Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "As Sweet as a Warthog! The Northrop YA-9A" video.

@Dimetropteryx It's kind of complicated to determine. Because the tail does block the exhaust plume, and when MANPADS became a thing they were a single band seeker that follows the heat signature and then proximity fuse detonates the very small warhead to shower the aircraft with fragments. So by physically blocking the IR signal from the sides you can only take a shot at the rear, and any maneuvering will make flares the only target that the seeker can track. But as time went on, MANPADS now have dual band seekers, improved algorithms that reject flares, and the control logic tells the missile to do a last second jink to move ahead of the exhaust plume so that it has a higher chance of colliding with the aircraft and the impact sensors fire the warhead inside the fuselage which is vastly more effective than a fragment shower.
5
@joshkamp7499 Those A-10s returned with very superficial damage. Look closer. The skin is ripped up like an angry rat really want to get the canned food. HARMs are meant to give breathing room to strike forces by forcing SAM sites to shut down while the bomb carrying planes go in and out. They're not going to be wasted on SHORAD. Funnily enough, in Desert Storm F-16s went after AAA with dumb bombs and cluster munitions.
3
The speed was not an issue as the USAF promised not to get in the way of rotary wing purchases and the government itself determined that the Harrier, A-10 and Cheyenne were not redundant and were free to continue without overlapping each other. It simply had too many problems and by the time Lockheed fixed them, technology had moved on. They had an aircraft that needed mechanical systems to compensate for its instability and was still a prototype by the time digital controls were starting to become reliable enough to put on F-16s and F-117s. A missed TOW shot during a demonstration was all it took to can a project that was too little, too late.
2
The new wings were made by Boeing. They're entirely new production.
1
@passantNL Even into the late 90s there were requirements for visual ID due to rules of engagement. IFF only responds if it's a friendly or unknown, and there's a multitude of reasons why a friendly IFF could be reported as unknown. The MANPADS operators do typically have a IFF antenna, but they typically get to see the aircraft before it's inside MANPADS range.
1
The original A-X program recommended turboprops precisely because jet engines were considered sub-optimal for the speed ranges the aircraft was meant to operate at. However as the program went forward turbofans bridged the gap and instead of higher performance, the twin turbofans were used to carry more payload and armor. But initially the A-X proposals were turboprop.
1
That's not true. The USAF and Army joint chiefs of staff had meetings about it and agreed to not step on each others' toes. Congress also determined that the Cheyenne, A-10 and Harrier (USMC) were all different enough to not be redundant and each of the services was free to purpose their projects. The USAF didn't lobby at all. The Cheyenne was a project that was suffering so many delays, Lockheed was still just figuring out a mechanical solution for their stability problems by the time other aircraft were introducing reliable digital controls. If anything, the fact that Lyndon Johnson had been president during the delays and he had connections with Bell played a greater part in the cancellation than the USAF.
1
They have replaced it. F-16s, Strike Eagles, etc do the A-10s job. It's just Congress that insists on keeping it in the air.
1
@michaelmancini5773 Yes, it has. As of 2014 the F-16 provides 33 percent of CAS, while the A-10 only does 11 percent. Loitering time doesn't matter. A single bomb drop turns people into pink mist, and those that survive run away. Typically as soon as something explodes the insurgents scatter. That's why the Carl Gustav was adopted as a counter to long range PK fire, to give infantry the chance to make things go boom close enough for them to pack up and leave. The A-10 is heavily limited in payload capacity in Afghanistan because of the altitude. Look at the footage of A-10s in Bagram. They carry very little payload or else they hit the fence trying to take off at 5,000ft where the air is thinner. Even if there were no issues with altitude, there's no point in maxing out carrying capacity when you're going to have to bring it all back again. The 30mm hasn't been able to destroy tanks since the 70s. For someone who tells others to get a clue, you didn't even look up the 1979 test that determined that the 30mm could barely penetrate M47 tanks. And by the way, the DU round has been discontinued so the A-10 has to use lower penetration HE rounds. Also, most CAS in the modern theaters do not involve tanks. So why would tank killing be necessary?
1
@michaelmancini5773 It sounds credible because it is credible. Your fellow Marines calling in CAS probably enjoyed getting F/A-18s as much as A-10s, as I've talked to more than a few and they loved the Hornet. Desert Storm had the A-10 pulled out of attacks against the Republican Guard, and the F-16 was sent in its place. Seems to me that the A-10 couldn't handle the heat and there are in fact substitutes. The Republican Guard gave the A-10 a concussion and bloody nose, it had to run with its tail between its legs and be fed lesser trained and less equipped Iraqi Army forces. 6 losses in 8,000 sorties while the F-16 had 3 losses in almost 13,000. For perspective, the Tornado suffered 7 losses in Desert Storm and this was considered such a failure that doctrinal changes had to be introduced, and the missions the Tornado were tasked with were much more dangerous than the ones the A-10 did.
1
@michaelmancini5773 The depleted uranium was discontinued years ago. The last time it was used it was probably in 2015 and they were supposed to be scrapped in 2018.
1
And if I recall correctly, even infantry attacks and AT mines claimed more German tanks than IL-2s.
1
The A-1 suffered extensive losses over Vietnam.
1
@dkoz8321 The Ju87 was an aircraft that became outdated during WWII itself. Tank kill claims by aircraft are overinflated. Both the Soviets and Germans made such exaggerated kill claims that they came back from battles with more tanks claimed than the enemy actually had in the battlefield.
1
@dkoz8321 I can only find a source labeled Coram 2004, page 235 which is probably a Robert Coram book about Boyd, and the origin of the claim is attributed to Pierre Sprey. Do you have any idea how little confidence that inspires? Sprey was not on the Fairchild A-X team. He was a DoD analyst. He says he required the team to read it. Him saying that doesn't mean it happened, and even if it did the Fairchild engineers could have tossed the books straight into the bin and he'd be none the wiser.
1
Pretty much no lives would be lost. In fact the A-10 is known for being at the top in terms of friendly fire.
1
@pdoylemi It was designed for Vietnam. By the time it was repurposed to fight the Soviets, it was already outdated.
1
@pdoylemi Yes, the project started in the 60s as a Skyraider replacement. The design considerations were chosen in accordance with the conflict being fought at the time. Close air support "is what it is", and almost nobody in the world uses A-10 equivalent aircraft for close air support. They either use light attack aircraft, bespoke attack aircraft or multiroles for the most part. What you think CAS is has the hallmarks of a narrow and romanticized view, but everything from F-16s to B-1Bs provides CAS.
1
Well, the IL-2 is overrated as evidenced by the comparison between claimed kills and actual German losses, and the USAF did not try to ditch the A-10, in fact they were slammed by the GAO for purchasing an excess of A-10 without justification. The move to try and ditch the A-10 started in the 90s, which was the preplanned retirement age for the A-10. It's congress that insisted on keeping it in service despite that.
1
@exharkhun5605 When doctrine is based on lies rather than what actually works, it's garbage. The USAF did not ditch its CAS doctrine. This is an old lie promoted by alternative outlets that enjoyed being contrarians, writing books and articles about how everyone except them was wrong. They are retaining the A-10 because they're legally bound to. In fact the USAF requested the retirement of 42 A-10s to be able to put that budget where it's actually needed. The F-22 will only be retired when the NGAD project is fruitful. Don't throw around fallacies. The fact is that IL-2s, Stukas, etc are overrated and doctrines derived from faulty numbers are not worth pursuing. Of course there would be military planes left. Those that actually work.
1