One thing I also noted was the complete emphasis on main battle tanks and none on other armored (and unarmored) vehicles. The 30x173 destroys any kind of APC, IFV, or command vehicle. Further, it is not ineffective against main battle tanks, just not perfectly effective. Is there a law that MBTs have to be engaged from the front?
The problem with the gun is that you have to get so close/ low to the target to destroy it. Against forces that do not have manpads and other short range or defense systems, you could get away with this. If the Taliban and the Iraqi guerillas had been equipped with Manpads the A-10 would have been pushed off. Remember, We helped the Taliban screw the Russian helicopters with Stngers, and then spent yours scrambling to get all the stingers back so they wouldn’t do it to us in the next war.
www.aerotime.aero
Is the Aardvark retired now also?The problem with the gun is that you have to get so close/ low to the target to destroy it. Against forces that do not have manpads and other short range or defense systems, you could get away with this. If the Taliban and the Iraqi guerillas had been equipped with Manpads the A-10 would have been pushed off. Remember, We helped the Taliban screw the Russian helicopters with Stngers, and then spent yours scrambling to get all the stingers back so they wouldn’t do it to us in the next war.
An army that’s employing MBT’s, infantry fighting vehicles, trucks, and all the rest are also likely equipped with short range air defense, which forces the A-10 And any other low slow aircraft, to stand way back and use smart missiles … which are also used by every other fast-moving aircraft.
Even during the first Gulf War the A-10 was generally restricted from flying below 10,000 feet because of the anti-aircraft threat. One of my fellow ROTC graduates flew the A-10 during that war, and he seemed to fly mostly night missions with two Maverick missiles. That meant he got two shots and he was done for the night. The A-10 of the era had very little in the way of electronics, just the Maverick system. The pilots had to use the seeker head of the Maverick to find targets (tanks) on the ground, and as soon as they launch the missile, they went blind, so then they switch to the other missile to hunt for more targets, and when that one was gone, they went home. They could use dumb bombs in daytime, but they were not the most accurate. He got into some closer range stuff at Khafji, but that was about it. The number one tank killer aircraft of the Gulf War was the F111, a supersonic strike aircraft, because it had superior targeting system, ECM … and with PGMs and speed could stand off from ground fire.
The A-10 has been considerably upgraded since the first Gulf War but the PGM systems added also exist on the fast movers, and it’s still all about letting the A-10 stand back away from the ground fire threat.
For those situations where the ground fire/manpad threat is low, and a slow, moving long loiter aircraft with a gun and bombs is useful, the A-10 Is over engineered, with its relatively inefficient jet engines, more armor than is required, and a relatively short loiter time. Hence the armed Air Tractor as a purposebuilt CAS aircraft.
USSOCOM selects Air Tractor-based light combat aircraft for Armed Overwatch - AeroTime
The AT-802U Sky Warden has been selected by the United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) for its Armed Overwatch program. The initial $170 million contract will see the delivery of up to 75 aircraft, which will begin in 2023. The aircraft are intended to be used for counter-insurgency...
I think so.
That was a great plane for its time.
Well, I never had to deal with it, but when I was in I heard many derogatory things.
They were very impressive flying low over head. IIRC weren't they a fighter/bomber.Well, I never had to deal with it, but when I was in I heard many derogatory things.
Course, that may have been a Navy Army rivalry thing.
www.forbes.com
Thanks that was a good read.This is some of the stuff I heard about, mainly that because they wanted it to do everything, it did to everything not very well. And yet was VERY expensive.
But, because of it's failures, other paths were pursued that were successful.
The F-111 Was The ‘F-35 Of Its Day,’ But Its Failure Was A Boon To U.S. Air Power
When a warplane monopoly shatters, it can seed a bunch of successful efforts to replace it. That’s what happened in the 1960s with the F-111. What are the chances it will happen now that the AIr Force is discussing developing a new, affordable lightweight fighter?
If you want info on another swing wing, look up Ward Carroll on YouTube.
The thread is a bit specific, limited to a 10 fans/enemies, and we stay mostly on topic.
Will do.
Well I for one am a fan. Flying the osprey had us flyers wishing we were flying something as insanely cool as the a10. In our corner of the world the a10 was very much appreciated and looked up to.
