Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/megaprojects for 10% off on your first purchase.

@user-do5zk6jh1k

Жыл бұрын

Woah. 8sec from release

@anon69_q

Жыл бұрын

A-10 = bad. F-111 = good. F-35 = sexy.

@samwamm85

Жыл бұрын

The bottom line is that for the price tag of an F-35 you can buy several A-10's. Wars aren't always about having the best kit. Mostly they're about how well you can manage the resources available to you. Simply having more aircraft in general means greater coverage and that's more important in alot of the places where it's been utilised. Don't be fooled. The military knows what it's doing and it's working.

@Eduardo_Espinoza

Жыл бұрын

Removed for a reason

@markmitchell457

Жыл бұрын

@@samwamm85 the truth is, we already paid for the A-10s 30 years ago. They are inexpensive to maintain and upgrade. The decision was made to re -wing 100 A-10s to extend their life to 2040.

I flew the A-10 for 14 years. This is the worst assessment I’ve seen. A few things…1. There have been hundreds if not thousands of strafing competitions between the Hog and other aircraft since these original tests, and the Hog always wins. 2. The dumbest Hog pilot knows not to strafe the front of a tank. 3. The A-10 also has precision rockets, missiles, and bombs, which can hit within a meter of any target. 4. No airplane does everything well. If you want specialized CAS in a medium-low-threat environment - which is 90% of the time - the Hog is the best. 5. The maintenance is easy and cheap. 6. The gun is used against more than tanks. We use it against people and soft skin vehicles all the time. It has FAR more rounds and shot-range than any other fighter. 7. The A-10s slower speed, tight turn radius, and gun, allow it to go under the weather in tight areas to provide CAS within 50m of friendlies. MANY Troops-in-Contact situations are that close. No other fighter can do that. Bottom Line: no other fighter can do CAS like the Hog. If you don’t think CAS in a low-medium threat conflict is very important, then make that argument. But using a gun test and some gulf war stats doesn’t even come close to the analysis needed to assess the value of the Hog.

@jb76489

Жыл бұрын

Were you one of the pilots who shot up friendlies cause it can’t target id for shit?

@ronloomis8245

Жыл бұрын

Good afternoon sir. I was an Army artilleryman from 1982-88. Loved watching you guys do you job. I was stationed at Baumholder West Germany and Fort Carson. Hope I saw you.

@CODYoungGunna

Жыл бұрын

@@jb76489 I don't think you know how in air IDing works!

@jb76489

Жыл бұрын

@@CODYoungGunna with binoculars if you’re in the a10

@CODYoungGunna

Жыл бұрын

@@jb76489 so did most pilots up to that point. It was part of their training

The worst thing about getting killed by an A-10 is that since the bullets are supersonic you won't get to hear the cool buuuurrrrt sound before you die.

@otgunz

Жыл бұрын

Why worst? You die instantly, no last fear due to sound or posture. Just death. I prefer that.

@lemig-3179

Жыл бұрын

I prefer not getting killed by a shart sound

@qlqnen

Жыл бұрын

Nor will you get to hear the roaring rrrrreeeeyynnnoooollldddsssss as it flies by.

@ThirdLawPair

Жыл бұрын

Since it's going to miss with like a hundred bullets before one hits you, you'll probably hear it plenty.

@kamingleung3792

Жыл бұрын

even worse, dying from it when you and the a10 are on the same team

I have a strange love for this aircraft. When most people talk about how much they love the A-10, they gush about its cannon and the psychological effects it has. My admiration for it comes from how quiet it is. Having spent more than a decade on air force base flightlines, I love how it barely roars when it takes off and almost doesn't even whisper when it lands. Whereas other aircraft like the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22, B1B, KC-135, and so on that practically make you deaf when they take off and still roar when they land, I appreciate the A-10 even more.

@zacharyradford5552

Жыл бұрын

Of course it’s quit it’s the Volvo of American aircraft slow but pretty tough.

@EddieA907

Жыл бұрын

Shunter. Hell let's dump the A10 and bring back the f4. Lol. LOITERING & INTIMIDATION that makes this weapon system effective.

@aSSGoblin1488

Жыл бұрын

simon literally has a video for a10 lovers and another for a10 haters

@thetechlibrarian

Жыл бұрын

Yes I seen one at a air show this summer and was really surprised how quiet it was.

@rashmaster8820

Жыл бұрын

I was a stinger crewman, in field training exercises the a10 was both quiet and loitered around forever. It also found us, a dismounted 2 man team with a shoulder fired stinger. None of the other fast movers did, occasionally the helicopters did.

My uncle worked as an engineer & my aunt was one of the nurses on staff in case of emergencies, and I've had a special place in my heart for this plane my whole life. As a kid, I went to 'Family Day' at Fairchild Republic in Farmingdale and saw the A-10 being built and the gun, bullets, and all the amazing parts. I remember a presentation/show of all the protection and redundancies in the plane. Being able to walk through the assembly line & see it in so many stages of assembly fascinated me.

Finally. Now Simon becomes a person who could be invited to a LazerPig conference.

@skylined5534

Жыл бұрын

I have no idea what that is. Yay.

@cherminatorDR

Жыл бұрын

LazerPig's argument was that the importance of the cannon was overemphasized, but it still performs well with guided munitions

@tgdm

Жыл бұрын

First Simon covers the F-35, now the A-10. LazerPig is gonna be in *ahem* Hog Heaven.

@Gangxisiyu

Жыл бұрын

I kinda thought his writers had found LazerPig's channel and copied some notes yeah.

@tiffanyrose9204

Жыл бұрын

@@Gangxisiyu I mean to be fair fact are facts no matter who's saying them

As a soldier on the ground in Afghanistan. I love this gift from above.

@keithbuddrige5064

Жыл бұрын

I hear you brother. Kandahar Province - 2007-2008

@TheFastshelby

Жыл бұрын

@@keithbuddrige5064 kandahar 2011 to 2012. Cop Johnson then ANCOP

@iancrisp9027

Жыл бұрын

Always heard the A10 was hated by troops on the ground. Mostly cause it has the highest friendly fire record.

@556bc

Жыл бұрын

@@iancrisp9027 more than every other aircraft combined. The british forbade it from flying in their areas because they kept getting killed by it.

@swaghauler8334

Жыл бұрын

@@iancrisp9027 That has everything to do with your Forward Air Controllers. Bad controllers kill grunts.

I've been in the USAF as a pilot, however I've served with the mudhen (F-15E). It was always very amusing to me when people inflated the capability of the A-10 when in fact the F-111, F-16 and our beloved F-15E are the unsung heroes of close air support, air interdiction and precision strikes. The F-35 and F-15EX will continue to be underdogs in popularity, although they will be the ones that come to the rescue when needed.

@CODYoungGunna

Жыл бұрын

Yikes ok mister pilot, you do know that the F-111 has been out of service for years right?

@HolyNorthAmericanEmpire

Жыл бұрын

@@CODYoungGunna Where did I say it still is in service? It was retired in the 90s. But if you had watched the video, or know something about the conflicts the A-10 was involved in, than you would know that the F-111 and A-10 served together. Which is why I (and Simon) mentioned it. As I called it an unsung hero.

@HolyNorthAmericanEmpire

Жыл бұрын

@@CODYoungGunna The next time you attack someone, do so at least when you know what you are actually saying. And do so only when you fully understand what the other person says. You're welcome.

@CODYoungGunna

Жыл бұрын

@@HolyNorthAmericanEmpire Ok less do this then not only has the A-10 out live your dear F-15, the USAF are waffling on the idea of getting the F-15EX and the F-35 has not lived up to expectations. In the Gulf War, A-10s had a mission capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties and launched 90% of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles and this was with the older frames. Their aren't many people who are going to say that the F-15, F-16, or F-111 does CAS better. Or are the unsung heros of CAS.

@Irinananana

Жыл бұрын

@@CODYoungGunna Imagine clowning yourself so hard 🤣

The psychological value of just the sound of the A-10's 30 mike mike opening up and the whistle of it's engines approaching, can not be overstated. During my 2 deployments in Iraq, i was only ever pinned down by direct fire once, and that sound was like auditory manna being dropped from heaven. I'm sure whatever the opposite of that is, the enemy was feeling.

@alpacaofthemountain8760

10 ай бұрын

Do you know if they r was specifically the A-10 or any aircraft that made the Taliban run?

@fandommennis1348

8 ай бұрын

I've heard the same from people I have met that served. When they got in a bad spot the sound of the incomming A10 brought immediate cheers and morale boost

@benanders4412

5 ай бұрын

I think that's the biggest difference with other aircraft. The A-10 is really all about close air support. Like an angel watching over the ground troops from above. And the psychological effects on both friendly and enemy troops can't be underestimated.

@thedigitalrealm7155

4 ай бұрын

The 30mm gun hasn't been its primary weapon for nearly 2 decades. It mainly uses mavric missiles and guided bombs just like any other jet can do. It just does it while being super slow and shitty.

Having worked with this platform both in training and overseas, it is in the same category as ac-130 gunships...a platform meant to be used in an uncontested environment. Agreed that there are better weapons (than the cannon) for armored vehicles, however the cannon is more cost effective for apc/soft skinned/arty/suppression. It is also nice to have pilots, who specialize in supporting troops in contact vs someone who has many mission types in a plane that is easily damaged down low by small arms fire. Another advantage is the time on station and quantity of ordinance. Love the f35 and it's precision weapons, however I do not see the AF pushing f35 drivers to army liaison slots to develop that expertise in supporting ground elements. In the end only boots on the ground hold territory...thus everyone supports the infantry.

@WarpGhost92

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, right. But practice say that 30mm Cannon is an overkill for APC\IFV and 20mm is more than enough while GAU8 cause actual issues with flying performance.

@ravener96

Жыл бұрын

sounds like what you actually want is an apache. a vastly superior CAS bird

@zander9774

Жыл бұрын

@@WarpGhost92 the gun hasn't caused those issues for a very long time. It's what the GUN/PAC system fixed.

@dfjab

Жыл бұрын

It literally, murdered more friends than foes. Its a shit plane.

@piperp9535

Жыл бұрын

You are correct, Attack Helicopters are the primary attack resource used by the US Army and Marines to kill tanks, not fixed wing aircraft.

Here is an easy take from a Marine 0326 who was blessed to practice my craft in Afghanistan and Iraq repeatedly. It never mattered what fixed wing support we received, but the psychological impact the A10 had on enemy combatants was obvious. Drop a bomb and heads went down, fly the big brrrrt overhead and they laid down as and ran away. Is the A10 perfect? No. Does it stand up against 5th generation fighters, No. Does it have it's place on the battlefield once air superiority has been achieved? IMO, yes. Here is the thing; I don't have to be at the sharp end of the spear anymore so I can appreciate the A10 as it was during my time, younger warfighters will appreciate their own aerial assets.

@kiwi_comanche

Жыл бұрын

AMEN.

@barryfletcher7136

Жыл бұрын

I was assigned to Wardak Province, Afghanistan in 2008/09 and operated out of FOB Airborne. The FOB was halfway up a mountain and the bad guys were on top of the mountain directly across the valley from us - about two kilometers away in a "straight line". They were pounding the crap out of the FOB using missiles and we had no weapons which could be effective against them (we later got 105 mm howitzers). Air support was called for. We watched two Belgian F-16s drop bombs and miss. Then two British Eurofighters dropped bombs and missed. A (one) A-10 dropped one 2000 pound bomb which did not miss. There were multiple explosions. An after action patrol found the launch site destroyed with about 25 casualties. The casualty count was approximate because - in addition to the bomb explosion itself (huge) - the supply of missiles was also detonated.

@felixu95

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, the GAU-8 fires 30mm HEI, API, and Shit-your-pants-in-fear. If sheer terror is just as effective at stopping someone as death, then it's just as good in that moment.

@sfertonoc

Жыл бұрын

@@barryfletcher7136 yep, use of the F-16 for CAS is dangerous. F-16s have hit the ground many times because of speed and handling issues when doing dives.

@sfertonoc

Жыл бұрын

Is all about combined arms efforts. With appropriate electronic “artillery” support assets, the A-10 is the ideal slashing air cavalry assets which will break enemy artillery and tanks facing off each other, allowing coordinated ground assaults. The idea is of persistent sustained air cavalry attacks to silence enemy position permanently or long enough to allow the assault bounding. Can the F-35 be used to do that? The F-35 is more of a standoffish bomber and artillery itself than an air cavalry asset. The video’s author is comparing Apples and Oranges.

I think one factor you may have overlooked is the cost of deployment. While the F-35 is definitely more accurate and versatile than an A-10, it costs at minimum $190,000 per trigger pull. Command isn't going to dispatch one of those for close air support for a small group or operation. Its likely the A-10 was cheaper to deploy for small operations, and thus earned more "respect" from the troops on the ground that needed support because when they called, the A-10 actually showed up.

@huntermad5668

10 ай бұрын

Only on no threat environment. In environment with some AA threats, A-10 become a liability as it is way less survivable compare to anything else Air force field in air support role. The biggest example is the wars against Iraq, the US led Coalition had air supermacy, yet A-10 had way higher attrition rate than anything else. Turn out slow and low flying aircraft are way more vulnerable to outdated AA in Iraqi hands let alone modern AA

@alpacaofthemountain8760

10 ай бұрын

Then use a F-18 or a F-15

@huntermad5668

9 ай бұрын

@@alpacaofthemountain8760 That was what happened, they withdrew A-10 from operation for the most part.

@josephtrojanowski7491

8 ай бұрын

And lastly why DONT YOU INTERVIEW THE TROOPS THAT WERE IN DANGER CLOSE SITUATION NOT SOME OUTDATED REPORT BY A PANTYGON EGGHEAD BEFORE YOU TRASHTALK THE A 10

@PrimalGemini85

26 күн бұрын

35 had a lot less loiter time as well.

As someone whos served in the military, has been in combat twice, and saved by CAS from an A-10, I'd say it was money well spent.

@robertoquinn7480

Жыл бұрын

In a quiet little dusty town somewhere in the modern wild west, was a group of folks that more or less performed a no-knock warrant on a global scale. Those folks feel a little different about the A-10. Definitely, a lot I don't miss, but one of the things I do is the raspy wake the hell ups from the flying bathtubs and the sense of warm embrace that usually accompanied their mating calls from the sky!

@minborox

Жыл бұрын

You mean saved by CAS (Close Air Support) BY an A-10?

@minborox

Жыл бұрын

Because that made it sound like an A-10 plane was attacking you. 🤔

@zacharyradford5552

Жыл бұрын

And that’s all it could do and sometimes not very well.

@miketaylor00

Жыл бұрын

But they did a test 40 years ago that didn't perform well and that is more important. The guy who does this channel is a super douche half of the time. He doesn't even try to look at the big picture. He figures out his opinion and then finds data to support it.

Dad is a vet of Iraq, round one. I'm round two. His company was getting held down by two T72s back in the day. Commander called in close air support, pair of A10s came JUST above the dunes and saved his ass (and the rest of the dudes he was with) So......A10 is a graceful, FORCEFUL angel to me. Cut those tanks in half.

@zaco-km3su

Жыл бұрын

No. Either it blew them with missiles or it didn't happen.

@WarpGhost92

Жыл бұрын

@@zaco-km3su it probably blew it up with hellfire.

@jfk9211

Жыл бұрын

This guy is just a salty European

@dfjab

Жыл бұрын

Don't think the brits that got blown up by the A10 think the same way. Any help will always be an angel in your described scenario.

@markbrisec3972

Жыл бұрын

Did you watch the whole video.. A-10 relatively imprecise with dubious effect from 200 m. F-35 - destroys a target each and every time from 70 km away...

Coming from maintenance side as the crew chief I can’t speak much for OPS. I know as far for the A model A-10 she was lacking in many ways but we learned from previous mistakes and improved. Now C model definitely closed the gap and improved night operations and identifying friendly forces. Also got rid of that god awful pave penny pod lol. The gun I agree it’s not enough maybe for personnel or soft armor looking at mobile SAMs. But big thing for my side maintenance friendly love this ugly thing and I’ve worked every legacy fighter minus F-18E and F-14.

@matthewredman7814

Жыл бұрын

I'm not sure how much the C package cost but I heard somewhere it made the A10 stupidly expensive for what it was

@zander9774

Жыл бұрын

@@matthewredman7814 2nd person I've seen comment "A-10C is very expensive". I'd love to know where that came from cause every cost per flight hour article lists it as the cheapest manned combat aircraft in the USAF. I'll say having worked on the C model they're not that expensive especially in man hours. The avionics are basic and same level as later block 16s and 15E models.

@jerryandersson4873

Жыл бұрын

Now I know you come from the ground side of the a10. But you may perhaps have experience with other airplane guns. So my question / speculation would be if the a10 would have benefitted more with a smaller but more accurate gun, if it was not effective against tanks anyway? More easy to maintain, more ammo perhaps or some more room for stuff that could help with its aim? If you are not killing tanks, design it for those softer targets more I would think. O_o (me civ noob here, not trying to disrespect)

@zander9774

Жыл бұрын

@@jerryandersson4873 all it would have done was allow for carrying either a larger ammo capacity of 20MM rounds or increased fuel load. 20MM would mean even less armor piercing capability. Pilots would like less time hitting the tanker during combat ops but 2hr loiter then refuel and so on is fairly standard for single seaters. I'm not trying to pump up the image of todays's A-10, it certainly has flaws and short comings. But the video and a lot of these comments repeating Lazerpig points are maddening cause they're based almost entirely on data from the testing phase to first Gulf war. Ammo/bombs change, tactics change, things in general just improve over the amount of time it's been used for its CAS role. The guns accuracy also is nowhere near as questionable as many keep repeating. It's like people took an entertaining slide show as fact and ignore videos of it shooting on target or first hand accounts.

@rentaspoon219

Жыл бұрын

@@jerryandersson4873 the modern versions have a gun stabilization system by adjusting for the recoil (the plane wants to nose up when you fire), very accurate and a digital pip so the rounds land exactly where you think they should. It's very accurate.

I was under the impression that the A10 served a roll closer to attach helicopters more so than planes with the f desalination.

@casematecardinal

6 ай бұрын

Shhh we don't say that because it hurts his argument.

@thedigitalrealm7155

4 ай бұрын

It was supposed to be a tank killer, not a helicopter killer. Turns out it was terrible at doing that with its 30mm gun.

@bsz6328

4 ай бұрын

I think I'm a bit late, but..: No arguments made here about the recon capabilities. An f35 (or whatever) can launch from a much greter distance, sure. But who's gona get the intel, what to shoot and where? If ground troops can't paint the target, A10 can. F35 can't.

@casematecardinal

4 ай бұрын

@@bsz6328 I mean the f35 can to be fair but it's not going to have a lot of staying power and really isn't utilized to its best potential doing so.

I live near Hagerstown Regional Airport. Hagerstown Airport was home to Fairchild Republic. The A-10 was largely manufactured there. Unfortunately while the airport is growing and becoming busier every year, the factory lies abandoned and unused. However, there is a museum there (Hagerstown Aviation Museum) that is doing some great things!

@zacharywellman4178

11 ай бұрын

Uhhh… you mean Farmingdale?

@MMID303

11 ай бұрын

@Zachary Wellman No I mean Hagerstown Maryland. Farmingdale was their other location. But the A-10 was mostly assembled in Hagerstown.

Watching this video back-to-back with your first Megaprojects video on the A-10 from 8 months ago was a surreal experience, since they present very different takes on the aircraft and its effectiveness in the combat zones/roles it's been used in. I feel like this video could have benefitted from more direct juxtapositions with your previous statements about the aircraft, particularly because there are several cases (including the potential overstatement of A-10 kills that may have been misattributed from other aircraft/sources) where what you now call the "perception of the A-10's performance in the common zeitgeist" is ...basically what you said eight months ago in your original video about the aircraft. There's no need for a formal retraction or recantation, but I would have appreciated a quickly bullet-point rundown of "here's what I said then, here's where I'm saying something different now, and here are the points that still stand from my first video on the topic" at/near the end. As far as my personal opinions on the A-10? I'm not qualified to answer, but I think that in terms of aviation platforms designed for Cold War era combat doctrine, and with the upgrades it and its potential hardpoint loadouts have received over time, the A-10 is far more relevant to the modern battlefield than the fleet of nuclear-capable bombers built for the Strategic Air Command. It's worth asking about potential replacements, but like the A-1 Skyraider before it - CAS seems like a role where prior generation aircraft do often seem to be good ENOUGH at the role to stick around long after their generational equivalents in other roles have been phased out.

@randynelligan9521

9 ай бұрын

you hit the nail on the head.!!!

Simon, you should get a job at Lockheed Martin... Even as an ex-Lockheed Martin Engineer this video felt more like an "A-10 hit piece", the only question is why...clicks or some other reason? All airframes have strengths and weaknesses. The F-35 is a marvel of technology but it's certainly not without its many problems through the years...as we all know. The A-10 has had by far the most dangerous mission (low and slow) yet in actual COMBAT since Vietnam, there's been (7) A-10 lost, (5) F-16C lost, (5) AV-8B lost, and (3) F-15E lost...in addition to others. Everyone who worked in aerospace at the time knew how much the Air Force was "disinterested" in the A-10 and its CAS mission. But the USAF didn't want the Army to get into CAS with a new attack helicopter so they came up with their A-X CAS program and the A-10 was born. The last A-10 was made in 1984 and the USAF gave NO LOVE to any of them. Many were shipped over to the Air National Guard relatively quickly. Without the wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, many A-10s would have been gone a long time ago if it was up to the USAF. There was little said in this video that wasn't said by A-10 detractors over the MANY decades, yet it's still here. In preparation for this video, I wonder how many ground soldiers Simon spoke with whose very lives relied on the A-10...few if any I would bet.

@jC-kc4si

Жыл бұрын

The local inland Naval base has A-10s, one of them crashed during an airshow, the pilot pointed it into the ground to miss nearby housing developments.

@mboiko

Жыл бұрын

@@jC-kc4si The Airshow in Paris was where the very first A-10 crash took place in June 1977. It was a very sad day at Fairchild-Republic with the loss of "Sam" Nelson (test pilot) who many on the program knew.

@DRicke

Жыл бұрын

I'm guessing this was a paid spot by the Air Force F-35 program....

@tim_davidson6344

Жыл бұрын

"Air Force was "disinterested" in the A-10 and its CAS mission." - Well, you were clearly being kind in your remarks.

@mboiko

Жыл бұрын

@@tim_davidson6344 You're right...very kind. They couldn't give A-10s to the Air National Guard fast enough.

I served in special operations in the early late 80s the Airforce was looking to get rid of the A-10 by giving it to the Army as a close air support platform. I was a 2lt at the time having spent time as an enlisted operator. The transfer would be about 10 years out, but there was a search for Army guys who were experienced in combat arms branches. I fit the bill and was a graduate of the Joint Firepower Controller's Course. CAS was my thing. A handful of us were tested and a tentative list was developed. While waiting on flight training Desert Storm kicked off. I spent my time in the sand box having my ass saved several times by A-10s. After the war, we asked about the transition and the Airforce had changed its mind because the A-10 was the air hero of the war. The A-10 saved us multiple times in Afghanistan. I have a good friend who retired as an A-10 wing unit commander. I will risk my life any day if the A-10 is on tap for CAS.

@HolyNorthAmericanEmpire

Жыл бұрын

The Marine killer

@DaveCM

Жыл бұрын

I was a Marine Corps grunt. There isn't a fixed wing craft I'd rather have for air support than an A-10. When we called in air and got an A-10, it was relief.

@CODYoungGunna

Жыл бұрын

@@HolyNorthAmericanEmpire yeah you definitely wasn't a pilot lol

@justaguy6100

Жыл бұрын

Yep.... all air frames/weapons systems pairings are a compromise. I know Simon doesn't write these, he just reads them, and sure there are, as with all systems, the great and the not so great aspects. The A-10 is the number one fixed-wing close support plane, and you're in excellent and extensive company in praising them. The vast majority of those who hate it are the ones it's zeroing in on.

@kinderfett5259

Жыл бұрын

Are we talking about the aircraft that hasn’t been build since the 70s, has killed more of its own soldier then any other U.S aircraft combined, suffered the most losses out of any modern U.S aircraft and pilots are required to use binoculars to identify targets, since it is so outdated.

Man, LazerPig is going to love this one.

As a tank buster with just the gun, yes. But as a ground support platform like the old A2 Skyraider, there is nothing the US inventory that can carry as much ammo/weapons for the amount of loiter time it can do. Well nothing short of say a B1.

@ryansilcox1124

Жыл бұрын

Man it’s crazy to go back and watch that old John McCain testimony about the a10, when it gets brought up about the b1 doing CAS and McCain shuts it down. Now we know it’s actually a FANTASTIC CAS platform since it can mount a Targeting Pod

@GeofftheIronwolf

Жыл бұрын

@@ryansilcox1124 oh it is no doubt but look at cost per sortie hour on the B1 vs an A10. That's why the B1 doing CAS was shot down.

@danield2685

Жыл бұрын

Ac 130?

@Socomnick

Жыл бұрын

What good is all that with the garbage optics on the aircraft. It's more likely to kill friendly troops than it is to provide accurate cas. It's a trash plane that needs to be replaced.

@GeofftheIronwolf

Жыл бұрын

@@danield2685 well for a long while the AC130 couldn't carry guided munitions. A10 from the front outset can carry 11 maverick missiles. I think the same only plane that could carry close to that is the Strike Eagle.

I was assigned to Wardak Province, Afghanistan in 2008/09 and operated out of FOB Airborne. The FOB was halfway up a mountain and the bad guys were on top of the mountain directly across the valley from us - about two kilometers away in a "straight line". They were pounding the crap out of the FOB using missiles and we had no weapons which could be effective against them (we later got 105 mm howitzers). Air support was called for. We watched two Belgian F-16s drop bombs and miss. Then two British Eurofighters dropped bombs and missed. A (one) A-10 dropped one 2000 pound bomb which did not miss. There were multiple explosions. An after action patrol found the launch site destroyed with about 25 casualties. The casualty count was approximate because in addition to the bomb explosion itself (huge) the supply of missiles was also detonated.

@hammond2429

Жыл бұрын

I was there when we built that fob in 07. I’m one of the names on that wounded in action board in the old toc. They saved our ass in a firefight along the apple orchard on the road headed into the valley. They will forever be the best infantry air support in the world as far as I am concerned.

It's an old design now. We could probably make something better for the close infantry support role today, but that would be a big defense spending fight.

@herpderpherpd

8 ай бұрын

Too late, the Sky Warden already exists.

@brianpayne4549

23 күн бұрын

Yes, it’s an old design. BUT, whenever it’s head goes up on the block with congress, it always get taken down, by numerous generals, and by the very military it supports. More often than not, the troops loudly reverse the path.

I think it's somewhere in the middle. I also think a third option to why the numbers were inflated could be to instill fear in the enemy. These were public numbers so it could act as a deterrent. A old Corvette is very sought after even though it doesn't drive well or go that fast. It's how it makes people feel, be it the driver or the spectators.

As a soldier whose life has been saved by the Warthog, I will say it is worth its reputation for me.

@kiwi_comanche

Жыл бұрын

Marine here. I feel EXACTLY the same way. Love those hogs man.

@hulagu3068

Жыл бұрын

you could have been saved by another aircraft just as well.

@brianeleighton

Жыл бұрын

@@hulagu3068 No, the slow speed and long loiter times of the A-10 combined with its survivability against ground fire make it better suited to CAS missions than any other aircraft in the American fleet.

@fowlerfreak7420

Жыл бұрын

@@brianeleighton it's also better suited to being shot down as opposed to other aircraft performing similar missions. it's not a bad plane, it's great, and it's cool, and it's fun, but it is overrated lmao

@brianeleighton

Жыл бұрын

@@fowlerfreak7420 Yet, the A-10 has a remarkable ability to absorb hits that would shoot down other aircraft and still make it back to base.

Served in the Third Marine Aircraft Wing during Operation Iraqi freedom I. My squadron was an F/A-18 squadron operating out of Kuwait. On the base from which we operated there were f-16s, f-18s, harriers, and a-10s. The F-16s were tasked primarily with overwatch, where the other three types of combat aircraft operated mainly in the strike roll. If memory serves correctly, we had 60 f-18s in five USMC squadrons, One Marine and one British harrier squadron for around 40 aircraft, and forty Air National Guard A-10s. Each type of aircraft has a very distinct sound when it takes off, and the f-18s flume more than twice as many missions as the harriers and the a-10s combined.

I know this is an old vid but Today A-10s are flying nightly from Polish air fields with training provided by the US Air Guard. All A10's are flown by weekend warriors as part of the deal to keep them in service. The Gun is not the primary weapon. The primary weapons are Mavric missles and guided bombs. Other than that you did pretty good.

@Moved506

11 ай бұрын

The GAU/8 is the main wepon of the A10. It is literally built around the gun. The A10 has to use its missile and bombs to reliably hit anything. The gun is so inaccurate that the A10 has the most friendly fire kills of any military aircraft. And for how much I dont want to use wikipedia as a scorce I'll do so in this case. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

@jeremysteele3098

10 ай бұрын

the vid is about a month old. We're rewriting history because Leftism.

@Sixshotz1337

5 ай бұрын

All of these are weapons that could be out onto an aircraft that's not a gigantic target for manpads lol

@thedigitalrealm7155

4 ай бұрын

​@@Sixshotz1337exactly. All things you can deploy on far faster, less vulnerable jets with better avionics and situational awareness.

@CODYoungGunna

4 ай бұрын

@@Sixshotz1337 I don't think you know how manpads work

1. I’m a Desert Shield/ Storm veteran. The day of the ground war, the A-10’s saved our asses, and most importantly, our lives. We also had AH-64’s doing air support while we went into Kuwait City. 2. I really need to learn the metric system if I’m going to listen to your videos 😂

@hydra8845

Жыл бұрын

You mean the empty city of Kuwait City because the Iraqi army had pulled out weeks before?

@jamesjross

Жыл бұрын

If I had a dollar....

There's nothing quite as reassuring as when you're under siege on the ground and hear those Warthogs approaching... A-10 pilots never have to pay in my bar.

@armymanaka360

Жыл бұрын

Actually it’s tue opposite cause of it’s danger close there’s a high chance of friendly fire

@MojoPup

Жыл бұрын

@@armymanaka360 It's obvious you've never been in combat. I speak from personal experience. When your position is about to be overrun by enemy combatants, an A-10 is most welcome. But you go one taking out his ass.

@academicdeaneducation6671

Жыл бұрын

I think his point is that the A-10 was not as effective at what it was designed to do - destroy Soviet tanks in Europe. No doubt, as a close air support platform, it was highly effective but the targets were softer than a Soviet tanks column that would have included antiaircraft defenses. Never having been put to THAT test, this is pure speculation.

@academicdeaneducation6671

Жыл бұрын

@@armymanaka360 I agree with MojoPup. In support of infantry, particularly in the mountains of Afghanistan, this is a very scary weapon. The problem isn't friendly fire. The problem is its speed and new shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles.

@MojoPup

Жыл бұрын

@@academicdeaneducation6671 It seemed to do pretty well against Saddam's tanks in Kuwait. I know I wouldn't want to be inside a tank that gets hit by those depleted rounds...jus sayin'

I was a JFO, or the guy who called in close air support in Afghanistan... A10's are the best CAS weapon system hands down

@zander9774

Жыл бұрын

It's kinda maddening seeing how many war nerds with no experience talk like ground troops fear calling it in cause the Brits had one blue-on-blue incident. Nvm I saw plenty of guys like you JTAC's and TACP's come thank our pilots and get tours of the jet while deployed.

@justincoates4582

Жыл бұрын

@@zander9774 yeah dude the Brits must have invented all the tests Simon listed here because he's secretly mad about that blue on blue incident you won't hush up about.

@majo3488

Жыл бұрын

A-10 is a COIN aircraft but it wasn't build to be one. So it is a failure and a happy success together. It was build for soviet tanks in the Fulda Gap and you can't compare this to the requirements of the Afghanistan war.

@jebediahgentry7029

Жыл бұрын

@@zander9774 I'm pretty sure he was in the military

@zander9774

Жыл бұрын

@@justincoates4582 that I won't shut up about? I'm only addressing it cause almost every comment thread on here uses "Brits hate it" as a meme excuse to say it's terrible. Also the tests he's referring too were from the late 70s and tactics/munitions change over 40yrs. Even the SOP for A-10s changed during OIF/OEF to be more effcetive in it's role.

there is a story about when talk of scrapping the A-10 was on the table, the US Army said they would take over the A-10 fleet cause they obviously thought it was a handy CAS aircraft. USAF got offended that Army would want fixed wing aircraft so decided to keep it. I always wondered if US Army played on USAF desire to keep fixed wing combat aircraft out of Army hands.

@zacharyradford5552

Жыл бұрын

In the 80s the Air Force WANTED the army to take it.

@chrisromig7390

Жыл бұрын

Go USMC. I never understood why US Army doesn't do its own FW CAS. It really works well for the Marines 👍

This man’s research didn’t tell him (or maybe he ignored it) that even when the A-10 was scheduled to be decommissioned (I think in the early 2000’s) they hung on to it anyway, to this day, and probably indefinitely because of how successful it has been-and in such high demand by troops on the ground. This machine is a lifesaver for us and the sound alone strikes fear in its enemies. Long live the A-10.

@miked172

Жыл бұрын

The A-10 keeps surviving because of politics. It's literally politicians. If an A-10 base is to lose the A-10, that means a lot of constituents lose jobs and representatives lose re-election campaigns. That's literally it. It's an obsolete airframe that will be no match for modern day peer nation militaries. If we went to war with China (many say it's a "when" and not an "if") then the A-10 won't ever see the combat theater. My wing commander literally said that last week. The reason the A-10 has been so successful is because it hasn't had to face any competent surface to air or air to air defenses. What the A-10 has faced over the past 20 years is primitive technology but believe me, China knows exactly how to knock the A-10 out of the sky like swatting a mosquito. 5th gen aircraft have countermeasures that the A-10 doesn't have. My wing commander literally described the A-10 as being like a 38 year old overweight guy showing up to a 20 year high school reunion wearing his old football letter jacket. Yeah he was a superstar decades ago, but he keeps hanging on to those days as if nothing ever changes, yet everyone else moved on. He's an overweight balding guy hanging on to his glory days that were decades ago. That's exactly what people who keep praising the A-10 are doing. The A-10 needs to retire. It's served it's purpose. It will NOT be effective in a modern conflict. Continuing the A-10 based on it's service record would be like putting a fleet of B-17s in the air above China as well because of its effectiveness in WWII. Every airframe needs to retire at some point. And the A-10 is at that point. You don't want to have them all getting blown out of the sky with no more advanced replacement in the foreseeable future before you realize it's combat ineffective. The A-10 has only been as successful as it has been because we've been fighting a primitive "military" for the past 20 years and it hasn't seen any opposition in the air, or from the ground. It's done. You really need to watch this video. kzread.info/dash/bejne/pnqXurCplK7OZKg.html This is being played for pretty much every new aircraft maintenance person that joins the Air Force. Chinas technology is catching up to us. It doesn't explicitly mention the A-10 in the video, but the message is the same. That video is literally from the DoD and is being shown to every brand new Airman to hopefully help them see the reality of their futures in the Air Force. I joined 1 year after September 11th and I just hit 20 years in. My entire career has been spent fighting primates in the middle east. The future we may go toe to toe against a significantly stronger opponent. Plus, if you look on a map, you will see how close China and Afghanistan are. China has had a front row seat to observe how the United States military operates for the past 20 years. They've studies us. They know our moves. They know we have a culture of "yay the A-10 is the best thing ever" and they know what our plays are.

@CODYoungGunna

Жыл бұрын

@@miked172 not at all. The Air Force just hasn't produced a good enough replacement and do not want to

@johnbower7452

Жыл бұрын

The aircraft isn't the problem; the pilots on the other hand whose ability to distinguish a Warrior AFV from a BMP leaves rather a lot to be desired.

@neoprofin

Жыл бұрын

There's literally nothing you could tell me at this point that would change my opinion of the A-10, and other service members would say the same. I don't care about it's projected kill rate against Soviet tanks in a hypothetical Cold War gone hot, The Ukrainians and Iraqis have proven that battlefield tactics are more important than sterile tests. Also, consider morale. Nothing says "Fuck yeah!" to the troops on the ground like the BRRRRRRRRRRTTTTT of an A-10 as it decimates a close air support target. There's a reason it's still in service after decades of trying to kill it.

@nolankahler6705

Жыл бұрын

It was literally held off because of congressional interference lmao. Same reason the U-2 and B-52 are still here despite being atrociously obsolete

Its not lauded by the aviation enthusiasts... Its the ground pounders that love it. I have 3 personal friends who still walk this world thanks to CAS from one of these airframes.

@aquila4460

Жыл бұрын

To be fair, the question here would be, would they have been saved just as easily by another airframe? And all the data points towards yes(and probably with less dead British soldiers as well)

@gingerlicious3500

Жыл бұрын

They would have been helped just as well by another airframe, bud. Probably better.

@Amalgam67

Жыл бұрын

@@aquila4460 It certainly could have. But because of the maintenance costs associated with these higher-performance aircraft, and their longer down-times per mission, it was cheaper and easier to use the A10 which was designed for close air support.

@Xynth25

Жыл бұрын

​@@Amalgam67 It was designed to kill tanks. It's used for CAS because it's not as good at killing tanks as it was meant to be. For CAS you could argue a smaller and more accurate gun would be just as effective as the 30. Happy your friends got out of those situations but that's not a metric of design efficacy.

@dwwolf4636

Жыл бұрын

Air frame includes drones of all sizes. Now replace the A10 funding with more Pikes, dronesSwitchblades

When you build an airplane in the role of an attack helicopter the A-10 is what you get. There is an important context to the A-10 that's often overlooked; this was built around the Army's parameters for an attack helicopter that the AirForce then improved on because the AirForce didn't want the Army to buy a helicopter that happened to have fixed wings speeds approaching that of airplanes. Every flaw and vulnerability an A-10 has is one that attack helicopters have, but the A-10 by comparison significantly mitigates many of those. For instance the AirForce will talk about all the ways the A-10 shouldn't be flown in contested air space as if that automatically makes using F-35A's or other combat jets the better choice in all missions, but the A-10 serves a critical role in the combined arms tactics necessary to the success on modern battlefields and that means in situations where the A-10 is meant to be used the Army and Marines are using their helicopters and Ospreys. Making it either a moot point as air superiority will have been established, or the AirForce is adverse to a risk the Army and Marines take on all the time and the AirForce is simply willing to trade lives of infantry. The A-10 is a victim of being an attack fighter designed for close air support as the Army imagines that role but flown and rated by how the AirForce imagines ground attack. Part of it is that on some level the AirForce doesn't make enough of a distinction between ground attack and close air support, from the AirForce perspective they're synonymous. So the A-10 is always measured against higher and faster flying jets, not against the helicopters that maintain more of a persistent presence on the battlefield. All the criticism of the A-10 are valid, but even if the A-10 were retired today, the Army and Marines would still need something like the A-10 to fill that gap. And while advances in rotor craft have been coming along in recent years, the most advanced attack helicopter can't do what an A-10 can. If the Army had a helicopter that could shoot from 200 miles away and perform like an F-35, they would still need something like an A-10 that can come in closer and remain on the battlefield for a protracted periods of time. Something that's hard for the AirForce to accept is that the survivability of the A-10 was so emphasized in design, is because to some degree the airplane needs to be expendable, even if the pilot isn't. But the notion of providing air support from a distance means you're removing the the airplane from the battlefield to remove that risk, and that frees the enemies energy and effort to focus on the ground forces these planes are suppose to support.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

Not true. The USAF had the A-10, Army had the Cheyenne, and Marines had the Harrier. There was an argument that the airframes overlapped. The government agreed that each one was different enough and they could all be build. The USAF and Army agreed to not interfere on each other. The Cheyenne was plagued with problems and delays, Lockheed couldn't make it work. Forget air superiority. You can still be shot down with air superiority - SAMs/MANPADS/AAA. Always a threat no matter how much superiority you have over enemy air forces.

@dwwolf4636

Жыл бұрын

Its called a Drone. Probable MALE sized. And those are cheaper and more expendable still. Boots might like more embedded smart weapons like Pike, drones ( suicide or not ) and laser-guided Mortar glide kits more, Those they can control themselves and are more readily available to local forces. Hell, Pike could make an acceptable weapon for company-level infantry unit-controlled drones as well.

@StrikeNoir105E

Жыл бұрын

The thing as pointed out by this video and others, is that if you need an aircraft for CAS work... you don't need an A-10 to do it. As shown, the GAU-8 isn't really an anti-tank wonder, so you don't need an aicraft carrying a 30mm cannon for that task. Subsequently, if you need to take out soft-armored targets, then every other attack aircraft in the arsenal is more than capable of using their own weapons to do so, even their 20mm guns. If you need to take out tanks from the air, again you're not going to use the GAU-8 for that express purpose, and so you'll use surface-to-air guided missiles and bombs, which any other attack aircraft in the sky is capable of carrying. The A-10 is heavily armored, and can fly low and slow for CAS yes, but again its roles are already fulfilled by other aircraft either more economically, or more effectively such as subsonic attack aircraft (which can get there faster), helicopters (which can loiter longer), or drones (which are truly expendable and thus can fulfill "aggro" if you want to call it that). Also, I'm pretty sure that the machine that's expected to take and absorb damage for the troops from the ground are... well, tanks. The doctrines of most air forces supposed that aircraft are not meant to take hits or attract ground fire, and instead their role in CAS is to hit the enemy hard enough that the enemy's combat capabilities are impaired or negated completely, not loiter around the battlefield attracting enemy fire. Otherwise you'd see stuff like AC-130's used more in CAS, an aircraft with superior firepower and loiter capability to the A-10, and yet the AC-130 is only deployed for very specific types of air support missions, typically when there's no anti-air capabilities expected such as when defending a base from attack. The A-10 is basically a specialty aircraft that can't even excel in its one specialty when it needs to be, and the things it needs to do to excel in that specialty can be done by other types of aircraft better.

@jyy9624

Жыл бұрын

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD air superiority means enemy planes bug out, which will make SAMs Huntley, and manpads cannot replace SAMs. Commies had great success with SAMs in Vietnam, so in Desert Storm the destroyed the extensive, capable SAM network. Only worry for the destroyers was small arms fire

@jyy9624

Жыл бұрын

Astute analysis well said - CAS is not AS

I can't speak to a lot of what was said in this video, but I do have first hand knowledge that the accuracy of the gun was much better than what was provided here. I pretty much grew up on the Smoky Hill ANG Range outside of Salina, KS. My dad started serving there when I was in grade school, and I joined the unit when I grew up. A large part of our job was maintaining the target area and the A-10 regularly put 30mm holes all over the target vehicles we put out as targets. Most of the targets weren't tanks, and the A-10's were shooting practice rounds instead of the depleted uranium rounds they would use on a battlefield. So I can't even speak to how well they would or wouldn't do against tank armor, but even their practice rounds were tear through any other heavy vehicle we could give them to shoot at. I can't think of a single strafing run that I watched where they just totally missed a target without scoring a single hit like this video would suggest.

As someone that was adjacent to A-10's in operations (I was in Armor Cav), nothing that I have seen in the first fifteen or so minutes of this is wrong. Yet the context is. The A-10 is not the attack asset you send out to kill large numbers of tanks, it is the one you send to kill the ones 1000 meters off of your friendly positions. That is where the low and slow works (along with time on station) and that has been a thing going all the way back to Korea. If I want to do tactical in even remotely contested air I want a fast mover. The A-10 is the bridge between an attack helo and something like an F-16. It is has very good survivability vs a multi-role and can move faster with more weapons then a helo. And that gun is like pulling a knife in a gun fight most of the time. The rest of the fights vs soft or light armor it is just way to spread the love. At best modern aircraft carry just a few smart munitions. With that gun and a little time..... Priceless.

@EddieA907

Жыл бұрын

Thank you.

@AutomationDnD

Жыл бұрын

Yup, I was armored cavalry too.... , 3rd ID... and I instantly understood the . *_TONE_* . of this video to be fundamentally misunderstanding the role [and importance] of the A10 it is the . ONLY . aircraft that CAN do what it does, for _Soldiers_ *this is not a **_Best OF_** the Air Force, .... type of aircraft* but it IS absolutely *BEST AT* exactly what it does. ... that's why it's still in service

@timroot-shoshin4287

Жыл бұрын

Yes. Unfortunately, this is where most of Simon's videos have been heading recently. He starts with his erroneous assumptions and ridicules those that disagree with his arguments. All while ignoring the fact that he is blind to his own assumptions. He thinks he "knows better" . I am about to unsubscribe to all of his channels due to this trend.

@Mokimanify

Жыл бұрын

It's survivability is a lot lower than you think. The entire aircraft is vulnerable to HMG and light AAA fire. It was designed to be cannon fodder while taking 2,3 or 4 tanks with it.

@Mokimanify

Жыл бұрын

@@AutomationDnD the DOD is mothballing nearly all of them this year and funding for it has disappeared from the DAA in favor of better CAS platforms and improvements to the F-35

I think the greatest advantage that an A10 brings to the battlefield is the morale boost they give the ground troops

@mitchverr9330

Жыл бұрын

Unless the ground troops are British or Canadian.

@anthonyramirez9925

Жыл бұрын

Unless they need it for close air support and are in the splash zone

@averagejoe112

Жыл бұрын

Probably not worth the money if that's it's greatest advantage. It's be cheaper to hire mascots.

@RacerM53

Жыл бұрын

It's like the drummer boy from the revolutionary War. Great for morale but utterly useless in combat

@ninjajagyr

Жыл бұрын

I recon the best moral boost is the one that actually kills its targets XD

I wonder how often an A10 was used against a tank in it's history? I viewed it more as a close air support aircraft, suppressing ground targets and protecting friendly troops. I have friends alive today because of this plane.

@GuinessOriginal

Жыл бұрын

It was always designed as a tank buster to close the fulda gap. There are better and more accurate close air support platforms which may have saved more of your friends but when you’ve got a hammer you need to use every problem like like a nail.

@parkercarpy810

Жыл бұрын

If the grunts like it idk why everyone thinks it’s such a pos. And like he said the taliban ran when they realized it was attacking. I can guarantee that saved lives.

@mitchverr9330

Жыл бұрын

@@parkercarpy810 The thing is, most accounts I have seen suggest they very much disliked the A-10 to the point it was withdrawn from theatres upon demand/request by ground forces due to having the worst friendly fire rate of any US airframe. The Taliban would run when any air support was in use tbf. While it saved some lives, any other plane would likely have also done that job just as well if not better.

@UHN-lg3em

Жыл бұрын

Most Marines seemed to like my Cobras than A-10s

@michaeldewitt1896

Жыл бұрын

Yep. I've got friends alive from this truly amazing plane alive one day, and alive the next day when it came back to deliver more protection THE next day too. It's survivability is unmatched. Simon and crew, stop taking $$$ from Lockheed Martin Guys on the ground love this aircraft, so piss off.

If you have not served, and have never had you @$$ saved by a strafing run from an A-10, shut up! Not even congress could come up with a valid excuse to take it out of service because every branch has said that it is the saving angel for troops on the ground.

Simon, you didn't acknowledge the guided munitions at all. The Warthog wasn't just an airborne cannon. Shame on you.

The thing saved my life. I'll not bash it, I've seen what it does to massed enemies in light cover. Hint: it's not pretty and it sounds scary as hell for added effect.

@dbach1025

Жыл бұрын

Your opinion and those of your brothers in arms is what matters. I know there are thousands of ground forces that came home because of air support from the A10, including a close friend of mine. Nuance is very important indeed. Thank you for your time in service and glad you are here to give your perspective. God bless.

@miroslavhoudek7085

Жыл бұрын

It didn't save you. The pilot flying it did save you. And he'd do that in other airplane as well - arguably better as per this video. Let's not antropomorphize things, it just detracts from the brave operators of these tools who do amazing things with good and bad gadgets alike.

@420funny6

Жыл бұрын

@@miroslavhoudek7085 so a pilot flying a biplane would be able to save ground forces with armor like the A10 does? Lol

@miroslavhoudek7085

Жыл бұрын

@@420funny6 for sure, actually much better than A10 without a pilot.

@kizmo2317

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for your service and for this comment. Brought tears to my eyes. The only time a "thing" saved my life was my handgun, but I'd never thought about the concept of a "thing" saving my life. My gun was my tool that I had on me, had practiced with for years and operated myself. I just thought of it as a part of me. The thought of being certain that you are going to die, then, by some miracle a 3rd party "thing" showing up seemingly out of nowhere saving your life is quite thought provoking. I'd never bash it either.

I've seen grown men and warriors cry when this beautiful beast has come over and smashed the enemy,in my opinion this and the apache r hands down the saviours of cas

@skaldlouiscyphre2453

Жыл бұрын

You can see a bunch of grown men and internet warriors cry whenever it's fairly criticized. 😅

@lightningstrike5024

Жыл бұрын

beautiful my ass, this thing is the ugliest plane ive ever seen

@Red-Magic

Жыл бұрын

Even the Apache is getting replaced soon, likely within the next decade.

@carlbrown5150

Жыл бұрын

@@Red-Magic When are they ever going to learn if it isn't broke don't fix it.!!😉

@skaldlouiscyphre2453

Жыл бұрын

@@carlbrown5150 When will people learn that technology marches on?

I was in the USAF staioned at RAF Bentwaters (an A-10 Base) and and worked closely with both the Piolts and Aircraft. You are sadly mistaken as to the destructive capability of ths aircraft.

The biggest reason I question the message here is that in my 20 years of service in the Air Force...I've never heard a Soldier or Marine say anything but praise for the A-10 and I'd take their word over a bunch of numbers on a spreadsheet.

@blueduck9409

Жыл бұрын

For real.

@DonJ.

Жыл бұрын

💯

@WarpGhost92

Жыл бұрын

probably because this is the only plane they ever see coming for help. Any other plane done it way faster from the distance they never heard or see it. A10 was so bad, he need to fly to the target and hit it from 1-2km. while f15 of f111 where able to hit target from the height you cant even see it.

@ravener96

Жыл бұрын

people have pretty limited experiences. when you sit in an A10 and carpet an area in 30mm im sure you feel like a god casting lightning from atop a mountain, that doesn't actually mean its an efficient system when evaluated at scale. the soldier on the ground is even less a credible expert, since they are very motivated to have high praise of the plane they saw come from up high to save them. it makes a less visceral impression if the firefight you have been fighting for an hour ends with a JDAM coming from a blue sky, or even better, you aren't in a firefight at all because an apache has overwatch and spotted the enemy before you.

@sa-lt8ks

Жыл бұрын

@@WarpGhost92 do you understand the term "close air support"?

When you think about it, if 30 mm autocannons were good at killing tanks, we might put them on tanks? Or at least on tank-killing vehicles. But on the ground, 30 mm is used for lighter vehicles, infantry, shooting up buildings, that kind of stuff. Tanks tend to carry something around 120 mm for killing each other, and if you want to trick out something like a Stryker for an anti-tank role, you put TOW missiles on it. Now, on the role it played in Afghanistan, air support against softer targets, the arguments seem weaker. Here you've got a rugged, reliable plane that can fly from dodgy airfields and bring an awful lot of stuff to the party. And of course the ground forces love it.

@samuelmendoza9356

Жыл бұрын

Nah, 30mm autocannons are best used for heavy suppressing fire or fighting APCs or IFVs. If one has to confront tanks, its lighter to utilize ATGMs/RPGs/Recoilless Rifle. Beside the penetration of GAU-8 is not much help even if its using Depleted Uranium rounds.

This is great and all, but there's a reason it's been around for half a century. The A10 is the definition of "If it ain't broke." From stories I've heard, this thing has saved so many lives and ground troops adore it. It's loiter times is unmatched and nothing raises morale like the roar of that gun. The plane is effective, easy to work on, and the gun doesn't cost over 150k to fire like the F-35 does. It's designed for close air support, and close air support is what it is unrivaled in. Acting like this vehicle is useless is borderline insanity.

A few comments as a former AF pilot. First, it is always desirable to attack any target at its weak points and every tank in production is most heavily armored in the front. The sides and top (top->down) are always the least armored. Everyone directed to attack them there when possible. Next, the benefit of the A-10 as an attack vehicle is that it's using ammo (which are relatively cheap) vs. any form of self-proposed weapon (which are quite expensive). One can afford to use thousands of rounds of ammo without coming even close to the cost of other types of weapons and so as long as several hit and penetrate the tank (to actually put it out of action) you are far better doing so. The A-10 is far more economical than any other air to surface attack vehicle/weapon. Surface to surface doesn't have remotely the same mobility as the A-10 and much more vulnerable whether it is individuals with should mounted munitions or vehicles. Moreover the A-10 has far greater visibility to the entire arena of battle than ground forces. The only real drawbacks are that the A-10 is also more visible to the defenders and if they have surface to air weapons they are much more at risk than surface vehicles.

That was 18 minutes of taking a very shallow look at a weapons platform that very much out performs close to anything else we have. I don't care if an F-35 can get there 3 times faster if it can only stay on station for 20 minutes and drop a single bomb. I'd rather have the jet that can stay on station for 3 hours and drop every manner of bomb, laser guided rocket, AGM-65, CBU, laser guided bombs, JDAMs, etc. Yeah, the original concept touted the gun back in the 70s. Big deal. Weapon systems evolve over time. Hell, the F-16 was supposed to be an interceptor with just a couple of short range AIM-9s. Now it's a very competent multirole fighter with an insanely wide & varied arsenal, and a very diverse mission profile.

@thantounderscore

Жыл бұрын

yeah, this was definitely a missed opportunity. The A10 is designed to loiter. It can stay on station for long periods of time, and it can carry 16,000 pounds of ordinance on 11 hardpoints. The F35 is great and all, but the main benefit to its survivability is its stealth, which is compromised by using anything outside of its internal bay, which has a limit of 5700 pounds of payload.

@danharold3087

Жыл бұрын

@@thantounderscore And the F35 is too expensive to expose

@Eanki_

Жыл бұрын

> drop every manner of Munition and stay on station for hours So you want a B-1 bomber? Cuz honestly that just sounds better.

@DasPenguin85

Жыл бұрын

@@Eanki_ please tell me you're joking, because replacing the A-10 with something that has a turn radius measured in miles and can only drop bombs and costs 3x as much per flight hour is insanity. Congress tried to propose something like that and John McCain famously shot the idea down. Look it up.

@Eanki_

Жыл бұрын

@@DasPenguin85 Yes. I know McCain pulled the smartass stunt. Too bad smartass doesn't equal correct. The Bone is capable. The Viper even better. The A-10 is a bomb truck with smart munitions. The Viper can play bomb truck. So yes, there is a system that can take over if ever.

That time A-10's were retasked and flew night missions in the February of Desert Storm. Not because of them being ineffective, but rather they were EXCEPTIONALLY good at SCUD hunting. Low Speed and IR AGM-65's found and destroyed SCUDs in Western Iraq at a record pace (the F-111 was no slouch at it once A-10s found the targets). in hindsight a 25mm GAU may have been better with higher velocity and the ability to hold even more ammo. Also the video said Seven A-10s were lost, it was six out of 70 that took damage.

@zamaintucker

Жыл бұрын

it didn't fly at night in DS, it hunted during the day and was absolutly great at it, but it didn't have much ability to fly at night and thus night hunting was left to the F-15E, Tornado and F-111

No politician, general, or admiral is ever going to send an F-35 down to eyebrow level in support of American troops in contact. Even is he/she did, the F-35's 25mm cannon is incapable of damaging heavy armor, and carries only 220 rounds. Yes, the small diameter bomb could be a good option against tanks, but the A-10 can also carry the SDB...four times as many, in fact.

The A-10 does posess modern AT missiles and ground attack missiles, BUT this negates the entire purpose of the A-10 as any fighter aircraft can fire a missile at ground targets while being able to do Air support missions. Also keep in mind that things like the S-400, Tunguska, and Pantsir exist.

Lets see: Comparing an autocannon to a missile in terms of accuracy: check Comparing an aircraft designed in the 70s to one made in the 00s: check yup, looks like a fair comparison to me

@jslaon

Жыл бұрын

But is this exactly what the "A-10 go BRRRRT" crowd does. The F-35 will get through, and hit the target with precision munitions when the A-10 will be unable to do so. And BTW, more CAS in Iraq and Afghanistan was done with B-52s and B-1s dropping precision guided munitions. So how fair is it to compare a 70s design to a 50s design?

@MenacingBird

Жыл бұрын

@@jslaon allow me to attempt to clear things up 1) well thought out reply. Hard to find on yt these days 2) i have no horse in this race 3) My point in comparing the GAU to guided munitions was more a dig at the concept itself. Of course it’s not going to be as accurate, it was never designed to be. The technology that can hit a dresser sized target from 50 miles away is of course going to be better at that job than a few hundred lumps of metal 4) comparing a system to its, it could be said, direct replacement will usually not end well in the older things favor. Didnt know that about the bombers in those conflicts though. Learn something new every day.

@jslaon

Жыл бұрын

@@MenacingBird I 100% agree with you, but the absurdity of the A-10 discussion I think is what the writers are really pointing out here. It's a crazy discussion these days.

@jslaon

Жыл бұрын

@@MenacingBird Yeah, the bomber thing is pretty cool. We are doing a lot with "bomb trucks" people just don't hear about. When a BUFF drops a JDAM from 35K it is just an explosion and troops in contact are no longer in contact. A-10s making gun runs makes for great video for sure. In Desert Storm the Iraqis were more afraid of B-52s overhead than A-10s. They could see the formations way up there (couldn't touch them), and had to sit and wait a couple of minutes to see if they had just unloaded on them or if they were on their way to ruin someone else's day.

That's funny, everywhere on military oriented sites all I read is how ground troops love this machine. I did however, specialize in military history and people underestimate the morale boost to troops knowing they have proper support or believe in something.

@RK-cj4oc

Жыл бұрын

Yeah. So imagine the moral drop troops would have when they believe this machine is good support but as soon as they go against a peer to peer enemy it gets shot down.

@CODYoungGunna

Жыл бұрын

@@RK-cj4oc ok give me examples of your BS claims

@RK-cj4oc

Жыл бұрын

@@CODYoungGunna what?

@CODYoungGunna

Жыл бұрын

@@RK-cj4oc you said that the A-10 would be shot down in peer to peer combat. Im sure you have proof of that

@romaliop

Жыл бұрын

You know to love it when it's there, but don't necessarily know to also hate it when it's absent because of its high cost and low reliability.

Ask any infantryman pinned down by the Taliban, or ISIS, and they will tell you the A-10 “bbbrrrrtttt” sounds like a saving angel.

I can tell you as a Marine Corps grunt that when you call in air, there isn't another fixed wing craft you would rather have than an A-10.

@spyrule

Жыл бұрын

AC-130?!?

@jamesjross

Жыл бұрын

Bullshit. I've never heard a Marine say they want USAF CAS. A10s are Marine killers.

@wike1138

Жыл бұрын

BIG FACTS

@Mokimanify

Жыл бұрын

So you rather have the A-10 over a gunship that can drop 105mm and 30mm right on top of a target point .. I'd take the Ghostrider any day.

@DaveCM

Жыл бұрын

@@spyrule OMG! The first time I saw the C-130 in action was in Iraq. We called in a strike while on patrol. That was amazing! But, with air attached directly to me, I'd still rather have the A-10

As somebody who has served in Afghanistan I can vouch for the warthog it’s an absolute BRRRRT BRRRRT Beauty it’s been a soldiers best friend for years and has saved countless lives

@IntrusiveThot420

Жыл бұрын

Not as many as the unsung heroes, F-111, B-1B, B-52, etc. They don't have the sexy (but useless) gun, but they can be on station for ten trillion years, and they all carry huge bomb loads.

@dawnsredemptiongaming5567

Жыл бұрын

@@IntrusiveThot420 can’t tell you how many time we called in the thunder it was a sight for sore eyes

@fbi805

Жыл бұрын

@@IntrusiveThot420 B-52s are high level carpet bombers that will destroy an entire city just to kill a target. A-10s are surgical strike aircrafts and I’ve witnessed it’s accuracy first hand. This guy in the video is just biased and pushing his own opinions as to why the A-10 sucks. As I’ve already mentioned this video fails to mention that the original 30mm rounds were not technically made to penetrate armor and were not made from depleted uranium.

@IntrusiveThot420

Жыл бұрын

@@dawnsredemptiongaming5567 yeah, nobody can take away the morale effect of strafing enemy positions. But it killed more friendlies than any other allied jet too... Either way, glad you survived the sandbox! I'm angling to work for a defense contractor on the next generation of air support so that y'all never have to worry about getting snuck up on ever again.

@bobdolespen

Жыл бұрын

This video is literally blatant propaganda for Lockheed Martin and a commerical fo the F-35 which they so desperately want to replace the A-10 and it is NOT fitting to do so, they're still so pissed the USAF was basically forced by the DOD to allocate 800~ mil to replace all the A-10 wings to keep them in service rather than replace all those A-10s with what? 8 F-35s? It's a fucking joke, this is just more $$$ greed bullshit politics being pushed through social media. Megaprojects, I see you, fuck you!

I vaguely remember reading something that when the Army brought up the idea of retiring the A-10 infantry commanders protested it heavily. I believe they cited that even though the plane is decades old, it still does it's job perfectly.

@academicdeaneducation6671

Жыл бұрын

Against what it faced in Afghanistan and maybe even Iraq but the story would be different vs more modern adversaries. The fact is the money might be better spent on more modern systems.

@brianeleighton

Жыл бұрын

The A-10 is flown by the Air Force, the Army isn't allowed to fly fixed wing combat aircraft. What actually happened was the Air Force has wanted to retire the A-10 for decades. The Army said if the Air Force retired it, they should amend the rules regarding combat aircraft to allow the Army to operate it. In the end, ground combat veterans in Congress stepped in to stop the Air Force from retiring it.

@IkLms11

Жыл бұрын

The British specifically requested A-10s not be used for CAS near them because they caused far more friendly fire incidents than any other CAS airframe.

@CODYoungGunna

Жыл бұрын

@@IkLms11 umm source

@h.wang_

Жыл бұрын

@@CODYoungGunna one of the most notable incidents was the 190th Fighter Squadron/Blues and Royals friendly fire incident

I spent 12 years in Infantry I can't count how many times a-10 s came to our rescue. This guy I don't know what he's talking about he don't have a clue

Ok first off. The reason for the GAU-9A over the GAU-8A. The GAU-8A is a 20mm gun with Steel rounds with aluminum casing. The GAU-9A is a 30mm gun with Depleted Uranium rounds or a mix of PGU-13B & PGU-14B High Explosive Incendiary rounds with aluminum casing. 2: Remember your talking about a gun! Not something that has a homing system, plus the fact that it's flying at 420 MPH. My brother was a sniper in US Army, My Parents are marksmen with a rifle, I'm a marksmen with a Bow. We can hit every stationary Target with 100% accuracy, now guest our accuracy if we're moving at 420 MPH? 3: While the gun is a known feature of the A-10 it it's it's only weapon. The A-10 carries 10 Maverick air-to-surface missiles, or 11Guilded bombs, a number of different assortment of other weapons. Making it the highest carry capacity of a ground support aircraft in history. 4: Seeing that the source was a civilian reporter, That information could have been misheard or embarrassed anyway possible to make the people back at home feel more comfortable. 5: 12 A-10s Shot down? That's funny since only 11 A-10 has ever been shot down and it's entire career, with 7 shot down in combat. 5 from surface-to-air missiles. 2 by Anti-Air Artillery. The other 4 wasn't engaged in combat. The other Fixed wing close air support aircrafts shot down was AV-8A Harrier II doing Napalm runs. And of those 11 downed A-10s only 2 pilots dead. Another fact about the A-10 is it isn't designed to combat other aircrafts but it can and has. And won every time. It's also only craft in existence that can get half its one shot off and still remain flying. 2 more checks to it's survivability. 6: The F-35 is a multirole combat air, Not a ground support aircraft and is almost never loaded with ground support weaponry. And it can't carry or do ground support for long. Ask any soldier pinned down by enemy fire what air aircraft will make them happy to see between a A-10 & a F-35. They'll say say A-10 every time.

Well you are focusing on one aspect of the aircraft. I can tell you as an infantrymen in the army we loved it. I has another rolls to which it is very well suited.

@justincoates4582

Жыл бұрын

We loved it because it's a meme, my dude. That's the only reason why. It is massively overhyped.

@justincoates4582

Жыл бұрын

"does it deserve this praise?" Nah. It doesn't.

@comacollosasa6282

Жыл бұрын

Because it was built to do one thing…

@williammitchell4417

Жыл бұрын

For the nay Sayers... I just got one reply.... Thunder make it rain.

@zander9774

Жыл бұрын

Isn't it interesting reading the hot takes from people that have neither worked hands on with the airframe nor needed to rely on it in combat.

“Too much gun is a better problem to have than not enough gun.” Sergeant First Class Anthony Kelly

Having this video pop up directly after watching the LazerPig video on the exact same subject it's like listening to two bands of different genres covering the same song.

Britain went for 30mm Aden cannon, and West Germany went for the Mauser BK 27, both cannons were revolver cannons and not rotary cannons like the GAU-8. Much lower rate of fire but more accurate ( 2000 vs ca 12000 rpm) and much lighter.

Perhaps the thing it is mostly know for, the sound made by that canon, is it's greatest asset, my grandfather was an artillery gun sergeant in North Africa WWII and despite the Stuka being one of the least effective, being slow, and poorly armed it was the most terrifying because of the scream it made when dive bombing, a shell fired from distance would be more effective but it came with no warning if you heard it explode then you'd survived, the Stuka was a constant source of terror and reduced morally a significant margin. A country's greatest assets, particularly in these close quarters battles, is its soldiers break them and every other part of the battle becomes easier.

@keithhealing1115

Жыл бұрын

Same with the Hawker Typhoon. If it could bring everything to bear on a target it was formidable. What it couldn't do was kill a Tiger unless it was very lucky. That didn't stop Tiger crews running when typhoons appeared - simply because of the reputation of the aircraft. Mind you - it must have been damn unpleasant being inside a Tiger when 4 20mm canon and rockets are thudding into it.

@tim_davidson6344

Жыл бұрын

The JU-87 Stuka's scream was generated by sirens mounted on its wheel struts for the purpose of undermining morale of people on the ground.

@veretos7

Жыл бұрын

The "Jericho Trumpet" It has it's own little prop that spins in a dive

@ryanotte6737

Жыл бұрын

@@keithhealing1115 Unpleasant indeed for the Tiger crew, and they would be pretty neutered if that amount of firepower landing on and around it took out pieces of track, damaged the main barrel or machine guns. Certainly could be frustrating psychologically to get near the lines just to get shaken up and have to turn the big boy around again back to a repair area (after getting the tracks functional again).

@keithhealing1115

Жыл бұрын

@@ryanotte6737 Turning the Tiger round for repair was chapter two of the manual wasn't it? Straight after "1. Congratulations on your purchase - here's how to turn your new Tiger on."

Everyone wants to judge but coming from boots on the ground and the A-10’s had our back and did a great job knocking out an entire enemy fire team size of Tallys. But everyone’s entitled to their opinion.

@jsbrads1

Жыл бұрын

Pilots also love them too. A10 goes Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrpt.

@magnusmunch2116

Жыл бұрын

It has the most friendly kills than all other American aircraft combined. An 80% of the a10s kill are from guide missils

@jvmiller1995

Жыл бұрын

I appreciate your service. And comment. I have watched hours of documentaries on this plane. I admit it is not the fastest and itis not the prettiest. But it has found its roll. Surely a blind man can see the difference in cost of weapons and ammo as well airframes between the 2 planes. The A10 cost around 17.5 million todays money and the F35 a real bargain for tax payers at 79 million each. That is now after all the RD was sorted. The first batch of F35's only costa coll 225 million each. The warthog might not be as advanced but it still has a place into days close combat support. I have hear that the Taliban flee like roaches with the lights on everytime they here those GE turbo fans coming for them. I did not even watch his entire video. I want to see a F35 fly home missing half of a wing!

@magnusmunch2116

Жыл бұрын

@@jvmiller1995 Well all morden a10 have been upgradet for around 100 million each so its not a cheap plane any more. Just saying. And the gun is redeamed accuracte with in a 75 feet radius and only hit 80% of its sheild “accuret”. The a10 is shit and Can only be use in battles Where No aa is precent

@De_cool_dude

Жыл бұрын

@@jvmiller1995 reasons why A10 is outdated. 1. lack of modern electronics. A10 pilots have to use binoculars in their cockpit to independently attack enemies. 2. low and slow will get you killed. See Ukrainian MANPADS. 3. they have to do #2 because of #1. 4, it would cost less to replace every A10s with an F35s than if they were to be upgraded to fix these issues. See @Magnus Munch 's comment about upgrades that have already happened.

Um no, even the Javelin anti-tank missile does not penetrate the tank's frontal armor, yet it still destroys the tank.

Normally I like his videos, but I was a USAF crew chief & worked on these planes. He implies that USAF brass had a conspiracy about the A10. Nothing could be further from the truth. USAF brass kept trying to can the plane. It was saved MULTIPLE times by the ARMY & MARINES who asked for it to stay. Yes other planes had good rates, but they didn't linger in the kill zones as A10 do, the tests for the plane weren't done with the ammo that it ended up using. I've SEEN the plane with that gun shoot through MODERN tank armor FROM THE FRONT MYSELF! I've also talked to chiefs who had combat A10 duty and been told 1st hand accounts of survivability. I think it's the difference between academic knowledge & practical.

5:21 Simon, nobody who has a choice attacks a tank from the front. 6:06 It would reduce the rounds fired to hits ratio. It would not reduce the hits to penetration ratio. 8:50 It’s a rare tank indeed that moves quickly enough to avoid a 30mm canon round. Furthermore, when approaching a moving target from the rear its speed is all but irrelevant. Actually, the movement might allow slightly more time on target. 9:20 So, what effect would all those off-target rounds have on surrounding enemy elements? Apparently, very little? 15:24 Please cite your evidence of this. 16:20 Are you suggesting that we would or could substitute F-35s for A-10s? An analysis of costs clearly shows that the A-10 has a sizable advantage over the F-35 in this respect. In other words, more ‘boots on the ground’. Gee, Simon, your glasses seem to have acquired a distinct brown tint today.

As a USAF crew chief, the Warthog was a favorite among those of us who worked on the F-15. They had two very different jobs and were both great at their craft. I have seen photos of A-10s that returned with literally half the plane missing but still able to fly. One of the reasons they lost as many as they did is because the Warthog is CLOSE air support and very maneuverable. Where it took miles for an F-15 (or any of the other planes you mentioned) to make a turn, the A-10 is measured in yards. Don’t forget that avionics have improved over the years and the Warthog carries tank busters, too.

@remliqa

Жыл бұрын

None of what you said matter in CAS, though. Close in CAS mean friendlies are close (danger close) , with that what you want is precision strikes. Oh, that A10 that flew home with half the plane missing? That plane will never fly again.

@Treblaine

Жыл бұрын

You're a USAF crew chief but you think the "close" in "close air support" means the aircraft has to get close to the enemy... not that the it's simply when the enemy is close to friendly troops and friendly aircraft still need to attack the enemy.

@CODYoungGunna

Жыл бұрын

@@Treblaine you're a civilian and you don't know what CAS is

@carlbrown5150

Жыл бұрын

@@remliqa It done its job and more.!!😊

@remliqa

Жыл бұрын

@@CODYoungGunna Dude, Don't use the appeal to authority fallacy when it is apparent the "authority" doesn't know what CAS mean That is the official tactical definition of CAS.

There's thousands of service men that will argue for the A10 for saving their lives when pinned down, ambushed and out numbered. They said the sound of the jet was music to their ears. They were excellent for taking out tanks and or convoys.

@ssglbc1875

11 ай бұрын

True but that’s against the Taliban. The a10 vs china wouldn’t last. Just like Russias su25 in Ukraine.

@ssglbc1875

11 ай бұрын

You need air superiority for the a10 to work

@chanceneel1

11 ай бұрын

@@ssglbc1875 different rolls. The A10 still has loiter capability.

I am not going to jump on you like most folks. I have watched the video, and you make many valid points. I wonder where the information comes from? You seem to have done your research on the aircraft, but where do you get your info? It is well established that the public are not aware of any military equipment, until it has been in service for at least fifteen years, meaning secrecy is key. How could this have been in service for so long with such a lacking record? That seems like bad business. I am not doubting you, but rather our military thinking. I look forward to a dialog with you on this, if you are ok with that?

It certainly does deserve its reputation and comparing it with the F-35 is not a very fair comparison as there is half a century difference in design. As for the high loses in combat, this can only be expected as the A-10 operates low and slow which makes it both vulnerable and lethal to enemy ground forces. Later advances in technology have given its cannon a wide range of different projectile rounds for penetrating armour or taking out soft targets with each round acting similar to a hand grenade so pin point accuracy is not really required. As for the pilots who fly these aircraft, they deserve the highest respect as they know the risk factor is stacked against them due to the nature of their missions. It requires the pilot to get their hands dirty by taking the aircraft into harms way to complete the mission and wreak havoc on the enemy!

@brettwilson7155

Жыл бұрын

@@osric729 ...... I totally agree........ I am a big fan of Simon's work and I really do appreciate the effort he and his team puts in....... but this one I think is based more on opinions rather than facts.

I'm a veteran of oef/oif... the a-10 can loiter longer, holds more ordinance, moves slower over the battle space, and the enemy shits their pants when that famous GAU starts to bark. Anytime cas came to help us the target was destroyed in the 1st or second strafe using the GAU. If it was using missiles one pass is all it took.

@stephenhawkins3316

Жыл бұрын

Notice us Grunts want the A10 and the Non Grunts think kitchen knives will work

@dongiovanni4331

Жыл бұрын

The Brits don't like the A 10

@johnccalhoun1203

Жыл бұрын

if the a-10's missiles were more effective than its gun we can just put the missiles on a better and more modern platform lmao

@bkane573

Жыл бұрын

And how long did it take the fast movers to acquire targets? Could they? The fancy F whatever the number couldn’t when I needed them, and they didn’t give us a JTAC to hold their hand so they were useless.

@jimmyw7530

Жыл бұрын

So it is good at making scary noises and flying in circles. The figures don’t lie.

if you could strip the gun out without wrecking the structure or weight and balance it might make a great CDF firefighting platform; it does have lots of lift at low speed, great visibility and is highly manoeuvrable. And there are lots of them in the desert.

I think the loiter time is the key to what made the A10 special and what probably led to a higher chance of losses. A10 also has a very high payload, which includes guided munitions. 🤔

@pancytryna9378

Жыл бұрын

If your requirement is "slap tons of ammo on a plane", you don't need dedicated aircraft for that And if you need guided munitions I mean You can even use something like B-1

@joecaa3722

Жыл бұрын

bro the a10 is an over engineered flying bomb truck that is horribly outdated. the super tucanos from the south americans can literally do what the a10 can do at a fraction of a cost, fraction of the maintenance, and fraction of the training time.

@gildedphoenix

10 ай бұрын

If your idea of CAS is long loiter time, than B-1 can do that and even accurately drop guided munitions, A LOT MORE THAN WHAT A-10 HOLD. And even better thing is B-1's did so during Afghan War.

I am engineer who actually worked on a major system used in the F-35. Only a fool would look at the F-35 as a close air support aircraft.

@tonymorris4335

Жыл бұрын

In beast mode with the sensor suite that thing boasts? It would do the job as well as an F16 would. If you're involved in aerospace engineering, esp on a stealth aircraft, then you recognize how insanely easy the A10 would be to hit with a modern MANPAD. The thing's max speed is slower than the P51D mustang and it has two exposed turbofans in pods giving that heat signature straight exposure to IR sensors.

@nunya3163

Жыл бұрын

@@tonymorris4335 Actually, the A-10 is relatively hard to hit with an MPAD, when it is close to the ground. It may be slow, but it will come, kill, and be gone before you can even get a lock. The JSF simply cannot survive at low levels, is too fragile, with the radar resitant paint easily damaged, and would also be needed for other missions, making it less available for close in air support.

@EvileDik

Жыл бұрын

​@@nunya3163 SAMP/T and Aster says hi, this is not a remotely challenging target.

@guillaumelalonde7945

Жыл бұрын

@@tonymorris4335 it's actually the opposite with the engines, they are positioned forward so the vertical stabs mask them from the side. They are also specifically non afterburning to reduce heat output.

@GreenGoblinDK

Жыл бұрын

Staying real low seems to be the favorit tactic in Ukraine. Slow speed might make it easier to hug the ground. Dont know

The video seemed to ignore the 16,000 lbs of mixed ordinance the A-10 carries including 10 Maverick air to ground missiles., as well as the fact the gun is useful for more than tanks.. close air support isn't just about shooting tanks.

@andrewsartscalemodels2344

Жыл бұрын

Usual cherry picking that this channel does. Very poor vids. This will be the last I bother to watch. Not only are they always poor quality, but jam packed with adverts...

@yvesgysel9834

Жыл бұрын

100% agree the A10 could carry much more missiles/bombs then any other jet. It's main mission was to support ground troops and that it did. Saved a lot of soldiers. Here, they only discuss the "gun". That's not fair and being a bit bias.

@madkabal

Жыл бұрын

@@yvesgysel9834 the A-10 conducted only 3% of all CAS missions during WoT. Seeing that the A-10 cant do much else and we had permissive airspace during the whole war, its time to admit the the A-10 is taking up too much space in the USAF inventory for a mission set that other airframes do more amd more effectively. squadrons equipped with A-10s would be better served flying F-16s, especially Air National Guard Squadrons, who's job is to defend domestic airspace

I've thought the gatling gun in the A10 is obsolete in an era of smart missiles.

@TheSpinkels

Жыл бұрын

It was obsolete when it was first introduced. The A-10 started out as a CAS system, but was shuffled over to an anti-tank role when USAF acquisition saw another aircraft killing tanks on the cheap with a 30mm cannon - only to find out quite quickly in a series of live fire tests that even against things like old Patton M47's and T-62's a 30mm is garbage for that, let alone against the T-72's of the time. These days the A-10 is pretty much nothing but a bomb truck that's no longer even cheap thanks to the upgrades needed in it to stop it pasting friendly forces.

What the stability targeting things used in the gun testing or did they put that in after to make it better, to my knowledge it locks the angle of the plane and offsets the recoil of the gun while u shoot, but I think u can't make any adjustments until u stop shooing because it locks the control surfaces, if anyone knows more about this it would be greatly appreciated

I can tell you from close personal experience, I love and praise the A-10 and its pilots! This plane helped my unit out more than a few times in Iraq and in the mountains of Afghanistan. We always had A-10s assigned for close air support and our TACP operators were wizards at getting them on target when needed. I've seen A-10s with more holes than Swiss cheese. You can take all the blah blah blah tests, reports and mathematical hoopla and put it in the shredder because I think the A-10 is money well spent and any A-10 pilot I've talked to loved them as well. But I'm one guy and my opinion means spit!

@drewschumann1

Жыл бұрын

The A10 has literally killed more friendly than enemy troops. In my 31+ years of military service I am well aware of the stupid shit military types believe and accept as fact that just isn't true

@danielclemons5175

Жыл бұрын

" I've seen A-10s with more holes than Swiss cheese." Yeah, gonna call BS on this. If you were on a FOB then you weren't near an airfield to see BDA on an A-10. A-10s didn't get hit that much to make them "swiss cheese" because there was nothing in Iraq or Afghan to hit them.

@gothamgoon4237

Жыл бұрын

@@danielclemons5175 Really? No bullets or rockets of any size can hit and damage a relatively slow flying ground attack plane close to the ground? Man, I must have physics all wrong then.

@mikesammons48

Жыл бұрын

The A10 engines bring joy in its allies and fear In the enemy it fills a very specific job for the Army and Marines. I served in Afghan and Iraq I wont lie I love that plane.

@emptyptr9401

Жыл бұрын

I mean, data can be fabricated of course. But when it is legit it will always outweigh individual experiences. Individual views will always be skewed, but data doesn't lie (Unless when it does. But when it does its down to bad data collection processes or intentional fabrication). Long story short: Unfabricated and competently collected data is reliable, while personal impressions are not.

You missed to two most important factors. $/kill ratio and psychological effect both on enemy and friend. If the Taliban, as you put it, is taking cover, the mission is at least partially accomplished. Sending an F-35 with astronomical maintenance costs and better things to do equipped with a million dollar + guided missile to kill some ground troops might not be the solution. Especially since getting intelligence with a 1 sq. meter accuracy to an F35 is likely not possible in a timely manner and the fact that there are not that many F-35's for that kind of mission. To me, the solution seems simple. Increase the accuracy of the gun. The A-10 air-frame is outstanding. Not your top video.

@hill160881

Жыл бұрын

Well someone took this badly 😂. I think you miss the point that almost any aircraft can do the job better.

@Dasbulldoge

Жыл бұрын

@@hill160881 But any aircraft ISN’T doing the job better. It’s a surprisingly cheap, effective enough platform for hellfire missiles and psychological warfare. If the taliban are running for cover every time CAS is called, then their job is 90% effective. CAS doesn’t win wars, ground troops do. If the CAS can give the ground troops room to breathe then that’s a successful sortie. And keep in mind, comparing a vehicle built in the 60’s against an aircraft whose service life started 7 years ago that costs 1,250% more is absurd. The F35 has some incredible aspects but is 1 F35 better at CAS than 12 A10’s? I don’t think so. The A10 is VERY flawed, but what it lacks in quality it makes up for in quantity.

@adamndirtyape

Жыл бұрын

@@hill160881 If they can get out of the hangar and show up. The F-35 has poor reliability but the A-10 is almost always ready to go. Plus you can literally buy 4 A-10s for the price of one F-35. Each of those A-10s will be heavily loaded with missiles as well as armed with a cannon. Add this up you get continuous CAS coverage versus spotty CAS coverage. This video doesn't do a very good analysis of this. Availability rates for aircraft is an enormously important stat that wasn't even factored into the critique of the A-10. I'm not saying the A-10 program (like all other military weapon systems) shouldn't be scrutinized but all key factors have to be considered when comparing one to another.

@maxhoogma5164

Жыл бұрын

Bruh the taliban loved the a10 cause it never hit them and killed so many civvies they called it their greatest propaganda machine.

@2adamast

Жыл бұрын

Any plane and the A10 can send in a missile 50 miles from target

Have you served in the military? Have you experienced even the slightest threat to your life? Then sit down & be quiet. Testimonials from front line soldiers will qualify the value of the A-10. When there are so many important matters to consider these days, your armchair pontification is so valuable.

“I’m a soldier who was saved by this weapon” The 50 other friendly soldiers ended by unfriendly fire: 💀

After reading some of the other comments, I was reminded that it is not only the physical damage that a weapon can deliver but also the psychological damage. Think of the German MG 42. The sound of 1,200 rounds per minute made you want to keep your head down, but I doubt the physical damage was significantly greater than the M1919 Browning.

@benjaminparent4115

Жыл бұрын

Psychological damage is heavily dependent on the weapon not being destroyed. A downed A-10 do not provide any benefit.

@jameslearing970

Жыл бұрын

Newsflash: anyone that hears a Borwning is going to want to keep their head down too. It's a fucking gun lol. Psychological damage is just a bunch of unquantifiable mumbo jumbo. An aircraft that the enemy doesn't see or hear and blows them the hell up is more effective.

@CODYoungGunna

Жыл бұрын

@@benjaminparent4115 only 6 have ever been downed!

@benjaminparent4115

Жыл бұрын

@@CODYoungGunna And more werewritten off because of heavy damage after they landed, and they had a restricted airspace during Desert Storm because of that.

@CODYoungGunna

Жыл бұрын

@@benjaminparent4115 that's false. Loss from a military standpoint means that the frame cannot fly and is not repairable. They USAF has reported 5 losses of A-10s during the Gulf War.

Remember that the mass majority of kills the A-10 achieved against armored targets was not made by the gun, but with Maverick Missiles; ordinance that could be carried by all sorts of other aircraft.

@kf4hqf2

Жыл бұрын

Except that bad guys shoot back, and the A10 was designed to take a pounding, and still complete mission and get home.

@GIHD

Жыл бұрын

@@kf4hqf2 but imagine something better then surviving a hit: not getting hit because you fly fast hundreds of kilometres away

@sofieknive7382

Жыл бұрын

​@@kf4hqf2 the durability of the a-10 was good, but it has been overstated. and do you know what's better than being designed to take a hit? being designed not to be hit

@milisha98

Жыл бұрын

@@kf4hqf2 As the video pointed out; the A-10 has the worst survivability record. Had to be moved AWAY from where the action because of losses and was only allowed to fly at night. So many other platforms that performed the role better.

@gabrielinostroza4989

Жыл бұрын

@@kf4hqf2 would be better at its job if it was designed to avoid getting shot at in the first place, which is what most ground attack airplanes do.

Do we know if the testes were using the depleted uranium rounds? I had herd that it was cancelled do to the hippis worrying about radiation but don't know if they were used and if they would have helped the A10. i also would like to see if the A10 could get some updates to its targeting system as "if I'm not mistaken" accuracy back when it was made was point gun at target pull trigger. now we have auto correcting mounts and other nifty gadgets that could help its aim.

The A10 reminds me of the Stuka: a terror weapon that bridged the gap between artillery and medium bombers for the Nazis. It was virtually withdrawn early in the battle of Britain because it was an easy kill for RAF fighters. In the Ukraine context it could be effective where Russian air defences are weak and cloud cover is low. Targets out of artillery range could be attacked thus changing the battlefield dynamics considerably. If Ukraine wants them then the cost to the US would be relatively low and training time relatively low. Ukraine are the best judges of just what they could do with it. They have shown their ingenuity with weapons use many times over.

@kenoliver8913

8 ай бұрын

Fair to compare it to the Stuka, except that these days it would be an even easier kill for MANPADS and SAMS rather than fighters. I think it would be very dangerous to put it anywhere near the Russian S400 system and downright suicidal to fly low and slow near infantry with smart MANPADS. You'd have to use it as a standoff missile truck only, for which its ease of maintenance, support and camouflage is its main virtue.

In Nam, we had the A1 Sky Raider out of NKP. Avgas, single radial engine, single flight controls. What could go wrong with that when you are subjected to ground fire. I felt sorry for them, but did appreciate their help.

@tim_davidson6344

Жыл бұрын

Like the A-10, the A-1 carried a large payload and could loiter. I kinda miss the A-1.

I'm not defending the A-10, however, you completely fail to mention that the A-10 also carries the same anti-tank missiles, mavericks and precision munitions, that other fighters carry. The images even show Aircraft armed with them. It does not, as your video suggests, only use the 30mm Gau-8 to attack armor. Furthermore, Close air support does not always mean tanks, it also means infantry. By its very nature, it is flying low and relatively slow close to the ground, making the aircraft suceciptable to small arms fire from the ground. The Tornado also suffered from losses higher than other jets for similar reasons

@mikoi7472

Жыл бұрын

>what are manpads the comment

@bradmorri

Жыл бұрын

@Siberian i wasn't defending the a-10 it is old. The gun though, to be fair, is not its only trick as the video would have you believe

This is a fair claim. It’s value today is basically entirely due to two things: it is a (relatively disposable) missile truck and it can takeoff from basically anywhere that has solid ground

Great video! You think you could make one in the same manner about AC 130 Spectre/Ghost? I sure hope so :D

I think a good comparison is made, whilst neglecting to recognize that A10 and F35 reflect different eras in modern warfare and in many ways the F35 has learnt from the very operational conflict experience (much of it on the back of the A10's workload) that highlight the A10's 'accepted' innate vulnerability. Its armour derives from its role: low & slow close air-support. It was designed to be down & dirty, mixing with the confusion on heavily defended ground, where attrition rates would always be high; a reality accepted at that time. Talking about 1m accuracy from 70km range is all very well, but at what cost per unit? 70s Cold War tactics always envisaged high attrition rates, even for more sophisticated western weapon systems. Such is the nature of developing warfare tactics. As a comparison, the zero loss rate of Harrier FRS aircraft in the Falklands conflict is rightly lauded. However, when quoting that click-bait statistic, few draw attention to the Harrier GRs lost over land in the same airspace and time frame

I served as an 11B in Afghanistan and Iraq. Seeing A-10's overhead always let me know we were safe.

@wonkothesane7000

Жыл бұрын

Yea. It proved you were up against Bows and Arrows.

@ssgus3682

Жыл бұрын

@@wonkothesane7000 or RPG's, AK's, IED's.

@wonkothesane7000

Жыл бұрын

@@ssgus3682 👍

Whatever the design was intended for, the mission it now performs it does so exceedingly well. It failed on paper and succeeded for the troops on the ground. Batting .000 for desk jockeys and .850 for the missions assigned. There is more to combat than statistics. Mostly lives.

@Optimaloptimus

Жыл бұрын

Can any of that be proven though?

@Sleepy7666

Жыл бұрын

Here's the most important statistic. Most blue on blue in the modern era. If needs to be retired and it's missions given to the B1.

@Sleepy7666

Жыл бұрын

Tell that to the innocent bystanders it's murdered and made their families extremists.

The Army has not used the Thompson since 1971. The A10 Air Force Brass is always trying to get rid of it. But when the enemy hear these two weapons go off. What do you think they are thinking about?

It was designed to replace the A2 Skyraider CAS mission The A2 Platform was worn-out after Vietnam. A-10s aren't perfect but they aren't trash when doing their designed mission. The truth is in the middle

@spot6888

Жыл бұрын

Yeah they are trash, look at the amount of friendly fire incidents involving the a10 more then any other us aircraft

@MSgtRazor

Жыл бұрын

@@spot6888 cuz they have way more CAS missions.. higher sortie # is gonna provide more chances of friendly fire..

@kirkmorrison6131

Жыл бұрын

@@spot6888 Close air support is risky especially when a position is being over run. This is were it was supposed to replace the SPADS the A-2. They weapons should have been chosen for this role, the Air Force should not have given into mission creep. The aircraft is a fine platform, the gun is the problem.

@Qwiv

Жыл бұрын

@@spot6888 not true when values are corrected per capita and for similar missions.

@shaider1982

Жыл бұрын

They aren't trash as long as the enemy doesn't have strong anti air.

Close air support by aircraft helping troops and tank columns was started during WW2 in every theater. Low-flying, heavily armed aircraft also were used to prevent enemy reinforcements and break up logistics resupply. During the war, it was well documented that pilots greatly exaggerated tank kills, the same as in the Gulf War. Yet, the Germans and Japanese both blamed these "flying devils" for the loss of battles, loss of territory, and high casualties. The Battle of the Bulge was well documented from the German side and they were unanimous in how devastating attacking aircraft were once the weather lifted and aircraft could attack at will. Why? They stated that a tank under guns and rocket attack would usually survive numerous passes by planes, but the tanks had to button up while their vision ports, treads, cracks in the welds, and turrent rings could be damaged making it much harder to fight the tank afterward. It was also very demoralizing and morale-busting to have to hunker down and take this abuse. The infantry needed to protect the tanks from ground attacks were vulnerable, and the logistic train of trucks that carried fuel, ammo, and food was quickly destroyed. No, CAS are not tank killers but make life so miserable and logistics so hard that morale and successful attacks are both greatly hindered. A tank that cannot do its job is as good as a kill.

@mooniejohnson

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. Even if the A-10 "failed" as a tank-killer it still did its job and more. There's a reason they're loved and still in use.

@skaldlouiscyphre2453

Жыл бұрын

@@mooniejohnson If it's job was terrorizing third world peasants, it's quite effective but rather expensive. If it's job is facing peer adversaries it's never done that job and likely would suffer greatly unless air superiority could be established, meaning it won't even be operating early on. That means, no it will not be 'doing it's job' in a peer vs peer conflict, it'll be in hiding until it's safe to operate.

@DRicke

Жыл бұрын

@@skaldlouiscyphre2453 We only need to achieve local air superiority for the airspace in question and at key moments in the battle though, which is certainly not easy but part of the game. It's more dangerous sure, but the action just needs to be more deliberate, not called off entirely. If we give up on the idea of combined arms we'll lose that hypothetical peer-to-peer battle for certain if it ever does happen.

@skaldlouiscyphre2453

Жыл бұрын

@@DRicke Who said anything about giving up on the idea of combined arms? I'm just advocating to pick a more survivable platform for the mission than a Super Sturmovik because the role has changed.

The A-10 is interesting. One of the most interesting military aircraft out there. It's relatively effective, but I see it as a "win more" weapon. AKA it's a weapon that requires a lot of things to already be established. It's relatively slow speed means that it's not going to outmaneuver jets meant to shoot them down. But that's not at all what it's meant to do. It's extremely well lauded against insurgents, often being said to have saved many lives, perhaps even thousands. It's well enough armored and there's a lot of stories of it surviving fairly insane things, even against fairly modern weapons. But it shouldn't be much of a surprise that you can't fly CAS missions while the skies are still contested.

Two of the M47 Patton tanks used for testing are resting in Area 1 and Area 18 on the Nevada National Security Site. Several holes in them, but the one hole that stood out to me was the one that punched all the way through both sides of a barrel. They're roped off because of the hazard they pose, but their coordinates are: 37.052366,-116.103364 37.119202,-116.303587