A-10 Thunderbolt II Warthog | History, Controversy And Unknown Facts | Full Documentary
FULL DOCUMENTARY: Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog" attack aircraft: the untold story, the history, and things you might not know about one of the most loved and most hated aircraft in history.
The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is a single-seat, twin-turbofan, straight-wing, subsonic attack aircraft developed by Fairchild Republic for the United States Air Force (USAF). In service since 1976, it is named for the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, a World War II-era fighter bomber effective at attacking ground targets, but commonly referred to as the "Warthog" or "Hog". The A-10 was designed to provide close air support (CAS) to friendly ground troops by attacking armored vehicles, tanks, and other enemy ground forces; it is the only production-built aircraft designed solely for CAS to have served with the U.S. Air Force. Its secondary mission is to direct other aircraft in attacks on ground targets, a role called forward air controller-airborne; aircraft used primarily in this role are designated OA-10.
The A-10 was intended to improve the performance and firepower of the Douglas A-1 Skyraider. Its airframe was designed for durability, with measures such as 1,200 pounds (540 kg) of titanium armor to protect the cockpit and aircraft systems, enabling it to absorb damage and continue flying. Its ability to take off and land from relatively short runways permits operation from airstrips close to the front lines, and its simple design enables maintenance with minimal facilities.
The A-10A single-seat variant was the only version produced, though one pre-production airframe was modified into the YA-10B twin-seat prototype to test an all-weather night-capable version. In 2005, a program was started to upgrade the remaining A-10A aircraft to the A-10C configuration, with modern avionics for use with precision weaponry. The U.S. Air Force had stated the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II would replace the A-10 as it entered service, but this remains highly contentious within the USAF and in political circles. With various upgrades and wing replacements, the A-10's service life can be extended to 2040; the service has no planned retirement date as of June 2017.
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 53 ft 4 in (16.26 m)
Wingspan: 57 ft 6 in (17.53 m)
Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)
Wing area: 506 sq ft (47.0 m2)
Airfoil: NACA 6716 root, NACA 6713 tip
Empty weight: 24,959 lb (11,321 kg)
Gross weight: 30,384 lb (13,782 kg)
CAS mission: 47,094 lb (21,361 kg)
Anti-armor mission: 42,071 lb (19,083 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 50,000 lb (22,700 kg)
Fuel capacity: 11,000 lb (4,990 kg) internal
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric TF34-GE-100A turbofans, 9,065 lbf (40.32 kN) thrust each
Performance
Maximum speed: 381 kn (439 mph, 706 km/h) at sea level, clean
Cruise speed: 300 kn (340 mph, 560 km/h)
Stall speed: 120 kn (138 mph, 220 km/h) at 30,000 lb (14,000 kg)
Never exceed speed: 450 kn (518 mph, 833 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,500 m) with 18 Mark 82 bombs
Combat range: 220 nmi (250 mi, 400 km) CAS mission, 1.88 hour loiter at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat
Ferry range: 2,240 nmi (2,580 mi, 4,150 km) with 50 knots (58 mph; 26 m/s) headwinds, 20 minutes reserve
Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,700 m)
Rate of climb: 6,000 ft/min (30 m/s)
Wing loading: 99 lb/sq ft (482 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 0.36
Armament
Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger rotary cannon with 1,174 rounds
Hardpoints: 11 (8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations) with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg), with provisions to carry combinations of:
Rockets:
4× LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19×/7× Hydra 70 mm/APKWS rockets, respectively)
6× LAU-131 rocket pods (each with 7× Hydra 70 rockets)
Missiles:
2× AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for self-defense
6× AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles
Bombs:
Mark 80 series of unguided 'iron' bombs or
Mk 77 incendiary bombs or
BLU-1, BLU-27/B, CBU-20 Rockeye II, BL755 and CBU-52/58/71/87/89/97 cluster bombs or
Paveway series of Laser-guided bombs or
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) (A-10C) or
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser
Other:
SUU-42A/A Flares/infrared decoys and chaff dispenser pod or
AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 ECM pods or
Lockheed Martin Sniper XR or Litening targeting pods or
2× 600 US gal (2,300 L) Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for increased range/loiter time.
Avionics
AN/AAS-35(V) Pave Penny laser tracker pod (mounted beneath right side of cockpit) for use with Paveway LGBs (currently the Pave Penny is no longer in use
Head-up display (HUD)
Anti-armor mission: 252 nmi (290 mi; 467 km) with sea-level penetration and exit, 30 min combat.
#a10 #warthog #a10warthog
I clearly remember the first time I called an A 10 in on target felt like GOD came down from heaven and turned everything into dust that went on forever I was in love with the Hog.
The USAF brass still hate the A-10 As prior Airman I love it. One of my favorites.
Probably the Best A-10 doc on the Net... A must see... Russ
Thanks, I enjoyed the video, especially the deep dive into the people involved in theA-10 development and their influence on future weapons testing. Not a big fan of the military industrial complex but what works, works, cannot argue.
Pierre Sprey, was an unsung hero of the time. His involvement and cooperation with so called, 'fighter Mafia' was instrumental in significant improvement in the face of USAF intransigence.
1985,I was standing on an Hilltop in Germany nearby Spagdelem airbase. An A-10 was flying around the Hill,very close could see the face of the pilot. Was a wow moment we will never forget. Slowly passing by,what a beautifull peace of machinery.
I was stationed at Hahn AB just up the road from you. I had a friend at Spang.
The A-10 is by far my favorite fighter plane of them all. The P-47 Flying Tiger is a close 2nd.
I was going to say that☹️.....you were first though. 😀👍and that still leaves me the A4 Skyhawk, the A7 Vought Corsair, the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, the F16 Fighting Falcon, the......
When I was a kid in the 80s I wanted to fly the A-10 SO BAD! Unfortunately, I don't have 20/20 vision, which dashed my hopes. My Dad was an artillery captain, so I look at the A-10 as "Arial artillery".
Most epic plane. Ever.
First like?? May you be blessed with many more!
An Excellent documentary. Should make a movie of the interservice rivalry in developing the A10
If the general doesn’t want the A10 then the general’s must serve along the ground troops they command.
What for, they have a more important mission, serving the aircraft companies that didnt build the A10
I've got a copy of Flight International showcasing the A10's release. Wonderful cutaway drawings.
I would like to see a new analysis of a new need for a groundsupport aircraft, taking into account drone technology...
around 57:45 video/audio is garbled. Congress should have given A-10 a large budget to continue research into upgrading designs and research into air/spacecraft armor & deflection technologies against ballistic & radiation weapons. High tech planes are to take out tracking & anti-aircraft tech, maintain air superiority and cover our helicopters, Harriers & A-10s, which in turn cover CAS/Transport/Supply/Special Ops for our ground troops. Modify air flow around A-10 nose & fuselage to disperse gunsmoke away from pilot & engines.Maybe add an armored computer coordinated mini-CIWS on top & bottom to cover incoming missile/drone attacks. Will have to reconfigure entire aircraft for best aircraft performance, survivability & mission success. If the experts approve any upgrades to the A-10,,have NSA watch & stop system of organized saboteurs.
Give em to the Marines
The Army should own the close air support mission.
Nobody mentioned the significance of ballistic coefficient factor of the high density depleted uranium on top of the burning like magnesium and self sharpening characteristics. Muzzle energy of the .460 Weatherby magnum is 2,500 foot pounds greater than the muzzle energy of .340 Weatherby magnum Lapua As the two bullets reach 600 yards their foot pound energy will be equal. At 1000 yards the .340 Lapua bullet hits with 1800 more foot pounds of energy than the .460 does at 1000 yards. If I remember right the .340 caliber Speer Lapua step boat tail bullet(above mentioned)has the highest ballistic coefficient that I know of. At .910 it's twice as high as the next closest bullet. If anyone knows the ballistic coefficient of the 30mm depleted uranium round used in the GAU 8 rotary cannon I would be very greatful to know. I'm sure the high density high coefficient on top of the self sharpening and metal burning characteristics are the reasons this GAU 8 cannon has been so successful in the A-10. I'll bet Hans Ulrick Rudel would have choose to use one if he could have. If there is anyone who doesn't know of this German WWII Stuka pilot who flew 2500 combat missions mostly over Russia was shot down many times was credited with sinking a cruiser or a battle ship and hundreds if not thousands of tanks with his preferred twin 37mm cannons mounted to his Stuka. He even survived the war
That thing is sweet
The Warthog that kills the strengthened tanks, amazing.
True dudes.
During the ground march ,why don't they have tanks out front before the ground troop marching to a town? Minimizing casualties on the ground. This is why you want your tank out front before the ground movement. The Abrams are either the Bradley. Tanks, should it be out front?
What a great historical exposé of bureaucratic pettyness in the armed services! The infamous Mark 14 & 15 torpedo debacle early in WW2 ought to have been example enough not to put important ordinance into operation without thorough testing.
the cannon with an aircraft built around it 🙃
👍😁
😊ò 😊
Not always true. In WW2, island hopping by the Maines and army killed too much of our men. Not to mention atomic bomb did end the war.
You ignored the fact that most generals are political appointees that don't actually think.
That's Generalizing a bit don't you think? Not majorly but in general terms I mean.
@@evryhndlestakn its in the name, they are Generally just General. all jokes aside, no general becomes a general because they cant or do t think. The truth is, by the time they become a general, They are probably thinking too much, Not just the goals of their mission, now more than before, they are more selfish, and care more about their Political status, and economical benefits they get, from the aircraft companies. at the end of the day, they are just Lobbiest just in a Military form. and just like the scum of the world Lobbiest. They will say and do anything, for financial gain, regardless of how bad it is for the people, and how negative their affects are.
Actually you are correct but it is an even worse situation than you portray. At the height of WWII with 12 million people in uniform we had 8 four star officers in the whole military. Now, with 1.5 million in uniform we have 45. Every one gets at least a 40 person staff and millions for a budget for their own office. When guys like Schwarzkopf and Powell went before congressional boards to get promoted to field grade officer positions they were asked questions like "how did Rommel screw up in North Africa" or "How did Montgomery screw up in Holland". Also back in the day pretty much every candidate had to have had combat experience. Nowadays, starting with Obama, the candidates are asked "how will you integrate body positive thesbians (with a "L") into the units and where will you save money on procurement and training to pay for transmission medical procedures? And of course actually leading troops in battle is not really wanted anymore.
@@mikect500 that sould be a concern.
@@evryhndlestakn why do you think that we are pretending that women are warriors? The Chinese, Russians and North Koreans want us to, especially China pushing it on tictok. A current Navy official recruiter is a bisesual cross dresser and the Navy uses that as an incentive to join.
Horton was being paid very well from military contractors..
Goes to show you how much the government cares about its soldiers we need better Generals with big cojones
Wtf. This is $200 on eBay? I got rid of my premium so I gotta check out the hacking scene first
If this is the thinking of the current generals then America will lose the next war to an army who communicates at ALL levels. All levels of Military are needed without any form of favoritism in any major battle that is Air, Ground and Sea in any order
So true. Fellow Kiwi?🇳🇿
Its a master piece and a great air craft
The vitriol against this aircraft started during its inception and continues to this day. It is amazing how the excuse is (was?) that it couldn't survive in the 'modern' battlefield. Well, please do tell WHAT aircraft can survive in the 'modern' battlefield. The A-10's purpose was to kill tanks. Long loiter times to help the ground pounders hold the line. F-16 could never do that and any damage sustained by the Vipers would be pretty much terminal. Anyways, we're headed into a 'modern' battle (war) here shortly and, unfortunately, these aircraft are on their way out. They will be missed...at the most inopportune time of their life...
As they say “follow the money”! ie bribery🇺🇸
Our Air Force is more politics than brains.
Absolutely fantastic article. 👍. The only disappointment is Mr Sprey. He gives the impression that half of the US military aircraft were partly designed by him. Or through his supposed insistence. I doubt that very much. He has no real combat experience and was never someone who worked with manufacturers, like Lockheed or Northrop. And ,if I can ask ,how effective is Robert MacNamara 's supposed doctrine in today's air battle space? I doubt it holds up that well. Just my 5 cents worth.
Hans Von Ohain invented the Jet Engine. He had a Jet Aircraft Flying Before WW2!
1. Hans Von Ohain credited Whittle as the inventor in his own book, so you would have to disagree with the man himself, which would be really odd. 2. The first working turbojet was Whittle’s, in April 1937 3. Hans Von Ohain, by his own admission, had access to Whittle’s work. The British inventor’s work had not been secreted by the British government (a shame), and Germany copied it, distributing it across German Universities. When Von Ohain and his assistant started working on a turbojet they had full access to his work 4. The first flight you are referring to, the He 178 had a centrifugal turbojet (Whittle), and not an axial turbojet, which was the aim of Von Ohain. What you are missing here is that Whittle was already aware of an axial solution 6 years before Von Ohain started working on the turbojet, but discarded it precisely for the reasons that made Germany fail at having a properly operational turbojet even by the end of the war. Effectively Germany deployed their turbojet at the end of 1944, but it was still utterly flawed, fragile, hard to operate, over engineered, and desperately short lived. This despite three different German companies working on it for many, many years (Junkers, BMW, Heinkel). After the war ended barely anyone cared about those flawed engines. The Soviets quickly trashed multiple variants, and opted to copy Whittle’s turbojet, and the French assembled a platoon of Nazi engineers (120 I believe), and worked on them for years, made radical modifications, and had to seek the help of an American company to make them proper engines. Whittle understood (in 1929) that an interim solution was needed, hence his invention that bypassed axial compressors. Had the government not ignored him for far too many years, Britain would have had a reliable turbojet well before the beginning of the war. Unfortunately the person responsible for this massive delay was Griffith, the sole judge of Whittle’s work, and he happened to be the author of a seminal paper on axial compressors in 1926 (when Von Ohain was a teenager). It is quite obvious why Griffith dismissed and ridiculed young Whittle’s work, an obviously blatant conflict of interest. Whittle carried on, unsupported and without money until 1935 (6 years wasted), when he got a lucky break in mid 1935, in the form of a minimal private funding (£200,000 in today’s money!). At the same time, in Germany, Von Ohain had all the resources he needed, and most importantly was working with an aircraft manufacturer, something Whittle could only dream of. That is the only reason why they had the first flight (with Whittle’s invention powering it). Call it David vs. Goliath, but obviously the British genius got there first. The invention of the turbojet has nothing to do with the first flight, and I might add that deployment of the Me 262 with useless engines was merely an act of desperation that did not make a dent in the tides of war. Britain had been working on both axial and centrifugal turbojets for a long time, but they were not stupid enough to deploy them. Had they supported Whittle in 1929, the could have certainly have had proper centrifugal turbojet, but that was not to be, and we have to thank Griffith for that, as Whittle never blamed the military, but certainly questioned Griffith’s poor judgment. Proper axial turbojets became a thing in the mid 50s, but they had nothing to do with flawed German creations, rather proper research that started in the 30s, mostly in Britain. I might add that Whittle also understood the benefits of altitude and pressurization for jet propelled aircraft in his thesis,,something that Von Ohain was completely oblivious to, setting them even further apart as inventors, and visionaries.
Cold, hard, truth. I am sick of the violence and find myself having to justify this to everyone i say it to. That's stopping right now! And i know all of the sad history of the region. And it mirrors the sad future of the region. Im done with it all. Its never going to change until we have all had enough of it. And they dont want change all they want is more blood...
Ukraine said thanks but no thanks when offered the A10.
A10's would get eaten alive in Ukraine because Ukraine does not even have local air superiority over the battlefield. In GW I, the coalition forces owned the skies so the A-10s could operate with impunity.
That's.....pretty dumb.
The A-10 is the wrong aircraft for this war due to several reasons. @dirtdevil70 mentioned one of them. Also important is that Ukraine has no pilots for them who are trained for close air support. The A-10 is a phenomenal aircraft but the pilots are pretty damn important too. Another reason they turned them down is because much of this war takes place in urban areas. That’s not the best use of an A-10
Must have air superiority.
The lessons in Ukraine could even be an (unexpected) justification not to focus on aircraft like the a10. As much as I love the platform it seems like you just can't fly a slow jet over a battlefield without serious risk of shoot down these days. Russia has air superiority and still don't seem to field many aircraft
This is a rare view into the twisted world of our military branches and defense contracting. The security and defense of the USA and its interests always takes a back seat to the whims of childish, butthurt, and selfish brass.
More friendly fire incidents than any other aircraft. Most overpriced and outdated platform. Costs more than an F16. No more A10 propaganda....
Wrong. Why do you think it's involved in the most friendly fire incidents? If you don't just look at a number but consider the reason. Why do you think that might be? I'll give you a hint. Why do labradors figure high in most dog bite stats? Because they are aggressive dogs maybe? No. Because they are popular & around families more than virtually all other dogs & are known as quite tolerant but they still sometimes bite. The A-10 is a CLOSE SUPPORT aircraft & therefore fighting in close. CLOSE. Do you think a plane firing or bombing 500 feet higher or twice as fast would be more accurate somehow? I wonder who could really decide this though? Oh yes, the soldiers on the ground who say there is no sweeter sound when you need immediate help than an A-10 coming in. But you know. That's why it's been in the inventory for such a short time. Yup.
Not only did you watch the A-10 propaganda but went to the trouble of commenting. Did you factor in survivability? Because you can throw up some numbers but what relevance are they? An F-16 is cheaper you say. In what way? Let me guess, money right? But they dont have the armour that the plane designed for the role has. So what if on the same amount of missions they lost twice as many F-16's because they aren't quite as rugged? That would be more expensive in money terms wouldn't it? I think so. And what if on those missions they lose a pilot everytime their plane gets hit because it doesn't have a titanium bathtub for the pilot in a ground attack role? Well that gets expensive financially as well doesn't it. Now you have to start with a green pilot & train them up & all of that cost, all the experience lost. Of course there's the human factor though. It's not always about money is it? So why would you send in pilots without adequate protection? You titanium the F-16 then that's more cost, more strain on the airframe, engines. So what do you do? You send A-10's ya noodle. An aging plane always has additional running costs & as much of a fan of the F-16 as I am, the Warthog has obviously proven its ability & role suitability. I think that politicians & others have no problem eliminating aircraft out of the inventory if they can. They have had other options yet nothing does it better than the A-10. Friendly fire is the worst but if you're expecting no injuries or deaths then you're actually talking about a video game.
Is this a new copypasta?