[wbill]

There's no doubt that the A-10 is a great plane, and the military would be foolish to terminate it without a comparable replacement.

I've often wondered, though, if a P-51, or the old A-1 Skyraiders, might be more suited to some of the brushfire wars that we're fighting in the Middle East. The rough field capability, in particular, would be handy, I'd think.

Would love to have FReepers more learned than I, comment.

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

It can’t have all the armor protection of an A10 and it certainly doesn’t have the super cannon. You can’t pack too much of a punch.

[tanknetter]

P-51s (by then designated F-51) got torn up pretty badly flying ground attack missions in Korea. The Packard/Merlin just couldn’t take the damage from groundfire.

There’s been considerable speculation over the years about why the USAF sent F-51s, as opposed to F-47 Thunderbolts (which like the Mustang were still in service with ANG units) to Korea. Big air cooled radials can take a heck of a lot more damage than liquid cooled plants like the Packard Merlin can. The speculation breaks down into two camps. One, that the USAF brass wanted to ditch the old WWII prop aircraft for jets and losing a lot in comabt would make their case and two, the F-51 units were mostly on the West Coast while the F-47s were on the East, so the ‘stangs went as a matter of logistical convienience.

[NTHockey]

Air Force literally flew the wings off the AD Skyraiders in Vietnam. They inquired about restarting the production line, but the retooling costs and startup were prohibitive.

[GreyFriar]

P-51’s main vulnerability to ground fire is its liquid cooled engine. Drain the radiator and the engine seizes up. the P-47, Corsair, and Skyraider all had air cooled engines that were famous for still running after losing a cylinder or two and getting the pilot home or to friendly territory.

[pfflier]

The A-10 was designed from the outset to be survivable and to work from a rough field environment. The engines were placed high and to the rear for just those purposes.

The high intakes and placement behind the wings minimize risk of FOD intake and the plane was designed to survive with either engine blown off.

The anti-FOD design was specifically intended for operations in unimproved areas. The A-10 main gear doors were designed robustly to be mudflaps.

I've had friends that flew Sandys (A-1Es) (RIP Lt Col Valentine) and they loved it but it was old and worn out and it was vulnerable to groundfire. It was a flying dumptruck and could loiter for hours, much longer than a jet. But, that advantage was lost to aerial refuelling capability