Posted on 02/07/2017 3:57:25 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
The A-10 Warthog, a muscular and armored ground attack plane, is an odd vehicle because it was originally designed to attack Soviet tanks in Europe in the event of a third world war.
Thankfully, that conflict never occurred. Instead, the Warthog flew in the Persian Gulf War, the Balkans and has spent years taking on lightly-armed insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq — where it performs excellently at the job.
The RAND Corporation, a California-based think tank closely tied to the U.S. Air Force, recently compiled statistics on A-10s in Afghanistan, with the goal of studying how they performed and how the Air Force could replace them in the future.
It should come as no surprise that as the war continued, the A-10 took on a larger share of missions — comprising “one-half of all the CAS [close air support] missions … despite representing a small fraction of the total aircraft in theater,” according to RAND.
Warthogs also began striking targets across a wider span of the country as the Taliban’s reach expanded.
The Air Force continued to rely on A-10s primarily because of the aircraft’s ability to fly low and slow, giving the pilot enough time to line up and strafe with the plane’s 30-millimeter rotary cannon. This weapon is especially useful for hitting moving targets. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at warisboring.com ...
Thank goodness the RAND corporation is out there to study such things. I bet most of the Army will be utterly blindsided to learn that the A-10 is so effective and critical.
Wonder how much we paid for this study?
“Thank goodness the RAND corporation is out there to study such things”
Well, you know what - if it keeps those idiots in the Pentagon from dumping the most effective ground support aircraft we have for some overpriced tinker toy that can’t possibly work low and slow,
then so be it!
Little known, affordable proposed (but not bought) replacement for the A-10, Ares, designed by Burt Rutan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9LlHcX8lg
Many unusual features.
Don’t jump on me, like you I am nuts about the A-10 and want them to live forever....
There is a guilty pleasure I have thinking of how PO-ed ISIS is as they are getting killed by flying pigs.
There is no reason to retire the airframe of the A-10. All the Air Force needs to do is analyze past battle damage where the A-10 airframe failed, and the to fix it. They also need to focus on implementing modularized and improved electronics and software. Another focus should be on engine improvements for fuel economy, power, reliability, and survivability
In the natural world there is a reason all birds have a similar, basic profile regardless if they eat seeds or meat - the physics of flight are not impressed by flights of fantasy. Once an airframe has evolved to optimum flight characteristics for a given mission, the possible future aerodynamic improvements are minimal. After that gains are made with lighter, stronger materials, weight savings, and improvements to electronics and software.
Saw a video on weaselzippers where Marines were taking fire from Islamic savages at about 400 yards coming from an oasis. Coming in from the right low and slow was a Warthog leisurely lining up on an attack. The Marine commander ordered his Marines to cease fire because “ This will be over quick.” After the rapid Gatling gun cannon Fourth if July fireworks flashes on the ground and in the treetops, he was absolutely correct. The soldiers and Marines love the A10.
The Air Force hates them, though. They seem to hate any Close Air Support. Don’t know why.
Best damn attack aircraft since the F-51
For one Lightning II, we could buy at least a squadron of these bad boys. And get far more value out of them.
Just a guess.
It would do wonders on our southern borders
Because it’s not ‘’sexy’’. Air to air combat makes aces. Providing close air support doesn’t.
IF you’ve ever seen on of these bad boys in action, you don’t need no stinkin’ “study” to understand just how good this machine does it’s job. But, hey, If the study keeps em flying, the more, the better. A-10s are great and saved a lot of our boys’ hides.
Not fair for you to describe in detail such a wonderful video and not post a link. Help me out here.
I suspect that the Army would LOVE to take over the Warthog fleet for the close-air-support mission. The Air Force hates the WH exactly because it is "low and slow", and they see themselves as dog-fighting hotshots who fly high and fast.
“RAND noted that regarding other aircraft such as the F-16 Fighting Falcon and B-1 Lancer, a fast-moving jet bomber, “weapon use and enemy killed tended … to be somewhat lower than those for the A-10.”
Low and Slow. Time over target. Warthogs are the close air support weapon of choice and the infantry knows it.
Seems like it those front canards are a weak point in the video. Also, one engine only.
” I bet most of the Army will be utterly blindsided to learn that the A-10 is so effective and critical.”
Hardly. The Army knows exactly how effective the A-10 is and they’d love to have it for their own.
The Air Force has been trying to scrap it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.