Legend of the A-10 Hog and the Avenger [Mythbusting]

[molnibalage]

On 11/27/2021 at 5:48 PM, Domus Acipenseris said:

This paper is on the systems engineering of the A-10.  Lots of history.  I posted the same doc with 2 different links to combat link rot.

 

https://www.lboro.ac.uk/media/wwwlboroacuk/content/systems-net/downloads/pdfs/A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CASE STUDY.pdf

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA530838.pdf

 

The real shocking thing in the paper is that the YA-10 beat the A-7D in a flyoff.  That seems inconceivable.  The A-7 had one of the best nav-attack systems and could carry a large load to a long range.  It was faster and much more survivable.  Why did the Air Force try and build the A-7F instead of more A-10s a few years later?  I would like more details on the flyoff but I believe the books were cooked by having pilots compare CAS iron bomb and cannon use in a benign air defense environment in clear weather.  In any other role the A-7 wins easily.

 

An answer to the question of whether or not an A-10 has ever destroyed an enemy tank using its cannon:  "While the gun was considered effective, the number of gun “kills” was unclear due to conservative rules for performing Bomb Damage Assessment during and after the war."

 

Typical bureaucratese.  If I had to translate I'd say the answer is 0.

 

70 A-10s were damaged in the Gulf War, 20 significantly.  The paper says they were easily repaired in theater but does not say how long the repairs took or how many personnel were involved.  6 were lost, a significant proportion of all Coalition losses.  The "reference" the paper gives to show how easy it was to repair an A-10 is 2 pics of damaged A-10s.

 

The paper compares the A-10 to the A-16 in an absurd way.  The ability of the A-16 to use its cannon is contrasted to the A-10's superior cannon use.  This ignores the fact that cannon fire achieved little in the war.  Given the fact that PGMs were used for the first time in war to major effect this seems absurd.

 

Added link here:  RAND Corp says A-10 cannot function if the bad guys are even basically competent:

 

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1724z1.html

 

https://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/db/a10gulfwar/battle_damaged_a_10_report_report.php

 

https://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/loses.htm

[Dragonstriker]

Most damaged aircraft of GW1, according to that site. How many sorties did they fly to earn this dubious distinction?

How does that rate compare to F-16 or F-15E which aren’t forced to operate wholly within the trashfire envelope?

[Domus Acipenseris]

7 hours ago, Dragonstriker said:

Most damaged aircraft of GW1, according to that site. How many sorties did they fly to earn this dubious distinction?

How does that rate compare to F-16 or F-15E which aren’t forced to operate wholly within the trashfire envelope?

To be fair, what is the figure of merit here?  I propose damagedone/damage received.  Should logistical requirements of the aircraft factor in as well?

[Dragonstriker]

Sure, if you think that damage per sortie isn’t the best metric. (Hint: F-16 more sorties and fewer damaged A/C. Ditto F-15E.)
Again, how does the shit-tier A-10 compare to chad F-16 and F-15E on your chosen metrics of merit: K/D and logistics/sortie?

[W. Murderface]

Regarding the A10's übergewehr being useless against anything more heavily armoured than the caveman-era T62, I would like to point you at the following articles, from 100% correct and unbiased sources:

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-tests-a-10-cannon-against-modern-tank-armor-2022-5?international=true&r=US&IR=T

 

https://www.53rdwing.af.mil/News/Article/3022734/a-10c-munitions-render-explosive-reactive-armored-tanks-inoperative-during-test/

 

Thank you for your attention. Dont believe the lies. Hog has been willed into immortality by the congress itself. 

[Sturgeon]

On 12/29/2021 at 10:24 AM, Domus Acipenseris said:

To be fair, what is the figure of merit here?  I propose damagedone/damage received.  Should logistical requirements of the aircraft factor in as well?

Well the A-10 costs about 50% more to fly than the F-16 so...

[Sturgeon]

On 5/12/2022 at 6:17 AM, W. Murderface said:

Regarding the A10's übergewehr being useless against anything more heavily armoured than the caveman-era T62, I would like to point you at the following articles, from 100% correct and unbiased sources:

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-tests-a-10-cannon-against-modern-tank-armor-2022-5?international=true&r=US&IR=T

 

https://www.53rdwing.af.mil/News/Article/3022734/a-10c-munitions-render-explosive-reactive-armored-tanks-inoperative-during-test/

 

Thank you for your attention. Dont believe the lies. Hog has been willed into immortality by the congress itself. 

As they continue to fall apart, yes:

[W. Murderface]

On 5/20/2022 at 6:39 PM, Sturgeon said:

As they continue to fall apart, yes:

It's not falling apart, it's resting.

[Sturgeon]

Just for the record we do already have an A-10 thread: 
 

 

[Sturgeon]

Actually come to think of it, I think that thread was the one that began the convention of all our aviation threads having a sarcastic title (e.g., Bash the F-35 is all a bunch of praise for the Panther).