View Full Version : The A-10 warthog
Bitter Clinger
12-06-2014, 11:49
Your welcome
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YktOuoqA-I#t=411
Very cool but a bit much on fuzz outs. Always loved that plane.
Too much blurred-out, kinda ruins it.
kidicarus13
12-06-2014, 12:27
A-10 fighting ISIS
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/a10-warthog-isis/
A-10 Thunderbolt II is one of my favorite combat aircraft. I don't think there's anything better for ground attack and close air support.
http://youtu.be/zpaUzVUxEA4
Nothing quite like designing a gun, then building a plane around it...
Definitely one of my favorites
A-10 Thunderbolt II is one of my favorite combat aircraft. I don't think there's anything better for ground attack and close air support.
http://youtu.be/zpaUzVUxEA4
Thanks for the vid. Watched it while in bed. Good stuff!
Aloha_Shooter
12-07-2014, 10:50
May be apocryphal but I remember a story from the 80s where a reserve colonel in an A-10 took on a F-15 in air-to-air and won -- cocky young pilot in his Eagle hadn't reckoned on the Warthog's ability to turn. It's an amazing airframe; what we need is a real replacement that builds on its strengths, not trying to substitute a regular jet for its role. I thought the AF was ridiculous when they tried to retire it in the 90s and claimed they could use F-16s to do the CAS/TAS job. Also, takes real cojones to volunteer for a job whose estimated lifespan was 10 minutes in combat under a Fulda Gap scenario.
Excellent video, and it's 17 years old! Personally, I think the A-10 should only be replaced with NEW and improved A-10's! They should be put back into production, they definitely fill a niche role and do it better than anything else ever could.
The original airframes were suffering stress fractures. There was a program to reinforce the airframes that was referred to as "Hogging Up". The planes can be around for a while.
If you want to talk about aged aircraft still used in the inventory, the B-52 is probably unmatched. It was introduced in 1952 and is still in use, expected to be in service until 2045.
http://youtu.be/MxqNYeiyvHA
I don't have one of those in my garage. [Coffee]
May be apocryphal but I remember a story from the 80s where a reserve colonel in an A-10 took on a F-15 in air-to-air and won -- cocky young pilot in his Eagle hadn't reckoned on the Warthog's ability to turn. It's an amazing airframe; what we need is a real replacement that builds on its strengths, not trying to substitute a regular jet for its role. I thought the AF was ridiculous when they tried to retire it in the 90s and claimed they could use F-16s to do the CAS/TAS job. Also, takes real cojones to volunteer for a job whose estimated lifespan was 10 minutes in combat under a Fulda Gap scenario.
That was the A-16 program. It failed due to the 30 cal cannons heat burning up the jet. The heat was literally too much for the airframe to take. A-10's are taught to circle when engaged there by allowing them to use a tap of the rudder and their cannon to ward off attackers. The same technique was utilized by the N Vietnamese when attacked by groups of US fighters. An A-10 beating an Eagle in Air to Air would probably warrant a new call sign for the Eagle Driver.....also desk duty. The fundamental design of the A-10's wing is to fly slow and and turn tight....its square.
A-16 - was that an F-16 with the GAU-8 gun mounted in a belly pod? I remember hearing about those, but never heard any more since. When I moved to Syracuse in 1987 the NYANG Boys From Syracuse flew A-10's, saw them over central NY frequently. But then they changed to F-16's, that's when I heard about the tankbuster version coming about, but never saw one.
A-16 - was that an F-16 with the GAU-8 gun mounted in a belly pod? I remember hearing about those, but never heard any more since. When I moved to Syracuse in 1987 the NYANG Boys From Syracuse flew A-10's, saw them over central NY frequently. But then they changed to F-16's, that's when I heard about the tankbuster version coming about, but never saw one.
I believe it was an internal 30mm cannon. The Airforce was desperate to get rid of the A-10's and they came up with this idea. It just wasn't structurally sound and was burning up the a/c internals. If it had worked there's a good chance the A-10 would be in the desert now given the time frame of the program.
Aloha_Shooter
12-07-2014, 21:56
I believe it was an internal 30mm cannon. The Airforce was desperate to get rid of the A-10's and they came up with this idea. It just wasn't structurally sound and was burning up the a/c internals. If it had worked there's a good chance the A-10 would be in the desert now given the time frame of the program.
Scuttlebutt I heard was the AF was desperate up until the Army said if we didn't want them, they'd take the Warthogs and put some NCOs in them ...
Frankly, I considered the A-16 proposal to be embarrassing as it showed the AF wasn't serious about CAS/TAS (just as our Army brethren alleged). The F-16 airframe doesn't do low-and-slow very well and I tend to doubt it would have the battlefield durability the A-10 has proven.
Scuttlebutt I heard was the AF was desperate up until the Army said if we didn't want them, they'd take the Warthogs and put some NCOs in them ...
Frankly, I considered the A-16 proposal to be embarrassing as it showed the AF wasn't serious about CAS/TAS (just as our Army brethren alleged). The F-16 airframe doesn't do low-and-slow very well and I tend to doubt it would have the battlefield durability the A-10 has proven.
From what I here that did happen. I've even met some Army Aviators who claimed to be in the pipeline for the A-10 at one point. The Viper is a great platform but it's not built for low and slow. Your spot on with the A-10 being designed for the Fulda Gap. It's sole purpose was to destroy tanks and be expendable. For the life of me I can't figure out why the AF can't think more dynamically and realize that "We already have that aircraft" rather than building another one. Part of me thinks that the SU-25 getting shot down like Pheasants in a ditch ( Ukraine, Chechnya ) is playing into this. They want to fight a war that doesn't exsist ( for us) with stealth and speed. For the time being, we're gonna keep 260 I think.
clublights
12-08-2014, 01:32
The A-16 30mm gun was belly mounted... 4 barreled and vibrated the aircraft so badly it was completely inaccurate and would likely shake the airframe to pieces.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article18.html
The A-16 30mm gun was belly mounted... 4 barreled and vibrated the aircraft so badly it was completely inaccurate and would likely shake the airframe to pieces.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article18.html
There were blocks of the F/A-16 that did use the Pave Claw Pod (GAU-13) but the main program focused blocks had the main gun internalized on the left side. "This project failed because the 30 mm gun would heat up and senge( I think they meant singe) the inner components of the left fuselage". The cannon was mounted on the inner left side of the aircraft. Trust me on this one. There was more than just one program involving the F-16 to replace the A-10. Several concepts were tried out on the Viper, including the Gau-13 cannon on a pod which was actually deployed and was a miserable failure. It was akin to the make shift Suu-23 pod on the F-4 (which was more successful ) they used during Vietnam. The more dedicated version was not meant to use a pod 53417. Notice the cannon on the left side. In my opinion the A-7 would've been a better option for a problem that didn't exsist. The Air Force Brass has not or ever will love the A-10. Their latest threat is that their won't be enought mechanics to maintain to main the A-10 and F-35 fleets. One way or another they'll probaby get their way one day. A good buddy of mine at work, Former Marine Hornet driver, current A-10 Guard driver said it the best " No better way to kill a 19th century terrorist than with a 19th century airplane". I think that was meant as a compliment.
and yes I am a nerd with airplanes.
Aloha_Shooter
12-08-2014, 10:37
For the life of me I can't figure out why the AF can't think more dynamically and realize that "We already have that aircraft" rather than building another one.
There is still a segment of the AF that thinks everything needs to be a sexy jet or the pilots won't get laid. [facepalm]
Funny because I think the only AF jobs more macho than what the A-10 drivers do are PJs (not an officer job) and the kind of unarmed spotting the OV-10s used to do. All three jobs take/took some huge brass cojones. At the end of the day, you're right, the AF brass who hate the Warthog will eventually get their wish if for no other reason than the inability to sustain the platform long-term.
OTOH, the Warthog job is precisely what I had in mind in SOS when I said some of our aerial jobs could be done without placing pilots' lives at risk (yeah, I was very unpopular with most of the flyers although there was one Eagle driver who was intrigued). One "out of the box thinker" in our last seminar in the Blue Bedroom grabbed the mike in response to my question and said that was an engineers' wet dream (much hooting by the flyers who were awake). 4 years later, it was official doctrine in AF Vision 2025 ... [facepalm]
There is still a segment of the AF that thinks everything needs to be a sexy jet or the pilots won't get laid. [facepalm]
Funny because I think the only AF jobs more macho than what the A-10 drivers do are PJs (not an officer job) and the kind of unarmed spotting the OV-10s used to do. All three jobs take/took some huge brass cojones. At the end of the day, you're right, the AF brass who hate the Warthog will eventually get their wish if for no other reason than the inability to sustain the platform long-term.
OTOH, the Warthog job is precisely what I had in mind in SOS when I said some of our aerial jobs could be done without placing pilots' lives at risk (yeah, I was very unpopular with most of the flyers although there was one Eagle driver who was intrigued). One "out of the box thinker" in our last seminar in the Blue Bedroom grabbed the mike in response to my question and said that was an engineers' wet dream (much hooting by the flyers who were awake). 4 years later, it was official doctrine in AF Vision 2025 ... [facepalm]
Lucky enough to have cousin who is one [Para] He is worn out though...apparently they are very short in terms of numbers. I know guys who did Iraq deployments in the A-10 and spent the their searching for IED setups. It seems a drone woulda been more purposely suited.
clublights
12-08-2014, 16:58
53417. Notice the cannon on the left side.
You mean the standard cannon port of EVERY F-16 made ??
53445
I grew up an Air Force brat ..... Near Nellis And Hill AFB's ... I kinda have been studying fighters since I was old enough to hold the books in my own hands...
I hope he meant 20th century airplane...
Sent from my electronic leash.
You mean the standard cannon port of EVERY F-16 made ??
53445
I grew up an Air Force brat ..... Near Nellis And Hill AFB's ... I kinda have been studying fighters since I was old enough to hold the books in my own hands...
Yes, that is the same gun port that is on every F-16 ever made....but it was a different gun, a 30mm cannon as apposed to the standard 20mm Vulcan. The belly prodded GAU's were deployed on over 20 aircraft and encountered severe stability problems. They flew missions in Desert Storm. The ( block 16's I believe ) A-16 test production variant only had 2 models created before it was scratched, both were based at Shaw. Like I said earlier, there wasn't just "one" variation. The production included a strengthened wing structure along with the 30mm cannon. There was only one dedicated production model. The heat from the 30mm burned the aircraft "internals". That is why it was stopped. We probably have a lot in common if your into fighter/fighter history.
I hope he meant 20th century airplane...
Sent from my electronic leash.
No....he said 19 century sarcastically. I think he didn't care for it compared to the Hornet.
clublights
12-08-2014, 19:45
No....he said 19 century sarcastically. I think he didn't care for it compared to the Hornet.
Well thats simply because the Bug is better then the Viper
Tho Viper Drivers make better bands ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=335GdTqtyLs
Well thats simply because the Bug is better then the Viper
Tho Viper Drivers make better bands ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=335GdTqtyLs
"Wish I had gas just like a mud hen ".......Love it.
Congress authorizes $577 billion in U.S. defense spending (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/congress-authorizes-dollar577-billion-in-us-defense-spending/ar-BBgIi3z?ocid=ansnewsreu11)
The measure bars retirement of the A-10 Warthog close air support plane, beloved by ground troops because of its ability to fly low and destroy enemy tanks. The Air Force wants to retire the fleet to cut costs and retrain maintenance personnel to work on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
clublights
12-13-2014, 01:08
Too bad the congress critters baring of retirement of the A-10 has nothing to do with protecting troops as much as it has to do with keeping money flowing in home districts.
Aloha_Shooter
12-13-2014, 07:09
Too bad the congress critters baring of retirement of the A-10 has nothing to do with protecting troops as much as it has to do with keeping money flowing in home districts.
Mmmm ... where are you getting this from? It's not like the A-10 is being produced anymore.
The A-10 is better suited to CAS to protect our guys on the ground. The F-35 on the other hand has been a tremendous waste of money.
speedysst
12-13-2014, 09:48
Maybe we could just buy the Chinese copy of the F-35. I mean, they stole the plans and we know it flies since they did a demonstration when Obama was there.
clublights
12-13-2014, 16:05
Mmmm ... where are you getting this from? It's not like the A-10 is being produced anymore.
A-10 bases are not F-35 bases .... so if the airmen move to F-35 bases for training there will not be personnel and the money they spend at the former A-10 bases .
Aloha_Shooter
12-13-2014, 16:35
A-10 bases are not F-35 bases .... so if the airmen move to F-35 bases for training there will not be personnel and the money they spend at the former A-10 bases .
That's so thin I could use it for a window. When we roll out new aircraft to replace existing aircraft with the same mission, the new aircraft go to existing units while the personnel are upgraded to the new platforms.
I understand the desire to be skeptical of Congress but sometimes they really are interested in things like preserving capabilities that work.
clublights
12-13-2014, 17:24
That's so thin I could use it for a window. When we roll out new aircraft to replace existing aircraft with the same mission, the new aircraft go to existing units while the personnel are upgraded to the new platforms.
I understand the desire to be skeptical of Congress but sometimes they really are interested in things like preserving capabilities that work.
Except it is not thin in the slightest ..
Current A-10 Bases:
Davis Monthan
Moody
splattering of ANG's
First 3 F-35 bases :
Hill
Eglin
Burlington .
Davis Monthan
If you don't think politics plays into that you don't remember the BRAC of the 90's that had nothing to do with saving the pentagon money and everything to do with keeping bases open in home districts.
blackford76
12-13-2014, 17:30
so...decide it by a head to head competition, 2 A-10s vs 3 F-35s, UNDER 1500 feet. Then the A-10 can be put back into production because there will never be an equal to the Hog in CAS.
I read they are going to try an A-10 for weather/storm chasing. Probably a good platform and ready to take a beating.. http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//monthly_06_2014/post-151929-0-48210700-1402848012.jpg
so...decide it by a head to head competition, 2 A-10s vs 3 F-35s, UNDER 1500 feet. Then the A-10 can be put back into production because there will never be an equal to the Hog in CAS.
The A-10 would smash everything in sight, the F-35 would turn the lights out and shut down enemy defenses. I can say this, there is no way they will reopen the A-10 line. Most of the airframe tooling probably doesn't exsist anymore. The airplane will unfortunately be retired eventually. The airplane is extremely effective against a third world nation but wouldn't last long against someone with modern air defenses. The Sniper and LITENING pod brought it about as far as it can go. The AF wants to move in the direction of Cyber fighting with up linked data. The A-10 doesn't fit that role. Sad, but it's been a tried and true warrior.
jerrymrc
12-13-2014, 21:31
The A-10 would smash everything in sight, the F-35 would turn the lights out and shut down enemy defenses. I can say this, there is no way they will reopen the A-10 line. Most of the airframe tooling probably doesn't exsist anymore. The airplane will unfortunately be retired eventually. The airplane is extremely effective against a third world nation but wouldn't last long against someone with modern air defenses. The Sniper and LITENING pod brought it about as far as it can go. The AF wants to move in the direction of Cyber fighting with up linked data. The A-10 doesn't fit that role. Sad, but it's been a tried and true warrior.
And as sad to say I agree. The biggest thing in my mind is that nothing strikes fear into the enemy and nothing other than the A-10 boosts morale to the troops on the ground. I see us fighting the third world threat for a long time.
Just the sound of one brings big smiles to troops on the ground. It is just one of those intangibles that is understood by many but they do not make the case. The biggest point that a few had the balls to say it was when the Army said "if you don't want it we will take it" years ago. Some forget that it used to be the "Army air corps"
Just thought from an old guy that loves the A-10.[Flower]
blackford76
12-13-2014, 23:46
The A-10 is one of the very few machines that has a soul. I am still on this Earth because of the A-10, and the incredible men who drive them.
Sharpienads
12-14-2014, 11:19
The A-10 is better suited to CAS to protect our guys on the ground. The F-35 on the other hand has been a tremendous waste of money.
[pick-me]But, but, it carries less than 200 rounds of who gives a f*ck if you only have 200 rounds. That's about a second pull of the trigger. Using the F-35 for CAS is dumb.
The A-10 would smash everything in sight, the F-35 would turn the lights out and shut down enemy defenses. I can say this, there is no way they will reopen the A-10 line. Most of the airframe tooling probably doesn't exsist anymore. The airplane will unfortunately be retired eventually. The airplane is extremely effective against a third world nation but wouldn't last long against someone with modern air defenses. The Sniper and LITENING pod brought it about as far as it can go. The AF wants to move in the direction of Cyber fighting with up linked data. The A-10 doesn't fit that role. Sad, but it's been a tried and true warrior.
You are unfortunately mostly right, I think the A-10 has gone about as far as it will go. But it is one very capable platform. However, one of the keys for effective CAS is air superiority, so the whole "doesn't do well" against modern air defenses isn't really an argument. It doesn't do well against a lot of stuff, old and new, but that's why we SEAD, DEAD, EA/EW, OCA, DCA, etc. That applies for any air frame that's doing a CAS role. The F-35 is going to lose it's stealth capability as soon as they strap a bomb on the outside of it, which is why they never will, which is why it sucks for CAS. That and because it only carries 185 rounds and because the type of people who fly the F-35 don't generally think of CAS as sexy. You (maybe not you specifically, but people in general) would be surprised how many decisions in the AF are based on what a douche bag fighter pilot thinks is sexy and what isn't.
Obviously, I don't want the A-10 to go away. From a controller standpoint, there's usually nothing better.
Singlestack
12-14-2014, 13:26
Part of me wishes the Army would take over the CAS role for themselves again, and increase the Army budget and cut the AF budgets accordingly. Let the Af handle the traditional air superiority, nuke, and transport roles. I have a feeling if the A-10 were an Army platform, it wouldn't be going away anytime soon.
How long can an F-35 loiter over a combat area?
jerrymrc
12-14-2014, 15:25
How long can an F-35 loiter over a combat area?
Compared to the F-35A, which has a range of about 1,200 nautical miles (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35a-ctol-variant.html), the A-10 out flies its potential successor by about twice the distance, reaching a distance of 2,240nm (http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104490/a-10-thunderbolt-ii.aspx). That additional range allows the A-10 to loiter above areas of battlefield activity further from its takeoff origin without the need to refuel.
[pick-me]But, but, it carries less than 200 rounds of who gives a f*ck if you only have 200 rounds. That's about a second pull of the trigger. Using the F-35 for CAS is dumb.
You are unfortunately mostly right, I think the A-10 has gone about as far as it will go. But it is one very capable platform. However, one of the keys for effective CAS is air superiority, so the whole "doesn't do well" against modern air defenses isn't really an argument. It doesn't do well against a lot of stuff, old and new, but that's why we SEAD, DEAD, EA/EW, OCA, DCA, etc. That applies for any air frame that's doing a CAS role. The F-35 is going to lose it's stealth capability as soon as they strap a bomb on the outside of it, which is why they never will, which is why it sucks for CAS. That and because it only carries 185 rounds and because the type of people who fly the F-35 don't generally think of CAS as sexy. You (maybe not you specifically, but people in general) would be surprised how many decisions in the AF are based on what a douche bag fighter pilot thinks is sexy and what isn't.
Obviously, I don't want the A-10 to go away. From a controller standpoint, there's usually nothing better.
I was referring more to light weight, battlefield born AA platforms like the Stella. The pro-Russian separatists in the Ukraine have proved this time and time again against the Ukranian Airforce. ISIS has our own Singers now for god sakes and has whipped quite a few Iraqi aircraft. Modern Air defenses are just too good...just ask the SU-25. That removes a lot of the flexibility we've had in Iraq and Afganistan where the "Hog" operated with impunity. I agree with you. We operate under a separate doctrine of Air Supremacy. Taking on a SEAD mission would have to be primary in any case. I think the AF should've grabbed some Growlers, it's an excellent platform for suppressing enemy air defenses and "shutting things down". Don't get wrong. I absolutely love this jet .....it's probably my favorite aircraft. It has such a menacing beauty and that straight wing just looks like it can turn on a dime. I think the F-35 program makes the Osprey seem like a good deal. In Stealth mode carrying 2X-2000lbs is a little underwhelming. I can't stand the fact that they continued this program when they knew the flyaway cost was skyrocketing in 2010. It's a technological marvel when it comes to the "magic", but it's not great at anything combat wise other than its electronic capability. Imagine if we actually upgraded our Vipers to Block 61's ( the UAE actually has better Vipers than us....much better ) or the F-16V's with the AESA radar which is a game changer for that plane. It would've been way cheaper and we could've not made compromises with one airframe. We could've replaced our 30-40 year old Eagle fleet with F-15k's or the " F-15SE Silent Eagles". Sorry for the long rant....I'm a bit of Aviation junky. You'd think I get enough at work.
A-10 pilot with damaged aircraft.53695
A-10 pilot with damaged aircraft.53695
She earned he name "Killer Chick" after this
HoneyBadger
12-14-2014, 21:39
I think a lot of people don't understand and/or underestimate the electronic warfare package on the F-35. The A-10 is an awesome plane... it's why I joined the AF. But as our combat roles are changing, the F-35 offers some very powerful and unique advantages.... At a price that is borderline blasphemous.
clublights
12-15-2014, 05:29
I think a lot of people don't understand and/or underestimate the electronic warfare package on the F-35. The A-10 is an awesome plane... it's why I joined the AF. But as our combat roles are changing, the F-35 offers some very powerful and unique advantages.... At a price that is borderline blasphemous.
oh I get all the whiz bang of the electronics package of the F-35 and while it will be amazing it don't mean jack against a Haji with a DShK that an A-10 would shake off and not only make it home just fine but likely continue the mission long after the F-35 is limping home.
clublights
12-15-2014, 05:36
Whoops double post some how ....
Part of me wishes the Army would take over the CAS role for themselves again, and increase the Army budget and cut the AF budgets accordingly. Let the Af handle the traditional air superiority, nuke, and transport roles. I have a feeling if the A-10 were an Army platform, it wouldn't be going away anytime soon.
That would be cool but almost impossible due to the Key West Agreements of '48 and '54 prohibiting Army fixed wing combat aircraft from doing anything but Surveillance and med evacuation. Essentially...no bombs.
Once at risk of extinction, iconic Warthog plane lives on (http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/once-at-risk-of-extinction-iconic-warthog-plane-lives-on/ar-BBByuhe)
Once on the brink of forced retirement, the A-10 attack plane with the ungainly shape and odd nickname has been given new life, spared by Air Force leaders who have reversed the Obama administration's view of the plane as an unaffordable extra in what had been a time of tight budgets.
In the 2018 Pentagon budget plan sent to Congress this week, the Air Force proposed to keep all 283 A-10s flying for the foreseeable future.
Three years ago, the Pentagon proposed scrapping the fleet for what it estimated would be $3.5 billion in savings over five years. Congress said no.
The following year, the military tried again but said the retirement would not be final until 2019. Congress again said no.
Last year, officials backed away a bit further, indicating retirement was still the best option but that it could be put off until 2022.
Now the retirement push is over, and the Warthog's future appears secure.
"The world has changed," said Maj. Gen. James F. Martin Jr., the Air Force budget deputy, in explaining decisions to keep aircraft once deemed expendable.
To Bear Arms
05-26-2017, 20:35
One of my favorite airplanes!
70731
70732
68Charger
06-08-2017, 18:20
happened upon this vid by accident.. this airframe never ceases to amaze...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7JM82fa5ZY
Once at risk of extinction, iconic Warthog plane lives on (http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/once-at-risk-of-extinction-iconic-warthog-plane-lives-on/ar-BBByuhe)
Good.
https://youtu.be/7VzXN4Ohwro
Anyone remember a news story, back during the Clinton administration, of BATF getting about a dozen A-10 Warthogs? It was mentioned in the news for a few weeks then never spoken of again... and Google can find no reference to that story.
To Bear Arms
10-21-2022, 20:54
I don't remember that, but NCAR up in Broomfield field has a decommissioned one that they have been outfitting for "atmospheric" research for the last couple years.
I don't remember that, but NCAR up in Broomfield field has a decommissioned one that they have been outfitting for "atmospheric" research for the last couple years.
Awesome. Low level chemtrails!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.