[HN Gopher] What It Feels Like to Fly an A-10 Warthog
___________________________________________________________________
What It Feels Like to Fly an A-10 Warthog
Author : rfreytag
Score : 27 points
Date : 2021-01-26 16:57 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (nationalinterest.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (nationalinterest.org)
| gadders wrote:
| That has got to be one of the most horrifically ad-heavy pages I
| have looked at in a long time.
| Digit-Al wrote:
| When I read this I thought "funny, I didn't notice any ads at
| all". So I reloaded it and checked the protections dashboard
| (using Firefox with Enhanced Protection turned on): 52,449
| blocked! WTF?
| trasz wrote:
| Might be worth mentioning there's DCS
| (https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/warthog/), a
| highly realistic simulator that includes A-10C.
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| I'm not into airplanes much, but I've long been fascinated by the
| engineering awesomeness of the A-10 plane. There's tons of videos
| online that show many aspects of it.
|
| I'd love to have an opportunity to fly one, even though I don't
| know how to fly planes :(
| rkangel wrote:
| What appeals to me about the A-10 is that it is 'focused'
| design. It is designed around a single use case (around a
| single weapon really), and everything is to that single end.
| This makes it incredibly good at that single job, and as long
| as that purpose still exists (and close air support is likely
| to continue to be needed) the A-10 will continue to be in
| demand.
| neverartful wrote:
| I too would love to fly one and I'm not a pilot of any kind!
| Not only aren't civilians permitted (to the best of my
| knowledge) to fly military aircraft, there are no 2-seater
| A-10s. This means that your first time flying it, you're doing
| it solo.
| ckozlowski wrote:
| This is more to draw attention to an unusual fact than any
| desire to "correct" you, but a single two-seater was built:
| http://www.airvectors.net/ava10_1.html#m7
|
| It was a single prototype. One of my minor claims to fame in
| life is that I worked with a guy who was a test pilot, and
| actually flew in this aircraft.
|
| Of course, your larger point stands however, and general
| there's no "type conversion" craft like you see in other two-
| seaters for this purpose. That said, if you had a solid
| flight background in other types of aircraft, it'd be
| unlikely that you'd have issues in the A-10. It's reportedly
| an easy craft to fly, there's little peculiarities that would
| give a pilot issues like you see in some high-performance
| craft. Straight wing, low landing speed, no built-in
| aerodynamic instabilities or anything like that.
| neverartful wrote:
| Awesome! Thanks for the correction! I _think_ it would
| still be a true statement to say that 99.9% of A-10 pilots
| have their first flight in a one-seater flying solo.
| temp0826 wrote:
| It's more of a flying-high-caliber-machine-gun than a plane if
| we're being honest
| tyingq wrote:
| A good picture to help visualize that:
| https://i.insider.com/579a52aa88e4a79f178bb61a?width=1200&fo...
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| That's incredible. I can never look at the A-10 the same way
| again.
| standardUser wrote:
| I imagine the feeling varies based on how many brown lives you
| end with each pass.
| fulafel wrote:
| And how much meth ("go pills") you were on.
| tyingq wrote:
| Using anti armor rounds on people does feel brutal. Here's the
| size of the ammo in the main gun:
| https://i.pinimg.com/originals/77/6e/43/776e4327ed11dddd0428...
| KMag wrote:
| When we were kids, my brother bought a spent 30 mm GAU-8A
| bullet and kept it around on his desk. Were all of the rounds
| depleted uranium? We knew it could be DU, but didn't have a
| scintillation counter, and didn't bother to measure its
| density. He just kept it far from his bed and his food.
|
| I know solid uranium metal isn't so bad, and armor piercing
| shells typically have a tungsten or DU core covered with lead
| (if nothing else, to keep the super hard core from abrading
| the barrel).
|
| It must have been solid lead, or lead jacketed tungsten,
| right? My brother has 4 perfectly healthy kids, but I could
| imagine some kid keeping a DU shell in his/her pocket, in
| close proximity to their gametes for years.
| tyingq wrote:
| Pictures of A10's that made it back home despite heavy damage are
| interesting. The cockpit is surrounded by a titanium bathtub, so
| the pilot is fairly well protected, and there's a theme of armor
| in the right places and simplicity/redundancy all around.
|
| This story is pretty interesting: https://www.military.com/air-
| force/air-force-pilot-landed-da...
| rjsw wrote:
| I would rather fly a plane that doesn't get hit, the A-10 is
| obsolete.
| tyingq wrote:
| I suspect it will be drones that eventually replace it,
| rather than another manned aircraft.
| rjsw wrote:
| The F-16 was better at doing the kind of missions in Iraq
| that lead to the damage in your linked article.
| tyingq wrote:
| I don't feel like the F-16 is particularly great for
| close air support. Fighters are better for the A-10's
| original role as a tank killer, but that hasn't really
| been its role for some time now.
| rjsw wrote:
| Modern close air support means dropping smart bombs from
| high altitude, to do this you need to be able to quickly
| get to the right place, the A-10 is too slow to be able
| to do this. One of the most effective bomb trucks is the
| B-1B.
| neverartful wrote:
| I don't believe that's accurate. From everything I've
| ever read about the A-10 and close air support, the
| 'close' aspect means that you're close enough to get
| positive visual identification of friend and foe.
| Additionally, it means slower speed because the fast
| movers are too fast for this task. The third important
| factor that's commonly mentioned is length of time that
| the plane can loiter on station to assist the ground
| troops.
|
| A B-1B (while being highly impressive in its own
| capabilities) is poorly suited for these things.
| greedo wrote:
| Actually the B1-B has done a huge amount of the sorties
| for CAS. It can respond quickly, has a huge weapons load,
| and combined with targeting pods, can just sit above a
| fight plinking targets. It's loiter time is much better
| than 90% of the fighters over Afghanistan.
|
| The idea of getting down in the weeds (below 1K AGL) is
| not how CAS is done anymore. It's extremely rare to get
| that close. It's not how the A-10 is typically used.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| You're actually correct. Against modern air defenses the A-10
| would have a very difficult if not impossible mission.
|
| Luckily we don't fight wars against superpowers and if we do
| the A-10 won't be the first one in.
|
| And as cool as that gun is- it's overrated. Pilots shouldn't
| have to free-gun. Most of the footage of these guns show them
| missing a lot.
| myrandomcomment wrote:
| On what basis do you say that? The purpose of this plane is
| close in air support with the ability to hang around in the
| middle of a battle. All of the replacement jets can fly over
| drop some munitions and they fly off. If you are lucky they
| did the job, but if they missed or the target survived you
| have to call them back. The A10 comes in, chews everything
| you pointed out to rubble, asked you if they got it and if
| not they are still there and adjust and do it again. In a
| long running firefight in mountains and canyons the ability
| to point the finger of god at any random outcropping as
| needed over and over as you move down the path is priceless.
| rjsw wrote:
| The A-10 can't fly at low level in the middle of a battle
| or it will be shot down by a SAM. They have been modified
| to be able to drop smart munitions from higher altitudes
| but are too slow to get to where they might be needed.
| myrandomcomment wrote:
| Ah, no. The idea that everyone has a MANPADS is just not
| true. A-10 spend tons of time on target in Afghanistan
| and Iraq. All of this is clearly documented.
| rfreytag wrote:
| Quoting ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Repub
| lic_A-10_Thunde...
|
| "From the beginning of 2006 to October 2013, A-10s
| conducted 19 percent of CAS missions in Iraq and
| Afghanistan, more than the F-15E Strike Eagle and B-1B
| Lancer, but less than the 33 percent flown by F-16s."
|
| ...and...
|
| "The U.S. Army had expressed interest in obtaining some
| A-10s should the Air Force retire them"
|
| I am not sure why SAMs aren't the threat to the A-10s
| that they were to Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan.
| Maybe the Taliban can't afford them? Also SAMs require
| training and degrade quickly if not maintained.
| greedo wrote:
| The SAMs used against the HIND in Afghanistan were
| Stingers that have smaller warheads. The Hind, while well
| armored compared to other helicopters, is much more
| vulnerable than the A-10. For example, an A-10 can lose
| an engine and still make it home. If a Hind loses a
| rotor, it's probably dead.
|
| And the real issue is whether the A-10 can survive
| against a near peer like Russia or China. Considering
| that in the late 70's the life expectancy of an A-10 over
| the Fulda Gap was measured in single digit sorties,
| expecting them to survive today against modern SAMs (both
| radar guided and infrared) is unrealistic.
|
| CAS in bush country like Iraq/Afghan is much better
| performed by fast jets that can respond quickly with a
| JDAM or SDB.
| tyingq wrote:
| There's a couple of pages that are pretty comprehensive
| lists of aircraft lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both have
| tables near the bottom. If it's accurate, one A-10 was
| shot down by a SAM in Iraq, and that was the only A-10
| combat loss across both conflicts.
|
| Iraq: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_sh
| ootdowns_...
|
| Afghanistan: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_Coal
| ition_aircraft_l...
| rjsw wrote:
| So many A-10s were damaged in Iraq that they were
| withdrawn from combat.
| rfreytag wrote:
| Can you cite your source?
|
| https://military.wikia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdow
| ns_... ... says only one A-10 was lost during the
| conflict.
| tyingq wrote:
| I believe he's talking about damaged aircraft that made
| it home. The list I posted is aircraft that were
| literally shot down.
| ckozlowski wrote:
| It's a little misleading, though it compliments the A-10.
|
| The A-10 was designed knowing it was going to get shot at
| and take hits. It doesn't have the speed other craft do,
| though it was somewhat underestimated just how many hits
| it'd take. All of those redundancies and protections are
| designed to protect the pilot and save the aircraft.
| However, an A-10 doesn't have to be shot down in order to
| be considered a "mission loss", which is what would
| happen. A damaged aircraft is no longer mission
| effective, as the pilot is now focusing everything on
| keeping it airworthy and getting it back to base. So as
| one of the other posters indicated, while many wern't a
| total lost, many were damaged, and either had to abort or
| cut short their mission as a result. From a sortie
| effectiveness perspective, that's the same result as a
| downed plane.
| https://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-
| close-a...
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| The reason they are retiring the A-10 is that the airframe
| cannot be upgraded with the power systems needed to support
| modern defensive and offensive systems. Modern combat
| aircraft are giant electrical power systems with an
| aircraft wrapped around them. When the A-10 was designed
| half a century ago, this was not a requirement and there is
| no way to retrofit it.
|
| Modern air defense systems are explicitly engineered to
| very effectively kill things like the A-10, and it can't
| support modern counter-measures because of these
| limitations. It still works in environments for which it
| was designed i.e. absent modern air defense systems.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| I think parent commenter was citing how A-10s are only
| useful against enemies that can't fight back. I doubt
| anyone is thinking of fielding A-10s against the Chinese or
| putting them up against Russian S-400s
| neverartful wrote:
| I believe the proper distinction is "can't shoot with
| heat-seeking missiles". It's true that A-10 would be easy
| kill for the missiles, but it has legendary durability
| against small arms fire.
| ckozlowski wrote:
| I feel ya. The A-10 has so many fans (and for good reason),
| that it's nigh impossible for anyone to believe it's
| obsolete. But you're right, and you're perhaps being unfairly
| downvoted.
|
| There's a great article here breaking this down:
| https://baloogancampaign.com/2015/02/02/10-future-us-
| close-a...
|
| To summarize: - The A-10 was designed for an era when SAMs
| weren't as sophisticated as they are today. The GAU-8 cannon
| was to be an affordable weapon for eliminating tanks, but
| even as it was entering service it was soon clear that modern
| systems were outranging the cannon, and the Maverick soon
| became the primary anti-armor weapon of the A-10 due to it's
| standoff range. (source: colleague who was an A-10 test pilot
| (in the only two-seater made no less!) and links I can't find
| now)
|
| - This proved true in Iraq (see link above) where the A-10
| was getting shot up quite a bit against frontline units, and
| F-16s with their higher speed were sent in instead. It's a
| good reminder here that again, the cannon is no longer the
| primary weapon against armor in a high-threat environment.
| When that's taken into account, the A-10 and F-16 have
| similar weapons capabilities.
|
| - The A-10s primary advantage in a low-threat environment is
| it's high endurance time. Here, it's being squeeze from two
| sides: Low-cost COIN aircraft like the A-29 Super Tucano, and
| high altitude bombers with targeting pods like the B-52.
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw2qPzl1gtM). The A-29 is
| very effective in the counterinsurgency role for a fraction
| of the cost where it's not running against sophisticated AA
| systems. On the other end, you have the B-52, loitering at
| 35,000+ with an enormous load of munitions that can be called
| down on command and well above the range of man-portable
| systems.
|
| - Check this video here of the late John McCain and a hearing
| with the Air Force. I've FFed the time to the general's
| answer to him. McCain, experienced as he was, is looking at
| this from a prior era here, and I think the General proves
| it. https://youtu.be/_up7IHd3LDs?t=218
|
| The Air Force, feeling the budget squeeze, is rightfully
| concluding that the A-10 can go. They can perform the
| COIN/light ground attack role with much cheaper aircraft or
| by leveraging the huge advances in targeting with pods
| attached to the B-52, B-1, and F-15/F-16. At the high-threat
| end, they have the F-35, who's stealth, ECM, and sensors make
| it much more survivable than the A-10. (No, really. It does.)
|
| And lastly, if anyone wants to see what this actually plays
| out like, try the A-10 simulator in DCS. It's a fantastic
| module. And then better yet, fly a mission or two on the
| public servers with the A-10 in a mixed threat environment.
| It'll be eyeopening.
|
| And regarding those? I flew as part of a group online where
| we'd design and then fight realistic scenarios for our online
| wing. Props to our A-10 crews, but I got to see (simulated of
| course) just how limited these craft sometimes were. They
| were incredibly slow, and so took forever to get to the
| operational area, meaning the rest of our fighters had to
| either take off late, leaving them uncovered, or take off
| early and hit the tanker several times so that they'd be in
| the strike area to cover when they arrived. With a full load
| they were sitting ducks most of the time; jinking away from
| modern SAMs was practically impossible unless you were really
| sticking close to a ridgeline, which limited where you could
| go. Often the A-10s would get to the area after a long
| cruise, only to find some threats still up. They'd then have
| to loiter somewhere while an F/A-18 with HARMs came to clean
| up. We had a lot of aircraft overhead and around the A-10 to
| give it a role in the mission, whereas a package of 2-4
| F-16s/F/A-18s with Mavericks could accomplish the same.
|
| (Me? I flew the Viggen. We don't need no escorts, Swedish
| Dorito go "zoom".)
|
| Anyways, hope this helps illustrate the issue for some of
| your detractors.
| rfreytag wrote:
| Excellent points.
|
| But why then do the soldiers on the ground demand the A-10?
| They are in the field fighting and sometimes dying so from
| better food to fast Med-Evac what the soldier wants he/she
| gets to sustain their morale.
|
| What is missing from the stand-off platforms or fast movers
| that the A-10 has and gains it loyal supporters? Is it that
| the soldier sees the pilot get into the conflict with them?
|
| What was it like to fly the Viggen? Any posts on that
| aircraft you can recommend?
| ckozlowski wrote:
| >But why then do the soldiers on the ground demand the
| A-10?
|
| I think that's a much more difficult question to answer
| and probably a lot more subjective. Define "Demand"? Do
| they demand it over other platforms? And why? I don't
| have the answer to any of those, and I suspect that the
| extent that they demand or prefer the A-10 might be in
| part due to the fact that it just looks impressive. I
| think you might be onto something as well with regards to
| "seeing them in the conflict"; the A-10 is often regarded
| as "being down in the mud" with the troops, where as a
| JDAM drop from an F/A-18 or B-52 is going to be a angry
| fist out of nowhere. You can't bond with it, except maybe
| the soldier talking to it over the radio. =P
|
| The Viggen (in DCS) is hella fun. It's very fast at low-
| level, and brings a different feel than any other
| warplane in in the sim. It's very much a product of it's
| time; with cutting edge electronics but from the 60s and
| 70s. It's also a very purpose-built craft too: The ideal
| Viggen mission is to plan a route to strike against a
| pre-planned target, dump it's warload in an instant, and
| get out. The electronics are rather janky and will remind
| you of an Apollo-era computer, but again, they were
| cutting edge for the time, and it's remarkable how
| effective they are still. In DCS the Viggen will teach
| you good planning and tactics as your weapons and sensors
| are relatively primitive. But it's navigation is
| excellent, it's speed and handling at low-level are
| supurb, and it automates in all of the right places so
| that you can focus more on your surroundings.
|
| In DCS I flew it in those same large scale missions along
| A-10s. We had rudimentary ECM and chaff/flares to keep us
| alive. But it was really our speed that did so. You pop
| up close to the target, using the ground to mask you all
| the way in, keeping your speed as high as possible (this
| is where good planning helps) and then egressing out,
| preferably back under cover (again, planning!) Done well,
| we'd be long gone before a SAM could respond, let alone
| close the distance. It didn't always work though, and
| against targets that were much more in the open, we
| didn't do so well. And that's pushing mach .9, or 600+
| KIAS. So you can see how an A-10 bumbling along at
| 200-300 is having a rougher go of it.
|
| I'd check out this great video here:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpFIHZJbTtY Also search
| the /r/hoggit discussions over on Reddit. Viggen has a
| small but loyal following. It's not a good all-rounder,
| but it does certain things very well, and with style. =D
|
| Also, check out any of the "F-111 w/ Jeff Guinn videos"
| over on Aircrew Interview, and how they handled SAMs and
| how "high speed/low level" was a very difficult problem
| for air defense to solve back then. Different plane, but
| very similar mission set.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAyMklJSwi8
| exabrial wrote:
| It has a glass cockpit, Link 16, sniper pod integration, and
| SDB integration is coming soon. That's more advanced that
| most countries air forces.
|
| The only thing really obsolete unfortunately is the engines.
| greedo wrote:
| The engines are perfect for its mission. High efficiency
| which translates into long loiter times.
| exabrial wrote:
| Agree. Spare parts are the issue.
|
| Without googling I believe there is another aircraft in
| the Navy that uses the same engine but it's been retired?
| If I recall correctly as well it's used in some business
| jets.
| ckozlowski wrote:
| S-3 Viking I believe.
| hesdeadjim wrote:
| I struggle with duality around this. I loved the plane growing
| up, but at this point in my life I can't hear "the gun is f'n
| awesome when you fire it" without thinking about the lives it's
| ending doing so.
| secfirstmd wrote:
| Unfortunately the US fetishness about the A-10 gun (esp when
| Maverick and others were much more effective) also likely
| caused significant long lasting cancerous effects in the areas
| it was used because of the depleted Uranium.
| ckozlowski wrote:
| I'd like to see the sources for this.
|
| There was a lot of focus on DU at times, especially with
| regards to Gulf War Syndrome (perhaps because of the
| "uranium" being in the name) but I believe most of the focus
| has now shifted elsewhere, particularly with regards to the
| anti-chemical and anti-biological mixes soldiers were given
| in the run up to the invasion. I can't find many of the
| articles I've read on this over the years, but Wikipedia has
| a decent summary:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_syndrome#Causes
|
| The thing with DU and what ended up ruling it out as much of
| an exposure factor is that it is _extremely_ heavy.
| Particulates of it don 't travel far. They sink, fall short,
| etc. They don't waft around in air or get suspended in water
| like some compounds do. I don't think anyone would suggest
| that you ingest the stuff, but from what I'd read, the
| extreme weight of the stuff kept it localized and unlikely to
| be ingested or exposed to in any amounts that would cause
| wide issues.
|
| That there were other factors that could cause these effects
| I don't dispute. But it was my understanding that it was
| determined that it was concluded DU wasn't one of them.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| If history shows anything, it is that is absolutely sucks to be
| on the losing side of a military conflict.
|
| As an American, I am happy that the US develops and fields
| weapons, including A-10's, that help win conflicts.
|
| War always sucks. There is always suffering and innocent lives
| lost. This is better solved by limiting what wars we engage in,
| than in feeling bad about our warfighting equipment.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Except when you build such a large war industry that stopping
| the wars isn't really an option, which is where we are now.
| hesdeadjim wrote:
| My point has nothing to do with the equipment. It's the
| cultural celebration of warfare and the white washing of the
| true horrible nature of war. "This gun is f'n awesome" is but
| a symptom of the true problem.
|
| I'm not ignorant to human nature and our inherent trend
| towards conflict, I'm just somewhat sad that our culture in
| particular throws the metaphorical gas on the flame.
| mprovost wrote:
| I grew up with A-10s flying overhead almost daily (I lived next
| to BDL airport and the CT Air National Guard had A-10s). I had
| pictures of all kinds of different planes on my wall and wanted
| to be a fighter pilot - as did half the boys in the Top Gun
| generation. Much later my wife's cousin in the British Army was
| shot by an American F-18 in Afghanistan on a close air support
| mission. I clicked on this article because of my old fondness
| for A-10s but you're absolutely right, it's easy to become
| fascinated by the technology and separate yourself from the
| reality that these things are purpose built to kill other
| humans.
| neverartful wrote:
| If you'd like to read a true story about A-10s providing close
| air support to save a group of Marines, I recommend the following
| article:
|
| https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-two-a-10-pilots-saved-...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-27 23:02 UTC)