The Beautiful A-10 "Warthog"

[Oliverlovesplanes]

 

[Sabrejet]

Thanks: I never understood people who say that the A-10 is "ugly" (though I blame herd mentality). She's a truly handsome machine.

 

[Bucksnort101]

Thanks: I never understood people who say that the A-10 is "ugly" (though I blame herd mentality). She's a truly handsome machine.

They probably say it behind it's back, because who would be crazy enough to say that it's ugly it to it's face? BRRRRRTTTT!!!!

 

[Wurger]

 

[Marcel]

Thanks: I never understood people who say that the A-10 is "ugly" (though I blame herd mentality). She's a truly handsome machine.

I find that most aircraft have a certain elegance. (Yes, also the French ones in their own way).

 

[talbot]

beautiful and proving hard to replace

 

[SaparotRob]

The B-52 is neither ugly nor fat.

 

[Oliverlovesplanes]

The B-52 is neither ugly nor fat.

but its a big fat fucker

 

[SaparotRob]

The B-52 is the most beautiful non-propeller bomber ever built.
Extremely honorable mention to the Avro Vulcan.

 

[NVSMITH]

In the early '80s I attended a small arms conference at Eglin AFB. One of the highlights was an introduction to the A-10. There were two in the hanger, one ready for duty and one with the GAU-8 cannon on a test stand next to the gaping hole in the nose that would, yes, accommodate a VW Beetle. After we walked around the two beasties we were told to stand back and the armorers cut loose with about a 50 round burst. Dang! I wasn't prepared for that!
One thing most of us agreed on was that the AF had screwed up by not making the plane all weather capable. Many of us were Army and we knew that the Red Hordes coming through the Fulda Gap would probably not limit themselves to fair weather. daylight operations. We all agreed, however, that the A-10 was a BEAUTIFUL aircraft.

 

[GTX]

In the early '80s I attended a small arms conference at Eglin AFB. One of the highlights was an introduction to the A-10. There were two in the hanger, one ready for duty and one with the GAU-8 cannon on a test stand next to the gaping hole in the nose that would, yes, accommodate a VW Beetle. After we walked around the two beasties we were told to stand back and the armorers cut loose with about a 50 round burst. Dang! I wasn't prepared for that!
One thing most of us agreed on was that the AF had screwed up by not making the plane all weather capable. Many of us were Army and we knew that the Red Hordes coming through the Fulda Gap would probably not limit themselves to fair weather. daylight operations. We all agreed, however, that the A-10 was a BEAUTIFUL aircraft.

Yes the A-10B was a big missed opportunity:

 

[Oliverlovesplanes]

Yes the A-10B was a big missed opportunity:

View attachment 878054

things a beauty

 

[ThomasP]

If my info is correct, the all-weather A-10 was not continued with due to technology not yet being capable of allowing the A-10 to perform its intended close support job in low visibility situations. In effect, the low-altitude close support mission needed better visibility than was provided by the night and all-weather optical systems of the time, while the synthetic aperture radars did not yet have the definition needed.

Even in air-to-air combat missions such as in the Vietnam and Arab-Israeli wars, beyond visual range technology was not considered capable of safely discriminating friend from enemy - hence the positive visual identification rules of engagement during the era.

It was not until the late-1990s (more-or-less) that the night/all-weather optical and radar technologies were mature enough to allow a level of situational awareness (re ground targets, friend vs enemy, and such) that the A-10 was able to do its primary mission under night & all-weather conditions.

In the 1980s, it was concluded that for missions other than the clear-weather low-altitude CS type - where direct visibility and close cooperation with FACs and such was required - other aircraft types could do the all-weather job (ie higher altitude and longer range support using guided weapons) as well or better.

 

[Oliverlovesplanes]

I did not know that, but on the topic of all weather there is a theme song for the f-4 phantom that quotes "supersonic all weather fighter bomber, mostly bomber" any one know that song
this is the only part of it I have

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/UNsVJBxAGns?si=pZ4PqGrDjlF5pF3q

 

[GrauGeist]

If my info is correct, the all-weather A-10 was not continued with due to technology not yet being capable of allowing the A-10 to perform its intended close support job in low visibility situations. In effect, the low-altitude close support mission needed better visibility than was provided by the night and all-weather optical systems of the time, while the synthetic aperture radars did not yet have the definition needed.

Even in air-to-air combat missions such as in the Vietnam and Arab-Israeli wars, beyond visual range technology was not considered capable of safely discriminating friend from enemy - hence the positive visual identification rules of engagement during the era.

It was not until the late-1990s (more-or-less) that the night/all-weather optical and radar technologies were mature enough to allow a level of situational awareness (re ground targets, friend vs enemy, and such) that the A-10 was able to do its primary mission under night & all-weather conditions.

In the 1980s, it was concluded that for missions other than the clear-weather low-altitude CS type - where direct visibility and close cooperation with FACs and such was required - other aircraft types could do the all-weather job (ie higher altitude and longer range support using guided weapons) as well or better.

If a situation arose where close support were needed in conditions that grounded the A-10, the F-111 and/or F-4 would have most likely been sent in until the A-10 could be employed.