Just saw this! Sucks ass but can't say I'm honestly surprised, pancreatic cancer is no joke and it had metastasized. When I saw the crutch, I knew it had spread. Fuck cancer right in the eye!!
Always interesting to see how much overlap there is in interests. RIP Paul Harrell, a US National Treasure, thanks for all the knowledge you shared over the years.
During Desert Storm D2, two A-10A's destroyed 23 tanks in one day in 3 sorties. 18 were destroyed by mavericks and 5 tanks destroyed using the 30mm and they left another 10 damaged/smoking. Confirmation was by USMC Fast FAC (F/A-18's who were calling in the targets and BDA), in the 3rd sortie it was by the Marines on the ground who were being attacked by the tanks and had called in the air strike.
I probably lost a few fans and friends. But I do like the A-10 I have worked on it. its a nice platform but there is a real reason the USAF has been trying to get rid of it.
Also the huge benefit of the A10 is the long loitering time on station. With a couple bags they can be ready to call down for 6 hours. That’s huge for ground troops knowing they have friendly air helping them.
In uncontested air space. It cant loiter anywhere where there is a SAM risk. An F16 could get in and out with less chance of getting hit ..which was the whole point in the project. It seems that the A10 has effectively become a mini B52. It's a guided bomb truck.
@@TimInertiatic in an environment, where most conflicts do not involve near-peer adversaries (where more standoff is more safety), but rather COIN in difficult terrain, an A-10 will always be something a ground commander would want in his back pocket. I'd say, give the A-10 to Army aviation (or Marines) and operate them alongside helicopters and other CAS platforms and let the Air Force worry about the "real" air war.
What is the tooth to tail ratio ac-130 to A10 would think you could feild more A10s in more places for the same resourses would love to hear if someone knows
The projections by analysts predicted that the 6 bases spread across Europe that the A-10s where based at, the US would lose 1 A-10 every 10 sorties. And that we'd lose all of them within 2 weeks. The hog was designed to go down in combat and takedown whole soviet armored columns to hell with it. Sandboxx News just did a story on this not to long ago about the F/A-16 and the gun pod
Everyone gets it wrong, even Simba. The cannon is used for killing trucks and jeeps and it CAN kill a tank but the Maverick missile was the primary anti-tank weapon of the A-10. The cannon is for everything else.
While on a Convoy at night(Helmand). We were stopped just short of an area with this message; “We have a US TIC…..A-10’s incoming, make sure they see you” 😳 I ordered the convoy to shake, cut, poor ‘chem lights’ everywhere” , it worked. 😊 Canadian Army Veteran 🇨🇦
Quote: "Rather than return to their original base, the ‘Warthogs’ set down at a FOL (Forward Operating Location) where they refueled and re-armed. At first, the pilots thought they would be instructed to shut down and simply sit alert. Instead, an operations officer found Solomonson and shouted, “Get saddled up again! Go!” Marines needed help just southwest of Kuwait City. Solomonson and Marks were told to get there, fast. *The duo’s second mission was more intense than the first - more like what had been predicted for a high-intensity conflict.* A Marine F/A-18 Hornet flying ‘Fast FAC’ told the approaching A-10A pilots that two AV-8B Harriers had already been hit. One was down and the other was leaving the area on fire, the pilot preparing to eject. Marks got on the air with an offer to help out in the search and rescue for Walsh, but the FAC told them to continue on because he had enemy tanks on the ground and the Americans on the ground needed help immediately. Arriving on the scene, Marks was surprised that American ground forces had pushed so far forward. “The targets were parked in revetments on both sides of a major road running west out of Kuwait City.” *In a fast and furious engagement, Solomonson and Marks took out eight more tanks, six with Mavericks and two with cannon fire* " From the article: How 2 A-10 Warthog pilots killed 23 Iraqi tanks in one day (4 of them with their guns) Dario Leone, Feb 24, 2019 Three missions from forward operating bases in a matter of hours, where 2 aircraft took out 23 tanks with mavs and guns. The F-16 is a good aircraft, but it simply could not match a feat such as this. Period. Let us all point and laugh as Simba tells us the A-10 can't do what it did in combat over and over: Kill tanks with it's gun.
The problem with these tests and the claim that the A-10 can't kill tanks is that people massively overestimate the amount of damage needed to "destroy" a tank, and that the tests did not actually differentiate between "disabled but repairable" and "not disabled". If the tank was able to be repaired, it would be labeled as "not destroyed", whether or not it would be able to continue fighting. The A-10 could blow off tracks, jam gun turrets, destroy the engines, all of which would render the tank useless. The reports were made specifically as an effort to discredit the A-10 so they could reallocate the funds to a new project. They failed, obviously.
The groundpounder position was that the USAF wanted fast movers instead of warthogs because they desired to do sexy things, instead of the hated CAS mission, and infantry was out of sight, out of mind. We knew A10s specialized in helping us, and Vipers would rather practice literally anything else. CAS is done near friendlies, by definition, which means it is an excellent way for a pilot to lose a career, while to the Army it is a life-saver. Therefore, the USAF will always try to get away from it and should never have been allowed to take over the mission.
In the pre-Desert Storm days, the USAF was going to transfer the A-10s to the U.S. Army. Due to the outstanding success of the A-10s in DS, the USAF reversed their decision. The A-10 was determined to be too sexy for the Army. As an Army Aviator at the time, I was really looking forward to flying the A-10.
The USAF and the US Army pretty much mutually agreed to let the Army use Apaches for more CAS, especially those that might be danger close. The USAF meanwhile would focus on dropping big booms mostly somewhat further away from friendlies. Officially the USAF is committed and capable of all CAS including danger close. Unofficially, they would prefer to avoid blue on blue by using precision weapons from miles away instead of filling areas with 30mm rounds and 70mm rockets.
@@stupidburp Interesting that this meant the Army somehow accepted the USAF position and gained nothing from it. Also might be worth looking up how the USAF decided that the Army C-27 fleet was too capable, demanded they be turned over, and then sold them because they weren’t needed by the Air Force. SOCOM ended up with some as a way to get a few back. Even the way the USAF made the Army divest the armed drones. But they let us keep the helicopters we already had, so must be all good. Sigh. I am old enough to remember when it was the USN which always resisted being Joint.
As some background to this, the unit in question was the 174th. They were based in Syracuse New york, my hometown. Previous to being equipped with the F-16, they flew the A-10 for several years, honing their skills at Fort Drums bombing/weapons range. They transitioned to the F-16 prior to the first Gulf war.
Yes an F-16 can get to Target faster, however the A-10 has the fuel and weapons load out to persist on that Target where as the F-16 is giving you at two passes. Like the old joke goes, F-16 pilot says," I had a super intense cas Mission today.... I dropped BOTH bombs!"
@@subjectc7505 It literally already has. The A-10 is the aircraft that was chosen to lead the rescue of Lt Col Dale Zelko after his F-117 was shot down by a SAM in Serbia A-10s led the formation, and flew top cover while the CSAR birds swooped in to rescue him. In desert storm A-10s attacked SA-6 sites directly. In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, A-10s flew close air directly into downtown Baghdad, which was absolutely saturated with AAA and MANPADS assets. Your post is ignorant of history.
@@Valorius "Your post is ignorant of history" sorry, I read the lies about the A-10, They removed the A-10 from the battlefield to areas where it was less threats so it can operate to it's fullest lol but sure.
@@subjectc7505 They actually sent A-10s in to attack targets where multiple aircraft had already been shot down. Two such stories are cited in this comment section by other posters. You are ignorant.
Much of what was said is true; however, a few corrections: 1. The A10 gun could very effectively destroy tank tacks, immobilizing tanks. 2. Hitting Russian tanks from above, rear or sides could and did destroy the tanks using the gun. 3. Loitering time in the A10 when loaded in beast mode far exceeds the F18, F16, F35. Time on station is huge. 4. The 1200 rounds carried by the A10 gives it a huge advantage. 5. Highly stable gun platform, far better than F16, F18, F35, etc. 6. Good at taking out tanks, great at everything else 7. Gulf War A10s came back with substantial damage, and were highly survivable. Finally, having sat in and worked on a ZSU-23-4 AAA tank, it's armor could be penetrated by a 50 cal. The A10 could easily destroy it from any angle with its gun. The A10 was far better then your giving it credit for.
The A-10 is a good platform for carrying maverick, rockets and bombs. the facts are the Gun did not destroy tanks in the official testing reports. the 3rd of which was set up to give the A-10 every possible advantage to be successful. it disable something like 3 of 12 and the report said a mobile repair team could have those same tanks back in the fight with in hours. loiter time is great. so is the loiter time of an AC-130, would you like to compare those guns? I don't hate the A-10 but there is a real reason the A-10 has been on the chopping block for 40 years and there is a real reason gun goes burrrrrtt is more fan fiction than truth.
Worth noting that A10s got pulled off the front line in the Gulf War for survivability reasons. Sure, they can eat a couple 23mm shells and fly home, but you know what's even better? Staying above 12,000ft where the AAA and MANPADS can't touch you
Literally the only people I’ve ever heard say the a10 gun is ineffective. This is simply not true.the reason the a10 is still around is because it is literally the best at close air support.
@@oldanddisgusted5998 The USAF's Gulf War Air Power Survey is online and mostly unredacted. I recommend starting with Vol I if you're really interested in how effective the A-10 would be in a high-end fight.
I've seen A-10s in action. You hear the burst, see the smoke then watch the rounds hit. They're amazing at low altitudes. Watched one kill a tank under a tree. I've seen one pop up out of the ground in an open field, pitched up, then pointed his nose down on me sunning myself on a truck hood. Was running sam simulators and would love to find that camera footage.
I'm going to be blunt... Simba is FoS. We have a tank at Davis-Monthan AFB, from the Gulf War, that was destroyed by 30MM alone. No Mavericks, rockets or bombs. 30MM WILL penetrate armor due to the nature of Depleted Uranium (DU). Proud A-10 crew chief talking, so I know a thing of two about my bird.
Simba has a pointy nose bias lack of understanding of anything that he said. The 30 mm gun on the A-10 will easily kill a tank shooting at the rear and upper aspect of the vehicle. And it does not even matter if it can kill tanks per se because it will just absolutely Feast on the log trains keeping the tanks fueled and armed.
I too would like to see the sources of those claims. Of everything I've ever seen, heard or read about the effectiveness of the GAU-8, I've never seen ANYTHING that said it's "not effective against tanks"...
@@rmp5s Typically tanks have about an inch of top armor, and a very lightly armored engine grill and exhaust. Simba is completely wrong in virtually everything he said. In point of fact A-10s survived multiple SAM hits in Desert storm (there are very famous photographs) and came home shot to pieces by AAA over and over again during the 91 and 03 wars in iraq. Just do a search for "battle damaged A-10" and click the images tab. Simba is out of his mind.
Most of those videos are more or less just as biased as simba is just in the opposite direction, the GAU-8 with depleted uranium rounds could and did take out tanks, especially the British ones, however it really wasn't the best at it even compared to laser guided missiles of the time
"The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces." Oh Simba.....
@@thakard The F111 did more missions for tank busting, especially at night, since the A-10 (not the C model) at that time could not do so. They did more mission to supplement the lack of A10 capability of killing tanks. And no, the gun barely took out a good amount of tanks, most were done by bombs/missles which is what the F111 does better and why it was assigned that role
you need to look but the final report on that one buddy. That number like all the numbers in Desert Storm were inflated and F-111's reported hitting the same targets. In that same report it stated that the A-10's numbers couldn't be verified and likely they did not achieve those numbers I like the A-10 but there is a real reason the AF was trying to get rid of it and gun goes burrrrrrt is more moral than effective. there are three congressionally funded reports on it and the gun failed miserably in all three. The a-10 does great on CAS in an un-contested invroment but little expensive
Simba's assessment of the A-10's survivability, purpose and usefulness is almost as wrong as his assessment of the A-16 - former board administrator A-10 org Also the mount of the A16 could never be fixed because firing the gun caused such severe vibration that it blurred the HUD to the point it was useless. This is based on multiple conversations with people who flew both aircraft in their careers.
@@Valorius Ah yes...that makes WAY more sense. 👍 Good to see I wasn't the only one scratching my head after he said all that. Ineffective? Not survivable? Ehhh...
If I can expand on what you're saying here, A-10s killed a bunch of tanks in Desert storm with their gun. It's documented fact. Their ability to withstand damage and still bring the pilot home is unmatched. Which is also a documented fact. There is tons of photographic evidence online proving this point (and it's not hard to find) An F-16 is a very versatile aircraft, but it is a single engine and very small aircraft with no armor at all. Just a hit or two with 23mm AAA round would likely take one down. A-10s have withstood dozens of hits from AAA fire in a single mission and still returned home safely.
@@Fury-161 Exactly. We all know the A-10 isn't magic, but saying it's ineffective against tanks and/or doesn't have good survivablity for its mission is a real head scratcher.
Keep in mind that the A-10 also uses TUNGSTEN tipped rounds, which actually gives their rounds a far larger "punch" due to density. As such, the slow-speed (compared to F16s) and stability of air-frame at that speed (and centered on frame) allows the pilots to not only have a better low-attack angle, but also remain ON TARGET longer as well, allowing the rounds to do more damage. As far as "effectiveness" in regard to "Large scale conflicts"? Well, keep in mind that the A-10 is NOT a "air to air fighter" like the F16 is, it is a CAS (Close Air Support) for ground forces. Which is why the A-10 is the PERFECT aircraft for the roll it is designed for. Being able to loiter over the airfield, use GAU on troops/buildings/light armor, BUT with Mavericks/Bombs available for heavy armored targets. It is designed to be rugged, VERSATILE and RELIABLE..... all of which the F16 is NOT in regard to a CAS duty. This is why you don't send A-10's up against enemy fighters, or F16s/15s/18s as "pure" CAS. The mission requirements are completely different for the designs of the airframe you are using.
Would love to see some sources for the "30mm doesn't disable tanks" and "the A-10 was not very survivable" claims. Strong claims to make against the best fixed wing CAS platform ever made.
Despite kids on the internet foaming at the mouth to tell everyone how rugged the A10 is, it really doesn't have anything that makes it more survivable than other twin engine aircraft. The "titanium bathtub" and armored glass in the front only protects the pilot from small arms fire when close to the ground. Every other aircraft has the same exact triple redundant systems.
@@rubiconnn ...you say it's got some features that other planes don't have that enhance its survivablity (for the PILOT...because...you know...the plane doesn't do much good without one of those) vs other planes, then say it's no different than other planes...eeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...k... I know it's not magic, but it is a unique and VERY effective CAS platform. Saying otherwise would be pretty stupid.
@@rubiconnn The A-10 has triple wing spars. It has dual manual reversions. It has extensive armor. It can literally fly with an angine or half a wing or half the tail shot off: It was specifically designed to do these things. Tell us more.
@@rubiconnn The titanium bathtub will stop direct hits from 23MM AAA rounds. "Small arms fire?" Your entire post is completely ignorant. Go pick up a book.
Attaching a 30mm Gatling gun to an F-16 is the absolute wrong tool for CAS or ground attack. Can it do the job? Sure it could have, but not optimally. It's akin to delivering the mail in a Lamborghini. It could carry some parcels and letters, travel to the mailbox, and the driver could get it delivered, though it would take a lot of effort. The A-10 was purpose built to do what it does, just like a proper postal vehicle is purpose built for that job. I predict the only thing to finally kill off the A-10 will be a drone that could fly faster and carry more ammunition without risking a human pilot.
Growlingsidewinder has done this as well as against other airframes with A10. Check his channel out. Pretty well done every aircraft in DCS vs each other. Even P-51 vs F22.
I worked on the Phalanx Surface Mode upgrade program in the 90's. The 20mm gun was based on the air-to-air system in fighters. It had a wide dispersal pattern to get a lot of bullets on another aircraft. The Surface Mode upgrade added a longer barrel and a barrel clamp/frame system to help tighten up the dispersal pattern for missiles, high speed boats, and low slow aircraft. Dispersal of the 30mm cannon was probably one of its detriments. USAF tried to sell the Navy 30mm guns as an upgrade to Phalanx but they didn't go for it. Goalkeeper used the 30mm gun but I don't think they're selling them overseas any more.
"How two A-10`Warthog’ Pilots Destroyed 23 Iraqi Tanks in One Day during Operation Desert Storm" - The Aviation Geek Club Dario Leone, Feb 24, 2019 (just enter that into the search engine of your choice to read the article) EXCERPT: "The A-10A pilots, carrying infrared AGM-65 Maverick missiles and 30-mm ammunition (1,174 rounds), swooped through the haze and attacked the tanks. The Maverick missiles, which detect and home heat sources, had unusually rich targets with the tank engines running and extremely hot. It took 10 minutes for the pair to kill six tanks with Mavericks. *Two more fell beneath the driving force of the A-10’s 30-mm GAU-8/A seven-barrelled cannon* " Tell us more Simba.
Hey @Cap and all you GR guys. The F-16's 30mm gun was NOT at ALL close to the GAU-8 gun. It was a very different weapon. It cracked the centerline pylons and it was basically useless.
I remember somewhere hearing a soldier talk about how the A-10 had a psychological effect on both the enemy and the soldiers it was supporting. He also said something to the effect of the pilots being mentally unstable.
The fact that these F/A-16s were yanked out of action in something like two days and had cracks in their fuselages from the stress of firing the gun tells you all you need to know about how effective they weren’t.
I think Simba biases is a little focused on the F-16. The A-10 was infantrys big brother who'd fix things when things went to shit in the middle east. It might struggle in todays battles but it worked in Afghansistan.
The A-10C is receiving a suite of enhancements aimed at modernizing its capabilities. These upgrades include improved avionics, weapons systems, and survivability features. The focus is on ensuring that the A-10C can operate effectively in the increasingly sophisticated electronic and cyber warfare environments expected in future battles. Wing Replacement Program n 2019, the Air Force completed a project to re-wing a portion of its A-10C fleet. The new wings were expected to last for up to 10,000 flight hours without needing a Depot inspection. Common Fleet Initiative intended to keep the A-10 in service until around 2035. The upgrades focus on making the A-10 more survivable in contested environments. This includes using standoff weapons from longer ranges and updated tactics.
If they actually put new engines in the A-10C to get it's thrust to weight ratio where it should be (about 25-30% more thrust), It would be insanely good. And AIM-9X. No one would dare go into the weeds to go after an AIM-9X HMS equipped A-10, it would be suicide.
@@SgtTechCom already uses AIM-9X ;) I do believe they tested a A-10 with new/different engines and it was almost Mach 1! I kno they tested a new Laser Weapon with it! However I don't think they really want to have faster engines bc they would put out more heat... it'd be nice if they could design a lower version of the dual cycle engine! Lol purpose built so The A-10 maintains its usual engines but can kick in essentially an after burner when the time is right to get the hell outa dodge!
@@Anarchy_420 The last I had heard the helmet mounted sight on the A-10 was not cleared for use with the AIM-9X and high offboresight shots. The A-10's airframe can not handle supersonic speeds (never exceed speed is somewhere around 450kts), and it's straight wing would make those speeds impossible anyway.
The main "compensation system" for flight stability when firing the ugly gun from the A-10 was: the gun was tilted down (I seem to remember 2 degrees) to bring the recoil vector closer to the CG of the A-10 so as not to pitch the nose down when firing. Also, the GAU-8 was mounted off-center to bring the firing barrel(s) along the centerline of the fuselage. What was done to accomplish the same purpose when strapping the cannon on the 16? Did I blink and miss it in the narrative?
Because of its low speed and the range of the 30mm gun an A-10 can attack a ZSU 23 and turn away without ever entering its engagement envelope. The higher speed larger turning radius of an F-16 or any pointy nose fighter means that it will pass through the heart of the ZSU 23. Thus the pointy nose fighter is far less survivable. And this is not even taking the account the a-10's manual reversions armor and dual engines. I think Simba was high when he made his tirade. It was about as wrong as statement as I have ever heard in my military career
I guess simba never saw all the photographs of A-10s returning to base shredded by SAMs and AAA and still getting their pilots home. The plane can fly with half a wing or a whole engine blown off. It was literally designed to do that.
The A-10 was moved to areas where it was less SAMs and AAA coverage. Sounds like it can't survive what it was meant too, everything did better than it did and the Air Force lied about its performance. The F-111 did more tank busting then the A-10.
@@subjectc7505 That is false, In 2003 the A-10 flew directly into downtown Baghdad to provide CAS in an area completely saturated with AAA and MANPADs threats. In 91 it was used to attack SA-6 sites directly. In the mission I cited elsewhere in this comment section, in Desert Storm, A-10s were sortied in to attack tanks where two AV-8 Harriers had just been shot down, in support of US Marines. You are completely ignorant.
@@Valorius in the report that the Air Force falsely made the A-10 seen better than it was, reporting putting the A-10 in areas where it was less threats and risk of lesser shot downs.
@@subjectc7505 Look son, you're so wrong that the only word to describe you is ignorant. A-10s were literally used to attack SAM sites in Desert Storm. They were used to attack targets where multiple other aircraft had already been shot down. You sound like a dope.
There was an F-16/79 also. It was an F-16 fitted with a GE J79 engine as a lower cost export fighter. They should have called the cannon pod the "clapper". That's what it sounds like. 😂
um you would be surprised at what the government pays for that is not what it says it is. look up how much money they sent to the west coast for High Speed Rail development. they showed pictures of bullet trains when congress approved it 10 years ago. Where are those bullet trains? Where are the tracks laid for those bullet trains lol.
I love that this is a bunch of RUclipsrs arguing over if the A10 was good in Afghanistan. When anyone that was actually there can prove it is. And as others have pointed out. It would be even more effective vs modern mbt’s than they were against mbts of old. Since all tanks these days are filled with relatively fragile hardware
A very interesting article posted to SOFREP yesterday, about the A-10 and a massive new upgrade program that is being undertaken to fully modernize it. Some excerpts: "Given the A-10C’s role in close air support, survivability enhancements are a critical aspect of its upgrade. The aircraft is receiving *improved armor and defensive systems* to protect against ground-based anti-aircraft threats. These improvements will ensure that the A-10C can continue to operate effectively in high-threat environments, providing crucial support to ground forces. Alongside the physical upgrades to the aircraft, the A-10C program is also focusing on advanced training and simulation systems for pilots. These systems are designed to prepare A-10C pilots for the complexities of modern warfare, including operations in contested airspaces and coordination with other air and ground assets. The goal is to maintain the highest levels of readiness and effectiveness for A-10C crews." Other upgrades include: "The A-10C is receiving a suite of enhancements aimed at modernizing its capabilities. These upgrades include improved avionics, weapons systems, and survivability features. The focus is on ensuring that the A-10C can operate effectively in the increasingly sophisticated electronic and cyber warfare environments expected in future battles." The article is on SOFREP, and is titled Air Force Massively Upgrades Classic A-10 Warthog With Weapons, Cyber and Electronic Warfare Published 9-4-2024
Every time people dis the A10, it proves it's utter badassness even in video games. ;-) It'll never do well in contested airspace but with the usual US air dominance, there's nothing better for close support out there currently, only drones have the potential to be better in the future.
the gun run at low level was disallowed in Iraq due to the AA threat at low level, instead they were told to stop higher and use missiles and bombs where practicable
The cannon pod was a total failure. The centre gunpod pylon wasn't robust enough and the gun pods had horrible dispersion, awful vibration and just didn't work.
They sent these FA 16s to Desert Storm in 91. They could not keep the gun pod zeroed. Just ended up using it as an area weapon they quit even mounting the pod all together.
I think you guys have all touched on many of the issues for or against here. F16 is fast and harder to hit, but makes a worse strafing platform. A10 is slower so a better strafing platform, but easier to hit. So - up armour the A10??. as regards air supremacy, that depends on whether you are doing a coin or a fulda gap type operation, or anything inbetween, and who can say what will happen after 1975...
The F-16's did/do? gun run practice out at Barry Goldwater Range. There's probably youtube videos that would give all the details on optimum attack speed/angle/range for the Vulcan.
I’m an A-10 guy. The gun kills the hell out of tanks. Whoever is saying that it doesn’t at 6:20 ish should shut their yap and move out of their mom’s house.
@@simba1113 I’d show you some of my HUD footage, but I’m pretty sure watching one explode under the crosshairs wouldn’t convince you. I do like hearing from all you “experts” though! ATTACK buddy!
@@jzcski Yeah buddy send the a link to those tapes. and don't hide behind security clearance because I have that. I've watch plenty of hud footage from "The Drive" I honestly would love to see a video of a tank exploding due to 30mm. maybe they could fund a fourth round of testing and you could fly it because the three congressionally funded tests with reports before you say otherwise. I know what I said isn't popular but while the A-10 is great at flying circles around uncontested environments we can do it for a lot cheaper with the battle crop duster.
@@simba1113 I’d love to fly it…buddy! I’d also love to have you out at the range pressing “record” with your Cheeto-fingers instead of flying your computer for once. Now, for real, I think I hear your mom calling you for dinner.
I think the intention of the GAU was to score mobility kills or render the Soviet tanks combat ineffective by damaging sensitive equipment like optics etc. You can't fight with your tank if you can't move or see to take a shot. A score of Soviet tanks rushing the Fulda Gap, the A-10 was only meant to slow them down. But a well placed shot from an AP round from the 30mm would wreck a Soviet era tank for sure. The Iraqis found that out the hard way.
Can't see this working out. For a start, the A10 was BUILT to carry that huge cannon, the F16 was BUILT as a light-weight day fighter. Now, the F16 turned out to be much more adaptable than that, but there are limits. It's like asking an Elephant to rollerskate.
never understood why the marines never asked for A10's it couldn't be because they can't land on carriers A4 couldn't ether but we loved them little scooters.(airframe was to old most of the wings were bent)
What about trying it again with additional, smaller caliber gun pods? 7.62x52, .50BMG, 20mm, 40mm grenade launcher. Other weapons for hitting the softer targets and saving the 30mm ammo for hard targets
Hypothetically speaking what would happen if the A10 had far better thrust to weight adn be able to fly higher and faster but still be able to fly so slow as a normal A10 too?
The A-10 is much more survivable than some have said in the video and ground troops absolutely love the A-10. Fighter pilot types always under rate and dog the A-10. Fighter jock snobs.
all the problems you had in the f16's, are solved by the a10. loiter time, no fuel panic, slow flight time, plenty of time on target, ground fire survivability, and plenty of rounds to do what it does.
Simba's 100% right about the A-10 Cap. 140 A-10 in the first gulf war killed less tanks than less the half the number of F-111s. And had a worse survivability rate and were involved in more friendly fire/collateral damage than any other aircraft type in the war.
A-10s killed twice as many vehicles as any other asset in the war. And 900 tanks. A-10s went in head to head hunting SA-6 sites and engaged dug in tanks opposing the USMC where multiple harriers had already been lost. You're both wrong.
@@SgtTechCom A-10s and OA-10s had a loss rate of 0.7 per 1000 sorties. The F-16 had a loss rate of 0.2 per 1000 sorties. Gulf War Air Power Survey vol V, Table 205.
@@TheFirstIcon That's because F-16s were bombing from medium altitude, and were hitting nothing. Which is why horner called them the biggest disappointment of the war. He also said, "I take back every bad thing I ever said about the A-10, it was a brilliant performer."
I was station in Germany during the cold War. E8 MSG. The average life expectancy for all soldiers was 2 weeks. To slow an reduce the enemy an also to alow enough time to send a larger deployment of soldiers an equipment.
Yes, but focusing on the gun as the primary weapon drags the A-10 down into the MANPADS envelope more frequently and for longer. In Desert Storm, the loss rate of the A-10 was triple that of the F-16 and all of the A-10 losses were attributed to IR SAMs.
Guns need stability. Guns can benefit from improved dedicated systems. If you strap it on the side of a plane it's not going to be a good gun anymore, but if you build it into the frame and provide it with systems, it's going to be a much, much better gun! If they want 400 knot CAS then build it, don't just build it in their heads and gerry rig it and then decide it doesn't work, that's disrespecting the role the A10 plays as a soldier in the air! I'm no military expert but...
Simba is 100% correct in his assessment of the A-10 and its effectiveness in modern warfare unfortunately. I am an A-10 fanboy, but that doesn’t make me blind to the serious limitations of that airframe. Don’t let your emotions overrule the analytical part of your brain.
On the topic of science with guns, we've lost Paul Harrell.
Indeed. He was a great man in the truest sense
Just saw this! Sucks ass but can't say I'm honestly surprised, pancreatic cancer is no joke and it had metastasized. When I saw the crutch, I knew it had spread. Fuck cancer right in the eye!!
Very sad news. Paul was a great entertainer, his videos were very enjoyable.
What a gem. Easily my favorite guntuber. Informative, talented, and one of the most humble people on the platform.
Always interesting to see how much overlap there is in interests.
RIP Paul Harrell, a US National Treasure, thanks for all the knowledge you shared over the years.
During Desert Storm D2, two A-10A's destroyed 23 tanks in one day in 3 sorties.
18 were destroyed by mavericks and 5 tanks destroyed using the 30mm and they left another 10 damaged/smoking.
Confirmation was by USMC Fast FAC (F/A-18's who were calling in the targets and BDA), in the 3rd sortie it was by the Marines on the ground who were being attacked by the tanks and had called in the air strike.
Simba really angered the internet today. 🤣😂
I probably lost a few fans and friends. But I do like the A-10 I have worked on it. its a nice platform but there is a real reason the USAF has been trying to get rid of it.
@@simba1113 no, you're the People's Champ, regardless of what you think of our precious, ugly and outdated Warthog.
@@simba1113 As we all know, AF brass have a long history of making great decisions.
@@simba1113 isn’t the Army the biggest reason they haven’t yet?
@@simba1113I'm assuming you were a maintainer? Was friends with a lot of them in Korea and my supervisor switched jets.
Also the huge benefit of the A10 is the long loitering time on station. With a couple bags they can be ready to call down for 6 hours. That’s huge for ground troops knowing they have friendly air helping them.
big brain: A-10 with 30mm gun pods on every pylon (or as many as you can within max takeoff weight).
maximum brrrrt
“Engage maximum brrrrrt”
*Aircraft stops in air*
Jokes aside that would make for an entertaining video!
We want to see this!
Loiter time on the A-10 was much better than a F-16 for close air support. Congress said one thing, the troops said another
imagine if you compared the loiter time of the AC130 :)
In uncontested air space. It cant loiter anywhere where there is a SAM risk. An F16 could get in and out with less chance of getting hit ..which was the whole point in the project.
It seems that the A10 has effectively become a mini B52. It's a guided bomb truck.
@@TimInertiatic in an environment, where most conflicts do not involve near-peer adversaries (where more standoff is more safety), but rather COIN in difficult terrain, an A-10 will always be something a ground commander would want in his back pocket.
I'd say, give the A-10 to Army aviation (or Marines) and operate them alongside helicopters and other CAS platforms and let the Air Force worry about the "real" air war.
@@simba1113can AC-130 do the same type of gun runs that the A-10 can?
What is the tooth to tail ratio ac-130 to A10 would think you could feild more A10s in more places for the same resourses would love to hear if someone knows
The projections by analysts predicted that the 6 bases spread across Europe that the A-10s where based at, the US would lose 1 A-10 every 10 sorties. And that we'd lose all of them within 2 weeks. The hog was designed to go down in combat and takedown whole soviet armored columns to hell with it. Sandboxx News just did a story on this not to long ago about the F/A-16 and the gun pod
Everyone gets it wrong, even Simba. The cannon is used for killing trucks and jeeps and it CAN kill a tank but the Maverick missile was the primary anti-tank weapon of the A-10. The cannon is for everything else.
While on a Convoy at night(Helmand). We were stopped just short of an area with this message;
“We have a US TIC…..A-10’s incoming, make sure they see you” 😳
I ordered the convoy to shake, cut, poor ‘chem lights’ everywhere” , it worked. 😊
Canadian Army Veteran 🇨🇦
Quote: "Rather than return to their original base, the ‘Warthogs’ set down at a FOL (Forward Operating Location) where they refueled and re-armed. At first, the pilots thought they would be instructed to shut down and simply sit alert. Instead, an operations officer found Solomonson and shouted, “Get saddled up again! Go!” Marines needed help just southwest of Kuwait City. Solomonson and Marks were told to get there, fast.
*The duo’s second mission was more intense than the first - more like what had been predicted for a high-intensity conflict.*
A Marine F/A-18 Hornet flying ‘Fast FAC’ told the approaching A-10A pilots that two AV-8B Harriers had already been hit. One was down and the other was leaving the area on fire, the pilot preparing to eject.
Marks got on the air with an offer to help out in the search and rescue for Walsh, but the FAC told them to continue on because he had enemy tanks on the ground and the Americans on the ground needed help immediately.
Arriving on the scene, Marks was surprised that American ground forces had pushed so far forward. “The targets were parked in revetments on both sides of a major road running west out of Kuwait City.”
*In a fast and furious engagement, Solomonson and Marks took out eight more tanks, six with Mavericks and two with cannon fire* "
From the article: How 2 A-10 Warthog pilots killed 23 Iraqi tanks in one day (4 of them with their guns)
Dario Leone, Feb 24, 2019
Three missions from forward operating bases in a matter of hours, where 2 aircraft took out 23 tanks with mavs and guns. The F-16 is a good aircraft, but it simply could not match a feat such as this. Period.
Let us all point and laugh as Simba tells us the A-10 can't do what it did in combat over and over: Kill tanks with it's gun.
The problem with these tests and the claim that the A-10 can't kill tanks is that people massively overestimate the amount of damage needed to "destroy" a tank, and that the tests did not actually differentiate between "disabled but repairable" and "not disabled". If the tank was able to be repaired, it would be labeled as "not destroyed", whether or not it would be able to continue fighting. The A-10 could blow off tracks, jam gun turrets, destroy the engines, all of which would render the tank useless. The reports were made specifically as an effort to discredit the A-10 so they could reallocate the funds to a new project. They failed, obviously.
@@Reniconix Yep. The tests were designed to make the A-10 fail so the USAF could divest itself of the Hog.
Ahhh yes, the Flying Squirrel-with-a-Gun 😊
The groundpounder position was that the USAF wanted fast movers instead of warthogs because they desired to do sexy things, instead of the hated CAS mission, and infantry was out of sight, out of mind. We knew A10s specialized in helping us, and Vipers would rather practice literally anything else. CAS is done near friendlies, by definition, which means it is an excellent way for a pilot to lose a career, while to the Army it is a life-saver. Therefore, the USAF will always try to get away from it and should never have been allowed to take over the mission.
In the pre-Desert Storm days, the USAF was going to transfer the A-10s to the U.S. Army. Due to the outstanding success of the A-10s in DS, the USAF reversed their decision. The A-10 was determined to be too sexy for the Army.
As an Army Aviator at the time, I was really looking forward to flying the A-10.
Would that not have violated the 1948 key West agreement, as I think it was called?
The USAF and the US Army pretty much mutually agreed to let the Army use Apaches for more CAS, especially those that might be danger close. The USAF meanwhile would focus on dropping big booms mostly somewhat further away from friendlies. Officially the USAF is committed and capable of all CAS including danger close. Unofficially, they would prefer to avoid blue on blue by using precision weapons from miles away instead of filling areas with 30mm rounds and 70mm rockets.
@@stupidburp Interesting that this meant the Army somehow accepted the USAF position and gained nothing from it. Also might be worth looking up how the USAF decided that the Army C-27 fleet was too capable, demanded they be turned over, and then sold them because they weren’t needed by the Air Force. SOCOM ended up with some as a way to get a few back. Even the way the USAF made the Army divest the armed drones. But they let us keep the helicopters we already had, so must be all good. Sigh. I am old enough to remember when it was the USN which always resisted being Joint.
@@Orieni I agree that it was a bad deal for the Army. But, we did get many extra Apaches, hundreds more.
As some background to this, the unit in question was the 174th. They were based in Syracuse New york, my hometown. Previous to being equipped with the F-16, they flew the
A-10 for several years, honing their skills at Fort Drums bombing/weapons range. They transitioned to the F-16 prior to the first Gulf war.
Yes an F-16 can get to Target faster, however the A-10 has the fuel and weapons load out to persist on that Target where as the F-16 is giving you at two passes.
Like the old joke goes, F-16 pilot says," I had a super intense cas Mission today.... I dropped BOTH bombs!"
Getting to Target quickly is important, but how do you find parking in a big jet?
The A-10 can't operate in high intense environments like other aircrafts can.
@@subjectc7505 It literally already has.
The A-10 is the aircraft that was chosen to lead the rescue of Lt Col Dale Zelko after his F-117 was shot down by a SAM in Serbia A-10s led the formation, and flew top cover while the CSAR birds swooped in to rescue him.
In desert storm A-10s attacked SA-6 sites directly.
In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, A-10s flew close air directly into downtown Baghdad, which was absolutely saturated with AAA and MANPADS assets.
Your post is ignorant of history.
@@Valorius "Your post is ignorant of history" sorry, I read the lies about the A-10, They removed the A-10 from the battlefield to areas where it was less threats so it can operate to it's fullest lol but sure.
@@subjectc7505 They actually sent A-10s in to attack targets where multiple aircraft had already been shot down. Two such stories are cited in this comment section by other posters.
You are ignorant.
Much of what was said is true; however, a few corrections: 1. The A10 gun could very effectively destroy tank tacks, immobilizing tanks. 2. Hitting Russian tanks from above, rear or sides could and did destroy the tanks using the gun. 3. Loitering time in the A10 when loaded in beast mode far exceeds the F18, F16, F35. Time on station is huge. 4. The 1200 rounds carried by the A10 gives it a huge advantage. 5. Highly stable gun platform, far better than F16, F18, F35, etc. 6. Good at taking out tanks, great at everything else 7. Gulf War A10s came back with substantial damage, and were highly survivable. Finally, having sat in and worked on a ZSU-23-4 AAA tank, it's armor could be penetrated by a 50 cal. The A10 could easily destroy it from any angle with its gun. The A10 was far better then your giving it credit for.
The A-10 is a good platform for carrying maverick, rockets and bombs. the facts are the Gun did not destroy tanks in the official testing reports. the 3rd of which was set up to give the A-10 every possible advantage to be successful. it disable something like 3 of 12 and the report said a mobile repair team could have those same tanks back in the fight with in hours. loiter time is great. so is the loiter time of an AC-130, would you like to compare those guns? I don't hate the A-10 but there is a real reason the A-10 has been on the chopping block for 40 years and there is a real reason gun goes burrrrrtt is more fan fiction than truth.
Worth noting that A10s got pulled off the front line in the Gulf War for survivability reasons. Sure, they can eat a couple 23mm shells and fly home, but you know what's even better? Staying above 12,000ft where the AAA and MANPADS can't touch you
Literally the only people I’ve ever heard say the a10 gun is ineffective. This is simply not true.the reason the a10 is still around is because it is literally the best at close air support.
@@oldanddisgusted5998 The USAF's Gulf War Air Power Survey is online and mostly unredacted. I recommend starting with Vol I if you're really interested in how effective the A-10 would be in a high-end fight.
I've seen A-10s in action. You hear the burst, see the smoke then watch the rounds hit. They're amazing at low altitudes. Watched one kill a tank under a tree. I've seen one pop up out of the ground in an open field, pitched up, then pointed his nose down on me sunning myself on a truck hood. Was running sam simulators and would love to find that camera footage.
I'm going to be blunt... Simba is FoS. We have a tank at Davis-Monthan AFB, from the Gulf War, that was destroyed by 30MM alone. No Mavericks, rockets or bombs. 30MM WILL penetrate armor due to the nature of Depleted Uranium (DU). Proud A-10 crew chief talking, so I know a thing of two about my bird.
Simba has a pointy nose bias lack of understanding of anything that he said. The 30 mm gun on the A-10 will easily kill a tank shooting at the rear and upper aspect of the vehicle. And it does not even matter if it can kill tanks per se because it will just absolutely Feast on the log trains keeping the tanks fueled and armed.
I am the former board admin of A10 org and you are 100% correct
I too would like to see the sources of those claims. Of everything I've ever seen, heard or read about the effectiveness of the GAU-8, I've never seen ANYTHING that said it's "not effective against tanks"...
@@rmp5s Typically tanks have about an inch of top armor, and a very lightly armored engine grill and exhaust. Simba is completely wrong in virtually everything he said.
In point of fact A-10s survived multiple SAM hits in Desert storm (there are very famous photographs) and came home shot to pieces by AAA over and over again during the 91 and 03 wars in iraq.
Just do a search for "battle damaged A-10" and click the images tab.
Simba is out of his mind.
Simba fan - think hes off base on this one however
Idk what the hell Simba is talking about, but you can find about a billion YT vids that says other wise how potent that gun really is.
Good! Neither does Simba!
Most of those videos are more or less just as biased as simba is just in the opposite direction, the GAU-8 with depleted uranium rounds could and did take out tanks, especially the British ones, however it really wasn't the best at it even compared to laser guided missiles of the time
@@Ryan-ob7yt The 30mm GAU-8 gun is the preferred weapon in the USAF arsenal for danger close CAS missions. Did you know that?
@@SgtTechCom Yea im aware they are yet to replace their a-10C fleet, was more talking about the guns anti tank capabilities
"The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces."
Oh Simba.....
A-10s flew more missions than any other aircraft and destroyed the most targets x2.
@@busardr1452 more missions and still took out less tanks then the F-111 did
@@Ryan-ob7yt That is debatable.
@@thakard The F111 did more missions for tank busting, especially at night, since the A-10 (not the C model) at that time could not do so. They did more mission to supplement the lack of A10 capability of killing tanks. And no, the gun barely took out a good amount of tanks, most were done by bombs/missles which is what the F111 does better and why it was assigned that role
you need to look but the final report on that one buddy. That number like all the numbers in Desert Storm were inflated and F-111's reported hitting the same targets. In that same report it stated that the A-10's numbers couldn't be verified and likely they did not achieve those numbers I like the A-10 but there is a real reason the AF was trying to get rid of it and gun goes burrrrrrt is more moral than effective. there are three congressionally funded reports on it and the gun failed miserably in all three. The a-10 does great on CAS in an un-contested invroment but little expensive
Simba's assessment of the A-10's survivability, purpose and usefulness is almost as wrong as his assessment of the A-16
- former board administrator A-10 org
Also the mount of the A16 could never be fixed because firing the gun caused such severe vibration that it blurred the HUD to the point it was useless.
This is based on multiple conversations with people who flew both aircraft in their careers.
Almost as rare?...
@@rmp5s "almost as *wrong." Voice to text still needs a lot of work.
@@Valorius Ah yes...that makes WAY more sense. 👍 Good to see I wasn't the only one scratching my head after he said all that. Ineffective? Not survivable? Ehhh...
If I can expand on what you're saying here, A-10s killed a bunch of tanks in Desert storm with their gun. It's documented fact.
Their ability to withstand damage and still bring the pilot home is unmatched. Which is also a documented fact. There is tons of photographic evidence online proving this point (and it's not hard to find)
An F-16 is a very versatile aircraft, but it is a single engine and very small aircraft with no armor at all. Just a hit or two with 23mm AAA round would likely take one down.
A-10s have withstood dozens of hits from AAA fire in a single mission and still returned home safely.
@@Fury-161 Exactly. We all know the A-10 isn't magic, but saying it's ineffective against tanks and/or doesn't have good survivablity for its mission is a real head scratcher.
Keep in mind that the A-10 also uses TUNGSTEN tipped rounds, which actually gives their rounds a far larger "punch" due to density. As such, the slow-speed (compared to F16s) and stability of air-frame at that speed (and centered on frame) allows the pilots to not only have a better low-attack angle, but also remain ON TARGET longer as well, allowing the rounds to do more damage.
As far as "effectiveness" in regard to "Large scale conflicts"? Well, keep in mind that the A-10 is NOT a "air to air fighter" like the F16 is, it is a CAS (Close Air Support) for ground forces. Which is why the A-10 is the PERFECT aircraft for the roll it is designed for. Being able to loiter over the airfield, use GAU on troops/buildings/light armor, BUT with Mavericks/Bombs available for heavy armored targets. It is designed to be rugged, VERSATILE and RELIABLE..... all of which the F16 is NOT in regard to a CAS duty.
This is why you don't send A-10's up against enemy fighters, or F16s/15s/18s as "pure" CAS. The mission requirements are completely different for the designs of the airframe you are using.
"Right tool for the job"...there is no better fixed wing CAS platform. Period.
They are DU core rounds.
@@Fury-161 -- Thanks for the correction. I was thinking the tungsten "bathtub" for the pilot when I was typing. =/
@@herrzimm the tub is titanium bro :)
@@gotindrachenhart - Then that would be my bad. I seriously thought it was tungsten. =(
Would love to see some sources for the "30mm doesn't disable tanks" and "the A-10 was not very survivable" claims. Strong claims to make against the best fixed wing CAS platform ever made.
Despite kids on the internet foaming at the mouth to tell everyone how rugged the A10 is, it really doesn't have anything that makes it more survivable than other twin engine aircraft. The "titanium bathtub" and armored glass in the front only protects the pilot from small arms fire when close to the ground. Every other aircraft has the same exact triple redundant systems.
@@rubiconnn ...you say it's got some features that other planes don't have that enhance its survivablity (for the PILOT...because...you know...the plane doesn't do much good without one of those) vs other planes, then say it's no different than other planes...eeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...k...
I know it's not magic, but it is a unique and VERY effective CAS platform. Saying otherwise would be pretty stupid.
@@rubiconnn The A-10 has triple wing spars. It has dual manual reversions. It has extensive armor. It can literally fly with an angine or half a wing or half the tail shot off: It was specifically designed to do these things.
Tell us more.
@@rubiconnn No they don't.
@@rubiconnn The titanium bathtub will stop direct hits from 23MM AAA rounds. "Small arms fire?"
Your entire post is completely ignorant. Go pick up a book.
Attaching a 30mm Gatling gun to an F-16 is the absolute wrong tool for CAS or ground attack. Can it do the job? Sure it could have, but not optimally. It's akin to delivering the mail in a Lamborghini. It could carry some parcels and letters, travel to the mailbox, and the driver could get it delivered, though it would take a lot of effort. The A-10 was purpose built to do what it does, just like a proper postal vehicle is purpose built for that job. I predict the only thing to finally kill off the A-10 will be a drone that could fly faster and carry more ammunition without risking a human pilot.
Yeah I think the a-10 should be the one with exclusive access to the avenger
Ok, now we need dogfights with F-16s and the big gun pod.
Growlingsidewinder has done this as well as against other airframes with A10. Check his channel out. Pretty well done every aircraft in DCS vs each other. Even P-51 vs F22.
@@zoe..dYes, but I think we’re wanting a GR style mission or something where planes other than the A-10 have this gun and use it in a dogfight…
I worked on the Phalanx Surface Mode upgrade program in the 90's. The 20mm gun was based on the air-to-air system in fighters. It had a wide dispersal pattern to get a lot of bullets on another aircraft. The Surface Mode upgrade added a longer barrel and a barrel clamp/frame system to help tighten up the dispersal pattern for missiles, high speed boats, and low slow aircraft. Dispersal of the 30mm cannon was probably one of its detriments. USAF tried to sell the Navy 30mm guns as an upgrade to Phalanx but they didn't go for it. Goalkeeper used the 30mm gun but I don't think they're selling them overseas any more.
Seen the Chinese CIWS with 13 barrel 30mm guns and an 11k rpm firing rate? CRAZY.
"How two A-10`Warthog’ Pilots Destroyed 23 Iraqi Tanks in One Day during Operation Desert Storm" - The Aviation Geek Club
Dario Leone, Feb 24, 2019 (just enter that into the search engine of your choice to read the article)
EXCERPT: "The A-10A pilots, carrying infrared AGM-65 Maverick missiles and 30-mm ammunition (1,174 rounds), swooped through the haze and attacked the tanks. The Maverick missiles, which detect and home heat sources, had unusually rich targets with the tank engines running and extremely hot. It took 10 minutes for the pair to kill six tanks with Mavericks. *Two more fell beneath the driving force of the A-10’s 30-mm GAU-8/A seven-barrelled cannon* "
Tell us more Simba.
Good history lesson from Simba, and he is spot on! Well done sir!
Hey @Cap and all you GR guys. The F-16's 30mm gun was NOT at ALL close to the GAU-8 gun. It was a very different weapon. It cracked the centerline pylons and it was basically useless.
yes it failed miserably hence they used it twice and threw the idea ini the trash lol
@@simba1113ÿ
Damn Simba...remember, we love you dude. Just roll with the punches.
I remember somewhere hearing a soldier talk about how the A-10 had a psychological effect on both the enemy and the soldiers it was supporting. He also said something to the effect of the pilots being mentally unstable.
The fact that these F/A-16s were yanked out of action in something like two days and had cracks in their fuselages from the stress of firing the gun tells you all you need to know about how effective they weren’t.
Most tanks have about 1" of top armor. The A-10s gun will slice them to pieces. What is Simba's malfunction?
I like your profile picture
Bruh based PFP
Awesome avatar :D
Good sir. I thoroughly enjoy your profile picture. Take my like. Have a good day.
Fair point, aspect definitely matters here! And as others have said, that’s a great pfp
I think Simba biases is a little focused on the F-16. The A-10 was infantrys big brother who'd fix things when things went to shit in the middle east. It might struggle in todays battles but it worked in Afghansistan.
The A-10C is receiving a suite of enhancements aimed at modernizing its capabilities. These upgrades include improved avionics, weapons systems, and survivability features. The focus is on ensuring that the A-10C can operate effectively in the increasingly sophisticated electronic and cyber warfare environments expected in future battles.
Wing Replacement Program
n 2019, the Air Force completed a project to re-wing a portion of its A-10C fleet. The new wings were expected to last for up to 10,000 flight hours without needing a Depot inspection.
Common Fleet Initiative
intended to keep the A-10 in service until around 2035. The upgrades focus on making the A-10 more survivable in contested environments. This includes using standoff weapons from longer ranges and updated tactics.
If they actually put new engines in the A-10C to get it's thrust to weight ratio where it should be (about 25-30% more thrust), It would be insanely good.
And AIM-9X. No one would dare go into the weeds to go after an AIM-9X HMS equipped A-10, it would be suicide.
@@SgtTechCom already uses AIM-9X ;)
I do believe they tested a A-10 with new/different engines and it was almost Mach 1! I kno they tested a new Laser Weapon with it!
However I don't think they really want to have faster engines bc they would put out more heat... it'd be nice if they could design a lower version of the dual cycle engine! Lol purpose built so The A-10 maintains its usual engines but can kick in essentially an after burner when the time is right to get the hell outa dodge!
@@Anarchy_420 The last I had heard the helmet mounted sight on the A-10 was not cleared for use with the AIM-9X and high offboresight shots.
The A-10's airframe can not handle supersonic speeds (never exceed speed is somewhere around 450kts), and it's straight wing would make those speeds impossible anyway.
Northrop F-5E also mounted the 30mm gun pod 'BRRRRTTTTTTTT'
Needs that canon on each pylon including wingtips
The main "compensation system" for flight stability when firing the ugly gun from the A-10 was: the gun was tilted down (I seem to remember 2 degrees) to bring the recoil vector closer to the CG of the A-10 so as not to pitch the nose down when firing. Also, the GAU-8 was mounted off-center to bring the firing barrel(s) along the centerline of the fuselage. What was done to accomplish the same purpose when strapping the cannon on the 16? Did I blink and miss it in the narrative?
What are the odds I can buy one of those gun pods on the aftermarket and strap it to my minivan?
The dude who used jato rockets on his car didn't end well....
Try and do a youtube video or someone will make one about you posthumously
Because of its low speed and the range of the 30mm gun an A-10 can attack a ZSU 23 and turn away without ever entering its engagement envelope. The higher speed larger turning radius of an F-16 or any pointy nose fighter means that it will pass through the heart of the ZSU 23.
Thus the pointy nose fighter is far less survivable.
And this is not even taking the account the a-10's manual reversions armor and dual engines.
I think Simba was high when he made his tirade.
It was about as wrong as statement as I have ever heard in my military career
I guess simba never saw all the photographs of A-10s returning to base shredded by SAMs and AAA and still getting their pilots home. The plane can fly with half a wing or a whole engine blown off. It was literally designed to do that.
The A-10 was moved to areas where it was less SAMs and AAA coverage. Sounds like it can't survive what it was meant too, everything did better than it did and the Air Force lied about its performance. The F-111 did more tank busting then the A-10.
@@subjectc7505 That is false, In 2003 the A-10 flew directly into downtown Baghdad to provide CAS in an area completely saturated with AAA and MANPADs threats.
In 91 it was used to attack SA-6 sites directly.
In the mission I cited elsewhere in this comment section, in Desert Storm, A-10s were sortied in to attack tanks where two AV-8 Harriers had just been shot down, in support of US Marines.
You are completely ignorant.
@@Valorius in the report that the Air Force falsely made the A-10 seen better than it was, reporting putting the A-10 in areas where it was less threats and risk of lesser shot downs.
@@subjectc7505 Look son, you're so wrong that the only word to describe you is ignorant.
A-10s were literally used to attack SAM sites in Desert Storm. They were used to attack targets where multiple other aircraft had already been shot down.
You sound like a dope.
@@subjectc7505 Chuck Horner said the F-16 flying medium altitude attacks was the single most disappointing performer in Desert Storm.
Thanks for another great video guys! Best! 🙂
lol, what an idea. I haven't watched the video yet but I approve of strapping Gatling cannons to everything.
Donut operator , nice simba. Rip Paul
God bless paul.
It's simbas world we're just living in it..😂
I think the air force wants to get rid of it because the army considers a10 pilots fellow soldiers
There was an F-16/79 also. It was an F-16 fitted with a GE J79 engine as a lower cost export fighter. They should have called the cannon pod the "clapper". That's what it sounds like. 😂
I think the USAF wouldnt have bothered to operate and maintain 30mm cannons for all these years, if they couldnt cut through tanks.
um you would be surprised at what the government pays for that is not what it says it is. look up how much money they sent to the west coast for High Speed Rail development. they showed pictures of bullet trains when congress approved it 10 years ago. Where are those bullet trains? Where are the tracks laid for those bullet trains lol.
@@simba1113 is this the people's champ?
I love that this is a bunch of RUclipsrs arguing over if the A10 was good in Afghanistan. When anyone that was actually there can prove it is. And as others have pointed out. It would be even more effective vs modern mbt’s than they were against mbts of old. Since all tanks these days are filled with relatively fragile hardware
these are the questions that keep us up at night
Now how about instead of giving the a10 two 1/2 engines give it the engine upgrade it desperately needs.
Hello CAP, hope you're doing well.
I found that to destroy AFV's required a sustained one-second burst.
A very interesting article posted to SOFREP yesterday, about the A-10 and a massive new upgrade program that is being undertaken to fully modernize it. Some excerpts:
"Given the A-10C’s role in close air support, survivability enhancements are a critical aspect of its upgrade. The aircraft is receiving *improved armor and defensive systems* to protect against ground-based anti-aircraft threats. These improvements will ensure that the A-10C can continue to operate effectively in high-threat environments, providing crucial support to ground forces.
Alongside the physical upgrades to the aircraft, the A-10C program is also focusing on advanced training and simulation systems for pilots. These systems are designed to prepare A-10C pilots for the complexities of modern warfare, including operations in contested airspaces and coordination with other air and ground assets. The goal is to maintain the highest levels of readiness and effectiveness for A-10C crews."
Other upgrades include:
"The A-10C is receiving a suite of enhancements aimed at modernizing its capabilities. These upgrades include improved avionics, weapons systems, and survivability features. The focus is on ensuring that the A-10C can operate effectively in the increasingly sophisticated electronic and cyber warfare environments expected in future battles."
The article is on SOFREP, and is titled Air Force Massively Upgrades Classic A-10 Warthog With Weapons, Cyber and Electronic Warfare
Published 9-4-2024
Every time people dis the A10, it proves it's utter badassness even in video games. ;-) It'll never do well in contested airspace but with the usual US air dominance, there's nothing better for close support out there currently, only drones have the potential to be better in the future.
It would want to be one hell of a central hard point, otherwise it would hurt the airframe or tear off.
Always loved the A 10 design....they reminded me of Cobra Rattlers😂...from gi joe
Well the rattler was based on the A-10 so it makes sense :D
the gun run at low level was disallowed in Iraq due to the AA threat at low level, instead they were told to stop higher and use missiles and bombs where practicable
Simba made me shed a tear. 😢
Not only did it exist; the 30mm GPOD was actually referenced in the movie Iron Eagle, interestingly.
The cannon pod was a total failure. The centre gunpod pylon wasn't robust enough and the gun pods had horrible dispersion, awful vibration and just didn't work.
It wasn’t just the pylon, it cracked up the actual fuselage of the F-16.
That’s why these test videos are fun, they allow us to get a glimpse of “what might have been”
I'll bet 12 rocket pods weigh as much as 1 mini gun. I'd like to see that.
Thanks for this video, I love the A-16
Please recreate each scenario from Dogfights Season 2 Episode 18 Dogfights of the Future🙏👍
This needs a warbird competition version with the ww2 thunderbolt, could be best gun earas like the best interceptor videos
They sent these FA 16s to Desert Storm in 91. They could not keep the gun pod zeroed. Just ended up using it as an area weapon they quit even mounting the pod all together.
well, if nothing else, that was fun!
the section "Predictions and Thoughts" is nullifying any 20+ minute clickbait vid about the A10, and thank you for no-frills
never knew about this.........news to me as well.
"It makes me fly better." lol
I think you guys have all touched on many of the issues for or against here. F16 is fast and harder to hit, but makes a worse strafing platform. A10 is slower so a better strafing platform, but easier to hit. So - up armour the A10??. as regards air supremacy, that depends on whether you are doing a coin or a fulda gap type operation, or anything inbetween, and who can say what will happen after 1975...
If you want a 30mm cannon on a fast jet, get a Mirage 2000. It comes with two.
Rate of fire is much less on the Mirage than the A-10, but *yes*
Has less ammo too. But it can go fast and high.
This is good.
101 how to piss of everybody about the A-10:
The F-16's did/do? gun run practice out at Barry Goldwater Range. There's probably youtube videos that would give all the details on optimum attack speed/angle/range for the Vulcan.
I think the real question is how many pave claw pods could you put on an A-10?
I’m an A-10 guy. The gun kills the hell out of tanks. Whoever is saying that it doesn’t at 6:20 ish should shut their yap and move out of their mom’s house.
Sure buddy show me the the real world results. 3 real world tests prove completely the opposite.
also my mom doesn't have a house anymore she lives in a retirement community. Haven't lived with her in over 25 years lol
@@simba1113 I’d show you some of my HUD footage, but I’m pretty sure watching one explode under the crosshairs wouldn’t convince you. I do like hearing from all you “experts” though! ATTACK buddy!
@@jzcski Yeah buddy send the a link to those tapes. and don't hide behind security clearance because I have that. I've watch plenty of hud footage from "The Drive" I honestly would love to see a video of a tank exploding due to 30mm. maybe they could fund a fourth round of testing and you could fly it because the three congressionally funded tests with reports before you say otherwise. I know what I said isn't popular but while the A-10 is great at flying circles around uncontested environments we can do it for a lot cheaper with the battle crop duster.
@@simba1113 I’d love to fly it…buddy! I’d also love to have you out at the range pressing “record” with your Cheeto-fingers instead of flying your computer for once. Now, for real, I think I hear your mom calling you for dinner.
Lazerpig has a fun video tearing the A10 a new one...
I think the intention of the GAU was to score mobility kills or render the Soviet tanks combat ineffective by damaging sensitive equipment like optics etc. You can't fight with your tank if you can't move or see to take a shot. A score of Soviet tanks rushing the Fulda Gap, the A-10 was only meant to slow them down. But a well placed shot from an AP round from the 30mm would wreck a Soviet era tank for sure. The Iraqis found that out the hard way.
Can't see this working out. For a start, the A10 was BUILT to carry that huge cannon, the F16 was BUILT as a light-weight day fighter. Now, the F16 turned out to be much more adaptable than that, but there are limits. It's like asking an Elephant to rollerskate.
The 30 mm rotary cannon used in the A-10 would not fit in an F16.
never understood why the marines never asked for A10's it couldn't be because they can't land on carriers A4 couldn't ether but we loved them little scooters.(airframe was to old most of the wings were bent)
The Marines didn’t even upgrade from Cobra to Apache like the Army because they wanted to keep spare parts commonality with their Hueys.
"Not Fully Dead" Don't you mean "'e's Restin." ?
“There’s a difference between all dead, and *mostly* dead”
Could we see a new Kerch Bridge Bonznza? 💥
So what I’ve learnt is the A10 is awesome as I’ve always known:)
It sucked
What about trying it again with additional, smaller caliber gun pods? 7.62x52, .50BMG, 20mm, 40mm grenade launcher. Other weapons for hitting the softer targets and saving the 30mm ammo for hard targets
Which is best though, Ocean Grey or Military Grey?
Hypothetically speaking what would happen if the A10 had far better thrust to weight adn be able to fly higher and faster but still be able to fly so slow as a normal A10 too?
It would probably burn more fuel and have less loiter time.
The straight thick wing restricts the speed more than the engines I suspect.
Hi, what would be the largest gun or cannon A10 can equip, fly and practically attack? Maybe already done...?
A10 guns death-match is awesome!
The A-10 is much more survivable than some have said in the video and ground troops absolutely love the A-10. Fighter pilot types always under rate and dog the A-10. Fighter jock snobs.
all the problems you had in the f16's, are solved by the a10. loiter time, no fuel panic, slow flight time, plenty of time on target, ground fire survivability, and plenty of rounds to do what it does.
WHAT IS SIMBA SAYING? He should actually read up on the A10..... or aviation in general with these comments.
Seriously, the more I'm watching the video.... the more I want you to put Simba on a timeout from appearing in your videos.
@@travismc4018 He's probably drunk and deliberately trolling.
Yo!✌
Simba's 100% right about the A-10 Cap. 140 A-10 in the first gulf war killed less tanks than less the half the number of F-111s. And had a worse survivability rate and were involved in more friendly fire/collateral damage than any other aircraft type in the war.
A-10s killed twice as many vehicles as any other asset in the war. And 900 tanks.
A-10s went in head to head hunting SA-6 sites and engaged dug in tanks opposing the USMC where multiple harriers had already been lost.
You're both wrong.
Apaches were first in and destroyed air defenses for the rest to follow.
@@SgtTechCom A-10s and OA-10s had a loss rate of 0.7 per 1000 sorties. The F-16 had a loss rate of 0.2 per 1000 sorties. Gulf War Air Power Survey vol V, Table 205.
@@TheFirstIcon That's because F-16s were bombing from medium altitude, and were hitting nothing.
Which is why horner called them the biggest disappointment of the war.
He also said, "I take back every bad thing I ever said about the A-10, it was a brilliant performer."
I was station in Germany during the cold War. E8 MSG. The average life expectancy for all soldiers was 2 weeks. To slow an reduce the enemy an also to alow enough time to send a larger deployment of soldiers an equipment.
Doesn’t the A10s engines put out a lot less heat than the F16, making it less susceptible to MANPADS?
Not just less heat, but the position of the engines above the horizontal stabilizer masks a good amount of the engine heat from manpads too
Yes, but focusing on the gun as the primary weapon drags the A-10 down into the MANPADS envelope more frequently and for longer. In Desert Storm, the loss rate of the A-10 was triple that of the F-16 and all of the A-10 losses were attributed to IR SAMs.
same reason the f35 can't fill the A-10 role
Guns need stability. Guns can benefit from improved dedicated systems.
If you strap it on the side of a plane it's not going to be a good gun anymore, but if you build it into the frame and provide it with systems, it's going to be a much, much better gun!
If they want 400 knot CAS then build it, don't just build it in their heads and gerry rig it and then decide it doesn't work, that's disrespecting the role the A10 plays as a soldier in the air! I'm no military expert but...
Simba is 100% correct in his assessment of the A-10 and its effectiveness in modern warfare unfortunately. I am an A-10 fanboy, but that doesn’t make me blind to the serious limitations of that airframe. Don’t let your emotions overrule the analytical part of your brain.
Oh shit! I just watched a youtube about this a week or so ago!