I love the way you summed up the A-10. “Jousting with a Gatling gun” 😂

I'm assuming this is all covered in the video, but "stealth" and "close air support strike platform" do not go hand in hand. CAS by canon fire is well within visual range. As for a stealth air to ground strike fighter, it already exists in the F-35. Need extended loiter time? UCAV. Zero risk to pilot. As much as I've liked the A-10 over the decades, including when I was stationed at Ft. Bragg and A-10 range exercises were a regularity (everyone loves the BRRT), what it brings to the table in terms of survivability for the pilot, and the 30mm canon, has plenty of limitations in terms of the circumstances under which it can be deployed (post SEAD only). Making a low RCS CAS fighter would mean arming it with standoff PGMs to take advantage of the stealth, making a 30mm canon useless for the ranges at which it would ideally engage ground targets. Still love the A-10 (and the concept renders of the "Warthog II"), but slapping stealth on a CAS platform is pretty pointless. As is, the A-10 does what it needs to do under the circumstances in which it can be deployed.

Short answer no, long answer noooooo The strengths of the A10 is heavy weapons load. As many memes about the autocannon there are, the fact is that its really the effectiveness of the missile payload to take out heavy armor. Stealth systems require interior payloads to operate because the shape of all the weapons underneath just act as reflecting points for enemy radar. As seen in the F22 and F35, moving the weapon system to inside the craft reduces the capacity for weapons. The fact is, if you want a low altitude close air support craft with long loiter time, we have it: they're called attack choppers. They have the same issues as the A10 however: requirement for aerial superiority, susceptibility to ground attack, lower air speed. However they have advantages of better maneuverability, no need for a runway, and falling under the same command structure-army operates pro-wing craft, Air Force operates fixed wing craft. . If twin propeller choppers with a push prop become more common, then the next Gen attack choppers may have increased payload capacity and increased range, better stability and maneuverability. Now the F35 may not have the loiter time to improve troop moral, however the end goal is for it to be able to stealthily get close, paint targets to bring missile barrage, or if need be open it's limited payload. It has the added capacity of engaging against threats in the air. If the US military is to be regearing and retooling for peer state engagements in eastern Europe and China, then it needs to stop looking solely at systems that are best suited for Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately for the A10, that's not where it's good for. We can't expect to rely on securing air space, but still need the close support. That means either more frequent missions from other weapon systems or alternate forms of support. The A10 was outdated when it was made, with Soviet Armor gettig too thick for the autocannon from the get go. It's survived in the military because we ended up with 30 years of fighting in the middle east against poorly equipped enemies.

If you’re close air support aircraft needs to be stealth then somebody screwed up. The A-10 comes in after air superiority has been established not before. An A-10 replacement should not be a stealth aircraft but I trust the military will screw it up and make it a stealth aircraft. Thus compromising the main mission of the A-10 replacement and making it inferior and less effective.

Seriously, I really like how you pointed out that stealth and CAS are mutually exclusive. Stealthing CAS is like putting a sound suppressor on a LMG planning on laying down suppression fire.

Really good content. And excellent breakdown of the financial benefits of utilizing the A10 in unexploited mission roles. The decoy deployment role makes so much sense it's suprising that it hasn't been considered especially in contested airspace in opening days of a conflict to establish air dominance.

I learn so much by watching your excellent reporting. Looking forward to the B-21 roll-out and your reporting on that!

This had been on my mind before, when I had seen an angular stealthy A-10 in a video game from the early 2000's...

No plane can shrug off damage, it just limps home. No pilot ever wants to say "oh yea shoot me I can take it."

I know we live in the era of stealth and drones. The A10 and Spooky gunship will always be some of my favorites airplanes.

This video and the ideas it presents, is downright awesome!

Great video, and that was a great write up from T&P. I’d love to see how else survivability could be improved with developing countermeasures or materials as well. Short of adding a bigger ammo can or a second gau to the A10, there’s plenty of ways to keep her flying

Thank you for reading to our comments Alex. I would like reiterate my point that maintaining an aircraft with rough field capability is a useful attribute in and of itself. You take off on a sortie from one place and return to another, then shuttle to a third location to start your next sortie, you are rarely at the same place twice. The enemy is never sure where to look for you, but you are never very far away. The age of the Big Gun may be over, take it out and replace it with other systems. Take the cockpit and pilot out and make it the Mother of all Drones.

It also needs an overhaul of its avionics, and targeting systems. It needs to be able to integrate with other combat systems. It also is infamous for friendly fir scenarios because it hadn’t been updated with tech to take advantage of IFF.

Another excellent video Alex !

Finally you opened the topic!

I grow to love this aircraft more and more everytime u hear about something more it is able to do at such a cheap cost. Great video keep it up.

Great video, and I agree with the decoy drone truck idea. With so much attention directed towards its gun, many people seem to forget just how much underwing ordnance an A-10 can carry, with is to say - A LOT!

awesome video and fair work mentioning the 3d artist! love his work

The biggest "risk" to the A10 are actually UAVs. Those can fulfill most of the same missions cheaper. They don't need the same armor to protect their pilot. They have the same or more sophisticated targeting systems. Eventually they will be big enough to carry the same amount of payloads, but due to several factors, even two or three drones can be cheaper than one A10C. The only thing drones can't do yet is fire a big gun at ground targets, but that's more for lack of trying. The F-35 can perform a lot of the tasks inbetween. In short, there is no need for a stealthy A-10 Warthog. It's just nostalgia.

12:20 The F-15E is not the only DoD fighter that can carry the JASSM. The F-16 and F-18 have also integrated the JASSM, although they can’t carry four or more. As a matter of fact, I tested the first “hot” live fire test of the AGM-158 from an F-16 Block 40 (S/N 88-0441) at Holloman AFB, NM in 2001 during a TDY from Eglin AFB’s 40th Flight Test Squadron. Additionally, the the missile has already been integrated into the B-1, B-2 and B-52, all three bombers can carry four or more.

My first thought when I saw the title was that you're missing the whole point of the A10 by trying to make it super-stealthy. I was a US Army Cobra pilot in the 80's. I had the opportunity to fly several times with Oklahoma Guard Warthogs in live-fire JAAT (Joint Air Attack Team) training. The continuous steel on target with that combination was more than impressive. I don't know if the Air Force and Army are still working with this concept, but if they aren't, they should be. With modern scout and attack helicopter tech working together with Thunderbolts and other assets, Russian convoys and armored advances like they're doing in Ukraine wouldn't stand a chance. Is there any such coordination with Air Cavalry or like-minded units going on now? Not everything has to be completely stealthy to be effective. Sometimes a sledgehammer is called for.

Great video, as usual.

Your analysis is second to none - clear, concise, and fact-based.

Ground to Air weapons (like the Stinger) are so much better now than they were in 1972 when the first A-10 came off of the production line, that it might not survive on modern battlefield. Flying low and slow is very vulnerable. And any new advancement over the A-10 would have to be designed to defeat all of the new Ground To Air systems, not just those of the upgraded Stinger. And that is a very difficult task. There would have to be a host of newly developed countermeasures that any new attack aircraft would need. That task is formable.

UCAVs are the long term answer to CAS. If controlled by the troops who require the support. They can simultaneously provide invaluable intelligence on enemy locations and laser designate targets for faster air assets to prosecute.

To be honest, the biggest reason you can't make a stealth A-10 is the basic plane shape you need to fill the role the A-10 was designed for. The reason it doesn't look like any other fighter plane in the US arsenal from the last 50 years is that the aircraft needs to be able to fly slow and steady while maintaining enough lift to keep the plane in the air. You can design a plane that is either "nimble and agile" or "stable and steady". You cannot do both. Civilian and commercial aircraft are designed for the "stable and steady" approach. Fighter craft are designed around the first approach. It makes them great in a dogfight, but you have to have fly-by-wire computer systems to keep the pilots from bumping the controls and having the craft flip over and fall out of the sky. That huge Gatling gun would spin most fighter jets in random directions when fired. The "stable and steady" design approach to the A-10's body was specifically calculated to keep the plane lined up with targets when the gun was fired, especially when flying at slow speeds. (This consideration is really important, as jet fighters have an issue with overflying slow targets.) Sadly, this means that the A-10's "stable and steady" body design becomes the single greatest issue when dealing with radar signatures. In order to make an aircraft's radar signature small, the plane has to be designed with obtuse angles between body sections, not square (90 degree) or acute angles. The tail section alone is a lighthouse when hit by radar. It makes the bright signature of the Gatling gun look like a light bulb from an old flashlight. There is not enough RAM in the world to reduce the radar signature of the tail. Every point where the body connects to the wings, engine nacelles struts, and horizontal stabilizers are bright points in radar. So are the nacelles as well. You "might" be able to make a stealth A-10 using a flying wing design and moving everything (engines, gun, missiles, etc.) inside the fuselage. But you'd still need huge vertical stabilizers to prevent the aircraft from yawing side to side every time the gun is fired. And those vertical stabilizers are just going to wave at every radar station and shout "here I am" every time the plane flies low enough. You might as well add lights and sirens for the full effect, because one of the primary design characteristics is for the plane to fly close to the ground. This is why you need a multi-plane strategy to warfare. The traditional fighters can be used to clear out radar installations and weapons platforms like SAMs while making sure enemy aircraft are too busy dealing with them so the A-10 (or it's successor, since the F-35 Lighting II can't fill that role) takes care of business on the ground. Oh, and the A-14 concept art is nice looking, but that gap between the engines and the body/winds is going to wreck havoc with aerodynamics and the radar profile of the aircraft. Better to completely meld the engine nacelles into the body like other stealth aircraft.

Stealth A-10 is the aeronautical oxymoron equivalent to jumbo shrimp. The A-10 is the ugly duckling with the heart of an eagle. The A-10 is beautiful the way it is, the Air Force just needs to keep it.

I've been wanting to see for awhile now what the integration or supplementation of the A-10 with a wingman airframe like the A-29 Super Tucano would look like. I know a 3 ship formation is unconventional for the AF, but a single A-10 with 2xA-29 wingmen could be an extremely potent combination. Sure the A-29 doesn't have "the gun", but it brings other very important capabilities to the fight. An extra set of eyes in the back seat is a huge bonus when task saturation sets in, the plane can loiter FOR-EVERRR, and it can carry a surprising load of munitions for its airframe. Not to mention it's incredibly cheap to operate.

I always get under the skin of A-10 Warthog fans when I point out that the A-10 was pulled out of attacking targets in northern Kuwait and southern Iraq during the 1991 Desert Storm campaign, they were starting to suffer casualties when they were trying to get low enough to employ the GAU-8. It was found that F-111, F-16, F/A-18, and F-15E were better because they could fly above the AAA and MANPADS and take out Iraqi Armor effectively with LGB and AGM-65 and other weapons that could be employed from medium altitudes or at Night. This was the only time that the A-10 was employed in a scenario it was designed to fight in.

I've been a fan of his (Avello) for a long. Anytime & Everytime see the A14A/B on someones channel as "click bait" I fill them in. Hat's off to Rodrigo & many thanx to U for honoring him 👍👍

Good stuff Alex.

If you reduce the ir signature of a plane, you reduce the vulnerability to ground based missile attacks that could be trying to defend itself as the A-X tries to attack it

We probably need a whole new close air support airplane, whether it is anything like the A-10 or not.

Great video. Very informative.

I'm always excited on Fridays to see a new installment from the excellent Alex Hollings!

I have also heard that the A-10 uses old fighter techniques like, having the sun directly behind them when attacking, so the enemy cant get a good visual on them? I would like to hear about old fighter techniques we still use today that still work.

Could we build an improved version of the A-10. Yes! However I think its design would be closer to a F-14 automatic sweeping wing but with the engines mounted above the wing instead of below for protection. The sweeping wing allows for high speed to get on site fast but allows the plane to fly low and slow with more agility at those speeds.

Great analysis and presentation!

Great Artwork.

The future of the A-10 lies in proliferating new weapons for it. All aircraft are just platforms at the end of the day, and it's what they bring to fight that count. An important consideration would be to remove the massive cannon and replace it with an internal bomb/missile bay.

oof. Lots of mistakes here. 1) A-10 was built to operate in contested airspace. It was built for the Forward Defense concept. The planes were to fly in, fire off their maverick missiles to kill some tanks, and then shoot their cannon at everything else. It's not like the plane was expected to survive this mission either, the command just didn't care if it did. All the robust and redundant systems are simply there to convince pilots to perform their mission. Forward Defense was the idea one massive battle at the start of WWIII would determine the outcome. So long-term survivability was mute. The A-10 was designed to be the air support of this doctrine. Unfortunately the A-10 wasn't as easy to scrap as this terrible defense concept was. 2) "stay stealthy enough to make it all the way back home" Lol what? If you're flying at opponents within sight, you aren't stealthy to start with... quite frankly the strela doesn't care how pristine a RAM coating is. An F-35 or F-22 can fly low CAS as well as an A-10 can. They specifically avoid that though because it's stupid. The A-10 primarily operates in the medium-altitude regime as well, where its primary sensor, the Targeting Pod is the most effective. The A-10 really only enters the low altitude regime to utilize the cannon, which is employed far less than dropping smart munitions. A quick note here is that both the F-35 and F-22 also have cannons. So your line here is just nonsense. 3) You can't "just see" RAM. In fact, what you're pointing out is just the paint scheme. All 4th gen platforms (including the A-10) have RAM applied to them as well. The US has been doing this since the 80s/90s. Stealth is a lot more than just RAM, but your point here is mute when you know that RAM is applied to all aircraft because the advantage of less detection is universal. Certainly not as prevalent on older systems, but effort is spent wherever possible to use RAM. 4) The F-35's RAM coating is actually baked into the skin of the aircraft. It's one of the major improvements over previous iterations of RAM. Describing the F-35 as constantly having to scrape RAM off and reapply it is quite a fundamental mistake given how big of an advancement this was for the F-35 program. The F-22 has also likely received more robust RAM coatings, but refresh programs are a lot harder to follow than development programs. 5) "inexpensive to operate A-10" This is a bit of a myth. While the cost per flight hour is lower than other platforms, like the F-16, the A-10 is actually similar in yearly cost to the F-16. The A-10's production line has been shut down for decades, the planes are all showing their age, and the lower air frame count means the logistics chain is relatively expensive given the smaller fleet size. One thing to look at here was the cost to build brand new wings for all the A-10s, otherwise the entire fleet would have lost air worthiness. That was $6.4 million *per plane*. This means that if we look at total fleet cost, then divide it by the number of aircraft in the fleet, the A-10 is similar to an F-16. Should the US keep 200 F-16s in service or 200 A-10s? That's really the question being asked. And yes, the F-16 can do everything the A-10 can and more. 6) "A-10 can carry standoff munitions" So can every fighter in the USAF, in fact the F-15, F-16 and F-35 already can use it (incorrectly stated as only the F-15 in the video). So why keep the A-10 around retiring F-16s, when you can retire the A-10 and keep F-16 *which can already do what's being suggested*. Also, the A-10 could in theory carry 4 at best, not 5. The center hardpoint is not used to carry heavy ordinance, which leaves 4 wing hardpoints that could carry 2,000lbs of ordinance. Also, the A-10 would only *barely* be under max takeoff weight with 4 AGM-158 and a full fuel load. That means no cannon ammunition, other ordinance, pods, or additional fuel tanks. Therefore that loadout is an unrealistic scenario. A realistic loadout would be two large ordinances (GBU-10, which is the theoretical munition we'd replace with an AGM-158), an additional fuel tank, TGP, EW pod, and a sidewinder. Compared with the F-16's standard loadout which includes 2xAGM-158, 2xExternalFuelTanks (EFTs), a TGP, and two air to air missiles. Both actually have comparable loadouts. Even still, the A-10 is a very poor standoff munitions platform. Range very much depends on the launching platform's speed and altitude. The A-10 is extremely slow and has a very low service ceiling when loaded up. The range of an AGM-158 is going to be much greater launching from an F-16 rather than an A-10. Not to mention an F-16 can respond to threats and reach a firing position much quicker. 7) The A-10 is also a poor "truck" compared to bombers. The A-10 is exceedingly slow. Despite having a relatively long flight duration, the A-10s slow speed greatly limits it's overall combat radius. Seriously, F-16s which carry nearly half the amount of fuel internally have around double the combat radius of an A-10. Part of this is that the F-16 can fly much higher than the A-10 can while carrying a usefull combat load, but nonetheless the impact is the same. By contrast, bombers are great in the bomb truck mode because they can fly to any specific hotspot thanks to their range. An A-10 simply can't get to where they're needed while a bomber can. Well, you could just refuel a bunch of times, but that quickly destroys your theory about cost-efficiency. In conclusion, the A-10 doesn't do anything better or cheaper than planes already in the USAF's inventory. It does however take up crews, logistics, and dollars away from far more capable platforms like the F-16. The USAF has already retired over 200 F-16s to keep the A-10 fleet because congress mandated the operation of the A-10 fleet. For those looking for more credible voices on the debate, check out LazerPig who, despite meming, has a far more scholarly-based opinion on the aircraft (kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jb2Wpt1mt5zNoqc.html). There's a reason no branch of the US military wants to fund the A-10, even when offered. /Edit: I feel like I'm being too negative. This video was honestly better than 99% of A-10 takes, and does suggest a somewhat viable option moving forward. The USAF will make use of the A-10 in a secondary support role with precision-guided munitions, as that's really what it's been doing for the last 30 years - except in Afghanistan where the lack of air defenses opens up more options. It's the same thing with F-16s too in Afghanistan, where flying at supersonic speeds over enemy positions became a viable weapon. It would just be better though if the A-10 were let to retire and other more capable platforms could be maintained or procured. I think a commenter from r/NonCredibleDefense said it best: Nzgrim 3 days ago Too many people think that a replacement for something should be "the old thing but better" instead of "let's look at the tactical role this serves and see if a) it's even necessary these days and b) something entirely different couldn't do it better if it is".

Congrats on 100k

Bro Rodrigo made matching drone concepts as well you should do another video on the the feasibility of those Warthog drone concepts

If the A-10 needs any "stealth" technology, it needs to be stealthy to the targeting systems of shoulder-fired surface to air missiles!

💭 Ok here's the move: Balloons dropping a giant flechette on a tank, let's just go back to balloons dropping flechettes 🗡️🎈

The A-10 is a flying tank. It does not need stealth for its missions. It just needs to kick ass for the troops on the ground.

I didn't notice one important detail about stealth on the video. The entire plane is not stealth, it is stealth for the profile of the mission it was designed. If the F-35 flies directly into a radar, its cross section for radar reflection will be very small. It was designed to penetrate a radar controlled area further than any 4 gen fighter. If an F-35 is climbing in front of a radar, its stealth will be none, since the radar will get the reflection of the entire plane belly. It will never do that. A plane in close combat support maneuvers so wildly, its RCS will be huge, it will never stay in its stealth profile.

Simply put, a stealth aircraft is not stealth with weapons hanging off its wings. Not X117, not X-35 nor F-22. Period.

Nothing says stealth like external hard points Also the F-35 is literally meant to fill the role of a stealth A-10

Right after he said “unleashing what is for all intents and purposes” at 2:52 , KZfaq broke in with a perfectly timed ad that began “adrenaline…”-the spacing between words was so smooth and even I had to do a double-take, thinking you had inserted some movie clip!

Thanks for that perspective

Short answer: Of course not, the A-10s original mission profile is no longer plausible, so there is no reason to build a subsonic stealth bomb truck when we already have supersonic one (F-35).

The A-10 is super cool and for its original function it is incredibly effective, however, the justification for maintaining the fleet gets weaker and weaker every year.

Thanks, Rodrigo!

a two seat variant of the warthog that loses the avenger in favor of wing mounted collaborative combat aircraft would be an intriguing addition to the CAS fleet.

They should convert the warthog into a drone with conformal fuel tanks it would be an awesome weapon

IMO if youre not using its gun, you can replace it with something else (F-15) for which you dont need to maintain an entire aircraft type (and parts train)

Sandboxx video is outstanding & has (BY FAR) the best short-form analysis. The only channel w military analysis exceeding AH's tech info: Hypo-Hysterical History

Great channel

I always liked the story of how A-10 pilots used the Maverick Missile displays as a "poor man's infrared" scope. It's the same mission that the old Douglas A-1 Skyraider used to play. Heavy weapons load, long loiter time and ability to take small arms fire. The fact that the better part of the last century taught us that ground forces need this type of aircraft should not be ignored. I hope there's someone, somewhere, working on the next gen that stresses it's mission like the A-1 and A-10 did.

I mean…. Wouldn’t you need air superiority first before we send in our troops? And therefore close air support air craft?

Amazing video

Great video.

The problem with redesigning the A10 to fit the role it already has is simple: Every aspect of the aircraft is _specifically tailored_ for this job. The high position of its engines with the intake above the wing is specifically designed to to protect against FOD from unimproved airstrips. The placement and separation also help shield one engine from damage taken by the other. Similarly, the twin tail serves _two_ purposes: providing control surface redundancy for the rudder and hiding the hot exhaust of the engines from IR seekers from at least _some_ aspects. The high canopy gives excellent views all around the aircraft with exceptional 'fore and down' needed for gunnery. The wings are designed for loading well beyond what a full ordinance load needs, again for survivability. There are incidents of A10s returning from battle with more than half of one wing missing. _NONE_ of these features would be conducive to an effective stealth design. I'm no aerospace engineer, but I'm fairly certain that no one is going to engineer that level of survivability and capability into and aircraft with similar or better performance, endurance, and weapon load and create an aircraft that you can afford to lose on the battlefield. Just my uneducated two cents.

this is really insightful. The US should be equipping Taiwan with some of the 100-odd surplus A-10s sitting at the boneyard, along with LRASM and/or NSM and MALD.

There’s another way we could use the A-10 and it’s the way that Chyna hits on what you were saying but at the same time still uses the old-school ways of using it having a for aircraft mission all of them being A-10’s Using two of them to launch decoys and jamming countermeasures and then have two to get in close use the aircraft how it was originally designed for, just a thought.

OMG, dude. Can you imagine having a stealthy Warthog or two on call during your patrol? I'd feel very reassured...lol

It already exists: The F-35, which can carry a heavier combat load, geo-locate anti-air threats faster than three dedicated F-16s working together and detect man-sized surface targets at RANGE. Not to mention, not getting detected or tracked, in the first place. The A-10’s primary weapon has ALWAYS been the Maverick, not the cannon. The gun is HORRENDOUSLY inaccurate - like, a whole bus-worth area of probable error. Troops have literally died because of how stupidly immaculate it is (the A-10 holds the record for blue-on-blue incidents). In tests, it was only really good against maybe up to T-62s, in any case. It just didn’t get very much penetration against more advanced armour - and hardly any rounds even landed on the targets. This was why Maverick-armed F-16s had to take over from them during Desert Storm. They were MORE survivable. A-10s, in today’s combat environments, would end up like all those SU-25s over Ukraine are: Flaming wreckage. Even the B-1 strategic bomber gets tasked with more CAS missions, because the A-10 simply doesn’t have the thrust to get where it’s required on time. And if you want sheer volume of firepower, then use an orbiting AC-130. Equally as vulnerable, but has multiple eyes on EO sensors and able to pour down a horrifying amount of constant devastation, where the A-10 can only go in very quick passes. The A-10 is obsolete. It’s caught between not being able to fly in airspace against opponents which have basic MANPADS ability, while too expensive to maintain in low-intensity theatres where much cheaper prop-driven attackers with APKWS 2 could do the same thing.

They've talked about the role of the A-10 being subsumed by F-35 and other modern fighters, however the A-10 was a very unique aircraft developed for a unique purpose. I don't see them being able to retrofit an F-35 to carry a GAU-8 (or similar). True that modern planes can carry air-to-ground missiles, and I guess it's also true that the original threat (thousands of Soviet tanks pouring into Europe) has changed for now. I don't think they are retiring the A-10 to field an upgraded version of the same, I think they are abandoning the platform altogether with the intention of developing a completely new strategy/weapon to provide close air support (e.g. swarms of unmanned drones, etc.)

I always imagine the warthog doing a big Kool-Aid man style "OH YEAH!" after they pull out of a dive.

Still is, and always will be a bad ass airframe. No mistaking this bad boy !

Given that the purpose of the A-10 was cheap operating cost, high numbers, strong armor, slow and low fighting i'm gonna say no. Everything but the armor can be taken over by unmanned drones, from predators to quadcopters with a mortar shell. But the idea of the F-35 or similar planes for CAS is the exact opposite of the A-10.

Pointless. Drones can do this much cheaper, more effective and with much less risk (no pilot to be taken hostage / killed)

An excellent video.

15:32 The most valuable piece of advice in any engagement.

The answer is no, it defeats the main advantage of the A10 : low cost . A10 was designed with lower operating cost in mind, but even with this advantage, US Airforce almost replaced A10C with cheaper Brazilian prop plane called TA29 Super Tucano(a plane similar to the A1 Skyraider). Then, they canceled the replacement program and extend A10C's service length beyond 2040 due to it's superior survivability, more loadout, faster top speed, better maneuverability and higher service ceiling something that Super Tucano was incapable of.

I'm kind of curious how the A-10 would fair if we get mixed up in Ukraine, depending how you look at it its pretty much the war the A-10 was designed for aka taking on mass soviet/Russian armored elements and since the Russians seem to dipping into their reserve pools by sending T-62's to the front along with the T-72's already in country the exact tanks the A-10 was designed to chew through not to mention all the BTR's, BMD's and BMP's that would be easy pickings it would be interesting to watch that play out.

I think what many people seem to miss is that the A10 is already uniquely capable to hide from the enemy, not with steath, but by flying _under_ the radar. No other attack airframe is capable of flying as slow, stable and low as the A10. Where an F15 needs to fly high in order to not hit the trees, the A10 can fly slalom around the trees. Slow speeds allow the pilot to see any obstructions before they becore a threat. Under the radar, the A10 can get so close that the biggest threat to it are manpads. And manpads are the perfect target for that 30mm rounds. The A10 is perfect for flying below radar.

A-10 goes: “BRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTT” Stealth A-10 goes: “brrrrrrtttttttttttttt”

We've seen what drones can do to convoys and tanks Imagine what a A10 can do

You probably could make a ground attack stealth aircraft but you really don't need to be going low in today environment as Russian aircraft have demonstrated in Ukraine

the nice thing about rodrigo is that he actually posts

you sir have just turned a new subscriber

This A10 obsession people have... It's an anachronism. For the price of an A10 and training the pilot (who is putting themselves consistently at risk) you can buy many drones, each of which can operate out of more austere bases and loiter longer. The Ukrainians are proving that cheap drones and cheap bombs are fine to deal with cheap tanks. As for general infantry support vs fortified positions, drones loiter time make more sense and they could also carry smart munitions. I think shooting missiles from the A10 makes a lot of sense since we already have the platforms built. And those decoys. But can somebody just please be honest to the A10 fanboys that the A10 is never going to be the gun toting tank destroyer they think it is. The chance of that ever happening ended decades ago.

If you want to kill more tanks than the A-10 with stealth, you could simply load up a B-2 with dozens of small, anti-armor missiles and plink them from high altitude. If you don't want to devote a strategic asset, then you should have developed the F/B-22, that could carry more ordinance than the F-22 or F-35. But you are better off using them to hit all the anti-air assets the enemy has, and then sending in the A-10s as they are. And the cheap stand-off bomb truck concept is brilliant. Hell, even combatant commanders on Guam should be clamoring for squadron of A-10s just for their capability to lob dozens of LRASMs at encroaching Chinese fleets. Mix in a few plane loads of MALDs, and you'll easily overwhelm their defensive armament and land multiple killing blows.

Oh hell YES!!!! Best idea EVER!!!

The A10 was designed as CAS and it does it very well. It should be flying low and slow (it can't fly fast), putting it outside the envelope of SAM systems anyway. Also, as CAS it's really meant to be hitting targets currently engaged in a fight. This is not an assassin-like stealth attack. This is helping your buddies on the ground to do their job. I would guess that the biggest threat to the A10 today is MANPADS. Much like the T-series tanks today being targeted by anti-tank infantry weapons, they will need some kind of redesign or upgrade to deal with that or end up as target practice for a few grunts with just a few hours of training on a Stinger.

@11:24 GREAT screencap of an all-cleaned-up one is available there.

One of the big things that would be useful for a next generation "warthog" would be Laser Anti-Munition Systems, or some other kind of system for destroying missiles approaching the aircraft. The mission profile by default is such that being stealthy will just make it easier for the aircraft to reach the target designation without being shot down by missiles, but stealth tech doesn't stop DETECTION, just target lock. So in the end, you may as well fly under the radar anyway, and emphasis should be placed on some combination of surviving hits and preventing those hits from landing. The current A-10 is pretty good at the first one, and was quite literally a plane built around its gun. Perhaps the next gen A-10 should simply be the same idea, except built around a laser system and/or point defense, and more modern armor (perhaps including lighter weight reactive armor variants) and more modern engines. And to, blasphemous or not, take the current A-10 and swap the gun out for an anti-missile laser system or something similar, when the tech for it is advanced enough to fit one in the same size space as the entire gun assembly and ammo drum and all that.

I have to wonder how long until Infrared tracking starts playing a bigger role in air defense, negating any stealth aircraft; personally, I would like to see the A-10 modified so it could operate off navy ships for the Marines.

The A10 is not only a beast in battle but it is also a psychological weapon the sound of the gun makes the enemy crap their pants

Another nice video. Does your art work guy have a U-Tube page?

Nice coverage Alex, Do you have any comparative data between the A10 and the Frogfoot? 🙏👍🙋🏻‍♂️

Having an A10 on your side.. is the modern equivalent of having a dragon on your team. It comes in, roars, screams, terrifies the enemy, and breaths fire on the dummies who were brave enough to stand up.

The US Navy is developing a system that offsets an aircrafts infrared signature by about 200 meters, causing every IR guided missile to miss its target. So far in testing the system is working well, but needs more development. It should be completed within about 5 years. Once completed, it should be transferred over to all of the CAS aircraft of the USAF and US Army. CAS aircraft don’t need to be stealthy from a radar return perspective, but lowering or offsetting their infrared signature would pay huge dividends, considering the fact that every MANPADS shoulder fired missile in existence is infrared guided.

How awesome would this be, if the wing configuration could facilitate folding, for aircraft carrier operations? From my personal review of the current wing design, I believe this could be done inline with the outboard side of the stabilizers (tail fins). This would provide a huge boost to amphibious operations and scare the crap out of any small/fast boat swarm I pray the A-10 remains a part of our military operations for decades to come.

That was a good video.

The A-10 was designed to win Vietnam, or to have a heavy impact in post-SEAD areas of a European theater against T-72's & BMP's. It was well designed for this role. And then the 235234532 flavors of shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles (manpads) came along. And now the A-10 can only really be effective in areas & against adversaries which can't afford manpads. Best use of an A-10 in 2022, would be to give them all to the coast guard & DEA.

My idea of an A-10 replacement would be a delta wing design that would be a two-seater sitting side by side. That would allow the pilot to focus on the flying and attacking with the weapons officer picking the targets and doing navigation. This delegation of duties will help the platform be more efficient which should allow a lower number required. In between the pilot and weapons officer would be the Avenger Gatling gun barrel with the ammo being fed from behind and a hatch in front that would have a suction device to blow the exhaust gas underneath the plane avoiding sucking those gases into the engine. Next item is the engine intakes would be set on top of the wings just like the f-117 but the engines buried behind the ammo box. Would it have the ability to go afterburner depends on weight and engine selected. The missiles of the platform would include a front defensive bay underneath the cockpit with an AMRAM or HARM missile along with a sidewinder. There would be 5 missile/bomb bays in the wing area roughly underneath the engines. The center bay would be the largest and be able to carry 2 JASSM's/5k lb Bunker Busters with a bay length of at least 25 feet. The bays next each of them would roughly half the size at 15 feet and have attachments for 2 2k lb of bombs or maverick missiles. The end goal is have a carrying capacity of 8 mavericks/16k lbs of bombs with a center bay of 10k lbs of bombs or 2 large missiles. This would increase the capacity from the A-10 by 10k lbs with 26k lbs and have a total of 14 hard points from the 11. Also by having delta wings it would have ability to store more fuel than the current A-10. The engine I would choose is a variation of the F-119/135 engine that would be without the afterburner producing around 25k lbs of thrust which also would be over 2.5 times as much thrust as the current A-10. The rear exhaust of the engine would be similar to the F-117 with its platypus bricks and a V tail to reduce IR detection.