The A-10 Warthog is 50 years old. Why is it still serving?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 2024
- The A-10 Thunderbolt II is best known for two things: the GAU-8 30 mm rotary cannon in its nose, and its ability to destroy tanks. Unpopular when first introduced, the A-10 Warthog is considered by many as very well designed to fulfil its mission: close air support to ground forces. In this video, curator Emily Charles explains why the A-10 has been in service for 50 years and is still popular with pilots. We hear from one of the developers of the A-10 and pilot Kim Campbell, famous for landing her A-10 in manual mode after taking anti-aircraft fire in Iraq.
Plan your visit to IWM Duxford: www.iwm.org.uk...
ASSETS
YA-10 photo credit: U.S. Air Force
Night/Adverse Weather press releases from Fairchild via secretprojects.co.uk
‘Say Hello to the Warthog’ article by Jack Stitzel via www.acc.af.mil...
A-10A - Photo © Karsten Palt and National Museum of USAF
A-10 77-0259 on the runway at Duxford © David Whitworth on Flickr: www.flickr.com...
Warthogs at Moody Air Force Base: U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Ryan Callaghan
There is a saying i heard from several retired marines, that during the period of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, a A-10 pilot could walk into any Marine bar and never need to pay for a drink because of all the marines whose lives were saved by A-10's
Brothers.
A Marine bar, yes. A British bar would be a problem.
It’s actually touching how much the troops on the ground love the Warthog.
American troops, yes. British troops not so much. Not an aircraft issue, but a pilot issue. And the pilots are American, so basically not fix-able.
@@onenote6619 your point is that the American pilots didn’t protect Brits like they protected their own?
@@fbcpraise 28 March 2003 in Iraq, a pair of Air National Guard A10's hit a convoy of the Blues and Royals from the British Armies Household Cavalry. One dead, five wounded and a couple of vehicles knocked out. A blue on blue f*ck up. Unfortunately they happen.
This, I think, was the point he keeps making.
I was an Air Traffic Controller for the Army in 1983, when a flight of 4 A-10s came in for a demonstration flight w/ some AH-1s and you would have thought the A-10s were some secret weapon, the way every person at the airfield came out to the tarmac to gawk at those extremely unique aircraft. The attack demo the next day was pretty impressive w/ all hell breaking loose down range from that awesome sounding canon and you could see the aircraft slow as it fired. I got goose bumps during that demo.
That is a cool story.
A-10 saved my tail a few times in Ramadi during the invasion of Iraq. I’ll always have a soft spot in my heart for it and the sound of that gun!
Everyone’s gotta love that brrrrrrrrrrt
Except for those on the other end
A pity…
If you hear the brrrrrt, you weren't the target...
Those behind the brrrrt have a soft spot for it
The targets of the brrrt are a soft spot because of it
Thank you, and thank the homely Guardian Angel that got you home alive.
That plane doesn’t have a gun. The gun has a plane
How best to describe the flight performance of this plane.
the gun literally flies at you
Wow! I don't think I have ever seen that comment on an A-10 video. How very clever and witty you are.
the same gun that also killed a british column 😎
@@Inspadave Heh, if you think that was good, then you've seen nothing, kid. _teleports behind you_ Big gun go brrrrrr 😎😎😎
As a m1 tanker in West Germany in the mid 1980s, my brothers and I were always happy to know and see a pair of A10s flying over head....
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. IMO this is one gorgeous aircraft.
As a U.S. Army Aviator flying an Aero Scout OH-58 Kiowa in West Germany 🇩🇪 in the early 1980’s, I was able to direct fire and close air support of the U.S.A.F A-10. In concert with ground artillery, and AH-1 Cobra 🐍 helicopters 🚁. I was able, in a training environment, to direct constant fire to a tank column. These aircraft were instrumental in reducing any threat to ground forces and it was a great experience to work with them, including their FAC ( Forward Air Controller).
The A-10 legend came from its use during the war on terror in the Middle East, where MANPADS were few and far between. The SU-25 Frogfoot is the Russian counterpart to the A-10 and has the same built-in survivability. Considering how the SU-25 Frogfoot is getting pounded in Ukrain, I have doubts about how well these would do against a near-peer adversary with plentiful MANPADS.
Please don't blindly believe the numbers the Ukraine puts out, they are at war so expect them to be highly exaggerated.
There were planes shot down, that's a fact, but its far away from "they are getting pounded"
In any type of modern AD environment, it would be toast. It's too slow, and, too detectable.
CAS aircraft like this aren't intended to be flown in an area where you don't have air superiority. The Russians didn't realize that in Ukraine. It's like they're trying to clear away a room full of rat traps by unzipping their pants and doing push-ups.
There's also the point of quality of aircraft and pilot.
It should stick to what it's good at.....blue on blue incidents.
I have one personal experience of the A10, when early one British summer morning in the early '90's', I was driving up the M1 near Leicester and heading north, when I heard a very strange sound to my ears. That turned out to be two 'A10's at low altitude and I guess using the traffic to practice on (without discharging/releasing any ammunition!), I thanked everyone I could think of that they were 'friendly forces'.
I was assinged to the 23rd Tactical Fighter Wing, Flying Tigers, England AFB, Alexandria, Louisiana as an AMMO troop (461 Munitions Systems Specialist) for the second time in 1990. We deployed with the A-10A to King Fahd International Airport for the first Gulf War, known as Operation Desert Desert Storm. The A-10 performed spectacularly during the war. Before the war, there was talk about the USAF phasing out the A-10. They decided to keep it in Operation after Desert Storm..The only thing that can replace the A-10 is an A-10. I am glad to see they are still flying.
What an inspiring video. I grew up in the centre of the United States Air Force bases in eastern England. We were literally surrounded by runways and planes. There was a lot of speculation that the Gulf war was about to get hot back then. For the residents of sleepy Suffolk villages knew something the media didn’t; it was already hot. An A10 in never before seen desert camouflage paint flew overhead. It had so much live ordinance under the wings you struggled to see any wing.
Me too kesgrave and martlesham I miss them and the occasional Russian bear incursion during 80s cold war ,I'm in Bedfordshire now all i see is easyJet ,they are boring and don't fly low over trees to play sneak attack on isolated buildings
It’s situational awareness In it’s operational days which meant it’s pilot used binoculars to find enemy tanks, low gun accuracy and highest friendly fire rate should be noted
Also highest combat losses
Hi, Lazerpigs alt account 😂
@@MinistryOfWalks wassup
😂
@@lewisw9905 all those pictures of A10's with holes in them is a plane out of the fight
@@lewisw9905 When you go where the most bullets fly you take the most hits.
The A-10 was also used in Search & Rescue missions in both Gulf Wars to provide Suppression of Enemy Forces who were also looking for the air crew. More than one pilot/aircrew member said that they thought they were going to be shot and killed by Iraqi forces, even if they surrendered, with no way out, until they heard a very distinct noise (the A-10's engine).... followed by another distinct noise (the A-10's cannon)
They were also used to deal with enemy IFVs and ground forces during assaults.
Wait no, it was allied IFVs.
@@cerperalpurpose What most people don't know is that the Black Paint used to mark friendly vehicles was a special paint that would show up a certain way when viewed with IR cameras.
I suspect that a few people who couldn't get the right paint, not knowing why this paint was specified used whatever black paint they could find.....
@@timengineman2nd714 You've totally made that up. During Granby friendly forces carried reflective orange plates and A-10s were only allowed to engage when told. This is why the attack on the Warriors led to the pilots being ruined in court, and the later friendly fire instances in Iraq and Afghanistan leading to the withdrawal from major use. Also, the A-10 in '91 had no thermal observation, only NV, and relied on binoculars.
It's a redundant aircraft that caused pointless deaths.
@@cerperalpurpose No I did not!!! The paint was special since they realized that the Iraqis could use black paint on their vehicles and reflective orange panels are easy to get....
@@timengineman2nd714 sorry your just wrong. You can watch the recording of the pilot. He says they have orange panels that look like rocket launchers. Then he engages. Then he gets told he killed friendlies and throws up.
A-10 saved a lot of lives in Afghanistan. Mine included. Amazing low level ability to make some one have a bad day.
There are quite a few beneficial reasons why the A-10 Warthog is so beloved by the masses. However only one really takes the cake for the primary reason behind it’s popularity… the sweet melody of the Avenger going BRRRRRRTTT when bringing judgment down upon its enemies
Or sadly all too often friendlies aswell
In early 80s I was on the steep side of a Welsh mountain on a forestry track, in my Range Rover. I heard a strange noise and turned to look down the valley too see two of these fantastic aircraft very close and pointing straight at me. It was obvious they where using me as a practise target. At the last second they both flipped sideways and dissappeared down the side of the hill. Awesome.
lucky for you they werent on a jolly unlike the poor sods who were shot up by these in the gulf war
Love Emily's enthusiasm while presenting these videos.
When I was a Infantry Jäger in the German Bundeswehr in 84/85, we trained with US-American A-10s. They would attack us again and again, almost inaudible until right over you. I love this aircraft, because in a war against Russia they would have been our own CAS.
In a war against Russia it would have been shot down in seconds.
The A-10 is not useful in contested airspaces.
Same story except I'm British. 1970's to 1990's. Did you or your FAC ever use the laser designator to indicate targets for CAS?
@@gusgone4527 We only were the "hunted" in this maneuvers, so no unfortunately. I always tried to "shoot" them down by laying on my back and emptying my 7.62 G3 magazine into the belly of the plane when it flew over me. With maneuver blanks of course. Not sure if real 7.62 ammo could even work, but it was fun.
In a war with Russia they'd have been entirely useless and all got shot down lol
@@macstone9719 An Iraqi ZSU, I think firing 23mm, scored a couple hits on an A-10. It shortened the port wing by five feet and converted it to a single engined aircraft (the port engine was completely gone). The pilot was able to return to base.
Spitfires are iconic, Tomcats are cool, stealths are sleek. But none look as downright badass as a Warthog. The best looking plane ever made.
A10 is a real badass
I’d say the Mustang or the Thunderbolt are the best looking planes. The A10 probably caries the most infamy and recognizable look because of its unique structure and capability for CAS
My dad flew this gun with wings for 30 of those 50 years, Desert Storm being amongst them. So they definitely have a special place for me.
Getting to sit up with my dad, who I didn’t get to see very much, in its very tiny cockpit in the early ‘90s while he taxied at an air show with thousands watching us is one of my favorite childhood memories.
As to the question posed in this video, I believe one of the biggest reasons is that no other plane or platform for that matter, exerts the sheer joy or the raw fear that the Hog does. The morale of both friend and foe is a critical component of war and the A-10 is a master of both ends of that spectrum; It’s presents on the battlefield is simply unrivaled and it makes boots on the ground either jump for joy or shit a brick. That is why.
Fun side note on the business end of my dads gau-8 Avenger is the Peace sign in the center of the barrel and around it reads _”Peace through Superior Firepower”_ you cannot get a higher level of badassery than that.
Love this ol’ hog. May she forever be upgraded and never put out to pasture.
They used to train around a village I lived in in U.K. I grew up on RAF bases and can tell you that they flew below regulation height (even around the church steeple) and used to herd cows across the fields, so they were not much loved around there.
Lazerpig clan assemble!
"popular" implies that it is used often, which it is not. "famous" would be a better way to describe it
Due to its many blue on blue incidents, infamous is the prefect way to describe it.
@@youngyoughurt There are three kinds of lies:
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
If an aircraft is used almost exclusively for close air support, it will invariably be the platform with the highest friendly fire incidents. In WW2, the F-4U Corsair had the highest friendly fire stats in the Pacific. P-47 highest in Europe. If F-35 replaces the A-10 for CAS, the F-35 will have the highest.
@@slartybarfastb3648 there is also stupidy but whatever stupid is as stupid does.
You can compare any two things but it's good if those two things have most characteristics common. To compare a plane from 1940 with a plane from 1970 is like well like comparing a plane from 1911 to a plane from 1940 it is mostly useless unless you want to focus on the progress.
A10 didn't need to rack up such a monstrous number of friendly fire accidents if it was equipped properly.
BTW, the A-10s with the Shark Teeth painted on belonged the 25th Fighter Group based at Moody AFB in Georgia. This Fighter Group is the inheritor and custodian of the nickname and traditions of the old American Volunteer Group, the original Flying Tigers.
I was stationed at Moody AFB in Georgia. Back then we flew F4Es
The 23rd Fighter Group inherited the AVG's guidon and colors not the 25th.
Then why don’t they use tiger teeth instead.
Long before Moody, the 25th was homed at England Air Force Base, Alexandria, Louisiana. When that base was closed, the 25th was moved. I know, because I was stationed there. It was from EAFB that the A-10s left for Kuwait and the start of Operation Desert Shield (soon to become Operation Desert Storm).
The legacy of the Flying Tigers goes back to China and the days of Chenault's Flying Tigers, (The American Volunteer Group as you mentioned) which were named for Tiger SHARKS - hence, the shark teeth. Over time it became simply "Tiger Teeth".
Interestingly, Chennault himself was from Louisiana. I always thought maybe the 25th was housed at EAFB because of that. Who knows?
Ahh well - R.I.P. EAFB.
@@TheBooban Because the teeth were originally tiger shark teeth when the FLying Tigers were flying over China skies in the 1940s with Chennault. That part of the legacy has often been forgotten. You can read up on it - it was originally tiger shark teeth.
Kim Campbell's jet showed every sign of an encounter with a ZPU-4. Even unguided stuff can get you if there's enough of it. Well handled and a well deserved DFC!
Props for getting shot up I guess?
@@fgoogleinthea7475 props for getting shot up and subsequently making it back alive - and landing safely rather than ejecting, saving the plane in the process.
A plane you can control by means of its balance tabs? That’s survivability by design!
They knew it would have to fly into harm’s way … so they made sure that it would be able to return.
@@KlipsenTube dont wanna hate but you can still get shoot down by manpads that could hide in some terrain in building when you are going back to base also if you are flying low most people can see you the people who cant see you are blind people sorry if i made you angry
@@KlipsenTube there's a reason a 10 don't fly much anymore, flying low and means you are an easy target an a 10 getting shot up means a failed mission and a disabled plane (if it even survives) a10s are not survivable, every other aircraft in service that does cas missions is more survivable than an a10. Let's not forget how the gau8 I'd just dead weight and should be replaced with a 20 mm cannon because it's just as effective at shooting up infanty and light vehicles and much less heavy and expensive.
@@KlipsenTube you know what'd better than getting shoot up and failing a mission?not getting hit and completing the mission
"Why this 50 year old aircraft is still so popular" - because it's never been tested in an environment where its inherent weaknesses can be exploited.
Yet some still managed to be shot down when it was meant to deal with small arms fire
Isn’t that ideal? Why would you send an expensive piece of equipment into an environment where its weaknesses can be exploited? Jesus A10 haters are as brain dead as the fanboys
the true answer? the propaganda of the fighter jet mafia
It’s seen more combat than you ever have !!! Don’t be hatin just because you have been a pathetic loser all your life.
@@Raq and where did you get these facts from??? Exactly, you just made up some sh*t because you know nothing about what the subject is.
While I watched about 7 videos about A10 and I know it isn't as good as hype makes it to be. There's no denying that morale effect it's *BRRRRRRRRRRRTTT* has on both sides is intense.
Glad to hear the proper definition of the term 'close air support' at 2:18, but then it also goes against the title of the video because the F-16 provided far better CAS in both Gulf Wars than the A-10 did - destroying more vehicles and with a much higher survivability rate.
People often misunderstand that CAS means 'being close to the floor' or 'being close to the danger' which, of course, is totally incorrect. For this reason, the only real benefit of the A-10 is the price of it (in terms of cost to fly) and its survivability against small arms - the second of which is only relevant to insurgent combat like Afghanistan.
Oh gee, just what I want when I'm heavily engaged and about to be overrun, an F-16 who makes a single 20mm pass and then has to bingo back to base for more gas.
@@jasoncarswell7458 90% if the a-10's work is done with guided bombs or air to ground missiles, and it if does use it's gun it is as likely to hit your position as it is to hit the enemy.
“Only relevant to insurgent combat...” - so it is VERY relevant as all wars have been and will continue to be against 3rd rate powers.
@@jasoncarswell7458 did you know that the F-16 has more than a 20mm xd.
AGM’s
ATGM’s
Guided Bombs
Dumb bombs
Rockets
The A-10’s best weapon wasn’t the gun, it was the missile, and the fact that it can carry a lot of them.
So unbeatable it scored the lowest ground kills in the Gulf War with the highest loss rate, and so reliable and affordable it's just been replaced by a crop duster.
I've looked at the Gulf War loss tables. Your statement is not true. The F-16 had a higher loss rate. The A-6 Intruder is tied.
As for friendly fire, all of it is speculation. I couldn't find stats. A lot of stories, to be sure.
@@dawnfallon6812 speculation are you on crack, they literally have recordings of it
Never served have you
Sword Monkey
3 months ago
CAS puts the A-10 into situations where it HAS to be offensive very near where friendly troops are. This raises the risk of blue on blue because of the HIGH dependence on an accurate pre-flight briefing or an accurate assessment of enemy position by the forward air operator directing the A-10 into the combat zone. Col. Kim Campbell said during an interview that accurate enemy target information (either through pre-flight briefing or FAO) is VITAL because from the seat of her plane, it's hard to tell the blues from the reds unless a predesignated signal like colored smoke or a flare is used. It's a testament to the A-10, the pilot and the air/ground coordination in general that more blue on blue doesn't occur. The updated A-10 B makes the task of air/ground coordination much easier and more streamlined due to updated systems, data-link info and an updated cockpit.
I'm sure there is a way to find all the pilots that predominately flew THAT A-10, and get thier expressions of knowing you have it, and hear thier stories.
Had an internship at the museum that now sits where the p47 and a10 where built.
It was in the NY facility however.
The A-10 is still popular because, well, look at it. It's totally badass. Outdated, but so is the Spitfire and we still love them too.
With the huge difference that the spitfire has been retried from combat missions and most airforce
Spitfire is popular since it’s pretty, preformed well, and the pilots loved it, an absolute joy to fly.
A-10 is popular because a _certain_ group of people overhype it’s effectiveness, it looks “funny” and is a very unique shape and people are more attracted to big gun than they are to generic missile launcher plane.
If people followed their brains and not their hearts and liked planes based of their statistical performance the A-10 would be hated. (If we applied this logic to other popular vehicles we can see that a lot of the popular vehicles are actually garbage, examples as: every late war German tank and the T-34. Even funnier a lot of vehicles people don’t like as much are pretty good, such as the Sherman. You see criticism that ohh the Sherman death trap blah blah even though it has very high crew survivability especially compared to another much more popular tank like the T-34.)
Thanks for listening to my Ted talk.
*Also very important*
There’s nothing wrong with liking a bad plane, I love the po-2, it’s just when you start associating I love this plane with this plane is good the problems appear.
This was a great video, nice mix of history, nerdy bits, action and people, and the presenter is a pleasure to listen to
I was stationed at RAF Bentwaters from 1983-1986 and supported the A-10. I was in the 81st EMS Squadron. Go AMMO
Have you seen the videos from the UA-camr LazerPig all about the A10? Once I watched those, it seems like all these other A10 videos don't say much, apart from the history of it.
Its still common to overhype the A-10. Big gun go brrrrrrt sells.
Very well presented. My assumption re: the 'Warthog' name is that with the gun, the snout of this plane really digs into the dirt - literally and figuratively - of the task.
Yes I read similar years ago, it said the name Warthog is from the planes mission to figuratively "stick its nose into the dirt" to dig out enemies.
I believe it's nicknamed "Warthog" by flight crew because of how 'ugly' the plane is. I think it looks badass, personally, but many find it ugly. It's official nickname is the "Thunderbolt II" after the P-47 Thunderbolt in WW2, which proved itself a fantastic ground attacked with it's 8x .50 cals, heavy bomb load, immense durability and ability too withstand multiple Flak hits, and stability in a dive whilst attacking units on the ground.
@@PotatoeJoe69 And the P-47 was nicknamed the "Jug" because of its shape. The USAF (and its predecessor the USAAF) has a nasty habit of giving its aircraft names the troops don't like and ignore. B-52 Stratofortress is the BUFF, B-1B Lancer is the Bone, F-16 Fighting Falcon is the Viper, etc.
Born and raised in Felixstowe, Suffolk, England, (Not far from USAF Bentwaters) I regularly saw A10's flying around the coast while I was on the beach fishing. I love 'em!
Fulda Gap is the reason for the A-10.
It's endured because the Infantry LOVES it overhead, and it scares the HELL out of the enemy.
SSG. U.S. Army (Medically Retired) Infantry / Sniper / SOF Intel (SOT-A), multiple tours
As with the Harrier, supersonic speed isn't always the best option. A great plane, and an icon too.
When I was a tech at Kaiser Electronics in 1979 and 1980 testing new and repaired Projection Units (= HUD), the explanation for the nickname "Warthog" was that it referred to the rivets holding its "skin" to the frame, which were not flush with the surface of the skin. Republic Aviation, producer of the P-47 Thunderbolt, was acquired by Fairchild in 1965, hence "Thunderbolt II".
HUD question Pete, was that the time they changed to the large current type?
From early photos like JAWS program, I see a two glass type with the upper pane
smaller and angle cut. I would guess it wasn't as capable either. Also seen the
proposed HUD for N/AW A-10 was similar to the F-15E.
@@goratgo1970, the original combiner was single pane. The next combiner was the 1 + 1/2 pane combiner set you described. By the time I started working production (ca. 1979), the combiner was two full length panes. I did work on repairing some PUs that had the1 + 1/2 pane combiner set. The advantage of a double pane combiner was a wider viewing angle for the pilot. However the optics below the combiner had to be more precise, so as to prevent double-imaging. Before working on the A-10 PU I worked on the F-18 HUD. At the time, Kaiser did not have a display project for the F-15.
I remember when this first came out: thank you for pointing out that that was 50 years ago…..suddenly feel so..very….very…..old.
Take it from me, once you begin saying "back in the day..." Then you KNOW you're old. PEACE ✌️
March 1977
This A-10 is an early production aircraft built in 1977. It served with the 354th Tactical Fighter Wing at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, until 1982 and then with the 45th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Grissom AFB, Indiana until 1992. It spent its last two years as a battle damage repair training aircraft
The F-111 destroyed more armoured vehicles during Desert Storm. Given that the A-10 is known as the "Tank Buster" it is clear that the A-10 has been beat in CAS.
Also ive seen mentions of the Su 25 the soviet equivilent to a slow CAS plane getting easily killed in Ukraine due to the mass pressence of AA and Manpads. Given the nature of the A-10 and its slow speeds and needing to do shallow dives to effectivly use its main cannon it seams that a fast low flying jet like the F-111 would be more suited, it was designed to penitrate Soviet AA to deliver nuclear strikes. From what i have heard pilots of the F-111 only did one pass on their targets and had mottos/sayings for this, i dont quite recall what they were but it was something similar to "turn and burn"
I have no idea why this plane is still in service.
Official reports pointed out that the cannon's performance is atrocious, with any impact of a bullet within 12 meters of the target being designated as an "accurate" shot without it actually having to hit the target, its complete inability to participate in symmetrical warfare, poor ability to participate in asymmetrical warfare, its inability to take out any tanks with its cannon (it was proven that it could only take out permanently 1 in 10 2nd generation tanks it shot at if it would be able to do it fully undisturbed, which is an incredibly unrealistic scenario because no army in the world has 2nd gen tanks anymore) lack of any fof systems in the first decades of its service causing hundreds of friendly fire casualties (the a10 on its own has caused more friendly fire casualties than all friendly fire casualties of all other aircraft in usaf history combined, truly horrific), and structural weakness caused by shooting the cannon.
An absolute atrocious garbage bin of an aircraft only worthy of a black page in the book of air force history, not a legendary status.
If you like the a10 because big gun go brrr, you are a brainless reformer and you should be ashamed of your train of thought.
Saw this plane in person at Duxford. My favourite military plane. Have a toy model of it since I was 8 years old.
As a veteran NCD-er I beg you to let this 60 year old plane that has been the poster boy of the reformer movement to stop being over hyped
I have seen these planes live in action. They are badass!
I really like:
-The name of this museum,
-the A10,
-the quality of these video's.
Thank you!
Some say the aircraft *_"lacks aesthetic appeal"?!_*
*THE A-10 IS BEAUTIFUL!!!!*
If it was up to the USAF, it'd have been retired to the bone yard. No glory for the pilots like a fighter jet.
Best thing to do is give it to the army.
@@grisom5863 undoubtedly, but since it flies it must belong in the Air Force lol.
Also for "friendly fire"
I honestly never met a single groundpounder who LOVED the A-10. Respected, yes, but this aircraft is responsible for a significant percentage of Blue-on-Blue kills. It was not designed for ground attack or close support; it was designed to tear apart lines of tanks coming through the Fulda gap in the inevitable Russian attack.
It very simply has NO advanced sensors or optics; meaning the pilot is flying in mainly working on the word of the men on the ground, who might be under a bit of stress. Many A-10 pilots actually carry a pair of binoculars in the cockpit, the only way to actually look at the situation from any altitude.
Number two is that cannon. It's accuracy is measured in 12-meter increments; meaning that anything that deviates that much in any direction is "on target." That's the length of a bus. Despite being literally the spine of the aircraft, the insane power of this gun makes it a spray and pray weapon; not a precise scalpel. It's missile systems typically are a far better choice. But big gun go BRRRTTTTTT and Pierre Sprey designed it personally (He Did NOT.) So it continues to have friends in the military.
Hmmm…. If only it could be Product Improved with an effective fire control system…. Too bad that’s never been done.
I respect the A-10, however it is horrifically overrated. Lazerpig does a brilliant explanation on why it is.
completely agree with you
Very true recently had the privilege of talking with an A-10 pilot and he said even with upgrades it difficult hit anything smaller than a house using the gun with any degree of accuracy
The A-10 is useful against a low-tech enemy that is far away from civilians and friendlies (the shots often land dozens of meters from the target). However, it obviously can't stand up to a fighter jet or 21st century SAMs.
This is exactly what it's designed for
@@malahammer something that doesn't exist anymore.
@@malahammer uh no, it was designed to destroy tanks with its cannon, something it in practice cant do, now its role is to carry missiles and bombs, but it flies low and slow and requires pilots to use binoculars
@@Helperbot-2000 They literally said in the video it was designed for close air support during Vietnam, while the NVA did have tanks, there were not that many of them, it was not designed to kill tanks. It was designed for CAS against infantry and lightly armored vehicles. Tank killing was an additional capability. Maybe you should stop saying things that do not make sense.
Equip it with modern tec and it will do just fine ! But if that would be a cost effektiv thing to do , well thats a diffent question 🤷♂
Amazing aircraft. I first saw one in the mid 80's at an RAF event. Two aircraft were hedge hoping towards us. Awesome.
I used to watch the A-10 flyers practicing over the Battle Creek, Michigan airfield. Swear to God, they could maneuver like a falling oak leaf. Zip, flutter, dart.
On January '80 I was assigned as a crew chief to the 23 TFW Flying Tigers, 75TFS (Black). Our sister TFS's were the 74th (Blue) and the 76th (Red). We were converting from A-7's to A-10's. Wing Commander: Colonel Michael Dugan. Ray Boy, Rock and Catahoula Kerr, You guys still out there?🤙🤙🤙
For a aircraft that has seen many combat missions, we only get glowing puff pieces with pilots, aircraft designers and supported troops on the ground. I for one, would like for once to hear the enemies opinion of this classic aircraft, like, what is it like to get on the receiving end of the GAU-8? Did the GAU-8 change their lives in any way? Would they recommend the GAU-8 their friends🤔? Are there any suggested improvements, service delivery outcomes/improvements?
I suppose you'd have to find a survivor first.🤔
@@geoffcampbell7846 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 MMM
A-10 warthog really is legendary fighter plane. It well known as flying tank in the air.
Ironically, in a MANPADS-heavy environment, it's as good as tank with ATGMs around.
Wyman Gordon was the one-time parent company for Scaled Composites where I worked at that time. Their capabilities in Titanium forging and investment casting were second to none - they were especially proud of their produciton of the A-10's "Titanium Bathtub."
In the early days it was described as "the only aircraft that gets bird-strikes from behind" and I distinctly remember a cartoon (I think it was by the late, great Chris Wren) of an A-10 having all it's wing pylons loaded with everything, including the kitchen sink, and having a bird strike a fin from behind. I have the cartoon, published in Air International, but I will have to dive into my archives. If anyone else remembers / has the cartoon, please post.
The REAL problem is that unlike in the past, we now have things like Javelins (anti-tank, anti-bunker etc.) and Switchblades (a small drone that can then kamikaze-attack a target) for ground troops to take out the kind of targets that needed close air support in the 1970s-1990s. For bigger jobs, ground troops can laser-designate or give exact coordinates for precision weapons dropped from relative safety by a "bomb truck" at 5000 ft. The A-10 has I think superior range and loiter time, but these can be offset by air-to-air refueling. The A-10 gun and safety features are probably not that important any more.
So the F-16 and F-35 have a plus in that you can fly a squadron in, dog fight to establish air supremacy, THEN bomb truck. And one plane can probably cover a bit bigger area of combat due to higher top speed. The A-10's advantage at this point seems mainly that it can bomb-truck somewhat more cheaply per hour, but that has to be weighed against the need to have an entire second wing of aircraft, with spares, and keep a huge number of crew trained in maintaining and flying it. Given the expense of manpower and logistics, it may really be cheapest, and very comperable, to use F-16s and sometimes F-35s for the bomb truck role.
Oh! We now have our new wonder weapons the v-1 and v2, now we will win the war! AH
The A-10 Served where there was minimal threat to them, despite the small (ish) infrared signature, it has a big radar signature, it's relatively big and slow. these factors mean it would be absolute toast in a full-scale war with any prepared nation. furthermore, modern electronic systems in the A-10 have removed a portion of it's redundancy.
The only good reason why A-10s should be used is against ground targets once air superiority has been gained and the anti-aircraft threat has been neutralised by newer, better aircraft such as F-35s.
The last full-scale conflict against a peer enemy the US faced was a good 70 years ago. Since then, every war the US finds itself in needs something like an A-10. The minute the A-10 gets retired the Army will find itself wanting. Honestly, the A-1 Skyraider, as old and slow and out of date as it is, would've found good use in the last 2 decades had it remained in service.
Yes but that’s not what it’s designed for. All the wars the US have been in since ww2 have been asymmetric when the US has had overwhelming technological advantage. Afghanistan is a perfect example. U don’t neeed a $150 million f-35, which costs 50 grand per flight hour to drop a bomb on a shack in rural Afghanistan. The A-10 costs 10 million per plane, and is half the operating cost. In any case I think the f-35 is a complete waste of money. Even with excellent stealth technology, I still think they’re gonna be massively vulnerable to SAMs. Your seeing in Ukraine how neither side is using aircraft because they’re far to vulnerable to Sams. And yes whilst the f-35 is stealthed so was the f-117 when it was shot down by the Yugoslav army. (With a missile which was designed in the 1950’s)
@@alanb9443 Neither sides in the Ukraine conflict are using stealth aircraft, Ukraine because they don’t have any, and Russia because they only have around 6 functioning SU-57s. Also, the only reason the F-117 was shot down in the Yugoslavia conflict was because they were required to fly the same path on every mission, at the same time, the pilot left the weapons bay doors open too long, and they were facing an EXTREMELY experienced SAM crew. The nighthawks stealth was still effective against a powerful anti-air network, as seen when they flew in circles around Baghdad, undetected even though Iraq has an extremely advanced AA network.
@@batitonio7811 i'm still waiting for them to retrofit a bathtub into an F35
@@jeebus6263
2070
12:07 - The need for the A-10 does not remain. That it's role be filled does.
Durability/survivability combined with effective function will never go out of style.
The old pig(RAAF) F-111 took out more tanks 👍
A-10 fanboys coping and seething
Because it does the job and is the infantary's best friend when they get in a jam 👌
Its just a beast 🔥🔥
you do realize its got higher friendly fire than any other us aircraft right? its literally the infantry's WORST friend. it also has a ridiculous loss rate. it has to fly low and slow and its gun is weak and inaccurate. it was almost replaced by a cropduster
The BRRRRT is a morale boost that's why
For me, it’s the most beautiful plane ever made.
08:40
The Warthog can do a lot but it *cannot fire 4200 rounds per second.*
Edit: perhaps this needs to reviewed.
3900 rps but that is variable, so 4200 is well within the realms of possibility
@@mrtwig2963 LOL 3900 rounds per minute not per second. Get real.
@@georgebarnes8163 Even more real is that rate of fire per minute has no relation at all to reality. It is like looking at a car's speedometer scale and somehow concluding that 0 mph and 120 mph are the only two speed choices available.
If it really could shoot 4200 rounds per second it would literally shred everything in sight. I guess it should be 4200 rounds per minute. That would mean 70 rounds per second. So 10 rounds per barrel per second.
It was a simple mistake. He misspoke and said "per second" instead of "per minute".
Fun Fact about A-10
“BRRRRRRTTTTT”
Thanks for Watching
BRRRRRRTTTTT and a bunch of dead friendlies.
i think this is actually a spectacularly beautiful aircraft.
A-10s are over 50 years old.
B-52s are over 70.
They just don't make them like they used too.
Shame it's not actually all that good huh?
One of my favorites of all-time especially considering its purpose and role as infantry support - it is essentially a post-WW2, 20th century stuka
Need i remind you that the stuka wasn't a great aircraft, it was just the best option out of all of them.
@@bjboss1119 indeed, although the Stuka served its utility almost to perfection during the fall of France campaign (june ‘40) but then months later failed miserably in the skies above England & the channel against superior RAF hurricanes & spitfires
@@R2Manny Though the Stuka redeemed itself as a tank buster when later versions were outfitted with 2 x 37mm guns under the wings. That was the real predecessor of the Warthog :
Play on max volume :
ua-cam.com/video/yMHTzzySe84/v-deo.html
Stuka? More like an Il-2.
Yep, Hans-Ulrich Rudel was even consulted on the development of the A-10. The Army should get their fixed wing ban lifted for CAS aircraft, just like the Marines technically get their fixed wing "air force". It was another thing Rudel talked about in his book about the misuse of unescorted Stukas by the Luftwaffe numerous times during the war and the lack of communication with ground units in the chaos of the eastern front. Heck if the Marines can still use AH-1s, A-10s can be retrofitted to fight a similar role, a hammer is a hammer.
A quick look online show little to almost no cannon tank kills with the a10 like over 10 to 1 amd other planes show a much better tank kill rate then the a10 in the same fights. I think it's more a figure of power.
To quote a five star general in the USAAF who I just happen to know - “They’re like sitting ducks up there!” This was in response to my son’s comment about how cool the hogs are.
The presenter did an excellent job. There was no vocal fry, and she enunciated all of her words clearly. The Americans could learn a thing or two, or three from her.
Agreed 👍
It's a shame this video didn't explore how controversial the A-10 is.
*laughs in highest friendly fire casualty rates of any US aircraft
Absolutely stunning aircraft
No. 1 for Close Air Support
No. 1 for friendly fire incidents.
Thank you for illustrating its performance during the Gulf War in 1991. On the one hand, the A10 is a phenomenal close support air craft. On the other hand, it surprisingly under performed in comparison to the F111 in air-on-tank attacks. However, many Iraqi tanks that were destroyed by the F111 were done before the their units and formations were anywhere close to the battlefield. Whereas the A10 was able to effectively destroy targets and tanks during ground battles in a close air support role. In the thirty years since the Gulf War, it is still a valid question if the A10 is necessary. Does the US Army possess enough weapons and systems to destroy enemy targets on the battlefield without the A10? Is the A10 really needed to attack targets in a none close air support role? I wish the documentary could have added a little bit more about why the USAF thinks so.
The only military aircraft I've ever seen flying over me not during an air show, it's quite disconcerting seeing a couple A-10 fly over a store parking lot in the middle of the day 😶
There is a certain understanding and love within the A-10 community for our beloved Hawgs. RAF Bentwaters and Woodbridge are 2 bases I wish the USAF had kept open because I would've loved to work on A-10's in England.
My boss was in the army, and ive talked to a couple who were also "ground ponders" and they all say they really liked the A-10.
Emily you are a treasure keeping history alive thank you God Bless
The A-10's cannon isn't terribly effective against modern tanks which leaves it as a rather slow aircraft which can damage softer targets and can attack tanks in ways other more survivable aircraft could also do. Back in the Gulf War the biggest tank killer was the F-111 plinking tanks with PGMs. The A-10's problem is that it doesn't have a niche. In contested environments, it's too vulnerable. In non-contested environments, drones are cheaper and, if you want something manned, a SuperTucano would be cheaper to operate.
It's a flying tank for the pilot and built to fly with half a wing. They are not too vulnerable. A SuperTucano would be shot to shred in a second and doesn't have the massive gun the A-10 has. Intimidation is a factor of war and getting shot at by that thing, will send most people running.
" In contested environments, it's too vulnerable" -- I have seen this statement made in many places. What proof is there?
@@londomolari5715 Gulf War 1 where A-10s flying at low level were shot down and damaged beyond repair, being moved away from the front line to less threatening areas as a result.
@@londomolari5715 There isn't any. It was designed to dominate contested airspace, or at least survive flying through it to give ground troops support. If it was as flimsy as Bacon makes it out to be, it would never have made it out of the concept stage.
Bacon seems to have a love for papermaché Brazilian turboprop planes that are nothing like the A-10, but more a stunt plane with guns.
@@Yvolve An armoured bathtub doesn't mean an aircraft can remain operational if it's hit by a missile. The Gulf War demonstrates this. Multiple A-10s were shot-down or written off for damage due to being hit with MANPADS or SAMs. The A-10s ended up being restricted to flying within a few tens of miles of the border because they were particularly vulnerable.
The Gulf War was incredibly one-sided. The US military was phenomenal. Russia wishes they could conduct the kind of SEAD the US implemented in that war. But the A-10 is slow and flies low and so is vulnerable to smaller IR-guided weapons, including MANPADS. The best defense against being hit by these systems is not being detected by them and the next best not being hit by them. The A-10 falls down here.
And that's the problem. In environments were enemies have a decent proliferation of MANPADS and anti-air weapons made in the past 40 years, the A-10 is going to be very vulnerable. In environments where it's just insurgents with small arms, why not use something cheaper?
Wonderful aircraft.. :) Was a joy to see in Duxford.. Alongside its older sister.. ^^
I still remember the news footage of an A-10 shooting-up a Serbian radio station during the 1999 Kosovo conflict. That GAU-8 30mm cannon was awesome.
The A-10 is still serving for one reason oly - its STIL THE BEST and most effective ground attack aircraft in the sky today!! QED!! LOVE the A-10
😉👍
When analysing the entire lifespan of the A-10, it has the most loss rates, and most hit aircraft in the entire USAF inventory.
Meme all you want, but the data does not lie.
And looking at data like that uncritically is basically the same as survivorship bias. Dont be an idiot, use your brain for half a second and realize the a10 video you watched with a drunk pig was clearly made by a biased guy with an axe to grind... it was moreso about pierre sprey and the reformers than it was about the a10 and its service record. Cite friendly fire all you want, the numbers prove its statistically irrelevant and relegated almost purely to earlier models pre-modernization.
That’s a straight up lie.
@@user-ev4pb9xj7e prove it.
@@user-ev4pb9xj7e
Lack of Sensors:
A-10 warplane tops list for friendly-fire deaths
By Tom Vanden Brook, Air Force Times.
Pierre Sprey did not design the A-10, Alexander Kartveli did.
Source for mission statistics for the A-10's high rates of being incapacitated or suffering mission kill:
1993 - Gulf War Air Power Survey, Volume IV, Weapons, Tactics, and Training
Page 80.
Because commands didn’t commincate
Sitting in my Scimitar IFV, I sure do hope we cross the desert safely
If you know how to read a map
I was training on Eglin AFB in Fl when I joined a group that was going out to see the A-10s. Hearing that brrrtt was caf, seeing it was even better!
It may not be a beautiful aircraft but it’s one of the coolest looking aircraft ever made.
All the footage of the gun shooting shows almost no bullets hit their target. It surely is a great moral boost but for actually destroying anything, missiles are orders of magnitude better than that gun. Not to mention all the friendly fire this plane has done and british forces banning it's use near their forces because of that.
You obviously have not seen ALL the footage for I have seen many where it has riddled vehicles with gunfire.
@@stischer47 pity that they were freindlys
@@stischer47 you do realize not only is the cannon inaccurate, pretty much all footage is under completely ideal situations...
Yeah, sad to realise, but the a-10 is now completely outdated, a modern plane would do so much better in pretty much any situations
The gun shreds infantry... which is what it is mainly used for these days. The dispersion rate aids in this. You cant really lock up infantry with a missile...
All the friendly fire? How much? Lets see your numbers... oh, you dont have any? You never looked? You mean, youre basing this off of one youtube video and taking his word as gospel? A self admitted drunkard? You cant be serious...
In general good video, but i would have liked a mention of Alexander Kartveli and a segment about its blue on blue incidents(wich were quite frequent).
Due to poor communication between commands
One of the most over-hyped pieces of military equipment in history
I built a model; A10 as a kid, then whilst sat in my great Grans house with views across the air field, , a A10 screeched over head taking off from RAF Manston in Kent. must have been 1982/3 ish
It's still serving after 50 years because it's a terrifying beast.