The A-10: Worse Than You Think 

Woah. 8sec from release

A-10 = bad. F-111 = good. F-35 = sexy.

The bottom line is that for the price tag of an F-35 you can buy several A-10's. Wars aren't always about having the best kit. Mostly they're about how well you can manage the resources available to you. Simply having more aircraft in general means greater coverage and that's more important in alot of the places where it's been utilised. Don't be fooled. The military knows what it's doing and it's working.

Removed for a reason

@@samwamm85 the truth is, we already paid for the A-10s 30 years ago. They are inexpensive to maintain and upgrade. The decision was made to re -wing 100 A-10s to extend their life to 2040.

Were you one of the pilots who shot up friendlies cause it can’t target id for shit?

Good afternoon sir. I was an Army artilleryman from 1982-88. Loved watching you guys do you job. I was stationed at Baumholder West Germany and Fort Carson. Hope I saw you.

@@jb76489 I don't think you know how in air IDing works!

@@CODYoungGunna with binoculars if you’re in the a10

@@jb76489 so did most pilots up to that point. It was part of their training

Why worst? You die instantly, no last fear due to sound or posture. Just death. I prefer that.

I prefer not getting killed by a shart sound

Nor will you get to hear the roaring rrrrreeeeyynnnoooollldddsssss as it flies by.

Since it's going to miss with like a hundred bullets before one hits you, you'll probably hear it plenty.

even worse, dying from it when you and the a10 are on the same team

Of course it’s quit it’s the Volvo of American aircraft slow but pretty tough.

Shunter. Hell let's dump the A10 and bring back the f4. Lol. LOITERING & INTIMIDATION that makes this weapon system effective.

simon literally has a video for a10 lovers and another for a10 haters

Yes I seen one at a air show this summer and was really surprised how quiet it was.

I was a stinger crewman, in field training exercises the a10 was both quiet and loitered around forever. It also found us, a dismounted 2 man team with a shoulder fired stinger. None of the other fast movers did, occasionally the helicopters did.

Yikes ok mister pilot, you do know that the F-111 has been out of service for years right?

@@CODYoungGunna Where did I say it still is in service? It was retired in the 90s. But if you had watched the video, or know something about the conflicts the A-10 was involved in, than you would know that the F-111 and A-10 served together. Which is why I (and Simon) mentioned it. As I called it an unsung hero.

@@CODYoungGunna The next time you attack someone, do so at least when you know what you are actually saying. And do so only when you fully understand what the other person says. You're welcome.

@@HolyNorthAmericanEmpire Ok less do this then not only has the A-10 out live your dear F-15, the USAF are waffling on the idea of getting the F-15EX and the F-35 has not lived up to expectations. In the Gulf War, A-10s had a mission capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties and launched 90% of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles and this was with the older frames. Their aren't many people who are going to say that the F-15, F-16, or F-111 does CAS better. Or are the unsung heros of CAS.

@@CODYoungGunna Imagine clowning yourself so hard 🤣

I have no idea what that is. Yay.

LazerPig's argument was that the importance of the cannon was overemphasized, but it still performs well with guided munitions

First Simon covers the F-35, now the A-10. LazerPig is gonna be in *ahem* Hog Heaven.

I kinda thought his writers had found LazerPig's channel and copied some notes yeah.

@@Gangxisiyu I mean to be fair fact are facts no matter who's saying them

Yeah, right. But practice say that 30mm Cannon is an overkill for APC\IFV and 20mm is more than enough while GAU8 cause actual issues with flying performance.

sounds like what you actually want is an apache. a vastly superior CAS bird

@@WarpGhost92 the gun hasn't caused those issues for a very long time. It's what the GUN/PAC system fixed.

It literally, murdered more friends than foes. Its a shit plane.

You are correct, Attack Helicopters are the primary attack resource used by the US Army and Marines to kill tanks, not fixed wing aircraft.

Do you know if they r was specifically the A-10 or any aircraft that made the Taliban run?

I've heard the same from people I have met that served. When they got in a bad spot the sound of the incomming A10 brought immediate cheers and morale boost

I think that's the biggest difference with other aircraft. The A-10 is really all about close air support. Like an angel watching over the ground troops from above. And the psychological effects on both friendly and enemy troops can't be underestimated.

The 30mm gun hasn't been its primary weapon for nearly 2 decades. It mainly uses mavric missiles and guided bombs just like any other jet can do. It just does it while being super slow and shitty.

AMEN.

I was assigned to Wardak Province, Afghanistan in 2008/09 and operated out of FOB Airborne. The FOB was halfway up a mountain and the bad guys were on top of the mountain directly across the valley from us - about two kilometers away in a "straight line". They were pounding the crap out of the FOB using missiles and we had no weapons which could be effective against them (we later got 105 mm howitzers). Air support was called for. We watched two Belgian F-16s drop bombs and miss. Then two British Eurofighters dropped bombs and missed. A (one) A-10 dropped one 2000 pound bomb which did not miss. There were multiple explosions. An after action patrol found the launch site destroyed with about 25 casualties. The casualty count was approximate because - in addition to the bomb explosion itself (huge) - the supply of missiles was also detonated.

Yeah, the GAU-8 fires 30mm HEI, API, and Shit-your-pants-in-fear. If sheer terror is just as effective at stopping someone as death, then it's just as good in that moment.

@@barryfletcher7136 yep, use of the F-16 for CAS is dangerous. F-16s have hit the ground many times because of speed and handling issues when doing dives.

Is all about combined arms efforts. With appropriate electronic “artillery” support assets, the A-10 is the ideal slashing air cavalry assets which will break enemy artillery and tanks facing off each other, allowing coordinated ground assaults. The idea is of persistent sustained air cavalry attacks to silence enemy position permanently or long enough to allow the assault bounding. Can the F-35 be used to do that? The F-35 is more of a standoffish bomber and artillery itself than an air cavalry asset. The video’s author is comparing Apples and Oranges.

I hear you brother. Kandahar Province - 2007-2008

@@keithbuddrige5064 kandahar 2011 to 2012. Cop Johnson then ANCOP

Always heard the A10 was hated by troops on the ground. Mostly cause it has the highest friendly fire record.

@@iancrisp9027 more than every other aircraft combined. The british forbade it from flying in their areas because they kept getting killed by it.

@@iancrisp9027 That has everything to do with your Forward Air Controllers. Bad controllers kill grunts.

The Marine killer

I was a Marine Corps grunt. There isn't a fixed wing craft I'd rather have for air support than an A-10. When we called in air and got an A-10, it was relief.

@@HolyNorthAmericanEmpire yeah you definitely wasn't a pilot lol

Yep.... all air frames/weapons systems pairings are a compromise. I know Simon doesn't write these, he just reads them, and sure there are, as with all systems, the great and the not so great aspects. The A-10 is the number one fixed-wing close support plane, and you're in excellent and extensive company in praising them. The vast majority of those who hate it are the ones it's zeroing in on.

Are we talking about the aircraft that hasn’t been build since the 70s, has killed more of its own soldier then any other U.S aircraft combined, suffered the most losses out of any modern U.S aircraft and pilots are required to use binoculars to identify targets, since it is so outdated.

Only on no threat environment. In environment with some AA threats, A-10 become a liability as it is way less survivable compare to anything else Air force field in air support role. The biggest example is the wars against Iraq, the US led Coalition had air supermacy, yet A-10 had way higher attrition rate than anything else. Turn out slow and low flying aircraft are way more vulnerable to outdated AA in Iraqi hands let alone modern AA

Then use a F-18 or a F-15

@@alpacaofthemountain8760 That was what happened, they withdrew A-10 from operation for the most part.

And lastly why DONT YOU INTERVIEW THE TROOPS THAT WERE IN DANGER CLOSE SITUATION NOT SOME OUTDATED REPORT BY A PANTYGON EGGHEAD BEFORE YOU TRASHTALK THE A 10

35 had a lot less loiter time as well.

I was there when we built that fob in 07. I’m one of the names on that wounded in action board in the old toc. They saved our ass in a firefight along the apple orchard on the road headed into the valley. They will forever be the best infantry air support in the world as far as I am concerned.

Man it’s crazy to go back and watch that old John McCain testimony about the a10, when it gets brought up about the b1 doing CAS and McCain shuts it down. Now we know it’s actually a FANTASTIC CAS platform since it can mount a Targeting Pod

@@ryansilcox1124 oh it is no doubt but look at cost per sortie hour on the B1 vs an A10. That's why the B1 doing CAS was shot down.

Ac 130?

What good is all that with the garbage optics on the aircraft. It's more likely to kill friendly troops than it is to provide accurate cas. It's a trash plane that needs to be replaced.

@@danield2685 well for a long while the AC130 couldn't carry guided munitions. A10 from the front outset can carry 11 maverick missiles. I think the same only plane that could carry close to that is the Strike Eagle.

Thank you.

Yup, I was armored cavalry too.... , 3rd ID... and I instantly understood the . *_TONE_* . of this video to be fundamentally misunderstanding the role [and importance] of the A10 it is the . ONLY . aircraft that CAN do what it does, for _Soldiers_ *this is not a **_Best OF_** the Air Force, .... type of aircraft* but it IS absolutely *BEST AT* exactly what it does. ... that's why it's still in service

Yes. Unfortunately, this is where most of Simon's videos have been heading recently. He starts with his erroneous assumptions and ridicules those that disagree with his arguments. All while ignoring the fact that he is blind to his own assumptions. He thinks he "knows better" . I am about to unsubscribe to all of his channels due to this trend.

It's survivability is a lot lower than you think. The entire aircraft is vulnerable to HMG and light AAA fire. It was designed to be cannon fodder while taking 2,3 or 4 tanks with it.

@@AutomationDnD the DOD is mothballing nearly all of them this year and funding for it has disappeared from the DAA in favor of better CAS platforms and improvements to the F-35

In a quiet little dusty town somewhere in the modern wild west, was a group of folks that more or less performed a no-knock warrant on a global scale. Those folks feel a little different about the A-10. Definitely, a lot I don't miss, but one of the things I do is the raspy wake the hell ups from the flying bathtubs and the sense of warm embrace that usually accompanied their mating calls from the sky!

You mean saved by CAS (Close Air Support) BY an A-10?

Because that made it sound like an A-10 plane was attacking you. 🤔

And that’s all it could do and sometimes not very well.

But they did a test 40 years ago that didn't perform well and that is more important. The guy who does this channel is a super douche half of the time. He doesn't even try to look at the big picture. He figures out his opinion and then finds data to support it.

It's kinda maddening seeing how many war nerds with no experience talk like ground troops fear calling it in cause the Brits had one blue-on-blue incident. Nvm I saw plenty of guys like you JTAC's and TACP's come thank our pilots and get tours of the jet while deployed.

@@zander9774 yeah dude the Brits must have invented all the tests Simon listed here because he's secretly mad about that blue on blue incident you won't hush up about.

A-10 is a COIN aircraft but it wasn't build to be one. So it is a failure and a happy success together. It was build for soviet tanks in the Fulda Gap and you can't compare this to the requirements of the Afghanistan war.

@@zander9774 I'm pretty sure he was in the military

@@justincoates4582 that I won't shut up about? I'm only addressing it cause almost every comment thread on here uses "Brits hate it" as a meme excuse to say it's terrible. Also the tests he's referring too were from the late 70s and tactics/munitions change over 40yrs. Even the SOP for A-10s changed during OIF/OEF to be more effcetive in it's role.

I'm not sure how much the C package cost but I heard somewhere it made the A10 stupidly expensive for what it was

@@matthewredman7814 2nd person I've seen comment "A-10C is very expensive". I'd love to know where that came from cause every cost per flight hour article lists it as the cheapest manned combat aircraft in the USAF. I'll say having worked on the C model they're not that expensive especially in man hours. The avionics are basic and same level as later block 16s and 15E models.

Now I know you come from the ground side of the a10. But you may perhaps have experience with other airplane guns. So my question / speculation would be if the a10 would have benefitted more with a smaller but more accurate gun, if it was not effective against tanks anyway? More easy to maintain, more ammo perhaps or some more room for stuff that could help with its aim? If you are not killing tanks, design it for those softer targets more I would think. O_o (me civ noob here, not trying to disrespect)

@@jerryandersson4873 all it would have done was allow for carrying either a larger ammo capacity of 20MM rounds or increased fuel load. 20MM would mean even less armor piercing capability. Pilots would like less time hitting the tanker during combat ops but 2hr loiter then refuel and so on is fairly standard for single seaters. I'm not trying to pump up the image of todays's A-10, it certainly has flaws and short comings. But the video and a lot of these comments repeating Lazerpig points are maddening cause they're based almost entirely on data from the testing phase to first Gulf war. Ammo/bombs change, tactics change, things in general just improve over the amount of time it's been used for its CAS role. The guns accuracy also is nowhere near as questionable as many keep repeating. It's like people took an entertaining slide show as fact and ignore videos of it shooting on target or first hand accounts.

@@jerryandersson4873 the modern versions have a gun stabilization system by adjusting for the recoil (the plane wants to nose up when you fire), very accurate and a digital pip so the rounds land exactly where you think they should. It's very accurate.

The A-10 keeps surviving because of politics. It's literally politicians. If an A-10 base is to lose the A-10, that means a lot of constituents lose jobs and representatives lose re-election campaigns. That's literally it. It's an obsolete airframe that will be no match for modern day peer nation militaries. If we went to war with China (many say it's a "when" and not an "if") then the A-10 won't ever see the combat theater. My wing commander literally said that last week. The reason the A-10 has been so successful is because it hasn't had to face any competent surface to air or air to air defenses. What the A-10 has faced over the past 20 years is primitive technology but believe me, China knows exactly how to knock the A-10 out of the sky like swatting a mosquito. 5th gen aircraft have countermeasures that the A-10 doesn't have. My wing commander literally described the A-10 as being like a 38 year old overweight guy showing up to a 20 year high school reunion wearing his old football letter jacket. Yeah he was a superstar decades ago, but he keeps hanging on to those days as if nothing ever changes, yet everyone else moved on. He's an overweight balding guy hanging on to his glory days that were decades ago. That's exactly what people who keep praising the A-10 are doing. The A-10 needs to retire. It's served it's purpose. It will NOT be effective in a modern conflict. Continuing the A-10 based on it's service record would be like putting a fleet of B-17s in the air above China as well because of its effectiveness in WWII. Every airframe needs to retire at some point. And the A-10 is at that point. You don't want to have them all getting blown out of the sky with no more advanced replacement in the foreseeable future before you realize it's combat ineffective. The A-10 has only been as successful as it has been because we've been fighting a primitive "military" for the past 20 years and it hasn't seen any opposition in the air, or from the ground. It's done. You really need to watch this video. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tFcXNpdKh4E.html This is being played for pretty much every new aircraft maintenance person that joins the Air Force. Chinas technology is catching up to us. It doesn't explicitly mention the A-10 in the video, but the message is the same. That video is literally from the DoD and is being shown to every brand new Airman to hopefully help them see the reality of their futures in the Air Force. I joined 1 year after September 11th and I just hit 20 years in. My entire career has been spent fighting primates in the middle east. The future we may go toe to toe against a significantly stronger opponent. Plus, if you look on a map, you will see how close China and Afghanistan are. China has had a front row seat to observe how the United States military operates for the past 20 years. They've studies us. They know our moves. They know we have a culture of "yay the A-10 is the best thing ever" and they know what our plays are.

@@miked172 not at all. The Air Force just hasn't produced a good enough replacement and do not want to

The aircraft isn't the problem; the pilots on the other hand whose ability to distinguish a Warrior AFV from a BMP leaves rather a lot to be desired.

There's literally nothing you could tell me at this point that would change my opinion of the A-10, and other service members would say the same. I don't care about it's projected kill rate against Soviet tanks in a hypothetical Cold War gone hot, The Ukrainians and Iraqis have proven that battlefield tactics are more important than sterile tests. Also, consider morale. Nothing says "Fuck yeah!" to the troops on the ground like the BRRRRRRRRRRTTTTT of an A-10 as it decimates a close air support target. There's a reason it's still in service after decades of trying to kill it.

It was literally held off because of congressional interference lmao. Same reason the U-2 and B-52 are still here despite being atrociously obsolete

You mean the empty city of Kuwait City because the Iraqi army had pulled out weeks before?

If I had a dollar....

No. Either it blew them with missiles or it didn't happen.

@@zaco-km3su it probably blew it up with hellfire.

This guy is just a salty European

Don't think the brits that got blown up by the A10 think the same way. Any help will always be an angel in your described scenario.

Did you watch the whole video.. A-10 relatively imprecise with dubious effect from 200 m. F-35 - destroys a target each and every time from 70 km away...

To be fair, the question here would be, would they have been saved just as easily by another airframe? And all the data points towards yes(and probably with less dead British soldiers as well)

They would have been helped just as well by another airframe, bud. Probably better.

@@aquila4460 It certainly could have. But because of the maintenance costs associated with these higher-performance aircraft, and their longer down-times per mission, it was cheaper and easier to use the A10 which was designed for close air support.

​@@Amalgam67 It was designed to kill tanks. It's used for CAS because it's not as good at killing tanks as it was meant to be. For CAS you could argue a smaller and more accurate gun would be just as effective as the 30. Happy your friends got out of those situations but that's not a metric of design efficacy.

Air frame includes drones of all sizes. Now replace the A10 funding with more Pikes, dronesSwitchblades

Shhh we don't say that because it hurts his argument.

It was supposed to be a tank killer, not a helicopter killer. Turns out it was terrible at doing that with its 30mm gun.

I think I'm a bit late, but..: No arguments made here about the recon capabilities. An f35 (or whatever) can launch from a much greter distance, sure. But who's gona get the intel, what to shoot and where? If ground troops can't paint the target, A10 can. F35 can't.

@@bsz6328 I mean the f35 can to be fair but it's not going to have a lot of staying power and really isn't utilized to its best potential doing so.

Uhhh… you mean Farmingdale?

@Zachary Wellman No I mean Hagerstown Maryland. Farmingdale was their other location. But the A-10 was mostly assembled in Hagerstown.

Not true. The USAF had the A-10, Army had the Cheyenne, and Marines had the Harrier. There was an argument that the airframes overlapped. The government agreed that each one was different enough and they could all be build. The USAF and Army agreed to not interfere on each other. The Cheyenne was plagued with problems and delays, Lockheed couldn't make it work. Forget air superiority. You can still be shot down with air superiority - SAMs/MANPADS/AAA. Always a threat no matter how much superiority you have over enemy air forces.

Its called a Drone. Probable MALE sized. And those are cheaper and more expendable still. Boots might like more embedded smart weapons like Pike, drones ( suicide or not ) and laser-guided Mortar glide kits more, Those they can control themselves and are more readily available to local forces. Hell, Pike could make an acceptable weapon for company-level infantry unit-controlled drones as well.

The thing as pointed out by this video and others, is that if you need an aircraft for CAS work... you don't need an A-10 to do it. As shown, the GAU-8 isn't really an anti-tank wonder, so you don't need an aicraft carrying a 30mm cannon for that task. Subsequently, if you need to take out soft-armored targets, then every other attack aircraft in the arsenal is more than capable of using their own weapons to do so, even their 20mm guns. If you need to take out tanks from the air, again you're not going to use the GAU-8 for that express purpose, and so you'll use surface-to-air guided missiles and bombs, which any other attack aircraft in the sky is capable of carrying. The A-10 is heavily armored, and can fly low and slow for CAS yes, but again its roles are already fulfilled by other aircraft either more economically, or more effectively such as subsonic attack aircraft (which can get there faster), helicopters (which can loiter longer), or drones (which are truly expendable and thus can fulfill "aggro" if you want to call it that). Also, I'm pretty sure that the machine that's expected to take and absorb damage for the troops from the ground are... well, tanks. The doctrines of most air forces supposed that aircraft are not meant to take hits or attract ground fire, and instead their role in CAS is to hit the enemy hard enough that the enemy's combat capabilities are impaired or negated completely, not loiter around the battlefield attracting enemy fire. Otherwise you'd see stuff like AC-130's used more in CAS, an aircraft with superior firepower and loiter capability to the A-10, and yet the AC-130 is only deployed for very specific types of air support missions, typically when there's no anti-air capabilities expected such as when defending a base from attack. The A-10 is basically a specialty aircraft that can't even excel in its one specialty when it needs to be, and the things it needs to do to excel in that specialty can be done by other types of aircraft better.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD air superiority means enemy planes bug out, which will make SAMs Huntley, and manpads cannot replace SAMs. Commies had great success with SAMs in Vietnam, so in Desert Storm the destroyed the extensive, capable SAM network. Only worry for the destroyers was small arms fire

Astute analysis well said - CAS is not AS

Actually it’s tue opposite cause of it’s danger close there’s a high chance of friendly fire

@@armymanaka360 It's obvious you've never been in combat. I speak from personal experience. When your position is about to be overrun by enemy combatants, an A-10 is most welcome. But you go one taking out his ass.

I think his point is that the A-10 was not as effective at what it was designed to do - destroy Soviet tanks in Europe. No doubt, as a close air support platform, it was highly effective but the targets were softer than a Soviet tanks column that would have included antiaircraft defenses. Never having been put to THAT test, this is pure speculation.

@@armymanaka360 I agree with MojoPup. In support of infantry, particularly in the mountains of Afghanistan, this is a very scary weapon. The problem isn't friendly fire. The problem is its speed and new shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles.

@@academicdeaneducation6671 It seemed to do pretty well against Saddam's tanks in Kuwait. I know I wouldn't want to be inside a tank that gets hit by those depleted rounds...jus sayin'

In the 80s the Air Force WANTED the army to take it.

Go USMC. I never understood why US Army doesn't do its own FW CAS. It really works well for the Marines 👍

It was always designed as a tank buster to close the fulda gap. There are better and more accurate close air support platforms which may have saved more of your friends but when you’ve got a hammer you need to use every problem like like a nail.

If the grunts like it idk why everyone thinks it’s such a pos. And like he said the taliban ran when they realized it was attacking. I can guarantee that saved lives.

@@parkercarpy810 The thing is, most accounts I have seen suggest they very much disliked the A-10 to the point it was withdrawn from theatres upon demand/request by ground forces due to having the worst friendly fire rate of any US airframe. The Taliban would run when any air support was in use tbf. While it saved some lives, any other plane would likely have also done that job just as well if not better.

Most Marines seemed to like my Cobras than A-10s

Yep. I've got friends alive from this truly amazing plane alive one day, and alive the next day when it came back to deliver more protection THE next day too. It's survivability is unmatched. Simon and crew, stop taking $$$ from Lockheed Martin Guys on the ground love this aircraft, so piss off.

Marine here. I feel EXACTLY the same way. Love those hogs man.

you could have been saved by another aircraft just as well.

@@hulagu3068 No, the slow speed and long loiter times of the A-10 combined with its survivability against ground fire make it better suited to CAS missions than any other aircraft in the American fleet.

@@brianeleighton it's also better suited to being shot down as opposed to other aircraft performing similar missions. it's not a bad plane, it's great, and it's cool, and it's fun, but it is overrated lmao

@@fowlerfreak7420 Yet, the A-10 has a remarkable ability to absorb hits that would shoot down other aircraft and still make it back to base.

The GAU/8 is the main wepon of the A10. It is literally built around the gun. The A10 has to use its missile and bombs to reliably hit anything. The gun is so inaccurate that the A10 has the most friendly fire kills of any military aircraft. And for how much I dont want to use wikipedia as a scorce I'll do so in this case. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

the vid is about a month old. We're rewriting history because Leftism.

All of these are weapons that could be out onto an aircraft that's not a gigantic target for manpads lol

​@@Sixshotz1337exactly. All things you can deploy on far faster, less vulnerable jets with better avionics and situational awareness.

@@Sixshotz1337 I don't think you know how manpads work

Your opinion and those of your brothers in arms is what matters. I know there are thousands of ground forces that came home because of air support from the A10, including a close friend of mine. Nuance is very important indeed. Thank you for your time in service and glad you are here to give your perspective. God bless.

It didn't save you. The pilot flying it did save you. And he'd do that in other airplane as well - arguably better as per this video. Let's not antropomorphize things, it just detracts from the brave operators of these tools who do amazing things with good and bad gadgets alike.

@@miroslavhoudek7085 so a pilot flying a biplane would be able to save ground forces with armor like the A10 does? Lol

@@420funny6 for sure, actually much better than A10 without a pilot.

Thank you for your service and for this comment. Brought tears to my eyes. The only time a "thing" saved my life was my handgun, but I'd never thought about the concept of a "thing" saving my life. My gun was my tool that I had on me, had practiced with for years and operated myself. I just thought of it as a part of me. The thought of being certain that you are going to die, then, by some miracle a 3rd party "thing" showing up seemingly out of nowhere saving your life is quite thought provoking. I'd never bash it either.

Unless the ground troops are British or Canadian.

Unless they need it for close air support and are in the splash zone

Probably not worth the money if that's it's greatest advantage. It's be cheaper to hire mascots.

It's like the drummer boy from the revolutionary War. Great for morale but utterly useless in combat

I recon the best moral boost is the one that actually kills its targets XD

Too late, the Sky Warden already exists.

Yes, it’s an old design. BUT, whenever it’s head goes up on the block with congress, it always get taken down, by numerous generals, and by the very military it supports. More often than not, the troops loudly reverse the path.

Not as many as the unsung heroes, F-111, B-1B, B-52, etc. They don't have the sexy (but useless) gun, but they can be on station for ten trillion years, and they all carry huge bomb loads.

@@IntrusiveThot420 can’t tell you how many time we called in the thunder it was a sight for sore eyes

@@IntrusiveThot420 B-52s are high level carpet bombers that will destroy an entire city just to kill a target. A-10s are surgical strike aircrafts and I’ve witnessed it’s accuracy first hand. This guy in the video is just biased and pushing his own opinions as to why the A-10 sucks. As I’ve already mentioned this video fails to mention that the original 30mm rounds were not technically made to penetrate armor and were not made from depleted uranium.

@@dawnsredemptiongaming5567 yeah, nobody can take away the morale effect of strafing enemy positions. But it killed more friendlies than any other allied jet too... Either way, glad you survived the sandbox! I'm angling to work for a defense contractor on the next generation of air support so that y'all never have to worry about getting snuck up on ever again.

This video is literally blatant propaganda for Lockheed Martin and a commerical fo the F-35 which they so desperately want to replace the A-10 and it is NOT fitting to do so, they're still so pissed the USAF was basically forced by the DOD to allocate 800~ mil to replace all the A-10 wings to keep them in service rather than replace all those A-10s with what? 8 F-35s? It's a fucking joke, this is just more $$$ greed bullshit politics being pushed through social media. Megaprojects, I see you, fuck you!

He doesn't understand the value of forcing the enemy to take cover because he doesn't understand the nature of combat and fire and movement if he worked half as hard doing some damn research and understanding warfare as he did on his beard maybe his videos wouldn't be so f****** lame

US Government statistics on the post 9/11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had 80% of the CAS sorties being flown by aircraft OTHER than the A-10s. There were more A-10s that were constructional write-offs than just the six mentioned in that list lost to ground fire and SAMs. A lot of the ones which didn't get destroyed completely did take so much damage as to be stripped for parts and then buried in the desert. The original tooling for the A-10s has long since been destroyed and Boeing's re-winging program involved building new wings with new tooling to a different design than the original wings. Its common practice to strip the ones taken from service for spare parts to keep the others flying. Out of 716 built, 43 are on display, less than 300 have been re-winged and remain operational and the rest are writes off or in storage to canabalize for parts.

The fact that many of those seriously hit got their pilots home is a testimate to their brilliant design and quadriple flight control redundancy. This video is a troll

@@DeeEight _"US Government statistics on the post 9/11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had 80% of the CAS sorties being flown by aircraft OTHER than the A-10s. "_ That was a lie, and it was exposed. They only tracked sorties from 2006 to 2012 in that document, and the end date was conveniently just before the worst friendly fire incident in the entire Afghan War, in which a guided bomb dropped by a B-1 (the aircraft the USAF was pushing _ultra-hard_ to replace the A-10 in the CAS role at the time, and the narrative their document was created specifically to prop-up) killed and wounded a ton of ISAF troops. The 2006 date is more significant, however, particularly given that half the Afghan War preceded it. You know what the USAF didn't mention about 2006? That was the date in which ISAF was finally able to re-pave the runways in Afghanistan (which had been literally falling apart since the 1980s), allowing all of the USAF's warplanes to operate from bases inside the country. Before that happened, there was only a single jet-powered combat aircraft that was able to operate from the runways inside Afghanistan, due to the innate FOD resistance and ruggedized landing gear no other US warplane had --- the A-10. This also meant that A-10s arrived to the scene of a battle minutes after take-off, while all the other aircraft were a half an hour or more from Afghan airspace by the time they arrived, usually arriving at the firefight with tired pilots, lots of fuel already burned, and inferior payloads and loiter time. When those facts were brought to the attention of the press, the USAF stopped talking about the report. _"There were more A-10s that were constructional write-offs than just the six mentioned in that list lost to ground fire and SAMs. A lot of the ones which didn't get destroyed completely did take so much damage as to be stripped for parts and then buried in the desert."_ No other Coalition warplanes suffering that much damage even made it back. _"Out of 716 built, 43 are on display, less than 300 have been re-winged and remain operational and the rest are writes off or in storage to canabalize for parts."_ Half the A-10 fleet was retired in the early 1990s, and these airframes were never re-activated. Most have less than 10 years' worth of wear on them, and the survivors still have their original wings. The A-10s that were re-winged had all flown for more than 30 years.

@@markfrombriz It's WAY more than that. The A-10's control system isn't hydraulic with a cable-and-pully backup, but a cable-and-pully control system that's merely hydraulically boosted; as a result, it's relatively easy to control even after hydraulics have been lost. But much more important is that the control cables don't all thread through a single common pathway, like they do in most other aircraft. If an F-16, for example, takes a 30mm shell though it's control pathway, it'll sever not only all of the hydraulics, but both of the manual backup cables as well. The A-10 has multiple cable pathways, on opposite sides of the fuselage. Another little-known fact about the A-10's hydraulics is that they operate the landing gear in the opposite way from most other aircraft. Pressurizing the landing gear _raises_ it rather than lowering it; if all pressure is lost, the landing gear falls into the lowered position and locks into place. At least two A-10s have safely landed after hydraulics failure, though a third one cashed on landing. Contrast the A-10's ability to land safely with the "manual back-up" controls you see on most other warplanes. They don't give the pilot anywhere near enough control to attempt a landing, and were included in these aircraft to make them just barely controllable enough to fly to a safe area to eject behind friendly lines (though admittedly, that's a LOT more important than it seems; when F-105s lost their hydraulics over Southeast Asia, the stick slammed all the way forward, and the aircraft entered an irrecoverable high-speed nose dive, and many F-105 pilots found themselves dead or locked-up in the Hanoi Hilton as a result). As far as I know, the A-10 is the only warplane in service today that has all of these attributes, though the Su-25 might have them as well.

AC-130?!?

Bullshit. I've never heard a Marine say they want USAF CAS. A10s are Marine killers.

BIG FACTS

So you rather have the A-10 over a gunship that can drop 105mm and 30mm right on top of a target point .. I'd take the Ghostrider any day.

@@spyrule OMG! The first time I saw the C-130 in action was in Iraq. We called in a strike while on patrol. That was amazing! But, with air attached directly to me, I'd still rather have the A-10

Nah, 30mm autocannons are best used for heavy suppressing fire or fighting APCs or IFVs. If one has to confront tanks, its lighter to utilize ATGMs/RPGs/Recoilless Rifle. Beside the penetration of GAU-8 is not much help even if its using Depleted Uranium rounds.

yeah, this was definitely a missed opportunity. The A10 is designed to loiter. It can stay on station for long periods of time, and it can carry 16,000 pounds of ordinance on 11 hardpoints. The F35 is great and all, but the main benefit to its survivability is its stealth, which is compromised by using anything outside of its internal bay, which has a limit of 5700 pounds of payload.

@@thantounderscore And the F35 is too expensive to expose

> drop every manner of Munition and stay on station for hours So you want a B-1 bomber? Cuz honestly that just sounds better.

@@Eanki_ please tell me you're joking, because replacing the A-10 with something that has a turn radius measured in miles and can only drop bombs and costs 3x as much per flight hour is insanity. Congress tried to propose something like that and John McCain famously shot the idea down. Look it up.

@@DasPenguin85 Yes. I know McCain pulled the smartass stunt. Too bad smartass doesn't equal correct. The Bone is capable. The Viper even better. The A-10 is a bomb truck with smart munitions. The Viper can play bomb truck. So yes, there is a system that can take over if ever.

Yeah. So imagine the moral drop troops would have when they believe this machine is good support but as soon as they go against a peer to peer enemy it gets shot down.

@@RK-cj4oc ok give me examples of your BS claims

@@CODYoungGunna what?

@@RK-cj4oc you said that the A-10 would be shot down in peer to peer combat. Im sure you have proof of that

You know to love it when it's there, but don't necessarily know to also hate it when it's absent because of its high cost and low reliability.

Pilots also love them too. A10 goes Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrpt.

It has the most friendly kills than all other American aircraft combined. An 80% of the a10s kill are from guide missils

I appreciate your service. And comment. I have watched hours of documentaries on this plane. I admit it is not the fastest and itis not the prettiest. But it has found its roll. Surely a blind man can see the difference in cost of weapons and ammo as well airframes between the 2 planes. The A10 cost around 17.5 million todays money and the F35 a real bargain for tax payers at 79 million each. That is now after all the RD was sorted. The first batch of F35's only costa coll 225 million each. The warthog might not be as advanced but it still has a place into days close combat support. I have hear that the Taliban flee like roaches with the lights on everytime they here those GE turbo fans coming for them. I did not even watch his entire video. I want to see a F35 fly home missing half of a wing!

@@jvmiller1995 Well all morden a10 have been upgradet for around 100 million each so its not a cheap plane any more. Just saying. And the gun is redeamed accuracte with in a 75 feet radius and only hit 80% of its sheild “accuret”. The a10 is shit and Can only be use in battles Where No aa is precent

@@jvmiller1995 reasons why A10 is outdated. 1. lack of modern electronics. A10 pilots have to use binoculars in their cockpit to independently attack enemies. 2. low and slow will get you killed. See Ukrainian MANPADS. 3. they have to do #2 because of #1. 4, it would cost less to replace every A10s with an F35s than if they were to be upgraded to fix these issues. See @Magnus Munch 's comment about upgrades that have already happened.

For real.

💯

probably because this is the only plane they ever see coming for help. Any other plane done it way faster from the distance they never heard or see it. A10 was so bad, he need to fly to the target and hit it from 1-2km. while f15 of f111 where able to hit target from the height you cant even see it.

people have pretty limited experiences. when you sit in an A10 and carpet an area in 30mm im sure you feel like a god casting lightning from atop a mountain, that doesn't actually mean its an efficient system when evaluated at scale. the soldier on the ground is even less a credible expert, since they are very motivated to have high praise of the plane they saw come from up high to save them. it makes a less visceral impression if the firefight you have been fighting for an hour ends with a JDAM coming from a blue sky, or even better, you aren't in a firefight at all because an apache has overwatch and spotted the enemy before you.

@@WarpGhost92 do you understand the term "close air support"?

you hit the nail on the head.!!!

Notice us Grunts want the A10 and the Non Grunts think kitchen knives will work

The Brits don't like the A 10

if the a-10's missiles were more effective than its gun we can just put the missiles on a better and more modern platform lmao

And how long did it take the fast movers to acquire targets? Could they? The fancy F whatever the number couldn’t when I needed them, and they didn’t give us a JTAC to hold their hand so they were useless.

So it is good at making scary noises and flying in circles. The figures don’t lie.

True but that’s against the Taliban. The a10 vs china wouldn’t last. Just like Russias su25 in Ukraine.

You need air superiority for the a10 to work

@@ssglbc1875 different rolls. The A10 still has loiter capability.

Against what it faced in Afghanistan and maybe even Iraq but the story would be different vs more modern adversaries. The fact is the money might be better spent on more modern systems.

The A-10 is flown by the Air Force, the Army isn't allowed to fly fixed wing combat aircraft. What actually happened was the Air Force has wanted to retire the A-10 for decades. The Army said if the Air Force retired it, they should amend the rules regarding combat aircraft to allow the Army to operate it. In the end, ground combat veterans in Congress stepped in to stop the Air Force from retiring it.

The British specifically requested A-10s not be used for CAS near them because they caused far more friendly fire incidents than any other CAS airframe.

@@IkLms11 umm source

@@CODYoungGunna one of the most notable incidents was the 190th Fighter Squadron/Blues and Royals friendly fire incident

The A10 has literally killed more friendly than enemy troops. In my 31+ years of military service I am well aware of the stupid shit military types believe and accept as fact that just isn't true

" I've seen A-10s with more holes than Swiss cheese." Yeah, gonna call BS on this. If you were on a FOB then you weren't near an airfield to see BDA on an A-10. A-10s didn't get hit that much to make them "swiss cheese" because there was nothing in Iraq or Afghan to hit them.

@@danielclemons5175 Really? No bullets or rockets of any size can hit and damage a relatively slow flying ground attack plane close to the ground? Man, I must have physics all wrong then.

The A10 engines bring joy in its allies and fear In the enemy it fills a very specific job for the Army and Marines. I served in Afghan and Iraq I wont lie I love that plane.

I mean, data can be fabricated of course. But when it is legit it will always outweigh individual experiences. Individual views will always be skewed, but data doesn't lie (Unless when it does. But when it does its down to bad data collection processes or intentional fabrication). Long story short: Unfabricated and competently collected data is reliable, while personal impressions are not.

You can see a bunch of grown men and internet warriors cry whenever it's fairly criticized. 😅

beautiful my ass, this thing is the ugliest plane ive ever seen

Even the Apache is getting replaced soon, likely within the next decade.

@@Red-Magic When are they ever going to learn if it isn't broke don't fix it.!!😉

@@carlbrown5150 When will people learn that technology marches on?

You don't get the option to pick when dodging SAMs and AAA.

And it wasn't particularly effective from those attack vectors either, as raw data proves. It was a jet designed to kill tanks that is bad at killing tanks and can't survive air defense in peer or near-peer warfare. It's used as CAS but is less useful for that role than helicopters are.

You forgot the existance of the entire PGMs and AGM65series of weapons my guy

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Specially when the Anti Air Defences in Russian doctrine supports armor from behind, theoritaclly barelly overlapping the tanks

According to LazerPig the A-10 killed more Iraqi tanks in ‘91 with missiles than the 30mm gun because the gun wasn’t up to the task and never had been.

Skyraider would do better.

Having had to have my ass saved by the A10 it is well worth it. A1 skyraider can be shot down to easily.

When there is a wide open air space with zero or little chance of enemy aircraft and enemy anti air capability....then yes, the A10 is awesome ha

@@nexpro6118 it was awesome in the Persian gulf War as well

@@danielstevens3869 yeah....we gained complete air control after 2 weeks lol

it didn't fly at night in DS, it hunted during the day and was absolutly great at it, but it didn't have much ability to fly at night and thus night hunting was left to the F-15E, Tornado and F-111

Fair to compare it to the Stuka, except that these days it would be an even easier kill for MANPADS and SAMS rather than fighters. I think it would be very dangerous to put it anywhere near the Russian S400 system and downright suicidal to fly low and slow near infantry with smart MANPADS. You'd have to use it as a standoff missile truck only, for which its ease of maintenance, support and camouflage is its main virtue.

you know, it's 2022 If airfields are a problem, you can deploy helicopters, or VTOL aircraft... Or... Since it's the US... An aircraft carrier

And sure, *maybe* friendly troops will get morale boost from the gun sound But they will get a bit of a morale downgrade when it turns out to do shit as its really not very effective against anything really, rockets, bombs and missles will do equally good or better job

Except that bad guys shoot back, and the A10 was designed to take a pounding, and still complete mission and get home.

@@kf4hqf2 but imagine something better then surviving a hit: not getting hit because you fly fast hundreds of kilometres away

​@@kf4hqf2 the durability of the a-10 was good, but it has been overstated. and do you know what's better than being designed to take a hit? being designed not to be hit

@@kf4hqf2 As the video pointed out; the A-10 has the worst survivability record. Had to be moved AWAY from where the action because of losses and was only allowed to fly at night. So many other platforms that performed the role better.

@@kf4hqf2 would be better at its job if it was designed to avoid getting shot at in the first place, which is what most ground attack airplanes do.

Well someone took this badly 😂. I think you miss the point that almost any aircraft can do the job better.

@@hill160881 But any aircraft ISN’T doing the job better. It’s a surprisingly cheap, effective enough platform for hellfire missiles and psychological warfare. If the taliban are running for cover every time CAS is called, then their job is 90% effective. CAS doesn’t win wars, ground troops do. If the CAS can give the ground troops room to breathe then that’s a successful sortie. And keep in mind, comparing a vehicle built in the 60’s against an aircraft whose service life started 7 years ago that costs 1,250% more is absurd. The F35 has some incredible aspects but is 1 F35 better at CAS than 12 A10’s? I don’t think so. The A10 is VERY flawed, but what it lacks in quality it makes up for in quantity.

@@hill160881 If they can get out of the hangar and show up. The F-35 has poor reliability but the A-10 is almost always ready to go. Plus you can literally buy 4 A-10s for the price of one F-35. Each of those A-10s will be heavily loaded with missiles as well as armed with a cannon. Add this up you get continuous CAS coverage versus spotty CAS coverage. This video doesn't do a very good analysis of this. Availability rates for aircraft is an enormously important stat that wasn't even factored into the critique of the A-10. I'm not saying the A-10 program (like all other military weapon systems) shouldn't be scrutinized but all key factors have to be considered when comparing one to another.

Bruh the taliban loved the a10 cause it never hit them and killed so many civvies they called it their greatest propaganda machine.

Any plane and the A10 can send in a missile 50 miles from target

It was obsolete when it was first introduced. The A-10 started out as a CAS system, but was shuffled over to an anti-tank role when USAF acquisition saw another aircraft killing tanks on the cheap with a 30mm cannon - only to find out quite quickly in a series of live fire tests that even against things like old Patton M47's and T-62's a 30mm is garbage for that, let alone against the T-72's of the time. These days the A-10 is pretty much nothing but a bomb truck that's no longer even cheap thanks to the upgrades needed in it to stop it pasting friendly forces.

Usual cherry picking that this channel does. Very poor vids. This will be the last I bother to watch. Not only are they always poor quality, but jam packed with adverts...

100% agree the A10 could carry much more missiles/bombs then any other jet. It's main mission was to support ground troops and that it did. Saved a lot of soldiers. Here, they only discuss the "gun". That's not fair and being a bit bias.

@@yvesgysel9834 the A-10 conducted only 3% of all CAS missions during WoT. Seeing that the A-10 cant do much else and we had permissive airspace during the whole war, its time to admit the the A-10 is taking up too much space in the USAF inventory for a mission set that other airframes do more amd more effectively. squadrons equipped with A-10s would be better served flying F-16s, especially Air National Guard Squadrons, who's job is to defend domestic airspace

None of what you said matter in CAS, though. Close in CAS mean friendlies are close (danger close) , with that what you want is precision strikes. Oh, that A10 that flew home with half the plane missing? That plane will never fly again.

You're a USAF crew chief but you think the "close" in "close air support" means the aircraft has to get close to the enemy... not that the it's simply when the enemy is close to friendly troops and friendly aircraft still need to attack the enemy.

@@Treblaine you're a civilian and you don't know what CAS is

@@remliqa It done its job and more.!!😊

@@CODYoungGunna Dude, Don't use the appeal to authority fallacy when it is apparent the "authority" doesn't know what CAS mean That is the official tactical definition of CAS.

The "A-10s mission is obsolete" Seeing Russians invade Ukraine in 2022, by driving miles of armored vehicles on roads, is the literal textbook scenario that created the demand, the purpose, and task of the A-10. Despite all of the advancements in weapon systems and aircraft, the most effective, efficient, and lethal weapon against armored columns, is still the A-10 Warthog. I can only imagine the screams of the A-10 pilots as they watched lines of tanks on the news, bottlenecked on roads, as they are sitting ducks. That was the very purpose of the A-10's existence, and the scenario that the pilots were trained to engage in.

By this logic all helicopters are obsolete…

@@gregpaul882 well remember helios are the domain of the army, plus the airforces thought process on the a-10 is complex and shouldnt be over simplified by blanket statements. There's a real arguement that if you sent in 8 f-35s into ukraine right now they would do more for the war effort then 8 a-10s or any other combination of fighters. Anyone who is claiming an a-10 would simply mow down the Russian armor without being under threat it self is probably over simplifying the situation. The su-25s the Ukrainians own have not faired that well and that is the closest plane to the a-10 in the world. Of course in a sanitized air space give me 8 a-10s all day probably going to out perform the helios in most mission types too

Can any of that be proven though?

Here's the most important statistic. Most blue on blue in the modern era. If needs to be retired and it's missions given to the B1.

Tell that to the innocent bystanders it's murdered and made their families extremists.

@@osric729 ...... I totally agree........ I am a big fan of Simon's work and I really do appreciate the effort he and his team puts in....... but this one I think is based more on opinions rather than facts.

Same with the Hawker Typhoon. If it could bring everything to bear on a target it was formidable. What it couldn't do was kill a Tiger unless it was very lucky. That didn't stop Tiger crews running when typhoons appeared - simply because of the reputation of the aircraft. Mind you - it must have been damn unpleasant being inside a Tiger when 4 20mm canon and rockets are thudding into it.

The JU-87 Stuka's scream was generated by sirens mounted on its wheel struts for the purpose of undermining morale of people on the ground.

The "Jericho Trumpet" It has it's own little prop that spins in a dive

@@keithhealing1115 Unpleasant indeed for the Tiger crew, and they would be pretty neutered if that amount of firepower landing on and around it took out pieces of track, damaged the main barrel or machine guns. Certainly could be frustrating psychologically to get near the lines just to get shaken up and have to turn the big boy around again back to a repair area (after getting the tracks functional again).

@@ryanotte6737 Turning the Tiger round for repair was chapter two of the manual wasn't it? Straight after "1. Congratulations on your purchase - here's how to turn your new Tiger on."

Tell that to the brits who had been shot by it so many times they asked for it not to be used in their CAS assignments.

it was a morale decrease for allies

Yea. It proved you were up against Bows and Arrows.

@@wonkothesane7000 or RPG's, AK's, IED's.

@@ssgus3682 👍

In the video he says they got shot down more than other aircraft during the Iraq war.

Exactly.

@@coolcoolercoolest212 That's te risk you take when you're providing close air support with a plane that had countermeasures and avionics from 1979. It was the Air Force's bastard child and they ignored updating it for as long as they could.

@@coolcoolercoolest212 Which it did. What he failed to mention is that is also has the highest rate of friendly fire of any American aircraft ever built

@@cameronporter5137 umm no that's the AH-64

If your requirement is "slap tons of ammo on a plane", you don't need dedicated aircraft for that And if you need guided munitions I mean You can even use something like B-1

bro the a10 is an over engineered flying bomb truck that is horribly outdated. the super tucanos from the south americans can literally do what the a10 can do at a fraction of a cost, fraction of the maintenance, and fraction of the training time.

If your idea of CAS is long loiter time, than B-1 can do that and even accurately drop guided munitions, A LOT MORE THAN WHAT A-10 HOLD. And even better thing is B-1's did so during Afghan War.

We loved it because it's a meme, my dude. That's the only reason why. It is massively overhyped.

"does it deserve this praise?" Nah. It doesn't.

Because it was built to do one thing…

For the nay Sayers... I just got one reply.... Thunder make it rain.

Isn't it interesting reading the hot takes from people that have neither worked hands on with the airframe nor needed to rely on it in combat.

It's not cheap to fly and helicopters don't need a runway at all. Helicopters are better because they have a chin turret that can always be aiming at the enemy, the A-10 can only aim at the enemy briefly when diving on a target then take a couple minutes circling around to do the same thing. Helicopters are also way better for shooting rockets, and rockets are what made dive attacks obsolete in the first place. The A-10 cannot carry a larger NUMBER of weapons, just heavier weapons, weapons that are too heavy, if you drop a 1000lbs or 2000lbs bomb on enemy troops position when the enemy troops are less than 300m from your friendly forces you'll decimate your friendly forces due to the huge fragmentation radius.

Not against anyone with air defense .

Cheap to build, too. No 2-seat version so the pilots first flight is solo. No Weight-on-Wheels switch, so the weapons could be inadvertently fired while taxiing. No relief tube, so pilots ferrying across an ocean wore diapers.

@@Treblaine Attack Helios are the Army's dominant and they aren't better than the A-10

Super Tucano and Air Tractor even cheaper to fly and can fly off dirt roads. No need for a cannon.

The ammount you need for killing one tank is still more expensive

You can load unguided rocket pods under wings and cover area with much more destruction power while the price is lower.

@@Estuardomendez13 Not really, depleted uranium is pretty much dirt cheap. Shooting it at someone is actually saving us money on storage and disposal of what would normally be nuclear waste. The A-10s gun is outdated as a tank killer, but tanks themselves are becoming more scarce in favor of things like the BMP-2 or the bradley.

@@EldrichtKnight yeah but they still have to use hydras cause the gun is so inacurate the british refuse air support from a 10 in fear of freindly fire it doesnt matter if your weapon is cheaper if it is useless

That is if the A-10 can hit the target. As for expense, Washinton doesn't care. It loves to spend our money.

Yup, as an Army Veteran of Afghanistan ... this is absolutely correct!

Your wrong so badly. What is worse, see the plane and run away from it. Or die in explosion that comes from nowhere? What you will be afraid more, the plane on a horizon or the fact that you dont know if you are right now targeted from hundreds killometers away. Tell me, what soldiers fear most, Machin gun nest or Sniper?

@@WarpGhost92 then you’ve obviously been in a combat situation?

@@WarpGhost92 I think your COD squad misses you mate. enjoy saving the world you mighty keyboard warrior.

@@keithbuddrige1210 mate, have you ever tried to check your youtube profile?) So good that i never played nor COD nor HoIIV, mate. Great job. Also, you do realize that we talking about plane with highest friendly fire cases (while having LOWEST amount of combat sorties) in modern war history, right? Stop fight numbers dude.

They’re pushing in an even cheaper CAS alternative in low AD-threat environments. It’s called the Sky Warden, and it’s a literal cropduster.

*there is currently in the US inventory. A gripen is cheaper to operate and arguably more useful and those small turboprops used in counterinsurgency should be even cheaper, if not more effective due to longer loiter times.

@@user-pq4by2rq9y not to mention the drones.

It does fire frag rounds, they carry a mix of HE, AP and API in the ammo tub.

In DCS at least, the A-10 has adjustment in fire rate

idk, im a big fan of hitting. the shock and awe of an a10 burst is offset by the shock of an apache's 30mm actually getting to you

@@ravener96 Thing about a cannon that sprays like a shotgun is that shotgun tend to find their targets. Having a low hit ratio per burst doesn't matter as long as every burst hits.

@@Deepingmind it matters when you dont have infinite ammo. an apache pumping out five-round bursts can be suppressing and killing the enemy for hours. the A10 has just a few seconds of fire, meaning you only get a couple of passes.

There's a reason trigger control exists lol