them idiots calling it ugly were out of their mind! Slowly but surely the mood changes. Especially from the ground troops,cause they got their butts save a couple of times. Close air support for the win ;-)
Purpose built cold war era close air support to fly through a contested airspace. .. Nothing really fits it's niche role
If it ain't broken don't fix it...
oh no, the A-10 was never meant to fly in hot air. If the skys have enemy aircraft or the ground has AA, the A-10 is severely in trouble, more so then any other aircraft. After all thing is slow and easy to ID, not to mention has no extensive ecm system or stealth capability.
The same could be said about any Assault CAS aircraft. They used to die by the numbers during WWII but their usefulness was so great it was worth it.
The A10 doesn't even have radar guys
I work on the damn things
It's impossible to get parts because all of the production lines are down
The things break rate is staggering
It's slow as all get out
If you don't red ball on launch you're almost guaranteed a code 2 on landing
It's a mess
I love the damn plane
But it's a mess
Old, creaky, outdated, powerful, imposing mess
A10 in contested airspace? What planet are you on man?
My grandma on my dads side we’re in Air Force weather reporters in ww2. They were responsible for monitoring the weather for the Air Force to make sure it’s ok for the pilots to take off.
US Air Force has never liked the A-10. THey never wanted it from the beginning because it was not sleek and sexy looking.
It's like a flying tank! How could the boondoggle of the F-35 come close to the shock factor of those barrels? If it only could carry 5x the ammo and have a longer loiter time. Maybe a new & quieter Warthog would do. Other than this, possibly all of the focus on robots for aircraft duties is causing the cuts. Do they have infantry controlled UAV's yet Mats?
if USA dont want A10 anymore then give it to my country - Poland - we potentially have the biggest nuber of armored vehicles to destroy in upcoming conflict, because russians dont play games..... this airplane in central european plain would be a big pain in the azz for their land forces
VforArt I hope it never happens sir. I have been to Poland and the people there were so nice. We trained there whilst in the British army. I hope you enjoyed the video. Thanks so much for watching! :-)
do you realy believe that russians will be the enemy?:D
I bet merkels germoney would be a much more realistic enemy
while the A-10 would be good for Poland I have to say against the Russians you just won't have the air assets to protect it so it could shred the armored columns. only the Americans could deploy the A-10 with proper air protection. no offense to I mean I'm a brit and I would love us to have a few of these in our hangers. but you know Tories and there budget cuts.
@Madman.. yop, they would throw everything they have to achieve air supremacy, but we are modernizing AA equipment even more than anti tank waeponry....... allso were buying new anti missile systems and modernize radars
so in certain situations A10's would be great asset to have
+ i think that US airforce would help us from bases in western europe
@Howleye.. people of germany and sweden should get used to it if they wont change their ways........ and if tusk stays as 'president' of EU, schultz become cancellor and lepen looses.... then EU and western europe is doomed
schultz latley told that migrants should have voting rights... i am no nostradamus, but if things will go in this direction then in 20 years time there will be big mess that russia will want to benefit from
thats why we must be prepared... A10s for now would be great choice, untill we will remove SU22 and have procedure for new contract for new type of bombers (most propably F35 if US wuld agree to sell them in FMS)
yes, i know that russians have AA guns etc. but there would be a lot of urban warfare, so A10s could get close
cheers!
VforArt well I wish you luck on modernization of your air capacity after all a stronger ally benefits the UK just as well. I'm guessing your not a pro EU.
Here is a fact, the A-10 is the best ever close air support fighter in the world! It maybe old, but its still as deadly as ever an it does its job better than any aircraft could. She isn't pretty or fast, but that doesn't matter one bit because it doesn't need to be. I was in the army for 10 years with 2 tours in Iraq and one in Afganistan. There is no mistaking an A-10 when it shoots it's 30mm! Plus it can carry a shit ton of missiles and bombs and can stay on station for a long time.
Hey Matsimus! Subscribed few months ago and was there to witness your demonetization . Your tone has changed lately and I must admit the openness for discussion and different opinions is quite soothing, it sometimes fell repetitive but I only hope your are not ''forced'' to take this turn by youtube ''advisors'' . Great content as always , I like everytime and comment when I can. You deserve it and I fully understand everyone has to make a living....
I do not know if they will replace the A-10 but I agree that I wish they would not. The A-10 is AWESOME. I love everything about the A-10 and they rarely take into account the Psychological affects of the Jet on both allies and enemies and this thing has MASSIVE affect.
Retired in 95 as a Forward Observer. The AF higher's have been trying to retire this aircraft for years. The Army is the only reason it is still flying, at one point the Army said they would take it but the AF would not allow it.
I don’t understand why people call this glorious plane ugly. It is very good looking and to add to that it was built around the gun.
The upper brass has been trying to get rid of the A10 platform for now a couple decades. It will be like the B52. Around for many more decades period. The respect it gets from ground troops and the enemy's will keep it going. The main thing about this aircraft is it flies slow for ground support and the titanium tub keeps the pilots safe. It's the best close ground support aircraft hands down that does the job well and returns the pilot even after getting shot up unlike the F35. These new aircraft will go down with one golden bb. The type of enemies we face nowadays don't require stealth aircraft.
We will always remember that amazing A-10 burrrrrrp sound.
As an aerospace major I love this plain. So iconic. but its just too much plain, they could maybe keep a few as a heavy support but then mostly use smaller prop based or helicopter support
This aircraft saved our butts a couple of times during the fist Gulf War. The A 10 maybe old, but it works and works well.
This guy I know who served in Afghanistan said this was his favorite plane, he called her "ugly love from above".
at the end of the day the best way to resolve a combat situation the best possible outcome is when no bullets are fired and as you said, "the shear sound of this jet was enough to discourage the enemy and force them to hide in their holes" if you can save troops on the ground without firing a bullet and not taking any life, then to me thats the number 1 outcome, besides the a-10 is just one of those planes that everyone knows and loves its by far my favourite jet the role it performs it excels at it
MrShturck very good points :-) thanks for sharing!! Hope you enjoyed the video. Thank you for watching and have a great day!! :-D
Matsimus Gaming im enjoying all the videos love your mixed content look forward to seeing new videos in my subcriptions list
There will always be a need for an angel on the shoulders of soldiers on the battlefield. The A10 Warthog does this, and better than any helicopter could do.
I am only at the 1:47 time marker, great intro, gratitude is a great feeling to convey.
Man, those Thunderbolts. Fell in love the first time i saw them in Command and Conquer Generals... Been watching vids of them to and from for years now. Pure sexy with a killer sound ;)
I don't know if the A-10 has been retired yet (Its really hard to find concrete facts), but if (And as much as it pains me, when) it gets retired, I'll be sad. I'm glad that you made this video (Kinda sad I didn't see it sooner) and gave your thoughts on it.
It's a niche jet that actually excels at its' job. It also did not become cumbersome or excessive in an era of low intensity conflicts taking over the theoretical all out war that it was designed for.
Discontinuing it would create a giant whole that could only be replaced by either the same type of craft(only brand new) or by a more or less versatile craft with a complete overhaul of tactics and strategy to play around the differences.
With that in mind I believe the Army should be the one backing it up since they are the ones who benefit the most out the partnership and who will be forced to change said tactics and strategies if the F-35(or similar multipurpose craft) comes to replace it.
Everyone on the ground appreciates air support and especially close air support!
I think the A-10 is best to describe as the modern day Shturmovik: rugged as f*ck, armed to the teeth, armoured, an absolute bringer of destruction, smart design, rather simple (for an modern day aircraft), can handle almost every target, loved by crew and friendly troops and serves for a long time. And i am sure it will leave one hell of a legacy. Yeah summing this up i really think this is the modern day Shturmovik.
I owe my life to an A-10 pilot. So there is that. Nothing in our inventory can deliver its load with as high a degree of survivability. Sadly once these airframes are used up we cannot make anymore without a significant investment in 1970s era tool and die manufacturing with jigs in storage since Republic went under.
Not really the case with survivability.
I'm not Air Force or army but I'll be sad if they retire the A-10 , it's just so unique and durable aircraft
Good thing the front window is tough as nails, that refuelling boom would go right through.
I think the F-35 and A-10 would work great in tandem as the F-35 can preform way faster runs while the A-10 is flying over for clean up. I really do hope the A-10 gets modernized as it's so effective and non obsolete that making a new plane just seems like a money sink.
Winter working as a team! Like that idea. I just wonder what a waste it would be to get rid of such a battle proven jet really... oh well :-) thanks for watching!! Really appreciate it. Have a great day!!
Loved seeing these when they came to Ft. Drum.
If and when A-10 does get removed, I bet you that it'll be one of those iconic assets showcased in ceremonies.
an avenging angel for my unit when i was in Cob michigan.
My attitude is the a10 offers a massive payload really quickly. Until we find an aircraft that offers a similar amount of ordinance, it cant be replaced
the US Air Force wanted to get ride of the A-10 when they introduced the F/A-18. It took the combined effort of the US Army and Marine Corps to prevent that in the 80's because they felt the 18 couldn't do the job as well as the A-10, the first gulf war brought them justification and even turned some in the Air Force opinions around, but it only put off the argument till now. Part of the problem is the politics that created the USAF and separated it from the Army air corps after World War II, the army is allowed to have its own reconnaissance and cargo air craft but any combat air craft they keep are not allowed to generate a significant portion of lift from fixed wings. This has actually allowed the US Air Force to cancel development of combat helicopter designs because they said the winglettes used as weapon mounts generated too much lift and is one of the reasons the Marine Corps uses the Osprey but the Army doesn't. If a fly off competition between the A-10 and F-35 were conducted I would hope they let the Army and Marine Corps set the rules and be the judges (they ate the ones that need these combat air craft backing them up), but that is the last thing the Air Force would want. Now if the Air Force were to allow a change of the rules I'm sure the Army and Marine Corps would be happy to take over all the A-10's and let the air force focus on fly sleek, high and fast, but the politicians and the air force will never allow that. (yes, I'm biased I come from a military family most of which were army or Marines, and I spent my service in the USA Army)
Cold war was a stupid but an intriguing era, and it produced very beautiful and amazing aircraft, from both sides.
A-10 is not ugly, it is practically beautiful. From the nose, to the tail - Inside out.
And even when I have been totally against actions in Afganistan and Iraq (sorry Matsimus), it is sad to see A-10 go, some day...
As an old Marine grunt (retired in 1996) I have always wanted close air support to be delivered by people who think it's an important mission and are trained and organized for it, using aircraft and ordnance designed for it. There's a reason that's a priority for Marine pilots and those Marine pilots spend time in ground units coordinating that close air support from the ground. Can anyone see Air Force pilots serving in ground units? Dream on.
It's always looked to me like the Air Force saw those of us down in the mud as less important than dogfights with other high-speed-low-drag types. My point of view is probably provincial, but that's the impression I got in my 20 years. So if I was going to need CAS, I'd much rather have A-10s on station than F-35s that couldn't take the same kind of ground fire, couldn't deliver CAS as low and slow and therefore with less risk of killing us, and couldn't hang around as long. So it's not pretty. So what? Neither was the P-47, the original Thunderbolt; neither was the Skyraider; neither are Apaches or Cobras.
I am a former 101st Airborne infantrymen, and the A-10 is an “Angel of Mercy” for allied forces and “Angel of Death” for enemies. The A-10 is a flying tank. Low and slow and hard to knock out of the sky.
The F-35 is new, fast, and sexy looking. The F-35 in the “stealth” trend, not close air support. When a aircraft flies fast it can’t see, loiter, or fly low enough to be as helpful to us “Grunts” ground pounding on the ground!
friend of mine was a RM near a dam in afghan, he had one of these on station during a massive firefight (one of the largest he was ever in), the A-10 done one gun run, firefight over...enough said!
Part of problem is A-10 was last slide rule designed US military aircraft. As such paper blueprints exist but no CAD/CAM files to allow automated production by CAD/CAM machines. As such parts supplies are limited to what is left in Davis-Motham boneyard and the stockpile is dwindling.
In 2007 Boeing was awarded contract to develop 173 new wing sets for A-10, the last to be delivered in 2017. A past article also stated that Boeing was given a A-10 fuselage to take apart and scan for CAD/CAM so that Boeing can also make new a fuselage. If they have CAD/CAM files for wings and fuselages they could theoretically restart production.
The A-10 has been so valuable in CAS and FAC role that it has attracted attention of Congress which is now supporting the aircraft against USAF retirement. USAF does not now nor has it ever wanted anything to do with Close Air Support. USAF has always believed technology is better and wants F-35's at 20,000ft (out of AAA range) using its sensors to designate targets to smart missiles to precision kill targets. At some point someone is gonna ask a F-35 to do a flyby verify something on ground and F-35's will get shot to shit because its not designed for that kind of environment.
At one point USAF wanted to build A-16's with a 30mm gunpod under each wing to do CAS role instead of A-10. Computer Analysis showed one A-10 could survive damage that would take out a whole squadron of F/A-16's. A-16 was cancelled.
Spot on man, couldn't have put it better. This jet is needed now more than ever. If it is retired, it's a purely political decision. An airborne tank that would be missed if we ever enter a true shooting war. It's a hammer for a hammer's job. The F-35 is a scalpel. Sometimes you just need the hammer despite how not glamorous it is.
SAVE THE A-10!!! I have also experienced the effectiveness of this jet's CAS ability and should no be retired. Always been my favorite jet and having it cover me does probably make me more biased
If Hollywood makes a film here a a-10 jet fighter fights with a dragon it would be the coolest thing ever.
What most people calling for the retirement of the A10 never consider is our troop are by far more likely to fight an insurgency than an open war. And all the arguments about AA missles bringing down A10s applies to every plane we have minus our stealth. Keep the A10...If we do fight a conventional war we have to destroy enemy AA capabilities as our first objective paving the way for the A10 to support the ground troops.
As someone who has served two tours in Iraq and once in Afghanistan in the US army, I love the A-10. But the reality is that the A10 can operate and survive in high end threat areas. In low end threat areas like Iraq and Afghanistan, it can operate at a high level. But the majority of CAS missions were flown by aircraft like the F16 and B1 Lancer. Only a small amount of CAS missions were carried out by the A10.
Most likely because the F-16 and Lancer pilots needed some practice and glory. In Iraq most sorties were flown by A-10s. All other planes were outclassed. Can't have that again.
a10 is probably the only aircraft that can fly very low to provide suppression to the enemy troops ,take some shots and still able to land at nearest airfield refuel and rearm , and go for another run
I think the general feeling is that with guided bombs becoming so ubiquitous, other air frames have gotten better at CAS to the point where they don't think they can justify having a separate plane that only does CAS. With stuff like the small diameter bomb and a laser guided version of the Hydra missile, fighters like the F16 are much more capable of danger close missions. In terms of loitering, all the various drones completely blow manned aircraft out of the water and they will be getting to take advantage of smaller guided munitions as well. We can't completely replace the capabilities of the gun, but the chaingun on the Apache is arguably better in the antipersonnel role than the Warthog's is.
The A-10 is my spirit animal.
This plane is really turning out to have the same kind of history as the Stuka dive bomber which was basically built off of or modeled after
Umm, I'm just a highschool student , and certainly doesn't have any military experience , just saying that It would be a real shame if I have to see that this absolutely beautiful thing (a beast with a beauty) getting retired just because someone doesn't feel like it.......
Who else agree with me???
as a ground pounder i can relate its an awesome plane
The A-10 Warthog. Because everyone needs a hero.
I doubt that anyone calling for close air Support was ever dissaointed to see the A10 show up
Like the B-52 bomber, the A-10 Warthog is a legendary and iconic aircraft still effective despite its age. To have this aircraft to go by the way side for some unproven high tech piece of crap (F-35) will be a disservice to the troops who relied on it so much. Keep this magnificent bird flying. Let her keep fighting.
Upgrade the engines, move them forward but kind of like a Chopper engine, but still close to where they are, add some fins off the side of each back fin. And some exaust direction fins on the back of the engines too.
Slightly curve the wings back, add 2 Missile/bomb revolver system thingies... include a Hybrid net/closed network system... keep the canon on the front or give it two companion cannons inside the wing close to the cockpit.... and the rest of the other things, and you might be set.
It should still maintain the same weight, but now have more maneuverability.
Maybe Upgrade the Materials it is made with to stronger lighter materials.