What It Feels Like to Fly an A-10 Warthog

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/what-it-feels-fly-10-warthog-175237

by rfreytag • 5 years ago

34 70 5 years ago

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• 5 years ago

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.

neverartful5• 5 years ago

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.

ckozlowski7• 5 years ago

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.

standardUser• 5 years ago

I imagine the feeling varies based on how many brown lives you end with each pass.

tyingq7• 5 years ago

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• 5 years ago

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.

fulafel• 5 years ago

And how much meth ("go pills") you were on.

tyingq7• 5 years ago

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...

rjsw5• 5 years ago

I would rather fly a plane that doesn't get hit, the A-10 is obsolete.

tyingq7• 5 years ago

I suspect it will be drones that eventually replace it, rather than another manned aircraft.

myrandomcomment3• 5 years ago

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.

exabrial2• 5 years ago

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.

ckozlowski7• 5 years ago

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.

2OEH8eoCRo0• 5 years ago

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.

gadders• 5 years ago

That has got to be one of the most horrifically ad-heavy pages I have looked at in a long time.

Digit-Al• 5 years ago

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?

temp0826• 5 years ago

It’s more of a flying-high-caliber-machine-gun than a plane if we’re being honest

tyingq7• 5 years ago

A good picture to help visualize that: https://i.insider.com/579a52aa88e4a79f178bb61a?width=1200&fo...

BitwiseFool• 5 years ago

That's incredible. I can never look at the A-10 the same way again.

trasz• 5 years ago

Might be worth mentioning there's DCS (https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/warthog/), a highly realistic simulator that includes A-10C.

hesdeadjim2• 5 years ago

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.

secfirstmd2• 5 years ago

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.

ckozlowski7• 5 years ago

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.

mprovost• 5 years ago

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.

RcouF1uZ4gsC• 5 years ago

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• 5 years ago

Except when you build such a large war industry that stopping the wars isn't really an option, which is where we are now.

hesdeadjim2• 5 years ago

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.

oh_sigh• 5 years ago

Well, are you concerned about any lives, or just lives of the innocent? This plane has killed a lot of terrorists and insurgents, but probably has a pretty good track record of not killing the innocent, since it is almost always used for close air support during an active battle.

neverartful5• 5 years ago

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-...

throwawaygimp• 5 years ago

I'm sure this will be buried etc, but just something to pass on. I spend a lot of time in small planes doing aerial surveying work with equipment I make. The pilot i've flown with the most spent his whole career flying and training others to fly A-10s. We had so much time (100's of hours) just sitting in a cessna together I got to ask tons of questions and hear lots of stories.

One of my favourites was just peacetime stuff when they flew non-stop from their base in Germany back to the US, refueling on the way. Just think about that - you're a pilot used to doing close air support short missions and now you're off on what in only a few decades before would have been an adventure on the scale of the great explorers.

He would regularily comment on how good the missile launch system is... essentially it chose the right time to launch based on the pitch/speed/location etc of the plane. He mentioned it enough times it must have been pretty special.

When I asked him if it was difficult to fly, he said that other jets he flew were more difficult (flame outs etc), but it also wasn't easy.

In 30 years flying them the only missile he ever launched (or maybe only missile of a certain type... not sure), was for training and cost $1m+. Everyone at some point in their training got to fire one at a dummy tank. He said the accuracy was amazing... he hit it bang on - mostly due to the targetting tech he was praising rather than his skill. He did mention that the $1m price tag was misleading because they expire and use missiles which if not used would be scrapped anyway. Or something close to that - this was 4-5 years ago my memory is a little hazy.

And the gun. Well... this guy is a republican voter (which was always funny as I'm way left of Sanders), with a heart of gold but had some interesting theories about the best use of the A10 related to Trumps border wall. He said they do so much shooting out in the desert, they could just relocate all their practice along the border with mexico, not spend anything extra than they are now and no one would dare go near it. I'm not sure how much of that was in jest or how serious he was. Thats abhorrent to me but all good we all get to have our views.

He has a model of an A10 on his desk which was gifted to him when he stopped flying them, and a big picture of himself climbing into one on the wall back when he was lean and handsome and hadn't put on his old-timer weight. My first flight simulator was A-10 on the Commodore 64, and it literally set the path to me ending up working with him.... my interest in aviation, cameras, computers etc. So both that photo and the model on his desk felt really special to me in a way that I can't really explain.

And of course being a nieve computer guy, I had to ask 'the question'. Did he knowingly kill anyone. He didn't answer.

zeroc8• 5 years ago

I love airplanes and certainly would jump on the opportunity to fly a military jet. What I cannot understand however is how people - lots of them Christians - can get so excited about firing a huge gun at other people...

4gotunameagain• 5 years ago

I imagine that decades of brainwashing in the military can change a lot of views

What It Feels Like to Fly an A-10 Warthog

Related Stories