• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Maggie’s The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

oregon

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 9, 2011
71
0
60
Portland, Oregon
www.designavs.com
Something a pilot friend e-mailed me is below:

A-10 Warthog ground attack aircraft - nothing better for its mission. Period!

It all started with this gun...

11dde9.jpg


Developed by General Electric, the "We bring good things to life" people. It's one of the modern-day Gatling guns. It shoots very big bullets. It shoots them very quickly.

Someone said, "Let's put it in an airplane."

Someone else said, "Better still, let's build an airplane around it."

11ddf9.jpg


So they did.

And "they" were the Fairchild-Republic airplane people.

They had done such a good job with an airplane they developed back in WWII.

...called the P-47 Thunderbolt,

so they decided to call it the A10 Thunderbolt.

They made it so it was very good at flying low and slow and shooting things with that fabulous gun.

But since it did fly low and slow, they made it bulletproof, or almost so. A lot of bad guys have found you can shoot an A10 with anything from a pistol to a 23mm Soviet cannon and it just keeps on flying and shooting.

When they got through, it looked like this ....

11de09.jpg


It's not sleek and sexy like an F18 or the stealthy Raptors and such, but I think it's such a great airplane because it does what it does better than any other plane in the world..

It kills tanks.

Not only tanks, as Sadam Hussein's boys found out to their horror, but armored personnel carriers, radar stations, locomotives, bunkers, fuel depots... just about anything the bad guys thought was bulletproof turned out to be easy pickings for this beast.

11de18.jpg


See those engines. One of them alone will fly this puppy. The pilot sits in a very thick titanium alloy "bathtub."

That's typical of the design.

They were smart enough to make every part the same whether mounted on the left side or right side of the plane, like landing gear, for instance.

Because the engines are mounted so high (away from ground debris) and the landing gear uses such low pressure tires, it can operate from a damaged airport, interstate highway, plowed field, or dirt road.

Everything is redundant. They have two of almost everything. Sometimes they have three of something. Like flight controls. There's triple redundancy of those, and even if there is a total failure of the double hydraulic system, there is a set of manual flying controls.

11de28.jpg


Capt. Kim Campbell sustained this damage over Bagdad and flew for another hour before returning to base. But, back to that gun .....

It's so hard to grasp just how powerful it is.

11de38.jpg


This is the closest I could find to showing you just what this cartridge is all about. What the guy is holding is NOT the 30mm round, but a "little" .50 Browing machine gun round and the 20mm cannon round which has been around for a long time.

The 30mm is MUCH bigger.

11de47.jpg


Down at the bottom are the .50 BMG and 20x102 Vulcan the fellow was holding. At the bottom right is the bad boy we're discussing.

Let's get some perspective here: The .223 Rem (M16 rifle round) is fast. It shoots a 55 or so grain bullet at about 3300 feet/sec, give or take. It's the fastest of all those rounds shown (except one). When you move up to the ....30 caliber rounds, the bullets jump up in weight to 160-200 grains. Speeds run from about 2600 to 3000 fps or so..

The .338 Lapua is the king of the sniper rifles these days and shoots a 350 grain bullet at 2800 fps or so. They kill bad guys at over a mile with that one.

The .50 BMG is really big. Mike Beasley has one on his desk. Everyone who picks it up thinks it's some sort of fake, unless they know big ammo. It's really huge with a bullet that weighs 750 grains and goes as fast the Lapua.

I don't have data on the Vulcan, but hang on to your hat... The bullet for the 30x173 Avenger has an aluminum jacket around a spent uranium core and weighs 6560 grains (yes, over 100 times as heavy as the M16 bullet, and flies through the air at 3500 fps which is faster than the M16 as well).

The gun shoots at a rate of 4200 rounds per minute. Yes, four thousand. Pilots typically shoot either one- or two-second burst which set loose 70 to 150 rounds. The system is optimized for shooting at 4,000 feet.

OK, the best for last.

You've got a pretty good idea of how big that cartridge is, but I'll bet you're like me and you don't fully appreciate how big the GA GAU-8 Avenger really is.

Take a look .......

11de57.jpg


Each of those seven barrels is 112" long. That's almost ten feet. The entire gun is 19-1/2 feet long.

Think how impressive it would look set up in your living room.

Oh, by the way, it doesn't eject the empty shells but runs them back into the storage drum. There's just so dang many flying out, they felt it might damage the aircraft.

Oh yeah, I forgot, they can hang those bomb and rocket things on em too, just in case. After all, it is an airplane!

Like I said, this is a beautiful design.

11de66.jpg


I'm glad it's ours!!
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

wow...thanks for the info thats really neat. i always thought that plane was cool but didnt realize how cool. i also had no idea how big the gun was. definitely glad its ours
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

I remember reading somewhere, not sure of the accuracy of the information, but the gun was originally meant to be placed in autonomous bunkers across Europe to slow the progression of the Soviets if they decided to push across the continent but then decided it would be even better to strap a plane to the gun.
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

YW thank you for positive feedback. Thought it would be good.

rero360, interesting historic info would be nice to confirm.

Here is more for your visual enjoyment.

More and better gun pictures with additional info at:

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/a10gatlinggunss_1.htm

Video of the A10 shooting its 30mm cannon on a fly by:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWCPxV12wEc

Video of A10 'tank busters' in action low and slow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ksM43NBHBg

Here it is on wiki:

Plane: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

Gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my opinion I think there are very few planes cooler than the A10 </div></div>

+1
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

Today is the Thunder over Louisville Air Show, and fireworks display. It kicks off the Kentucky Derby Festival. The air show will more than likely have a couple of A10 Thunderbolts flying directly over My house, and other aircraft also.
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

The Russians liked the idea so much they designed their own version.

In true Communist fashion, they copied; but instead they copied the A10's flyoff competitor, the Northrup YA-9. The resulting aircraft was the Su-25 (NATO call sign 'Frogfoot'). Like the YA-9, it lacked much of the A-10's slow speed performance capability, which was part of the reason why the YA-9 was passed over for adoption.

But the Su-25 still managed to give Osama and the Muj a major headache.

The A-10's primary design opponent is/was the ZSU-23-4 "Shilka" radar controlled mulitiple gun automatic mobile AA system. The GAU-8's 30mm round allows reliable standoff kills.

The ZSU-23-4 is/was a particularly nasty piece of work, giving the lie to NATO propaganda about shoddy Warsaw Pact equipment.

In both cases, the ammunition vs missile cost tradeoff allows for much more bang-for-buck. In today's world of precision GPS guided munitions; I think there is still a huge niche for a airborne GAU-8 system, and either a serious SEP program for the A-10, or a more modern replacement platform for the GAU-8 with the A-10's unique aerobatic and survivability characteristics. In other words, we still need a SPAD.

Greg
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

Crewed "Hogs" for 6 years. It's truly a badass weapons system. The survivability built into the jet is impressive.
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

My brother in law use to fly these. He is an instructer now, not sure on what though, haha. He has told me about the impressive cannon but I had no idea it was that big. If I remember right he said if you were to fire continously the recoil would stall the airplane out.
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

Great post on my favorite plane. Thank you!

Kevin
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

Greg, thank you for sharing further history and your suggestions to improve the future. Like your quote, "I'd rather be polite, and let the other guy be 'right'...". Gave up being right even when know I am a long time ago. Most times it is not worth pissing people off over.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 5rshooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If I remember right he said if you were to fire continuously the recoil would stall the airplane out.</div></div>
I have also heard this. While do not recall from who or where. Could be the main reason A10 pilots usually shoot 1-2 second bursts. Looking into it further found that could be a myth according to a conversation on the Discovery Channel website:

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9701967776/m/1331982279
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

I think the problem with long bursts and stalls were more due to gun exhaust smothering the turbines, and not so much about recoil.
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the problem with long bursts and stalls were more due to gun exhaust smothering the turbines, and not so much about recoil.</div></div>
Greg, you are correct again sir. Appreciate your input. Was not fast enough with the info from the Discovery link as was working on the post when you replied ... Some thoughts there include:

"The major problem with guns on turbine planes is the exhaust gases of the gun firing contaminating the combustion process in the turbine.

The Hawker Hunter Mk 1 fighter could not fire its nose mounted cannon without causing the motor to flame out!
This could be disconcerting in a dogfight."

and ...

"Sure you can stall an A-10 by firing the gun. If you are 1 mph over the stall speed of the aircraft and you fire the gun you are in trouble."

The repeating cannon can slow the plane down a little bit, while is usually not a factor to pilots.
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

One characteristic I haven't seen mentioned is the sound, it sounds like flatulence. I'm not saying this to be crude, but that it does have that distinct burst sound if anyone was wondering at the noise it made when shot.
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

The gun gas is indeed a major problem. To prevent flameout the ignitors go continuous fire when the trigger is pulled.
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eagle20899</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The gun gas is indeed a major problem. To prevent flameout the ignitors go continuous fire when the trigger is pulled.</div></div>
Thank you for your service and real-world information here. Is awesome to hear it from someone who knows.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MB198</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One characteristic I haven't seen mentioned is the sound, it sounds like flatulence. I'm not saying this to be crude, but that it does have that distinct burst sound if anyone was wondering at the noise it made when shot. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oregon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Agree it is an unforgettable sound. To me sounds like an angry big cat roaring like a huge lion or tiger. Would hate to hear that over and over again at night and have them against me. Video of the A10 shooting its 30mm cannon on a fly by:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWCPxV12wEc</div></div>
Here is what an A-10 sounds like on the ground:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf2ka9RsFQ4

And the sound of a bunch of 'roars' live out of a C-130 going in a circle is also impressive! Here is a C-130 from the ground in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6_TGFJZW-U

More video on the C-130 gunship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3xZV5q44d4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp330umvX44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcJTISrVEFo

C-130 at night:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUGMIbHHeXI

First shot goes right by tip of C-130 wing... enjoyed cannon fire from the view of a person firing it at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnHpR_Dkjlk

For your watching enjoyment, one more on the A10 just because they are so cool called 'Warthogs from Hell' of A-10s in action to music at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJSk2Xc3Eq4
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

They used to do some maneuvers above us while I was in S. Korea. Never anything more than popping flares or flying around, but it was cool to look up and watch how maneuverable they were.
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

The A-10 has the largest gun ever put into a fighter aircraft. These beautiful hogs know how to bite and hunt together in groups of two or four with the rest of the force. Fully loaded the gun weighs two tons. Each A10 shell weighs nearly 2 pounds and is a foot long. The little chunk of depleted uranium delivered downrange gives it 12 times the kinetic energy of the 20mm, its predecessor even though the 30mm projectile is only twice as big. The A10 gun is cool and accurate out to two miles. The A10 won an accuracy gunning competition within the Air Force a year in 1991.

The A10 is an attack aircraft that primarily hauls bombs around in the sky to let them fly. Carries 16,000 pounds on 8 attachments below the wings with three under fuselage to total 11 attach points. Bomb capacity is about 4 times what the B17 bomber could carry in WW2. And the A10 still has that big gun that takes most of the area from the wings froward. In fact the pilots feet are on top of part of the gun mounts. Can shoot targets 4000m out for 1-2 seconds at 4000 rounds per minute then turn at 300 knots still remaining over a mile from the target to not overfly a dangerous location while pilot can keep eyes on bad guys when maneuvering. They mix an match what they carry to each intended mission. And even carry an air-to-air solution, the sparrow missile, to protect themselves.

The A10 has turbofan engines to provide higher fuel efficiency than a jet engines would, less noisy, and have a lower heat signature. Wing space was all needed for bombs and by putting the engines up high on the back of the fuselage they would not suck up as much debris and was found the best place to minimize the big front gun exhaust getting into the engines. When the gun fire fires the pilot briefly can not see and could stall the engines still. While a one second burst usually is more than enough to cover specific precision target areas in a modern battlefield - the A10 already flew by it.

The wings are built to fly slow not for speed and is part of what makes it so ugly also. And they actually help hide the heat signature of the front part of the engines from the ground.

The pilot sits in an armor bath tub to maximize survivability. In the gulf war only 6 of 117 A10s were lost (two pilots) while logging 50% of the hits on tanks. In the second battle they lost a few aircraft, but all men got away able to sacrifice plane for themselves. The ugly A10 is beautiful. Many systems are double and triple redundant as designed to live when shot at.

Here is more on the awesome A10 and its ugly air gun friends who together have shared their weapons control systems to the A10 in retrofits... since initial introduction in 1975.

As featured on the MilitaryChannel:

A10 Warthog documentary Part 1 through 5:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-X0S3B7no8
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idj9acoA_gQ
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gBrhK8Pmxs
4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4o9qQltCXc
5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9zw28fK-RA

As featured on the MilitaryChannel, World's Deadliest Aircraft.
A-10 Part 1 & 2:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q95EGGgbwbQ
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Agvfw9HqkTs

NOTE: in the second video just above the pilot holds an A-10 30mm shell then explains the three kinds. They are HUGE!

AC130 Part 1 & 2:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H1uvmdAPoM
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvH2H1j3Bys

AH1 Cobra Part 1 & 2:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MvEw7IzSWk
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_x23d4dGfI

Apache Helicopter Documentary. This is a short documentary looking at a McDonald Douglas Apache AH-64 attack helicopter. Note the gun & weapons is targeted by movement of crew helmets at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhZdJsqsJHk

Discovery Networks Future Weapons... Apache Longbow, the new flavor of helicopter. The Apache Longbow and A10s support ground people who call the shots. These flying guns are part of the Army and Marine computer network to get the bad guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw7V2pvwHZs

The A-10s other low and slow company including the C-130 and the Apache & Cobra. All these ugly effective flying guns work together getting the job done often very close to our people on the ground.
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

The A-10C Upgrade program (A-10 Precision Engagement, also an O/A-10 redesignation) has been going on for several years up by me at Lockheed-Martin Owego. Avionics, weapons, powerplant, wing replacement, and data link capability have taken the original airframe out of the Cold War era and into the near future. Estimates have the airframe remaining in service until replacement in 2028.

During the late Iraqi unpleasantness(es), rumor had A-10's being seconded to the Marines, but I imagine that never went anywhere. Word is, A-10's are being kept quite busy in Aghanistan. Really would like to see the Marines get some, but I imagine they would need more upgrades to permit carrier deployment. A navalized A-10C(D?) could be quite a development, eh? Not as big a stretch as one might think, as it shares the same basic powerplant as the S-3 Viking.

Greg

PS Oops; just discovered the S-3 was retired in 2009. Still, I'd love to see a tandem two seat, restressed catlaunch/tailhooker O/A-10D, and since they're already rewinging them, maybe divert a few for a refit with folding wings. Interesting mental exercise, anyway.
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

A10 on Modern Marvels parts 1 through 5. The guys on the ground call friendly or foe before they blow! More information how the flying guns work in battle with others and those on the ground at:

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyHcy0yzIIc
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXOUTYVjwWY
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjAv9AjAkq0
4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTns9fkWwNY
5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwr0BBkoWe4

More information is there from the guys who built, flew, and supported the beautiful sexy A-10 warthogs here to stay for a long time with that beautiful gun. So sexy in all kinds of ways to me.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Russians liked the idea so much they designed their own version.

In true Communist fashion, they copied; but instead they copied the A10's flyoff competitor, the Northrup YA-9. The resulting aircraft was the Su-25 (NATO call sign 'Frogfoot'). Like the YA-9, it lacked much of the A-10's slow speed performance capability, which was part of the reason why the YA-9 was passed over for adoption.

But the Su-25 still managed to give Osama and the Muj a major headache.

The A-10's primary design opponent is/was the ZSU-23-4 "Shilka" radar controlled multiple gun automatic mobile AA system. The GAU-8's 30mm round allows reliable standoff kills.

The ZSU-23-4 is/was a particularly nasty piece of work, giving the lie to NATO propaganda about shoddy Warsaw Pact equipment.

In both cases, the ammunition vs missile cost tradeoff allows for much more bang-for-buck. In today's world of precision GPS guided munitions; I think there is still a huge niche for a airborne GAU-8 system, and either a serious SEP program for the A-10, or a more modern replacement platform for the GAU-8 with the A-10's unique aerobatic and survivability characteristics. In other words, we still need a SPAD.

Greg </div></div>
Greg, and all input on further evolution to the next hog is appreciated. The old Skyraider, SPAD before the A-10 was sure cool being the fastest and biggest fighter aircraft in WW2 with a 13' propeller and 2200 hp engine. Evolving into sexy fast jet hogs. They even had an ultra hog at one time going 1200 mph just before the Warthog. Do you think there needs to be a faster Warthog with a bigger gun that flies slower and is more invincible than the existing A-10 Thunderbolt II?

Drones put fewer lives at risk. Seems direction headed. Wonder if we will end up having a bigger gun with more bomb payload on huge faster while still slower more survivable STOL drones.
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Really would like to see the Marines get some, but I imagine they would need more upgrades to permit carrier deployment. A navalized A-10C(D?) could be quite a development, eh? Not as big a stretch as one might think, as it shares the same basic powerplant as the S-3 Viking.

Greg

PS Oops; just discovered the S-3 was retired in 2009. Still, I'd love to see a tandem two seat, restressed catlaunch/tailhooker O/A-10D, and since they're already rewinging them, maybe divert a few for a refit with folding wings. Interesting mental exercise, anyway. </div></div>
Better marine support and a navalized probably a tall order for the existing A10, but then who knows as has surprised by doing the apparently impossible many times before. Controllable thrust? STOL with a big load? Will look into the S-3. Two people, gulp, like to minimize those in harms way. When install folding wings possibly design for more lift bigger payload with even better slow flying or to increase armor thickness if ever need to. More lift would help swoop even more like a bird of prey hunting a field in small circles out of harms way - Looking from a distance out of sight to the prey taking accurate but deadly shots without hurting bystanders on the ground. Will look into the S-3. Hope our flying guns of the future have the accuracy to be even more effective from further distance.
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

The big problem with payload, IMHO, is getting it airborne. This, again IMHO, is the Harrier's biggest stumbling block. Wing design probably could git 'er done with lift enhancement devices/features.

A navalized A-10 would probably always be wedded to a runway or carrier deck. A fast field deployable catapult launch, arrestor landing facility might make such navalized mods more suitable for USMC needs. The Russians put great store in rough field operations, and IMHO, the A-10 comes closer to the capability than a lot of other US airframes.

Personally, I have serious doubts about the F-35 ever finding it's way into the USMC stable. Congress is no service's friend, now, or soon.

Yes, I too would prefer a UCAV over a manned aircraft. I also see the CAS mission as being least suited to such implements, and the last one to have its UCAV solution adequately defined and implemented. If ya gotta do it with a man in it, the A-10 still shines brightest, IMHO. Its pilot protection has no parallel.

Greg
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my opinion I think there are very few planes cooler than the A10 </div></div>

+1, I love the A10's, used to have a few flying around here in CT all the time, but I believe they moved them elsewhere, I have not seen them in a while and thats a sight I really miss
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Personally, I have serious doubts about the F-35 ever finding it's way into the USMC stable. Congress is no service's friend, now, or soon.

Yes, I too would prefer a UCAV over a manned aircraft. I also see the CAS mission as being least suited to such implements, and the last one to have its UCAV solution adequately defined and implemented. If ya gotta do it with a man in it, the A-10 still shines brightest, IMHO. Its pilot protection has no parallel.</div></div>
Greg, so that SPAD hole still needs to be filled maybe we need another flying gun if don't upgrade the A-10.

I also feel the F-35 needs to overcome many obstacles not the least of which is paying for the darn thing. It is more like a fighter - not so suited or survivable for close air support where the A-10 thrives. There are 32 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft due to be delivered in FY2012. That is not enough. And there are often bugs in new systems that may need to be worked out when the A-10 is battle proven. Do not see F-35s so much in troop ground support, the A-10s job now. Wonder how many updated A-10s could be bought for the price of an F-35. Not sure what warthogs cost. Wiki says F-35s are $200M each based on one way of accounting and $300M by other bean counters in 2012 at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

They probably need some of both so feel if F-35s hit there will still be A-10s. Yes F-35 technology is expensive, while it does push the limits for the flying gun. Starting to think the A10 may someday get another update to its systems more like the F-35 shown at:

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/assets/eodasvideo.html

They call it DAS, And that is only what they are telling us about... This is an electronic shield around an aircraft that alerts and protects... Right out of star wars. Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS) for the F-35. Maybe the A-10 will have an upgrade so something more like DAS someday.

Agreed if have to have a man in it the A-10s pilots seem to be surviving well. And the A-10 ground crews seem to be able to keep them in the air. The F-35 doesn't have the big gun. Whatever the F-35 is will be hard to replace the A-10 with its further upgrade possibilities for air-to-ground troop support.
 
Re: The Flying Gun, ugly but effective!

I just think that when they cobbled up the A-10, they struck a uniquely resonating chord that simply can't be retired and replaced. It's the capabilities, and the manner in which they are achieved that needs to stick around. If the A-10's the only airframe that does it, so be it. If a new airframe can duplicate the mission, that's good too. But tying the mission to a fast attack aircraft defeats the valid intent; making the same error that doomed the YA-9, and made the Su-25 a distant second to the A-10.

Incidentally, my thoughts about a tandem two-seater are about the 'O" designation. I firmly believe the "O" requires a set of eyes additional to the front seater's. The Corps knew what it was doing when it transitioned the F/O role to converted TA-4's; which also exhibited outstanding low airspeed performance.

Personally, I think that people who call for the A-10's retirement are probably not friends of our ground forces, and maybe not the country, either. Of our legacy systems, it's maybe our sole surviving Royal Flush.

That's just an opinion...

Greg