A-10a Description 25 years ago

[Jimmytime]

Found this in an old Microprose F-19 Manual and thought I'd share the future of the A-10 from 1987...:cry:

 

A-10A Thunderbolt II

Designer/Manafacturer: Fairchild Republic, USA

Role: Close support aircraft

 

Notes: This slow, heavily-armored plane was designed purely for frontline

ground attack with "tank busting" its speciality. This role (unglamorous to

the USAF), along with its peculiar appearance, earns it the unofficial

nickname "Warthog". Although intended for combat in Europe where low clouds

and bad weather are frequent, the A-10 is a fair-weather day-only plane.

The manafacturer hopes to interest the USAF in a night-flying variant,

currently without success. Unless protected by good fighters (F-15s and F-

16s), this plane is doomed if sent into airspace contested by USSR

fighters. (The USAF is now gradually getting rid of the A-10... numerous

accidents may have had something to do with this.)

[Snoopy]

LOL...well that was funny...funny thing is even an early A model flew at night and "numerous accidents" was never the reason the USAF thought of retiring the airframe, it was more they felt other ACFT could do the same job...they can't and they'll realise that the first time they send an F-35 in low and one stray bullet takes that jet down....

 

Like the B52 I think the A-10 will outlive some of her original pilots...

[Daze]

I think it's a good looking plane! :thumbup:

[Speed]

I think it's a good looking plane! :thumbup:

 

Compared to a paper airplane made by a six-year-old, maybe.

[Snoopy]

I think it's a good looking plane! :thumbup:

 

Even with how much I love the Hawg she has a face only a mother could love :D

[wess24m]

I was reading somewhere that the air force strongly dislikes the CAS mission. I believe it was in a documentary about the initial deployment of the a-10.

[Dusty Rhodes]

I'm a mutha, and I love her. I agree, I think an ex-A10 pilots son is going to be flying the same aircraft he or she did.

[Snoopy]

I was reading somewhere that the air force strongly dislikes the CAS mission. I believe it was in a documentary about the initial deployment of the a-10.

 

CAS is to down and dirty for most USAF upper brass. It's not glamours and they don't make movies about CAS pilots.:music_whistling:

 

I will say this, my current Group Commander has flown both the F-16 and F-22 prior to the A-10 and he has said multiple times how much more fun it is to fly the A-10.

[MagnumHB]

I was reading somewhere that the air force strongly dislikes the CAS mission. I believe it was in a documentary about the initial deployment of the a-10.

Which is too bad for them considering the events of the last 10 years.

[aaron886]

Compared to a paper airplane made by a six-year-old, maybe.

 

LOL. :D

[weasel75]

One might interpret the "dislike" in a different way: CAS-missions are dangerous and no matter how much more advanced your planes are over the enemy's - the CAS-plane has to linger over a fixed area for a longer time, it might even have to get low - and there are numerous dangers (AAA, Manpad, rifles, higher probability of collision, etc). So those missions might be more expensive in terms of losses.

 

Therefore, seen from a "higher" level, those missions might be less liked as they have higher risks - but in the end they are crucial, and one can't deny their necessity.

[weasel75]

Compared to a paper airplane made by a six-year-old, maybe.

 

Naah, I like the looks of it. The same holds true for the Ju-87 (especially the G-version) and even the IL-2.

 

Those planes are efficient, and the design reminds me of the "lean" concept. All overhead, all things you don't really need: waste. Eliminate waste.

First thing: we need a biiiiig gun? Build it in!

Second: we need reliable protection and safety. Okay, build it in then!

Third: there is no need for high speeds cause we chase slow-moving ground-target. Great, so care less about the streamlined airframe, more space to utilize for the important things ...

 

Another way to put it: the A-10 is the

of the airplanes.

"The A-10 does not care, the A-10 does not give a sh** .. the A-10 takes what it wants ... the A-10 is pretty bad-ass ... The A-10 has been referred to as the most fearless airplane in the world ..."

 

But "Warthog" is close enough ;)

[galagamo]

Another way to put it: the A-10 is the

of the airplanes.

LMFAO@Narator :lol:

[Boberro]

Even with how much I love the Hawg she has a face only a mother could love :D

 

LOL :D

[Cali]

LOL...well that was funny...funny thing is even an early A model flew at night and "numerous accidents" was never the reason the USAF thought of retiring the airframe, it was more they felt other ACFT could do the same job...they can't and they'll realise that the first time they send an F-35 in low and one stray bullet takes that jet down....

 

Like the B52 I think the A-10 will outlive some of her original pilots...

 

 

I agree, I think the A-10 will be around for a long time. I think the A-10 is a bada$$ looking jet, I miss working on it.

[RobbySpike]

Thats funny, I can remember the A-10 being very popular, at least to us kids during the 80s. It was a quite common opinion that it is a damn cool plane, with its maverick missiles, the most evil cannon on this planet, just looking darn evil and stuff :) Everyone who made those plastic model planes also wanted an A-10 :) I never knew that this plane had such a negative reputation at this time - Maybe this had something to do with cold war propaganda over here in europe.

Edited January 19, 2012 by RobbySpike

[Eddie]

The A-10 isn't alone in being ignored/underestimated by higher command etc. The Harrier was in exactly the same position, right up until the Falklands. Sadly it's no been retired, when in an ideal world it shouldn't have been.

 

Pretty much anything that isn't a pointly nose supersonic fighter is disliked by Airforce top brass. I think the reason for that is that airforce top brass is mostly made up of former pointy nose supersonic fighter pilots (often average ones at that). You tend to get two groups of pilots (in the RAF, and I'd say the same is true for the USAF and others), those that want to get promoted and work their way up the ranks, and those that just want to fly.

 

Those that want to get promoted tend to be the ones that spend to much time in front of the mirror, and do whatever they need to tick the promotion boxes. Those that just want to fly, often turn down promotions etc in order to keep actually flying in a combat role. My old Sqn had an Instructor pilot who first started flying in the Phantom, then Tornado F3s and finally Typhoon, and despite his experience he was still a Flt lt (Captain equiv in the USAF), becasue he'd chosen to forgoe promotion and keep flying. And by all accounts he was a damn good pilot. They are the guys that tend to convince people to keep the less popular jets in service and are normally proven right when a war comes along.

[Yurgon]

Thats funny, I can remember the A-10 being very popular, at least to us kids during the 80s.

 

Yeah, same here. The A-10 was actually one of my first model kits (1:48 scale). I was really fascinated by the Warthog ever since I'd seen it display at an airshow. The fast movers just passed overhead, making terrible noise, but the A-10 flew totally cool maneuvers pretty low and sounded so gentile. The idea of taking a huge gun, an armored pit and then build a plane around that seemed pretty solid. Plus we were aware that in case of war, they'd be the ones keeping Soviet tanks away from us.

 

Coming back to the original post:

"Unless protected by good fighters (F-15s and F-16s), this plane is doomed if sent into airspace contested by USSR fighters."

 

Nothing peculiar about that, IMO. All the conflicts where the A-10 has seen action so far have been conflicts with little to none enemy air assets. In a conflict where air dominance has not been established, the Hog seems mighty vulnerable to me and would definitely require friendly air cover.

 

But I agree that the value of CAS missions and CAS aircraft has been pretty much ignored in that summary.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Yurgon
Replaced "Russian tanks" with "Soviet tanks"