Posted on 02/07/2017 3:57:25 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
The A-10 Warthog, a muscular and armored ground attack plane, is an odd vehicle because it was originally designed to attack Soviet tanks in Europe in the event of a third world war.
Thankfully, that conflict never occurred. Instead, the Warthog flew in the Persian Gulf War, the Balkans and has spent years taking on lightly-armed insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq — where it performs excellently at the job.
The RAND Corporation, a California-based think tank closely tied to the U.S. Air Force, recently compiled statistics on A-10s in Afghanistan, with the goal of studying how they performed and how the Air Force could replace them in the future.
It should come as no surprise that as the war continued, the A-10 took on a larger share of missions — comprising “one-half of all the CAS [close air support] missions … despite representing a small fraction of the total aircraft in theater,” according to RAND.
Warthogs also began striking targets across a wider span of the country as the Taliban’s reach expanded.
The Air Force continued to rely on A-10s primarily because of the aircraft’s ability to fly low and slow, giving the pilot enough time to line up and strafe with the plane’s 30-millimeter rotary cannon. This weapon is especially useful for hitting moving targets. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at warisboring.com ...
I recall that video. The Oasis had some buildings in it and the Marine position was slightly elevated above it, out maybe 500 yards or so.
And the Air Force needs to agree to relinquish fixed-wing CAS aircraft to the Army and Marine Corps.
There apparently is an inter-service rivalry issue here, and the AF has been trying to kill the Warthog simply because they aren’t interested in it, despite how badly the infantry needs it.
The A-10 is not sexy enough for the Air Force.
The P-51 was a lousy attack aircraft. In fact it was probably the most over-rated aircraft of WWII, and possibly ever.
The P-51 Mustang was good for protecting bombers. And it has great lines.
But if you want the best WWII attack aircraft you go with the P-47 Thunderbolt
http://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/04/20/the-jug-10-cool-facts-about-the-p-47-thunderbolt/
Or the F4U, arguably the best dive bomber of the war.
They need to buy another 200 of these beasts
I am also a big A-10 fan. But I am also a big Burt Rutan
fan. Besides being a human caused global warming
doubter Rutan is a fellow graduate of Cal Poly SLO.
Bravo!
Only because of the bombload. The P-47 wallowed badly when low and slow, especially with early models. It wasn’t very good at climbing either until late in the war. It was very good at diving on an enemy and sucking up enemy munitions, which, as one pilot famously put it, “Well it damn well ought to be able to dive - it sure as hell can’t climb!”
Best attack/ground support plane of the war was the Russian IL-2 Sturmovik, hands down.
IIRC, one of the big problem with Ares was that it wasn’t big or powerful enough to carry sufficient armor aloft. As I recall, the only armor was rated against just rifle and GPNG fire and was around the fuel tanks, not the pilot. Tends to be a bit hard on the pilot getting low and slow
In the dirt.
Depends on how you score it. You point to the climbing weakness in the early P-47s but that ended with the paddle propeller. I don’t know of the Ilyushin being used in a fighter role like the P-47 could be. The Il-2 was primarily a ground attack plane similar to what the Warthog is.
War is Boring provides a comparison of the two aircraft, I don’t know that you can conclude which is better:
The Sturmovik was not heavily armed. Two forward-firing 23-millimeter cannons and two 7.62-millimeter machine guns, as well as 1,300 pounds of bombs or eight air-to-ground rockets, sounds like a potent punch. But it is actually less firepower than a late-war fighter-bomber like the P-47 Thunderbolt, with eight .50-caliber machine guns and 2,500 pounds of bombs, or the devastating Hawker Typhoon with four 20-millimeter cannons, two tons of bombs and eight rockets.
By the time the P-47 started to have its problems ironed out, the much more powerful IL-10 upgrade of the IL-2 was in service. The P-47 was a high altitude fighter that happened to do reasonably well at ground attack, not a great ground attack craft.
The IL-2 was hell on wheels against bombers and transports as well as other ground attack aircraft. It performed indifferently in the low to medium altitude fighter role.
How does the C-130 Ghost or whatever it’s called compared to an A-10?
AC-130 Spooky or Ghostrider.. I guess it’s had a lot of names
It can do close air support. It’s a bigger aircraft and can carry a lot more ordinance, but it’s not a flying tank like the A-10 and is more vulnerable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93kGCTOwmow
I was trying to buy an AK-47, but somehow got talked into an AC-47. Leaks when it rains; never regretted value over price.
An actual RAND study will do more to bolster the arguments of those Generals wanting to keep the A-10 than a thousand grunts singing their praises.
The kind of bean counters behind approving or disapproving these programs can see the value, in hard dollars, of the platform.
One engine? No thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.