Revision as of 01:00, 16 October 2018 edit24.45.252.235 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:19, 24 December 2024 edit undoMagicatthemovieS (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users97,403 edits →External links: Category:Articles containing video clips | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|American close air support attack aircraft}} | |||
{{Redirect|A-10||A10 (disambiguation){{!}}A10}} | {{Redirect|A-10||A10 (disambiguation){{!}}A10}} | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2014}} | |||
{{Good article}} | {{Good article}} | ||
{{Use American English|date=March 2023}} | |||
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2021}} | |||
<!-- This is part of ]. Please see ] for recommended layout and guidelines. --> | <!-- This is part of ]. Please see ] for recommended layout and guidelines. --> | ||
{{Infobox aircraft | |||
|name= A-10 Thunderbolt II | |name= A-10 / OA-10 Thunderbolt II | ||
|image= File:A-10 - 32156159151.jpg |
|image= File:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - 32156159151.jpg | ||
|caption= An A-10 |
|caption= An A-10 of the ] after taking on fuel over Afghanistan in 2011 | ||
|type= ] ] | |||
}}{{Infobox aircraft type | |||
|national_origin= United States | |||
|type= ] ], ], and ground-] | |||
|national origin= United States | |||
|manufacturer= ] | |manufacturer= ] | ||
|designer=<!-- Only appropriate for one-person designers, not project leaders or chief designers --> | |||
|designer= | |||
|first_flight= {{Start date and age|1972|05|10|df=yes}} | |||
|first flight= 10 May 1972 | |||
|introduction= October 1977 <!-- March 1976 is when deliveries began to combat units, not when it was officially introduced into service. --> | |||
|introduced= October 1977<ref name=Spick_p51/> | |||
|retired= | |retired= | ||
| |
|number_built= 716<ref name= Jenkins_p42>Jenkins 1998, p. 42.</ref> | ||
|status= In service | |status= In service | ||
| |
|primary_user= ] | ||
| |
|more_users= | ||
|produced= 1972–1984<ref name=Spick_p17-52/> | |produced= 1972–1984<ref name=Spick_p17-52/> | ||
|variants= | |||
|unit cost= US$18.8 million<ref>{{cite web |title=A-10 Thunderbolt II |url=http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104490/a-10-thunderbolt-ii.aspx |publisher=U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command |accessdate=29 September 2015}}</ref> | |||
|variants with their own articles= | |||
}} | }} | ||
|} | |||
The '''Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II''' is a single-seat, ], ] ] aircraft developed by ] for the ] (USAF). |
The '''Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II''' is a single-seat, ]-], ], ] ] developed by ] for the ] (USAF). ] since 1977, it is named after the ], but is commonly referred to as the "]" or simply "]".<ref>{{citation |url=https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/195855/fairchild-republic-a-10a-thunderbolt-ii/ |title=Fairchild Republic A-10A Thunderbolt II|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181215223122/https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/195855/fairchild-republic-a-10a-thunderbolt-ii/ |archive-date=15 December 2018|publisher=National Museum of the US Air Force}}</ref> The A-10 was designed to provide ] (CAS) to ground troops by attacking enemy armored vehicles, tanks, and other ground forces; it is the only production-built aircraft designed solely for CAS to have served with the U.S. Air Force.<ref name="Nijboer">{{cite book |last= Nijboer|first= Donald|date= 2016|title= Fighting Cock]ler (FAC)-airborne;<!-- (FAC-A) The dash is serving as a hyphen here, and should be set without spaces.--> aircraft used primarily in this role are designated OA-10. | ||
The A-10 was intended to improve on the performance of the ] |
The A-10 was intended to improve on the performance and firepower of the ]. The Thunderbolt II's ] was designed around the high-power ] ] rotary ]. The airframe was designed for durability, with measures such as {{convert|1200|lb|kg|sigfig=2}} of titanium ] to protect the cockpit and aircraft systems, enabling it to absorb damage and continue flying. Its ability to take off and land from relatively short and/or unpaved runways permits operation from airstrips close to the front lines, and its simple design enables maintenance with minimal facilities. | ||
It served in the ] (Operation Desert Storm), the American-led intervention against ]'s invasion of ], where the aircraft distinguished itself. The A-10 also participated in other conflicts such as the ], ], the ], and against the ] in the Middle East. | |||
The A-10A single-seat variant was the only version produced, though one pre-production airframe was modified into the YA-10B twin-seat prototype to test an all-weather night capable version. In 2005, a program was started to upgrade remaining A-10A aircraft to the A-10C configuration, with modern avionics for use with precision weaponry. The U.S. Air Force had stated the ] would replace the A-10 as it entered service, but this remains highly contentious within the USAF and in political circles. With a variety of upgrades and ], the A-10's service life can be extended to 2040; in 2016 the USAF began soliciting concepts for it's , in 2017 the USAF began . | |||
The A-10A single-seat variant was the only version produced, though one pre-production airframe was modified into the YA-10B twin-seat prototype to test an all-weather night-capable version. In 2005, a program was started to upgrade the remaining A-10A aircraft to the A-10C configuration, with modern avionics for use with precision weaponry. The U.S. Air Force had stated the ] would replace the A-10 as it entered service, but this remains highly contentious within the USAF and in political circles.<ref name="t&p-wrench" /> The USAF gained congressional permission to start retiring A-10s in 2023, but further retirements were paused until the USAF can demonstrate that the A-10's close-air-support capabilities can be replaced. | |||
==Development== | ==Development== | ||
===Background=== | ===Background=== | ||
] was the only dedicated close air support aircraft |
] was the USAF's only dedicated close air support aircraft. It was slow, vulnerable to ground fire, and relatively lightly armed.]] | ||
Post-] development of conventionally armed ] in the United States had stagnated.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Institute|first1=editor, G. Kurt Piehler, Florida State University; associate editor, M. Houston Johnson V, Virginia Military|title=Encyclopedia of Military Science|date=2013|publisher=SAGE Publications|location=Thousand Oaks, Calif.|isbn=978-1412969338}}</ref> Design efforts for tactical aircraft focused on the delivery of nuclear weapons using high-speed designs like the ] and ].{{sfn|Knaack|1978|p=151}} Designs concentrating on conventional weapons had been largely ignored, leaving their entry into the ] led by the ]-era ]. While a capable aircraft for its era, with a relatively large payload and long loiter times, the propeller-driven design was also relatively slow and vulnerable to ground fire. The U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps lost 266 A-1s in action in Vietnam, largely from small arms fire.<ref name=Hobson>{{cite book |last=Hobson |first=Chris |title=Vietnam Air Losses, USAF/USN/USMC, Fixed-Wing Aircraft Losses in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973 |publisher=Specialty Press |date=2001 |isbn=978-1-85780-115-6}}</ref> The A-1 Skyraider also had poor firepower.{{sfn|Jacques|Strouble|2010}} | |||
The development of conventionally armed ] in the United States stagnated after World War II,<ref>{{cite book|editor-last1=Piehler|editor-first1=G. Kurt|others= associate editor: M. Houston Johnson |title=Encyclopedia of Military Science|date=2013|publisher=Sage Publications|location=Thousand Oaks, Calif.|isbn=978-1412969338}}</ref> as design efforts for tactical aircraft focused on the delivery of nuclear weapons using high-speed designs such as the ] and ].{{sfn|Knaack|1978|p=151}} As the U.S. military entered the ], its main ground-attack aircraft was the ]-era ]. A capable aircraft for its era, with a relatively large payload and long ] time, the propeller-driven design had become relatively slow, vulnerable, particularily to ground fire, and incapable of providing adequate firepower. The U.S. Air Force and Navy lost some 266 A-1s in action in Vietnam, largely from small-arms fire.<ref name=Hobson>{{cite book |last=Hobson |first=Chris |title=Vietnam Air Losses, USAF/USN/USMC, Fixed-Wing Aircraft Losses in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973 |publisher=Specialty Press |date=2001 |isbn=978-1-85780-115-6}}</ref>{{sfn|Jacques|Strouble|2010}} | |||
The lack of modern conventional attack capability prompted calls for a specialized attack aircraft.<ref name=Burton>Burton 1993 {{page needed|date=May 2013}}</ref><ref name=Boyd>Coram 2004</ref> On 7 June 1961, Secretary of Defense McNamara ordered the USAF to develop two tactical aircraft, one for the long-range strike and ] role, and the other focusing on the ] mission. The former became the Tactical Fighter Experimental, or TFX, which emerged as the ], while the second was filled by a version of the ]'s ]. While the Phantom went on to be one of the most successful fighter designs of the 1960s, and proved to be a capable fighter-bomber, its lack of loiter time was a major problem, and to a lesser extent, its poor low-speed performance. It was also expensive to buy and operate, with a flyaway cost of $2 million in FY1965, and operational costs over $900 per hour.{{sfn|Knaack|1978|pp=265–76}} | |||
The lack of modern conventional attack capability prompted calls for a specialized attack aircraft.<ref>Burton, James G. ''The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard'', Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1993. {{ISBN|1-55750-081-9}}</ref><ref name=Boyd>{{Harvnb|Coram|2004|p=}} {{page needed|date=January 2022}}</ref> On 7 June 1961, the Secretary of Defense ] ordered the USAF to develop two tactical aircraft, one for the long-range strike and ] role, and the other focusing on the ] mission. The former was the Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) intended to be a common design for the USAF and the US Navy,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=o-VVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EuEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6856%2C3575947|work=Eugene Register-Guard |location=(Oregon) |agency=Associated Press |last=Price |first=Bem |title=Capital still buzzing whether TFX a colossal blunder |date=18 September 1966 |page=5A}}</ref> which emerged as the ], while the second was filled by a version of the ]'s ]. While the Phantom went on to be one of the most successful fighter designs of the 1960s and proved to be a capable fighter-bomber, its short loiter time was a major problem, as was its poor low-speed performance, albeit to a lesser extent. It was also expensive to buy and operate, with a flyaway cost of $2 million in FY1965 (${{inflation|US|2|1965|r=1|fmt=c}} million today), and operational costs over $900 per hour (${{inflation|US|900|1965|r=-3|fmt=c}} per hour today).{{sfn|Knaack|1978|pp=265–76}} | |||
After a broad review of its tactical force structure, the U.S. Air Force decided to adopt a low-cost aircraft to supplement the F-4 and F-111. It first focused on the ], which had air-to-air capability.{{sfn|Jacques|Strouble|2010}} A 1965 cost-effectiveness study shifted the focus from the F-5 to the less expensive ], and a contract was awarded. However, this aircraft doubled in cost with demands for an upgraded engine and new avionics.{{sfn|Jacques|Strouble|2010}} | |||
After a broad review of its tactical force structure, the USAF decided to adopt a low-cost aircraft to supplement the F-4 and F-111. It first focused on the ], which had air-to-air capability.{{sfn|Jacques|Strouble|2010}} A 1965 cost-effectiveness study shifted the focus from the F-5 to the less expensive A-7D variant of the ], and a contract was awarded. However, this aircraft doubled in cost with demands for an upgraded engine and new avionics.{{sfn|Jacques|Strouble|2010}} | |||
===Helicopter competition=== | |||
] | |||
===Army helicopter competition=== | |||
During this period, the ] had been introducing the ] into service. First used in its intended role as a transport, it was soon modified in the field to carry more ]s in what became known as the helicopter gunship role. This proved effective against the lightly armed enemy, and new gun and rocket pods were added. Soon the ] was introduced. This was an attack helicopter armed with long-range ] missiles able to destroy tanks from outside the range of defensive fire. The helicopter was effective, and prompted the U.S. military to change its defensive strategy in Europe by blunting any ] advance with anti-tank helicopters instead of the ]s that had been the basis for NATO's battle plans since the 1950s.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/nato/nato01_e.shtml |title= A Pledge for Peace and Progress |author=NATO |website=Canadian War Museum}}</ref> | |||
] appeared to offer the possibility of handing much of the tactical air-to-ground role to the U.S. Army.]] | |||
{{see also|Key West Agreement|Pace-Finletter MOU 1952}} | |||
During this period, the ] had been introducing the ] into service. First used in its intended role as a transport, it was soon modified in the field to carry more machine guns in what became known as the ] role. This proved effective against the lightly armed enemy, and new gun and rocket pods were added. Soon the ] was introduced. This was an attack helicopter armed with long-range ] missiles able to destroy tanks from outside the range of defensive fire. The helicopter was effective and prompted the U.S. military to change its defensive strategy in Europe into blunting any ] advance with anti-tank helicopters instead of the ]s that had been the basis for NATO's battle plans since the 1950s.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/nato/nato01_e.shtml |title=A Pledge for Peace and Progress |author=NATO |website=Canadian War Museum |access-date=2 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161003175425/http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/nato/nato01_e.shtml |archive-date=3 October 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
The Cobra was a quickly |
The Cobra was a quickly-made helicopter based on the UH-1 Iroquois and was introduced in the mid-1960s as an interim design until the U.S. Army's "Advanced Aerial Fire Support System" helicopter could be delivered. The Army selected the ], a more capable attack aircraft with greater speed for initial production. The development of the anti-tank helicopter concerned the USAF; a 1966 USAF study of existing ] (CAS) capabilities revealed gaps in the escort and fire suppression roles that the Cheyenne could fill. The study concluded that the service should acquire a simple, inexpensive, dedicated CAS aircraft at least as capable as the A-1, and that it should develop doctrine, tactics, and procedures for such aircraft to accomplish the missions for which the attack helicopters were provided.{{sfn|Jacques|Strouble|2010|p=24}} | ||
===A-X program=== | ===A-X program=== | ||
] | |||
On 8 September 1966, General ], ], ordered that a specialized CAS aircraft be designed, developed, and obtained. On 22 December, a Requirements Action Directive was issued for the A-X CAS airplane,{{sfn|Jacques|Strouble|2010|p=24}} and the Attack Experimental (A-X) program office was formed.<ref>Jenkins 1998, p. 12.</ref> On 6 March 1967, the Air Force released a ] to 21 ]s for the A-X. The objective was to create a design study for a low-cost attack aircraft.<ref name=Boyd/> In 1969, the Secretary of the Air Force asked ] to write the detailed specifications for the proposed A-X project; Sprey's initial involvement was kept secret due to his earlier controversial involvement in the ] project.<ref name=Boyd/> Sprey's discussions with ] pilots operating in Vietnam and analysis of aircraft used in the role indicated the ideal aircraft should have long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, massive cannon firepower, and extreme survivability;<ref name=Boyd/> possessing the best elements of the ], ], and Skyraider. The specifications also demanded that each aircraft cost less than $3 million.<ref name=Boyd/> Sprey required that the biography of World War II ] attack pilot ] be read by people on the A-X program.<ref>Coram 2004, p. 235.</ref> | |||
On 8 September 1966, General ], ], ordered that a specialized CAS aircraft be designed, developed, and obtained. On 22 December, a Requirements Action Directive was issued for the A-X CAS airplane,{{sfn|Jacques|Strouble|2010|p=24}} and the Attack Experimental (A-X) program office was formed.<ref name=Jenk_p12>Jenkins 1998, p. 12.</ref> On 6 March 1967, the USAF released a ] to 21 ]s for the A-X.<ref name=Jenk_p12/> | |||
In May 1970, the USAF issued a modified, more detailed ]s for the aircraft. The threat of Soviet armored forces and all-weather attack operations had become more serious. The requirements now included that the aircraft would be designed specifically for the ] rotary cannon. The RFP also specified a maximum speed of {{convert|460|mph|kn km/h|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}, takeoff distance of {{convert|4000|ft|m|sigfig=2}}, external load of {{convert|16000|lb|kg|sigfig=2}}, {{convert|285|mi|km|adj=on|sigfig=2}} mission radius, and a unit cost of US$1.4 million.<ref>Jenkins 1998, pp. 16–17.</ref> The A-X would be the first USAF aircraft designed exclusively for |
In May 1970, the USAF issued a modified, more detailed ]s for the aircraft. The threat of Soviet armored forces and all-weather attack operations had become more serious. The requirements now included that the aircraft would be designed specifically for the ] rotary cannon. The RFP also specified a maximum speed of {{convert|460|mph|kn km/h|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}, takeoff distance of {{convert|4000|ft|m|sigfig=2}}, external load of {{convert|16000|lb|kg|sigfig=2}}, {{convert|285|mi|km|adj=on|sigfig=2}} mission radius, and a unit cost of US$1.4 million (${{inflation|US|1.4|1970|r=1|fmt=c}} million today).<ref>Jenkins 1998, pp. 16–17.</ref> The A-X would be the first USAF aircraft designed exclusively for CAS.<ref name="GAO-07-415"> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100614231231/http://www.gao.gov/htext/d07415.html|date=14 June 2010}} ''U.S. Government Accountability Office'', April 2007. Retrieved 5 March 2010.</ref> During this time, a separate RFP was released for A-X's 30 mm cannon with requirements for a high rate of fire (4,000 rounds per minute) and a high muzzle velocity.<ref>Jenkins 1998, p. 19.</ref> Six companies submitted aircraft proposals, with ] and ] in ],<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/20/archives/new-a10-jet-is-rated-over-a7-for-support-of-combat-troops.html|title=New A-10 Jet Is Rated Over A-7 For Support of Combat Troops|work=The New York Times |date=20 June 1974|via=NYTimes.com}}</ref> selected to build prototypes: the ] and YA-10A, respectively. General Electric and Philco-Ford were selected to build and test ] cannon prototypes.<ref>Jenkins 1998, pp. 18, 20.</ref> | ||
Two YA-10 prototypes were built in the Republic factory in ], and first |
Two YA-10 prototypes were built in the Republic factory in ], and first flown on 10 May 1972<ref>{{Cite web |title=Gulf War – Air Power Survey, Volume IV – Weapons, Tactics, and Training |url=https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329817/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-066.pdf |access-date=3 July 2024 |website=U.S. Department of Defense (.gov) |page=53}}</ref> by pilot Howard "Sam" Nelson. Production A-10s were built by Fairchild in ]. After trials and a fly-off against the YA-9, on 18 January 1973, the USAF announced the YA-10's selection for production.<ref>Spick 2000, p. 18.</ref> General Electric was selected to build the GAU-8 cannon in June 1973.<ref>Jenkins 1998, p. 21.</ref> The YA-10 had an additional fly-off in 1974 against the ] ], the principal USAF attack aircraft at the time, to prove the need for a new attack aircraft. The first production A-10 flew in October 1975, and deliveries commenced in March 1976.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://museumofaviation.org/portfolio/a-10a-thunderbolt-ii/ |title=A-10A Thunderbolt II |website= Museum of Aviation |access-date= }}</ref> | ||
One experimental two-seat A-10 Night Adverse Weather (N/AW) version was built by converting |
One experimental two-seat A-10 Night Adverse Weather (N/AW) version was built by Fairchild by converting the first Demonstration Testing and Evaluation (DT&E) A-10A for consideration by the USAF.<ref name="NAW_A-10"> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070914210854/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3206 |date=14 September 2007}} National Museum of the United States Air Force. Retrieved 18 July 2010.</ref> It included a second seat for a ] responsible for ]s (ECM), navigation and target acquisition. The N/AW version did not interest the USAF or export customers. The two-seat trainer version was ordered by the USAF in 1981, but funding was canceled by ] and was not produced.<ref>Spick 2000, pp. 52–55.</ref> The only two-seat A-10 resides at ]'s Flight Test Center Museum.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://afftcmuseum.org/afft-museum/museum-aircraft-exhibits |title=Aircraft inventory |publisher=Flight Test Historical Foundation |access-date=16 May 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140517193259/http://afftcmuseum.org/afft-museum/museum-aircraft-exhibits/ |archive-date=17 May 2014 |url-status=dead}}</ref> | ||
===Production=== | ===Production=== | ||
On 10 February 1976, Deputy Secretary of Defense ] authorized full-rate production |
On 10 February 1976, Deputy Secretary of Defense ] authorized full-rate production while the first A-10 was accepted by the USAF Tactical Air Command on 30 March 1976. Production continued and reached a peak rate of 13 aircraft per month. By 1984, 715 airplanes, including two prototypes and six development aircraft, had been delivered.<ref name=Spick_p17-52>Spick 2000, pp. 17, 52.</ref> | ||
When |
When full-rate production was first authorized, the A-10's planned service life was 6,000 hours. A small design reinforcement was quickly adopted when initial ] failed at 80% of testing; the A-10 passed fatigue tests with the fix. 8,000-flight-hour service lives were becoming common at the time, so fatigue testing of the A-10 continued with a new 8,000-hour target. This new target quickly discovered serious cracks at Wing Station 23 (WS23) where the outboard portions of the wings are joined to the fuselage. The first production change was to address this problem by adding cold working at WS23. Soon after, the USAF found that the real-world A-10 fleet fatigue was harsher than estimated, forcing a change to fatigue testing and introduced "spectrum 3" equivalent flight-hour testing.{{sfn|Jacques|Strouble|2010}} | ||
Spectrum 3 fatigue testing started in 1979. This round of testing quickly determined that more drastic reinforcement would be needed. |
Spectrum 3 fatigue testing started in 1979. This round of testing quickly determined that more drastic reinforcement would be needed. The second change in production, starting with aircraft No. 442, was to increase the thickness of the lower skin on the outer wing panels. A tech order was issued to retrofit the "thick skin" to the whole fleet, but the tech order was rescinded after roughly 242 planes, leaving about 200 planes with the original "thin skin". Starting with aircraft No. 530, cold working at WS0 was performed, and this retrofit was performed on earlier aircraft. A fourth, even more drastic change was initiated with aircraft No. 582, again to address the problems discovered with spectrum 3 testing. This change increased the thickness of the lower skin on the center wing panel, but it required modifications to the lower ] caps to accommodate the thicker skin. The USAF found it economically unfeasible to retrofit earlier planes with this modification.{{sfn|Jacques|Strouble|2010}} | ||
===Upgrades=== | ===Upgrades=== | ||
] design]] | ] design]] | ||
The A-10 has received many upgrades since entering service. |
The A-10 has received many upgrades since entering service. In 1978, it received the ] laser receiver pod, mounted on a pylon attached below the right side of the cockpit, which receives reflected laser radiation from ]s to allow the aircraft to deliver ].<ref name="Spick_p48">Spick 2000, p. 48.</ref><ref>Jenkins 1998, p. 652.</ref> In 1980, the A-10 began receiving an ].<ref name=Spick_p49>Spick 2000, p. 49.</ref> | ||
In the early 1990s, the A-10 began to receive the Low-Altitude Safety and Targeting Enhancement (LASTE) upgrade, which provided computerized weapon-aiming equipment, an autopilot, and a ground-collision warning system. In 1999, aircraft began receiving ] navigation systems and a multi-function display.<ref>Donald and March 2004, p. 46.</ref> The LASTE system was upgraded with Integrated Flight & Fire Control |
In the early 1990s, the A-10 began to receive the Low-Altitude Safety and Targeting Enhancement (LASTE) upgrade, which provided computerized weapon-aiming equipment, an autopilot, and a ground-collision warning system. In 1999, aircraft began receiving ] navigation systems and a multi-function display.<ref>Donald and March 2004, p. 46.</ref> The LASTE system was upgraded with an Integrated Flight & Fire Control Computer (IFFCC).<ref name="avtoday">Jensen, David. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081204171251/http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/military/1219.html|date=4 December 2008}} ''Avionics Magazine'', 1 December 2005.</ref> | ||
Proposed further upgrades included integrated combat search and rescue locator systems and improved early warning and anti-jam self-protection systems, and the |
Proposed further upgrades included integrated combat search and rescue locator systems and improved early warning and anti-jam self-protection systems, and the USAF recognized that the A-10's engine power was sub-optimal and had planned to replace them with more powerful engines since at least 2001 at an estimated cost of $2 billion.<ref name="forecastinternational.com">{{cite web |url=http://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=1003 |title=Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II |website=Military Aircraft Forecast |publisher=Forecast International |year=2002 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161006175557/http://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=1003 |archive-date=6 October 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
====HOG UP and Wing Replacement Program==== | ====HOG UP and Wing Replacement Program==== | ||
In 1987, ] took over support for the A-10 program. In 1993, Grumman updated the damage tolerance assessment and Force Structural Maintenance Plan and Damage Threat Assessment. Over the next few years, problems with wing structure fatigue, first noticed in production years earlier, began to come to the fore. |
In 1987, ] took over support for the A-10 program. In 1993, Grumman updated the damage tolerance assessment and Force Structural Maintenance Plan and Damage Threat Assessment. Over the next few years, problems with wing structure fatigue, first noticed in production years earlier, began to come to the fore. Implementation of the maintenance plan was greatly delayed by the base realignment and closure commission (BRAC), which led to 80% of the original workforce being let go.{{sfn|Garland|Colombi|2010|pp=192–93}} | ||
During inspections in 1995 and 1996, cracks at the WS23 location were found on many |
During inspections in 1995 and 1996, cracks at the WS23 location were found on many A-10s; while many were in line with updated predictions from 1993, two of these were classified as "near-critical" size, well beyond predictions. In August 1998, Grumman produced a new plan to address these issues and increase life span to 16,000 hours. This led to the "HOG UP" program, which commenced in 1999. Additional aspects were added to HOG UP over time, including new fuel bladders, flight control system changes, and engine nacelle inspections. In 2001, the cracks were reclassified as "critical", which meant they were considered repairs and not upgrades, which allowed bypassing normal acquisition channels for more rapid implementation.{{sfn|Garland|Colombi|2010|pp=193–94}} An independent review of the HOG UP program, presented in September 2003, concluded that the data on which the wing upgrade relied could no longer be trusted. Shortly thereafter, fatigue testing on a test wing failed prematurely and also mounting problems with wings failing in-service inspections at an increasing rate became apparent. The USAF estimated that they would run out of wings by 2011. Of the plans explored, replacing the wings with new ones was the least expensive, at an initial cost of $741 million and a total cost of $1.72 billion over the program's life.{{sfn|Jacques|Strouble|2010}} | ||
An independent review of the HOG UP program at this point concluded that the data on which the wing upgrade relied could no longer be trusted. This independent review was presented in September 2003. Shortly thereafter, fatigue testing on a test wing failed prematurely and also mounting problems with wings failing in-service inspections at an increasing rate became apparent. The Air Force estimated that they would run out of wings by 2011. Of the plans explored, replacing the wings with new ones was the least expensive, with an initial cost of $741 million, and a total cost of $1.72 billion over the life of the program.{{sfn|Jacques|Strouble|2010}} | |||
] | ] | ||
In 2005, a business case was |
In 2005, a business case was produced with three options to extend the fleet's life. The first two options involved expanding the service life extension program (SLEP) at a cost of $4.6 billion and $3.16 billion, respectively. The third option, worth $1.72 billion, was to build 242 new wings and avoid the need to expand the SLEP. In 2006, option 3 was chosen and Boeing won the contract.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008/systems/7131jacques.pdf |title=Sustaining Systems Engineering: The A-10 Example (Based on A-10 Systems Engineering Case Study) |last1=Jacques |first1=David |date=23 October 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170501055245/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008/systems/7131jacques.pdf |archive-date=1 May 2017 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The base contract is for 117 wings with options for 125 additional wings.<ref> Boeing, 29 June 2007. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629035218/http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q2/070629b_nr.html |date=29 June 2011}}</ref> In 2013, the USAF exercised a portion of the option to add 56 wings, putting 173 wings on order with options remaining for 69 additional wings.<ref name=FG_continue_wing_prod /><ref name=fighter_force>Tirpak, John A. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303230257/http://www.airforcemag.com/magazinearchive/pages/2007/march%202007/0307force.aspx |date=3 March 2016}} ''Air Force magazine'', Vol. 90, no. 3, March 2007.</ref> In November 2011, two A-10s flew with the new wings fitted. The new wings improved mission readiness, decreased maintenance costs, and allowed the A-10 to be operated up to 2035 if necessary.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130911033637/http://www.deagel.com/news/US-Air-Force-to-Build-56-Additional-A-10-Wings-to-Keep-the-Type-Operating-Through-2035_n000011868.aspx |date=11 September 2013}}. Deagel.com, 4 September 2013.</ref> Re-winging work was organized under the Thick-skin Urgent Spares Kitting (TUSK) Program.<ref name=FG_continue_wing_prod/> | ||
In 2014, as part of plans to retire the A-10, the USAF considered halting the wing replacement program to save an additional $500 |
In 2014, as part of plans to retire the A-10, the USAF considered halting the wing replacement program to save an additional $500 million;<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151023002346/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1437 |date=23 October 2015}}. Nationaldefensemagazine.org, 4 March 2014.</ref><ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140424200627/http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2014/April%202014/April%2024%202014/A-10-Been-There,-Considered-That.aspx |date=24 April 2014}}. Airforcemag.com, 24 April 2014.</ref> however, by May 2015 the re-winging program was too advanced to be financially efficient to cancel.<ref name="flightglobal20may15"> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150522022701/http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-discussing-international-a-10-warthog-sales-412606/ |date=22 May 2015}} Flightglobal.com, 20 May 2015.</ref> Boeing stated in February 2016 that the A-10 could operate to 2040 with the new TUSK wings.<ref name=FG_continue_wing_prod>{{cite web |url=https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-to-continue-a-10-warthog-wing-production-421567/ |title=USAF to continue A-10 'Warthog' wing production |last=Drew |first=James |date=4 February 2016 |website=FlightGlobal |publisher=Reed Business |access-date=8 April 2018 |quote=The same day, the air force released a draft statement of work regarding construction of slightly updated versions of the A-10 enhanced wing assembly currently built by Boeing and Korean Aerospace Industries. Boeing’s contract includes 173 wings with options for 69 more, but the Air Force confirms that ordering period ends in September. Boeing has said those wings, based on 3D models of the original thick-skin wing design of the 1970s, could keep the aircraft flying past 2040. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180408205831/https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-to-continue-a-10-warthog-wing-production-421567/ |archive-date=8 April 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
====A-10C==== | ====Modernization (A-10C)==== | ||
] | ] | ||
From 2005 to June 2011,<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161220124327/http://www.hilltoptimes.com/node/4808|date=20 December 2016}} Hilltop Times via ''Ogden Publishing Corporation'', 14 January 2008.</ref> the entire fleet of 356 A-10s and OA-10s were modernized in the Precision Engagement program and redesignated A-10C.<ref name=not_fade>Schanz, Marc V. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161010125249/http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/June%202008/0608fade.aspx |date=10 October 2016}} ''Air Force Magazine'', June 2008.</ref> Upgrades included all-weather combat capability,<ref name="avtoday" /> an improved ] (FCS), electronic countermeasures (ECM), smart bomb targeting, a modern communications suite including a ] radio and ],<ref name="avtoday" /> and cockpit upgrades comprising two ]s and ] configuration mixing the F-16's flight stick with the F-15's throttle.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Next generation: A-10C arrives at Davis-Monthan |url=https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/128891/next-generation-a-10c-arrives-at-davis-monthan/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.af.mil%2FNews%2FArticle-Display%2FArticle%2F128891%2Fnext-generation-a-10c-arrives-at-davis-monthan%2F |access-date=2023-03-20 |website=Air Force |language=en-US}}</ref><ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160920051419/http://media.jrn.com/documents/A-10C_Capes_Nov_13.pdf|date=20 September 2016}}. U.S. Air Force via media.jrn.com. Retrieved 22 December 2016.</ref> The ] in 2007 estimated the cost of upgrading, refurbishing, and service life extension plans to total $2.25 billion through 2013.<ref name="GAO-07-415"/><ref name="Higher-Tech_Hog"> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090124104518/http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-highertech-hog-the-a10c-pe-program-03187/ |date=24 January 2009}} ''Defense Industry Daily'', 21 July 2010.</ref> In July 2010, the USAF issued Raytheon a contract to integrate a Helmet Mounted Integrated Targeting (HMIT) system into the A-10C.<ref name="Higher-Tech_Hog"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065977474&channel=defence&subChannel=systems |title=Defence & Security Intelligence & Analysis |website= IHS Jane's 360 (janes.com) |access-date=1 April 2015}}</ref> The LASTE system was replaced with the integrated flight and fire control computer (IFFCC) included in the PE upgrade.<ref name="avtoday"/> | |||
Throughout its life, |
Throughout its life, multiple software upgrades have been made. While this work was to be stopped under plans to retire the A-10 in February 2014, ] ] ordered that the latest upgrade, designated Suite 8, continue in response to congressional pressure. Suite 8 software includes ], which modernizes the ability to identify the A-10 to friendly units.<ref>Majumdar, Dave. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140227201517/https://medium.com/war-is-boring/124c8839989e |date=27 February 2014}} War is Boring blog</ref> Additionally, the Pave Penny pods and pylons were removed as their receive-only capability has been replaced by the AN/AAQ-28(V)4 LITENING AT targeting pods or Sniper XR targeting pod, which both have laser designators and laser rangefinders.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Liveoak |first1=Brian |title=AFSO21 Event for Osan's A-10 Phase Dock |journal=The Exceptional Release |issue=Winter 2014 |page=28 |url=http://www.northropgrumman.com/MediaResources/MediaKits/GlobalLandForcesModernization/Documents/loa-exceptional-release-winter-20141.pdf |access-date=7 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161006175810/http://www.northropgrumman.com/MediaResources/MediaKits/GlobalLandForcesModernization/Documents/loa-exceptional-release-winter-20141.pdf |archive-date=6 October 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=A-10 Thunderbolt II |url=https://www.10af.afrc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/966601/a-10-thunderbolt-ii/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.10af.afrc.af.mil%2FAbout-Us%2FFact-Sheets%2FDisplay%2FArticle%2F966601%2Fa-10-thunderbolt-ii%2F |access-date=2024-03-29 |website=10th Air Force |language=en-US}}</ref> | ||
In 2012, ] requested the testing of a 600 |
In 2012, ] requested the testing of a {{convert|600|usgal|adj=on||}} external fuel tank which would extend the A-10's loitering time by 45–60 minutes; flight testing of such a tank had been conducted in 1997 but did not involve combat evaluation. Over 30 flight tests were conducted by the ] to gather data on the aircraft's handling characteristics and performance across different load configurations. It was reported that the tank slightly reduced stability in the yaw axis, but there was no decrease in aircraft tracking performance.<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130901154826/http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123360322 |date=1 September 2013}} – Eglin.AF.mil, 26 August 2013</ref> | ||
==Design== | ==Design== | ||
===Overview=== | ===Overview=== | ||
] | ] | ||
The A-10 has a cantilever low-wing monoplane wing with a wide chord.<ref name="forecastinternational.com"/><!-- "One-piece constant chord center wing section, tapered outer panels, cambered |
The A-10 has a cantilever low-wing monoplane wing with a wide ].<ref name="forecastinternational.com"/><!-- "One-piece constant chord center wing section, tapered outer panels, cambered wingtips. Two-segment, three-position, trailing-edge slotted flaps, interchangeable right and left. Wide–span ailerons are made up of upper and lower surfaces that separate to serve as airbrakes. Small leading-edge slat inboard each mainwheel fairing. Redundant, armor shielded flight control system. Semi-monocoque aluminum alloy fuselage with four main longerons, multiple frames, and lap-jointed, and riveted skin." It has a "cantilever aluminum structure with twin fins and interchangeable rudders mounted at tips of constant chord tailplane. Interchangeable elevators, each with an electrically operated trim tab."<ref name="forecastinternational.com"/> Too much quoted text here for a Good Article. --> It has superior maneuverability at low speeds and altitude due to its large wing area, high ], and large ]s. The wing also allows ], permitting operations from austere ]s near front lines. The A-10 can loiter for extended periods and operate under {{convert|1000|ft|m||adj=on}} ceilings with {{convert|1.5|mi|km||adj=on}} visibility. It typically flies at a relatively low speed of {{convert|300|kn|mph km/h}}, which makes it a better platform for the ground-attack role than fast fighter-bombers, which often have difficulty targeting small, slow-moving targets.<ref name=Donald_p8>Donald and March 2004, p. 8.</ref> | ||
The leading edge of the wing has a ] panel construction, providing strength with minimal weight; similar panels cover the flap shrouds, elevators, rudders and sections of the fins.<ref name=AI_May_74_p224>''Air International'', May 1974, p. 224.</ref> The ] panels are integral with the ] and are fabricated using computer-controlled machining, reducing production time and cost. Combat experience has shown that this type of panel is more resistant to damage. The skin is not load-bearing, so damaged skin sections can be easily replaced in the field, with makeshift materials if necessary.<ref>Drendel 1981, p. 12.</ref> The |
The leading edge of the wing has a ] panel construction, providing strength with minimal weight; similar panels cover the flap shrouds, elevators, rudders and sections of the fins.<ref name=AI_May_74_p224>''Air International'', May 1974, p. 224.</ref> The ] panels are integral with the ] and are fabricated using computer-controlled machining, reducing production time and cost. Combat experience has shown that this type of panel is more resistant to damage. The skin is not load-bearing, so damaged skin sections can be easily replaced in the field, with makeshift materials if necessary.<ref>Drendel 1981, p. 12.</ref> The ailerons are at the far ends of the wings for greater ] and have two distinguishing features: The ailerons are larger than is typical, almost 50 percent of the ], providing improved control even at slow speeds; the aileron is also split, making it a ].<ref name=Stephens_WAPJ_16_p64>Stephens ''World Air Power Journal''. Spring 1994, p. 64.</ref><ref name="Janes_82_p363-4"/> | ||
] | |||
The A-10 is designed to be refueled, rearmed, and serviced with minimal equipment.<ref>Spick 2000, pp. 64–65.</ref> Its simple design enables maintenance at forward bases with limited facilities.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/Article/195855/fairchild-republic-a-10a-thunderbolt-ii.aspx |title=Fairchild Republic A-10A Thunderbolt II |website= Air Force National Museum |accessdate=29 November 2015}}</ref><ref name=Donald_p18>Donald and March 2004, p. 18.</ref> An unusual feature is that many of the aircraft's parts are interchangeable between the left and right sides, including the engines, main landing gear, and vertical stabilizers. The sturdy landing gear, low-pressure tires and large, straight wings allow operation from short rough strips even with a heavy ] load, allowing the aircraft to operate from damaged airbases, flying from taxiways, or even ].<ref name=Jenkins_p58>Jenkins 1998, p. 58.</ref> | |||
The A-10 is designed to be refueled, rearmed, and serviced with minimal equipment.<ref>Spick 2000, pp. 64–65.</ref> Its simple design enables maintenance at forward bases with limited facilities.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/Article/195855/fairchild-republic-a-10a-thunderbolt-ii.aspx |title=Fairchild Republic A-10A Thunderbolt II |website=Air Force National Museum |access-date=29 November 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208235145/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/Article/195855/fairchild-republic-a-10a-thunderbolt-ii.aspx |archive-date=8 December 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=Donald_p18>Donald and March 2004, p. 18.</ref> An unusual feature is that many of the aircraft's parts are interchangeable between the left and right sides, including the engines, main landing gear, and vertical stabilizers. The sturdy landing gear, low-pressure tires and large, straight wings allow operation from short rough strips even with a heavy ] load, allowing the aircraft to operate from damaged airbases, flying from taxiways, or even ].<ref name=Jenkins_p58>Jenkins 1998, p. 58.</ref> | |||
The front landing gear is offset to the aircraft's right to allow placement of the 30 mm cannon with its firing barrel along the centerline of the aircraft.<ref name=Spick_p44/> During ground taxi, the offset front landing gear causes the A-10 to have dissimilar ]; turning to the right on the ground takes less distance than turning left.<ref group=Note>With the inner wheel on a turn stopped, the minimum radius of the turn is dictated by the distance between the inner wheel and the nose wheel. Since the distance is less between the right main wheel and the nose gear than the same measurement on the left, the aircraft can turn more tightly to the right.{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}}</ref> The wheels of the main landing gear partially protrude from their ]s when retracted, making gear-up ]s easier to control and less damaging. All landing gears retract forward; if hydraulic power is lost, a combination of gravity and aerodynamic drag can lower and lock the gear in place.<ref name="Janes_82_p363-4">Taylor 1982, pp. 363–364.</ref> | |||
] | |||
The front landing gear is offset to the aircraft's right to allow placement of the 30 mm cannon with its firing barrel along the centerline of the aircraft.<ref name=Spick_p44/> During ground taxi, the offset front landing gear causes the A-10 to have dissimilar ]. Turning to the right on the ground takes less distance than turning left.<ref group=Note>With the inner wheel on a turn stopped, the minimum radius of the turn is dictated by the distance between the inner wheel and the nose wheel. Since the distance is less between the right main wheel and the nose gear than the same measurement on the left, the aircraft can turn more tightly to the right.</ref> The wheels of the main landing gear partially protrude from their ]s when retracted, making gear-up ]s easier to control and less damaging. All landing gears retract forward, if hydraulic power is lost a combination of gravity and aerodynamic drag can lower and lock the gear in place.<ref name="Janes_82_p363-4">Taylor 1982, pp. 363–64.</ref> | |||
=== |
===Survivability=== | ||
The A-10 is |
The A-10 is able to survive direct hits from ] and ] projectiles up to 23 mm. It has double-redundant ] flight systems, and a mechanical system as a backup if hydraulics are lost. Flight without hydraulic power uses the manual reversion control system; pitch and yaw control engages automatically, and roll control is pilot-selected. In manual reversion mode, the A-10 is sufficiently controllable under favorable conditions to return to base, though control forces are greater than normal. It is designed to be able to fly with one engine, half of the tail, one elevator, and half of a wing missing.<ref>Henderson, Breck W. "A-10 'Warthogs' damaged heavily in Gulf War bug survived to fly again." ''Aviation Week and Space Technology'', 5 August 1991.</ref> As the A-10 operates close to enemy positions, making it an easy target for ] (MANPADS), surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and enemy aircraft, it carries both ]s and ] cartridges.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104490/a-10-thunderbolt-ii/ |title=A-10C Thunderbolt II |website=U.S. Air Force |date= 22 September 2015 |access-date=14 May 2021}}</ref> | ||
] in 2003, including to the hydraulic system, and pilot Captain ] safely flew it back to base on manual reversion mode.]] | |||
The cockpit and parts of the flight-control system are protected by {{convert|1200|lb|kg|abbr=on}} of ] ], referred to as a "bathtub".<ref name=Jenkins_tub>Jenkins 1998, pp. 47, 49.</ref><ref>Spick 2000, p. 32.</ref> The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds.<ref name=Donald_p18/><ref name=Jenkins_tub/> It is made up of titanium plates with thicknesses from {{convert|0.5|to|1.5|in|mm}} determined by a study of likely trajectories and deflection angles. The armor makes up almost 6 percent of the aircraft's empty weight. Any interior surface of the tub directly exposed to the pilot is covered by a multi-layer nylon ] shield to protect against shell fragmentation.<ref name=Stephens_WAPJ_16_p42/><ref name=AI_Jun_79_p270/> The front windscreen and canopy are resistant to small arms fire.<ref>Spick 2000, pp. 30–33.</ref> | |||
The cockpit and parts of the flight-control systems are protected by {{convert|1200|lb|kg|abbr=on}} of ] ], referred to as a "bathtub".<ref name=Jenkins_tub>Jenkins 1998, pp. 47, 49.</ref><ref>Spick 2000, p. 32.</ref> The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from {{convert|23|mm|abbr=on}} cannon fire and some indirect hits from {{convert|57|mm|abbr=on}} shell fragments.<ref name=Donald_p18/><ref name=Jenkins_tub/><ref>{{cite web |url=https://warontherocks.com/2016/05/its-not-about-the-airplane-envisioning-the-a-x2/ |title= It's Not About the Airplane: Envisioning the A-X2 |last= Pietrucha |first= Mike |date= 2016-05-26 |website= War on the Rocks |publisher= Texas National Security Review|access-date= 2021-07-20 |quote=}}</ref> It is made up of titanium plates with thicknesses varying from {{convert|0.5|to|1.5|in|mm}} determined by a study of likely trajectories and deflection angles. The armor makes up almost six percent of the A-10's empty weight. Any interior surface of the tub directly exposed to the pilot is covered by a multi-layer nylon ] shield to protect against shell fragmentation.<ref name=Stephens_WAPJ_16_p42/><ref name=AI_Jun_79_p270/> The front windscreen and canopy are resistant to small arms fire.<ref>Spick 2000, pp. 30–33.</ref> Its durability was demonstrated on 7 April 2003 when Captain ], while flying over ] during the ], suffered extensive ] damage that damaged one engine and crippled the hydraulic system, requiring the stabilizer and flight controls to be operated via manual reversion mode. Despite this, Campbell's A-10 flew for nearly an hour and landed safely.<ref>Haag, Jason. {{Webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20120709082553/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JCA/is_11_12/ai_n6100282/ |date=9 July 2012}} ''Combat Edge'', April 2004.</ref><ref> ''stripes.com''. Retrieved 21 August 2011.</ref> | |||
The A-10 was intended to fly from forward air bases and semi-prepared runways where ] to an aircraft's engines is normally a high risk. The unusual location of the ] ] ] engines decreases ingestion risk and also allows the engines to run while the aircraft is serviced and rearmed by ground crews, reducing turn-around time. The wings are also mounted closer to the ground, simplifying servicing and rearming operations.{{citation needed|date=July 2023}} The heavy engines require strong support: four bolts connect the engine pylons to the airframe.<ref name=Bell_p64>Bell 1986, p. 64.</ref> The engines' high 6:1 ] contributes to a relatively small ], and their position directs exhaust over the tailplanes further shielding it from detection by ] ]s.{{citation needed|date=July 2023}} | |||
] suffered extensive damage during ] in 2003, including damage to the hydraulic system, but she flew it safely back to base on manual reversion mode.]] | |||
The A-10's durability was demonstrated on 7 April 2003 when Captain ], while flying over ] during the ], suffered extensive ] damage. Iraqi fire damaged one of her engines and crippled the hydraulic system, requiring the aircraft's stabilizer and flight controls to be operated via the 'manual reversion mode.' Despite this damage, Campbell flew the aircraft for nearly an hour and landed safely.<ref>Haag, Jason. ''Combat Edge'', April 2004.</ref><ref> ''stripes.com''. Retrieved: 21 August 2011.</ref> | |||
To reduce the likelihood of damage to the fuel system, all four fuel tanks are located near the aircraft's center and are separated from the fuselage; projectiles would need to penetrate the aircraft's skin before reaching a fuel tank's outer skin.<ref name=Stephens_WAPJ_16_p42>Stephens ''World Air Power Journal'' Spring 1994, p. 42.</ref><ref name=AI_Jun_79_p270>''Air International'' June 1979, p. 270.</ref> Compromised fuel transfer lines self-seal; if damage exceeds a tank's self-sealing capabilities, check valves to prevent fuel from flowing into a compromised tank. Most fuel system components are inside the tanks so component failure will not lead to fuel loss. The refueling system is also purged after use.<ref name=Wilson_p714>Wilson 1976, p. 714.</ref> ] lines both the inner and outer sides of the fuel tanks, retaining debris and restricting fuel spillage in the event of damage. The engines are shielded from the rest of the airframe by ] and fire extinguishing equipment. If all four main tanks were lost, two self-sealing sump tanks contain fuel for 230 miles (370 km) of flight.<ref name=Stephens_WAPJ_16_p42/><ref name=AI_Jun_79_p270/> | |||
The A-10 was intended to fly from forward air bases and semi-prepared runways with high risk of ] to the engines. The unusual location of the ] ] ] engines decreases ingestion risk, and allows the engines to run while the aircraft is serviced and rearmed by ground crews, reducing turn-around time. The wings are also mounted closer to the ground, simplifying servicing and rearming operations. The heavy engines require strong supports: four bolts connect the engine pylons to the airframe.<ref name=Bell_p64>Bell 1986, p. 64.</ref> The engines' high 6:1 ] contributes to a relatively small ], and their position directs exhaust over the tailplanes further shielding it from detection by ] ]s. The engines exhaust nozzles are angled nine degrees below horizontal to cancel out the nose-down ] that would otherwise be generated from being mounted above the aircraft's ] and avoid the need to trim the control surfaces to prevent pitching.<ref name=Bell_p64/> | |||
To reduce the likelihood of damage to the A-10's fuel system, all four fuel tanks are located near the aircraft's center and are separated from the fuselage; projectiles would need to penetrate the aircraft's skin before reaching a tank's outer skin.<ref name=Stephens_WAPJ_16_p42>Stephens ''World Air Power Journal'' Spring 1994, p. 42.</ref><ref name=AI_Jun_79_p270>''Air International'' June 1979, p. 270.</ref> Compromised fuel transfer lines self-seal; if damage exceeds a tank's self-sealing capabilities, check valves prevent fuel flowing into a compromised tank. Most fuel system components are inside the tanks so that fuel will not be lost due to component failure. The refueling system is also purged after use.<ref name=Wilson_p714>Wilson 1976, p. 714.</ref> ] lines both the inner and outer sides of the fuel tanks, retaining debris and restricting fuel spillage in the event of damage. The engines are shielded from the rest of the airframe by ] and fire extinguishing equipment. In the event of all four main tanks being lost, two self-sealing sump tanks contain fuel for 230 miles (370 km) of flight.<ref name=Stephens_WAPJ_16_p42/><ref name=AI_Jun_79_p270/> | |||
===Weapons=== | ===Weapons=== | ||
] | ] | ||
The A-10's primary built-in weapon is the 30×173 mm ] ]. One of the most powerful aircraft cannons ever flown, the GAU-8 is a hydraulically driven seven-barrel ] designed for the ] role with a high ]. The original design could be switched by the pilot to 2,100 or 4,200 ] armor-piercing shells per minute;<ref>Stephens 1995, p. 18.</ref> this was later changed to a fixed rate of 3,900 rounds per minute.<ref>TCTO 1A-10-1089, Flight manual TO 1A-10A-1 (20 February 2003, Change 8), pp. vi, 1–150A.</ref> The cannon takes about a half second to spin up to its maximum rate of fire, firing 50 rounds during the first second, and 65 or 70 rounds per second thereafter. It is accurate enough to place 80 percent of its shots within a 40-foot (12.4 m) diameter circle from 4,000 feet (1,220 m) while in flight.<ref>Sweetman 1987, p. 46.</ref> The GAU-8 is optimized for a slant range of {{convert|4000|ft|m|sigfig=3}} with the A-10 in a 30-degree dive.<ref name=Jenkins_p64>Jenkins 1998, pp. 64–73.</ref> | |||
] | ] | ||
The fuselage |
The aircraft's fuselage was designed around the cannon. The GAU-8 is mounted slightly to the port side; the barrel in the firing location is on the starboard side so it is aligned with the aircraft's centerline. The gun's 5-foot, 11.5-inch (1.816 m) ammunition drum can hold up to 1,350 rounds of 30 mm ammunition,<ref name=Spick_p44/> but generally holds 1,174 rounds.<ref name=Jenkins_p64/> To protect the rounds from enemy fire, armor plates of differing thicknesses between the aircraft skin and the drum are designed to detonate incoming shells.<ref name=Spick_p44>Spick 2000, p. 44.</ref><ref name=AI_Jun_79_p270/> | ||
The ] air-to-surface missile |
The A-10 commonly carries the ] air-to-surface missile. Targeted via electro-optical (TV-guided) or infrared systems, the Maverick can hit targets much farther away than the cannon, and thus incur less risk from anti-aircraft systems. During ], in the absence of dedicated ] (FLIR) cameras for night vision, the Maverick's infrared camera was used for night missions as a "poor man's FLIR".<ref name="Stephens_WAPJ_16_p53-4">Stephens ''World Air Power Journal'' Spring 1994, pp. 53–54.</ref> Other weapons include ]s and ] rocket pods.<ref name="Stephens_WAPJ_16_p54-6">Stephens ''World Air Power Journal'', Spring 1994, pp. 54–56.</ref> The A-10 is equipped to carry GPS- and laser-]s, such as the ], ] series bombs, ]s (JDAM), ] and ] ]s.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://translate.google.pl/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=pl&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.defence24.pl/a-10-thunderbolt-ii-dla-polski&edit-text=&act=url|title=Tłumacz Google|website=translate.google.pl|date=20 April 2014 }}</ref> A-10s usually fly with an ALQ-131 Electronic countermeasures (ECM) pod under one wing and two ] air-to-air missiles for self-defense under the other wing.<ref name=Stephens_WAPJ_16_p53>Stephens. ''World Air Power Journal'', Spring 1994, p. 53.</ref> | ||
===Modernization=== | |||
] | |||
The A-10 Precision Engagement Modification Program updated all A-10 and OA-10 aircraft in the fleet to the A-10C standard with a new ], new ] displays and controls, two new {{convert|5.5|in|mm|adj=on}} color displays with moving map function, and an integrated digital stores management system.<ref name="GAO-07-415"> ''U.S. Government Accountability Office'', April 2007. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.</ref><ref name=not_fade/><ref name="Higher-Tech_Hog"/><ref name=USAF_factsh/> | |||
Other funded improvements to the A-10 fleet include a new data link, the ability to employ smart weapons such as the ] (JDAM) and ], and the ability to carry an integrated ] such as the Northrop Grumman ] or the Lockheed Martin ] (ATP). Also included is the Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (]) to provide sensor data to personnel on the ground.<ref name=not_fade/> | |||
===Colors and markings=== | ===Colors and markings=== | ||
]s at the Yukon Command Training Site in 1988.]] | ]s at the Yukon Command Training Site in 1988.]] | ||
] is used to make the A-10 more difficult to see as it flies low to the ground at subsonic speeds. Many types of paint schemes have been tried. These have included a "peanut scheme" of sand, yellow, and field drab; black and white colors for winter operations; and a tan, green, and brown mixed pattern.<ref>Neubeck 1999, p. 92.</ref> The most common Cold War-era scheme was the European I woodland camouflage, whose dark green, medium green, and dark gray was meant to blend in with the typical European forest terrain. It reflected the assumption that the threat from hostile fighter aircraft outweighed that from ground fire. After the 1991 Gulf War, the threat from ground fire was deemed more pressing than the air-to-air threat, leading to the "Compass Ghost" scheme with darker gray on top and a lighter gray on the underside of the aircraft.<ref name="Stephens_WAPJ_16_p47">Stephens ''World Air Power Journal'', Spring 1994, p. 47.</ref> | |||
Many A-10s also had a ] painted in dark gray on the underside of the aircraft, just behind the gun. This form of ] is an attempt to confuse the enemy as to aircraft attitude and maneuver direction.<ref>Neubeck 1999, pp. 72–73, 76–77.</ref><ref>Shaw 1985, p. 382.</ref> Many A-10s feature ], such as shark mouth or ] head features.{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
The two most common markings applied to the A-10 have been the European I woodland camouflage scheme and a two-tone gray scheme. The European woodland scheme was designed to minimize visibility from above, as the threat from hostile fighter aircraft was felt to outweigh that from ground-fire. It uses dark green, medium green and dark gray in order to blend in with the typical European forest terrain and was used from the 1980s to the early 1990s. Following the end of the ], and based on experience during the 1991 Gulf War, the air-to-air threat was no longer seen to be as important as that from ground fire, and a new color scheme known as "Compass Ghost" was chosen to minimize visibility from below. This two-tone gray scheme has darker gray color on top, with the lighter gray on the underside of the aircraft, and started to be applied from the early 1990s.<ref name=Stephens_WAPJ_16_p47>Stephens ''World Air Power Journal'', Spring 1994, p. 47.</ref> | |||
==Operational history== | ==Operational history== | ||
=== |
===Service entry=== | ||
] A-10C firing an ] air-to-surface missile on a firing range at ]]] | ] A-10C firing an ] air-to-surface missile on a firing range at ]]] | ||
The first unit to receive the A-10 |
The first unit to receive the A-10 was the ], based at ], Arizona, in March 1976.<ref name=1st_rec_by_355th_FW>Spick 2000, p. 21.</ref> The first unit to achieve ] was the 354th Tactical Fighter Wing at ], South Carolina, in October 1977.<ref name=Spick_p51>Spick 2000, p. 51.</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |url=https://www.airandspaceforces.com/weapons-platforms/a-10/ |title=A-10 Thunderbolt II |author=<!--Not stated--> |website=]|access-date=December 17, 2024 |quote= }}</ref> A-10 deployments followed at bases both at home and abroad, including ], Louisiana; ], Alaska; ], South Korea; and ]/], England. The 81st TFW of RAF Bentwaters/RAF Woodbridge operated rotating detachments of A-10s at four bases in Germany known as Forward Operating Locations (FOLs): Leipheim, ], ], and ].<ref name=Jenkins_p56>Jenkins 1998, pp. 42, 56–59.</ref> A-10s were initially an unwelcome addition to many in the USAF; most pilots did not want to switch to it as fighter pilots traditionally favored speed and appearance.<ref>Campbell 2003, pp. 117, 175–83.</ref> In 1987, many A-10s were shifted to the ] (FAC) role and redesignated ''OA-10''.<ref name=Jenkins_p63>Jenkins 1998, p. 63.</ref> In the FAC role, the OA-10 is typically equipped with up to six pods of 2.75 inch (70 mm) Hydra rockets, usually with smoke or ] warheads used for target marking. OA-10s are physically unchanged and remain fully combat capable despite the redesignation.<ref name=Stephens_WAPJ_p50_56>Stephens ''World Air Power Journal'', Spring 1994, pp. 50, 56.</ref> | ||
A-10s were initially an unwelcome addition to many in the Air Force. Most pilots switching to the A-10 did not want to because fighter pilots traditionally favored speed and appearance.<ref>Campbell 2003, pp. 117, 175–83.</ref> In 1987, many A-10s were shifted to the ] (FAC) role and redesignated ''OA-10''.<ref name=Jenkins_p63>Jenkins 1998, p. 63.</ref> In the FAC role, the OA-10 is typically equipped with up to six pods of 2.75 inch (70 mm) Hydra rockets, usually with smoke or ] warheads used for target marking. OA-10s are physically unchanged and remain fully combat capable despite the redesignation.<ref name=Stephens_WAPJ_p50_56>Stephens ''World Air Power Journal'', Spring 1994, pp. 50, 56.</ref> | |||
The ]'s A-10s were deployed to ], ] during Operation Urgent Fury, the 1983 American ]. They provided air cover for the U.S. Marine Corps landings on the island of ] in late October 1983, but did not fire weapons as no resistance was met.<ref name="afhso.af.mil">{{cite web |url=http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120823-013.pdf |title=Crisis in Grenada: Operation Urgent Fury |author=Haulman, Daniel L. |publisher=Air Force Historical Support Division, US Air Force |access-date=1 October 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161006175915/http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120823-013.pdf |archive-date=6 October 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.acig.info/CMS/?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=47 |title=Grenada, 1983: Operation "Urgent Fury" |first1=Tom |last1=Cooper |last2=Sanjay Badri-Maharaj |website=acig.info |access-date=25 September 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160514001238/http://www.acig.info/CMS/?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=47 |archive-date=14 May 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.afhso.af.mil/topics/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=19863 |title=Factsheets: Operation Urgent Fury |website=af.mil |access-date=25 September 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160315090235/http://www.afhso.af.mil/topics/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=19863 |archive-date=15 March 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
===Gulf War and Balkans=== | ===Gulf War and Balkans=== | ||
], 1992]] | ], 1992]] | ||
The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the |
The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, with 132 being deployed.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of the Air Campaign |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-97-134/html/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-97-134.htm |access-date=2022-03-24 |website=www.govinfo.gov}}</ref> A-10s shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon. The first of these was shot down by Captain Robert Swain over Kuwait on 6 February 1991 for the A-10's first air-to-air victory.<ref>Coyne, James P. (June 1992). , ''Air Force'' magazine. Archived from on 20 November 2011. Retrieved 21 January 2016.</ref><ref>Frantz, Douglas (8 February 1991). , ''Los Angeles Times''. Retrieved 21 January 2016.</ref> Four A-10s were shot down during the war by ] and eleven A-10s were hit by ] rounds.<ref>{{Cite book |title=NSIAD-97-134 Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of the Air Campaign |publisher=U.S. Government Accountability Office |year=1997 |pages=94}}</ref> Another two battle-damaged A-10s and OA-10As returned to base and were written off. Some sustained additional damage in crash landings.<ref name=aaloss> ''Gulf War Airpower Survey'', Vol. 5, 1993. Retrieved 24 October 2014. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130216142708/http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100927-065.pdf |date=16 February 2013}}</ref><ref>Friedman, Norman. "Desert Victory". ''World Air Power Journal''.</ref> At the beginning of the war, A-10s flew missions against the ], but due to heavy attrition, from 15 February they were restricted to within 20 nautical miles (37 km) of the southern border.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-97-134.pdf |title=NSIAD-97-134 Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of the Air Campaign |publisher=U.S. Government Accountability Office |year=1997 |pages=36}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |url=https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329816/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-065.pdf |title=Gulf War Air Power Survey- Volume V. |publisher=United States Air Force |year=1993 |pages=218}}</ref> A-10s also flew missions hunting Iraqi ]s. The A-10 had a ] of 95.7 percent, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90 percent of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired in the conflict.<ref name=USAF_factsh_2007> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120530102922/http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=70 |date=30 May 2012}} ''U.S. Air Force'', October 2007. Retrieved 5 March 2010.</ref> Shortly after the Gulf War, the USAF abandoned the idea of replacing the A-10 with a CAS version of the ].<ref name="F/A-16"> {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929090917/http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article18.html |date=29 September 2007}} ''F-16.net''. Retrieved 5 March 2010.</ref> | ||
] | ] | ||
A-10s fired approximately 10,000 30 mm rounds in ] in 1994–95. Following the seizure of heavy weapons by Bosnian Serbs from a warehouse in ], multiple sorties were launched to locate and destroy the captured equipment. On 5 August 1994, two A-10s located and strafed an anti-tank vehicle. Afterward, the Serbs agreed to return the remaining heavy weapons.<ref>Sudetic, Chuck. {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161107110812/http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/06/world/us-hits-bosnian-serb-target-in-air-raid.html?pagewanted=1 |date=7 November 2016}} ''The New York Times'', 6 August 1994.</ref> In August 1995, NATO launched an offensive called ]. A-10s flew CAS missions, attacking Bosnian Serb artillery and positions. In late September, A-10s began flying patrols again.<ref name="Donald_March_p42-3">Donald and March 2004, pp. 42–43.</ref> | |||
A-10s returned to the Balkan region as part of ] in Kosovo beginning in March 1999.<ref name= "Donald_March_p42-3"/> In March 1999, A-10s escorted and supported search and rescue helicopters in finding a ] pilot.<ref> ''Air Force Times |
A-10s returned to the Balkan region as part of ] in Kosovo beginning in March 1999.<ref name= "Donald_March_p42-3"/> In March 1999, A-10s escorted and supported search and rescue helicopters in finding a ] pilot.<ref> ''Air Force Times'', 27 April 2009.</ref> The A-10s were deployed to support search and rescue missions, but gradually received more ground attack missions. The A-10's first successful attack in Operation Allied Force happened on 6 April 1999; A-10s remained in action until the end of combat in June 1999.<ref>Haave, Col. Christopher and Lt. Col. Phil M. Haun. ''Air University Press'', Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, December 2003. Retrieved 21 August 2011.</ref> | ||
===Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and recent deployments=== | ===Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and recent deployments=== | ||
During the 2001 ], A-10s did not initially take part. Beginning in March 2002, A-10 squadrons were deployed to Pakistan and ], Afghanistan for the campaign against ] and ], known as ]. Afterward, they remained in-country, fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants.<ref>Donald and March 2004, p. 44.</ref> | |||
] | |||
] began on 20 March 2003. Sixty OA-10/A-10s took part in early combat.<ref>Donald and March 2004, pp. 44–45.</ref> ] issued ''Operation Iraqi Freedom: By the Numbers'', a declassified report about the aerial campaign in the conflict on 30 April 2003. During the initial invasion of Iraq, A-10s had a ] of 85 percent and fired 311,597 rounds of 30 mm ammunition. The type also flew 32 missions to airdrop propaganda leaflets. A single A-10 was shot down near ] by Iraqi fire late in the campaign.{{citation needed|date=December 2022}} | |||
During the 2001 ], A-10s did not take part in the initial stages. For the campaign against ] and ], A-10 ] were deployed to Pakistan and ], Afghanistan, beginning in March 2002. These A-10s participated in ]. Afterwards, A-10s remained in-country, fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants.<ref>Donald and March 2004, p. 44.</ref> | |||
In September 2007, the A-10C with the Precision Engagement Upgrade reached initial operating capability.<ref name=USAF_factsh>{{cite web |url=http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104490/a-10-thunderbolt-ii.aspx |title=Fact Sheet: A-10 Thunderbolt II |website=USAF |date=22 September 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161111004147/http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104490/a-10-thunderbolt-ii.aspx |archive-date=11 November 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> The A-10C first deployed to Iraq in 2007 with the ] of the ].<ref>Maier, Staff Sgt. Markus. ''U.S. Air Force'', 7 November 2007. Retrieved 5 March 2010.</ref> The A-10C's digital avionics and communications systems greatly reduced the time to acquire and attack CAS targets.<ref>Doscher, Staff Sgt. Thomas J. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216114300/http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123087237 |date=16 December 2008}} ''U.S. Air Force'', 21 February 2008. Retrieved 5 March 2010.</ref> | |||
] began on 20 March 2003. Sixty OA-10/A-10 aircraft took part in early combat there.<ref>Donald and March 2004, pp. 44–45.</ref> ] issued ''Operation Iraqi Freedom: By the Numbers'', a declassified report about the aerial campaign in the conflict on 30 April 2003. During that initial invasion of Iraq, A-10s had a ] of 85 percent in the war and fired 311,597 rounds of 30 mm ammunition. A single A-10 was shot down near ] by Iraqi fire late in the campaign. The A-10 also flew 32 missions in which the aircraft dropped propaganda leaflets over Iraq.<ref> ''globalsecurity.org''. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.</ref> | |||
A-10s flew 32 percent of combat sorties in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. These sorties ranged from 27,800 to 34,500 annually between 2009 and 2012. In the first half of 2013, they flew 11,189 sorties in Afghanistan.<ref name="sortie"> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150107143239/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/September/Pages/FighttoKeepA-10WarthoginAirForceInventoryReachesEndGame.aspx |date=7 January 2015}}. Nationaldefensemagazine.org, September 2013.</ref> From the start of 2006 to October 2013, A-10s conducted 19 percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than the ] and ], but less than the 33 percent flown by F-16s.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140430035844/http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140429/NEWS05/304290069/Air-Force-lawmakers-clash-over-future-10-again |date=30 April 2014}}. Militarytimes.com, 29 April 2014.</ref> | |||
In September 2007, the A-10C with the Precision Engagement Upgrade reached initial operating capability.<ref name=USAF_factsh>{{cite web |url=http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104490/a-10-thunderbolt-ii.aspx |title= Fact Sheet: A-10 Thunderbolt II |first= |last= |website=USAF |date=22 September 2015 |accessdate=10 October 2016}}</ref> The A-10C first deployed to Iraq in 2007 with the ] of the ].<ref>Maier, Staff Sgt. Markus. ''U.S. Air Force'', 7 November 2007. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.</ref> The A-10C's digital avionics and communications systems have greatly reduced the time to acquire a close air support target and attack it.<ref>Doscher, Staff Sgt. Thomas J. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216114300/http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123087237 |date=16 December 2008 }} ''U.S. Air Force'', 21 February 2008. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.</ref> | |||
] tanker over Afghanistan, February 2011 with ] pod visible and featuring a false canopy painted in dark gray on the underside.]] | |||
A-10s flew 32 percent of combat sorties in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The sorties ranged from 27,800 to 34,500 annually between 2009 and 2012. In the first half of 2013, they flew 11,189 sorties in Afghanistan.<ref name="sortie"> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150107143239/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/September/Pages/FighttoKeepA-10WarthoginAirForceInventoryReachesEndGame.aspx |date=7 January 2015 }}. Nationaldefensemagazine.org, September 2013.</ref> From the beginning of 2006 to October 2013, A-10s conducted 19 percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than the ] and ], but less than the 33 percent flown by F-16s.<ref>. Militarytimes.com, 29 April 2014.</ref> | |||
In March 2011, six A-10s were deployed as part of ], the ] in Libya. They participated in attacks on Libyan ground forces there.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130217080840/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ivqpxZ7v8PLAE_wbXJFCsZSVUYhQ?docId=CNG.46ed509ca7a9eeedf960f4296681ac80.e31 |date=17 February 2013}} Agence France-Presse, 29 March 2011.</ref><ref>Schmitt, Eric {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919161404/https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/us/29military.html?partner=rss&emc=rss |date=19 September 2018}} ''The New York Times'', 29 March 2011, p. A13.</ref> | |||
The USAF ] revealed it would deploy to the Middle East in October 2014 with 12 A-10s. Although the deployment had been planned a year in advance in a support role, the timing coincided with the ongoing ] against ] militants.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140924234926/http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20140917/NEWS03/140919553/1006/news |date=24 September 2014}} – Journalgazette.net, 17 September 2014</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://thehill.com/policy/defense/218510-pentagon-to-deploy-12-a-10s-to-middle-east/|title=Pentagon to deploy 12 A-10s to Middle East|website=The Hill|date=22 September 2014|access-date=1 April 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150407084430/http://thehill.com/policy/defense/218510-pentagon-to-deploy-12-a-10s-to-middle-east|archive-date=7 April 2015|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://thehill.com/policy/defense/218728-house-dem-a-10-jets-crucial-to-isis-fight/|title=House Dem: A-10 jets crucial to ISIS fight|website=The Hill|date=23 September 2014|access-date=1 April 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150410234107/http://thehill.com/policy/defense/218728-house-dem-a-10-jets-crucial-to-isis-fight|archive-date=10 April 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> From mid-November, U.S. commanders began sending A-10s to hit IS targets in central and northwestern Iraq on an almost daily basis.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141218043659/http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/17/a10s-hitting-isis-targets-in-iraq.html?comp=700001075741&rank=1 |date=18 December 2014}}. Military.com, 17 December 2014</ref><ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141219193037/http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/18/a-10-attacking-islamic-state/20586137/ |date=19 December 2014}}. Militarytimes.com, 19 December 2014</ref> Over a two–month period, A-10s flew 11 percent of all USAF sorties since the start of operations in August 2014.<ref>. Defensenews.com, 19 January 2015</ref> On 15 November 2015, two days after the ], A-10s and ]s destroyed a convoy of over 100 ISIL-operated oil tanker trucks in Syria as part of an intensification of the U.S.-led intervention against ISIL called ] (named after ] during ], a failed attempt to raid German oil fields) in an attempt to stop oil smuggling as a source of funds for the group.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160120154334/http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/11/16/us-a10-attack-planes-hit-isis-oil-convoy-crimp-terror-funding.html |date=20 January 2016}}. Military.com, 16 November 2015.</ref> | |||
] tanker over Afghanistan, February 2011 with Pave Penny pod visible.]] | |||
In March 2011, six A-10s were deployed as part of ], the ] in Libya. They participated in attacks on Libyan ground forces there.<ref> ''AFP,'' 29 March 2011.</ref><ref>Schmitt, Eric ''The New York Times,'' 29 March 2011, p. A13. Retrieved: 29 March 2011.</ref> | |||
The A-10 was involved in the killing of 35 Afghan civilians from 2010 to 2015, more than any other U.S. military aircraft and also involved in killing ten U.S. troops in ] over four incidents between 2001 and 2015. These incidents have been assessed as "inconclusive and statistically insignificant" in terms of the plane's capability.<ref name=FFTop>{{cite news |url=https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2015/02/06/a-10-warplane-tops-list-for-friendly-fire-deaths/ |title=A-10 warplane tops list for friendly-fire deaths |work=] |date=5 February 2015 |first=Tom |last=Vanden Brook |access-date=12 October 2022}}</ref> | |||
The USAF ] revealed it would deploy to the Middle East on October 2014 with 12 of the unit's 21 A-10 aircraft. Although the deployment had been planned a year in advance in a support role, the timing coincided with the ongoing ] against ] militants.<ref> – Journalgazette.net, 17 September 2014</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://thehill.com/policy/defense/218510-pentagon-to-deploy-12-a-10s-to-middle-east|title=Pentagon to deploy 12 A-10s to Middle East|website=TheHill|accessdate=1 April 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://thehill.com/policy/defense/218728-house-dem-a-10-jets-crucial-to-isis-fight|title=House Dem: A-10 jets crucial to ISIS fight|website=TheHill|accessdate=1 April 2015}}</ref> From mid-November, U.S. commanders began sending A-10s to hit IS targets in central and northwestern Iraq on an almost daily basis.<ref>. Military.com, 17 December 2014</ref><ref>. Militarytimes.com, 19 December 2014</ref> In about two months time, A-10s flew 11 percent of all USAF sorties since the start of operations in August 2014.<ref>. Defensenews.com, 19 January 2015</ref> On 15 November 2015, two days after the ], A-10s and ]s destroyed a convoy of over 100 ISIL-operated oil tanker trucks in Syria. The attacks were part of an intensification of the U.S.-led intervention against ISIL called ] (named after ] during ], a failed attempt to raid German oil fields) in an attempt to cut off oil smuggling as a source of funding for the group.<ref>. Military.com, 16 November 2015.</ref> | |||
On 19 January 2018, 12 A-10s from the ] were deployed to ], Afghanistan, to provide |
On 19 January 2018, 12 A-10s from the ] were deployed to ], Afghanistan, to provide CAS, marking the first time in more than three years A-10s had been deployed to Afghanistan.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.foxnews.com/world/air-force-deploys-a-10s-to-afghanistan-to-ramp-up-taliban-fight/ |title=Air Force deploys A-10s to Afghanistan to ramp up Taliban fight |publisher=Fox News |date=23 January 2018 |access-date=23 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180123120732/http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/01/23/air-force-deploys-10s-to-afghanistan-to-ramp-up-taliban-fight.html |archive-date=23 January 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
On 29 November and 3 December 2024, USAF A-10s were used against targets in ] to defend US forces in eastern Syria as part of the ongoing ]. The USAF said the strikes destroyed vehicles, mortars, and a ] tank.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Gordon |first1=Chris |title=US Launches Airstrikes, A-10s Overfly Syria amid Civil War |url=https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us-conducts-self-defense-airstrikes-syria-amid-escalating-civil-war/ |work=Air & Space Forces Magazine |date=4 December 2024}}</ref> Concurrent with the ] on 8 December, A-10s participated alongside ] and ] in what the USAF said were "dozens" of airstrikes against over 75 ISIS targets. The strikes were intended to prevent ISIS from benefitting from the political upheaval in Syria.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/08/us-troops-stay-syria-shaheen-00193192|title=US pounds ISIS camps in Syria after Assad flees|first1=Jack|last1=Detsch|first2=Paul|last2=McLeary|date=8 December 2024|access-date=8 December 2024|work=]}}</ref> | |||
===Future=== | ===Future=== | ||
] | ] | ||
The A-10's future remains a subject of debate. In 2007, the USAF expected it to remain in service until 2028 and possibly later,<ref name= stA-10>Trimble, Steven. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160220124746/https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-air-force-may-extend-fairchild-a-10-life-beyond-2028-216249/ |date=20 February 2016}} ''Flight International'', 29 August 2007. Retrieved 5 March 2010.</ref> when it would likely be replaced by the ].<ref name= fighter_force /> Director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Project On Government Oversight ], a critic of this plan, said that replacing the A-10 with the F-35 would be a "giant leap backwards" given the A-10's performance and the F-35's high costs.<ref name= jsfa030611>Goozner, Merill. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110212130610/http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/02/10/F-35-Has-Plenty-of-Support-in-Congress.aspx |date=12 February 2011}} ''The Fiscal Times'', 11 February 2011.</ref> In 2012, the USAF considered the F-35B STOVL variant as a replacement CAS aircraft, but concluded that it could not generate sufficient sorties.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120519024751/http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-f-35b-cannot-generate-enough-sorties-to-replace-a-10-371985/ |date=19 May 2012}}. Flight Global, 16 May 2012.</ref> In August 2013, Congress and the USAF examined various proposals, including the F-35 and the ] ] filling the A-10's role. Proponents state that the A-10's armor and cannon are superior to aircraft such as the F-35 for ground attack, that guided munitions could be jammed, and that ground commanders commonly request A-10 support.<ref name="sortie" /> | |||
In the USAF's FY 2015 budget, the service considered retiring the A-10 and other single-mission aircraft, prioritizing multi-mission aircraft; cutting a whole fleet and its infrastructure was seen as the only method for major savings. The ] had expressed interest in obtaining some A-10s were the USAF to retire them,<ref name= dn15913> Defense News, 15 September 2013.</ref><ref name=dn17913> Defense News, 17 September 2013.</ref> but later stated there was "no chance" of that happening.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150226051206/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/02/25/army-not-interested-in-taking-a-10-warthogs-from-air-force/ |date=26 February 2015}} DoD Buzz, 25 January 2015</ref> The USAF stated that retirement would save $3.7 billion from 2015 to 2019. Guided munitions allow more aircraft to perform CAS duties and reduce the need for specialized aircraft; since 2001, multirole aircraft and bombers have performed 80 percent of operational CAS missions. The USAF also said that the A-10 was increasingly vulnerable to modern anti-aircraft weapons, but the Army replied that it had proved invaluable due to its versatile weapons loads, psychological impact, and limited logistics needs.<ref>{{Citation |url=http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/a-10-close-air-support-wonder-weapon-or-boneyard-bound/ |title= A-10: Close Air Support Wonder Weapon or Boneyard Bound? |work= Breaking defense |date= 19 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131222023031/http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/a-10-close-air-support-wonder-weapon-or-boneyard-bound/ |archive-date= 22 December 2013 |url-status= live}}.</ref> | |||
] | |||
The future of the platform remains the subject of debate. In 2007, the USAF expected the A-10 to remain in service until 2028 and possibly later,<ref name= stA-10>Trimble, Steven. ''Flight International'', 29 August 2007. Retrieved 5 March 2010.</ref> when it would likely be replaced by the ].<ref name= fighter_force /> However, critics have said that replacing the A-10 with the F-35 would be a "giant leap backwards" given the A-10's performance and the F-35's high costs.<ref name= jsfa030611>Goozner, Merill. ''The Fiscal Times,'' 11 February 2011. Retrieved 6 March 2011</ref> In 2012, the Air Force considered the F-35B STOVL variant as a replacement CAS aircraft, but concluded that the aircraft could not generate sufficient sorties.<ref>. Flight global, 16 May 2012.</ref> In August 2013, Congress and the Air Force examined various proposals, including the F-35 and the ] ] filling the A-10's role. Proponents state that the A-10's armor and cannon are superior to aircraft such as the F-35 for ground attack, that guided munitions other planes rely upon could be jammed, and that ground commanders frequently request A-10 support.<ref name="sortie" /> | |||
In January 2015, USAF officials told lawmakers that it would take 15 years to fully develop a new attack aircraft to replace the A-10;<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150130023417/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/28/pentagon-unveils-new-program-to-help-develop-6th-generation-fighter/ |date=30 January 2015}} – DoD Buzz, 28 January 2015</ref> that year General ], the head of Air Combat Command, stated that a follow-on weapon system for the A-10 may need development.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150213185112/http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/air-force-considering-a-10-replacement-for-future-close-air-409052/ |date=13 February 2015}} Flight global, 13 February 2015</ref> It planned for F-16s and F-15Es to initially take up CAS sorties, and later by the F-35A once sufficient numbers become operationally available over the next decade.<ref name="FG_study_A-10_retire"> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150318125258/http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/one-week-study-re-affirms-a-10-retirement-decision-409888/ |date=18 March 2015}} Flightglobal, 6 March 2015</ref> In July 2015, Boeing held initial discussions on the prospects of selling retired or stored A-10s in near-flyaway condition to international customers.<ref name="flightglobal20may15"/> However, the USAF stated that it would not permit any to be sold.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150726221211/http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-rules-out-international-a-10-sales-414975/ |date=26 July 2015}} Flightglobal.com, 24 July 2015.</ref> | |||
Plans to develop a replacement aircraft were announced by the US Air Combat Command in August 2015.<ref>Drew. James. "" '']'', August 2015. </ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150810-026.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151011021359/http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150810-026.pdf |archive-date=11 October 2015 |title=Strategy 2015: Securing the High Ground |publisher=Air Combat Command, US Air Force |access-date=1 October 2016}}</ref> In 2016, the USAF began studying future CAS aircraft to succeed the A-10 in low-intensity "permissive conflicts" like counterterrorism and regional stability operations, noting the F-35 to be too expensive to operate in day-to-day roles. Various platforms were considered, including low-end ] and ] ]s and the ] as more basic off-the-shelf options to more sophisticated clean-sheet attack aircraft or "AT-X" derivatives of the ] as wholly new attack platforms.<ref name="FG_study_A-10_retire"/><ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160310012904/https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-studying-future-attack-aircraft-options-422936/ |date=10 March 2016}} – Flightglobal.com, 9 March 2016</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-will-build-a-new-a-10-2016-7 |title=The Air Force Will Build a New A-10-like Close Air Support Aircraft |author=Osborn, Kris |work=Business Insider |access-date=12 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160713170015/http://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-will-build-a-new-a-10-2016-7 |archive-date=13 July 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
In the USAF's FY 2015 budget, the service considered retiring the A-10 and other single-mission aircraft, prioritizing multi-mission aircraft; cutting a whole fleet and its infrastructure was seen as the only method for major savings. The ] had expressed interest in obtaining some A-10s should the Air Force retire them,<ref name= dn15913> Defense News, 15 September 2013.</ref><ref name=dn17913> Defense News, 17 September 2013.</ref> but later stated there was "no chance" of that happening.<ref> DoD Buzz, 25 January 2015</ref> The U.S. Air Force stated that retirement would save $3.7 billion from 2015 to 2019. The prevalence of guided munitions allow more aircraft to perform the CAS mission and reduces the requirement for specialized aircraft; since 2001 multirole aircraft and bombers have performed 80 percent of operational CAS missions. The Air Force also said that the A-10 was more vulnerable to advanced anti-aircraft defenses, but the Army replied that the A-10 had proved invaluable because of its versatile weapons loads, psychological impact, and limited logistics needs on ground support systems.<ref>{{Citation |url = http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/a-10-close-air-support-wonder-weapon-or-boneyard-bound/ |title= A-10: Close Air Support Wonder Weapon or Boneyard Bound? |work= Breaking defense |date= 19 December 2013}}.</ref> | |||
In January 2016, the USAF was "indefinitely freezing" plans to retire the A-10. Beyond congressional opposition, its use in ] operations, deployments to Eastern Europe as a response to ], and reevaluation of F-35 numbers necessitated its retention.<ref> – ''Air Force Times'', 13 January 2016</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/air-force-a-10-isis/index.html|title=ISIS may have saved the A-10|author=Brad Lendon |date=21 January 2016|publisher=CNN|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160308134813/http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/air-force-a-10-isis/index.html|archive-date=8 March 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> In February 2016, the USAF deferred the final retirement date until 2022 after F-35s replace it on a squadron-by-squadron basis.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160203090327/https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dod-reveals-arsenal-plane-and-microdrones-in-budge-421516/ |date=3 February 2016}} – Flightglobal.com, 2 February 2016</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a22924/air-force-delay-a-10-retirement/|title=The A-10 Retirement Could Be Delayed Yet Again|access-date=15 January 2017|website=Popular Mechanics|date=19 September 2016|last1=Bennett|first1=Jay|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170116193558/http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a22924/air-force-delay-a-10-retirement/|archive-date=16 January 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> In October 2016, the USAF Materiel Command brought the depot maintenance line back to full capacity in preparation for re-winging the fleet.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a23537/air-force-fires-up-depot-line-keep-a-10s-flying-indefinitely/ |title=Air Force Fires Up the A-10 Depot Line to Keep Warthogs Flying 'Indefinitely' |last1=Bennett |first1=Jay |date=25 October 2016 |website=popularmechanics.com |publisher=Hearst Communications, Inc. |access-date=25 October 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161026080951/http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a23537/air-force-fires-up-depot-line-keep-a-10s-flying-indefinitely/ |archive-date=26 October 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> In June 2017, it was announced that the A-10 is retained indefinitely.<ref name="australian-badass-plane">{{cite news|last1=Haynes|first1=Deborah|author-link=Deborah Haynes|date=9 June 2017|title=A-10 Warthog a 'badass plane with a big gun' saved from scrapheap|work=]|url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/a10-warthog-a-badass-plane-with-a-big-gun-saved-from-scrapheap/news-story/fe24d72a11c0da2b5e467833d6c0602c|url-status=live|url-access=subscription|archive-url=https://archive.today/20170912212105/http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/a10-warthog-a-badass-plane-with-a-big-gun-saved-from-scrapheap/news-story/fe24d72a11c0da2b5e467833d6c0602c|archive-date=12 September 2017}}</ref><ref name="t&p-wrench">{{cite web |last1=Keller |first1=Jared |title=Fighter Pilot Turned Congresswoman Throws Wrench in Quiet Plans To Cut A-10 Squadrons |url=http://taskandpurpose.com/a-10-warthog-fleet-mcsally/ |website=Task & Purpose |date=8 June 2017 |quote=Air Force R&D Chief Lt. General Arnold Bunch testified that the service "is committed to maintaining a minimum of six A-10 combat squadrons flying and contributing to the fight through 2030 additional A-10 force structure is contingent on future budget levels and force structure requirements. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170921130935/http://taskandpurpose.com/a-10-warthog-fleet-mcsally/ |archive-date=21 September 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
] | |||
In January 2015, USAF officials told lawmakers that it would take 15 years to fully develop a new attack aircraft to replace the A-10;<ref> – DoD Buzz, 28 January 2015</ref> that year General ], the head of Air Combat Command, stated that a follow-on weapon system for the A-10 may need to be developed.<ref> – Flight global, 13 February 2015</ref> It planned for F-16s and F-15Es to initially take up CAS sorties, and later by the F-35A once sufficient numbers become operationally available over the next decade.<ref name="FG_study_A-10_retire"> – Flightglobal, 6 March 2015</ref> In July 2015, Boeing held initial discussions on the prospects of selling retired or stored A-10s in near-flyaway condition to international customers.<ref name="flightglobal20may15"/> However, the Air Force then said that it would not permit the aircraft to be sold.<ref>. Flightglobal.com, 24 July 2015.</ref> | |||
The 2022 ] led to some observers pushing for A-10s to be loaned to Ukraine while critics noted the diplomatic and tactical complications involved.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/03/03/transfer-three-a-10-aircraft-squadrons-to-ukraine-now/|title=Transfer three A-10 aircraft squadrons to Ukraine now|last=Pratt|first=Everett|date=3 March 2022|access-date=8 March 2022|work=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://theaviationist.com/2022/03/03/a-10-ukraine/|title=Sorry A-10 Fans, Stopping the Russian Army Convoy in Ukraine Isn't as Easy as "BRRRRRRT!"|last=Demerly|first=Tom|date=3 March 2022|access-date=8 March 2022|work=The Aviationist}}</ref> In an interview in December 2022, Ukrainian Defense Minister ] said that in late March he asked the US Secretary of Defense ] for 100 surplus A-10s, noting their value against Russian tank columns. However, Austin reportedly told Minister Reznikov that the plan was "impossible", and that the "old-fashioned and slow" A-10 would be a "squeaky target" for Russian air defenses.<ref>{{cite web |author1=Karen DeYoung |author2=Dan Lamothe |author3=Isabelle Khurshudyan |date=23 December 2022 |title=Inside the monumental, stop-start effort to arm Ukraine |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/12/23/ukraine-weapons-biden/ |access-date=6 January 2023 |website= washingtonpost.com}}</ref> | |||
Plans to develop a replacement aircraft were announced by the US ] in August 2015.<ref>Drew. James. "" '']'', August 2015. </ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150810-026.pdf |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20151011021359/http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150810-026.pdf |archivedate=11 October 2015 |title=Strategy 2015: Securing the High Ground |publisher=Air Combat Command, US Air Force |accessdate=1 October 2016}}</ref> Early the following year, the Air Force began studying future CAS aircraft to succeed the A-10 in low-intensity "permissive conflicts" like counterterrorism and regional stability operations, admitting that the F-35 would be too expensive to operate in day-to-day roles. A wide range of platforms were under consideration, including everything from low-end ] and ] ]s and the ] as more basic off-the-shelf options to more sophisticated clean-sheet attack aircraft or "AT-X" derivatives of the ] as entirely new attack platforms.<ref name="FG_study_A-10_retire"/><ref> – Flightglobal.com, 9 March 2016</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-will-build-a-new-a-10-2016-7 |title=The Air Force Will Build a New A-10-like Close Air Support Aircraft |author=Osborn, Kris |work=Business Insider |accessdate=12 July 2016}}</ref> | |||
Due to opposition from Congress, the USAF has failed to retire the A-10 for many years. However, the Air Force's plan to divest 21 A-10s gained congressional approval in the 2023 ] (NDAA).<ref name="Losey 2022"/><ref name="Losey 2023"/> The retired A-10s at ] will be replaced by an equal number of F-16s.<ref name="Losey 2023"/> The 2024 NDAA is expected to retire an additional 42 aircraft, with Air Force Chief of Staff ] expecting all A-10s to be retired by 2028 or 2029.<ref name="Novelly 2023">{{cite web |last=Novelly |first=Thomas |title=A-10s Were Saved from Retirement for Years. Congress May Not Swoop to the Rescue This Time. |website=Military.com |date=2023-06-20 |url=https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/06/20/10s-were-saved-retirement-years-congress-may-not-swoop-rescue-time.html |access-date=2023-09-08}}</ref> However, Congress would pause further cuts unless the Air Force demonstrates how other aircraft can fulfill the Close Air Support missions currently undertaken by the A-10.<ref name="Schogol 2023">{{cite web |last=Schogol |first=Jeff |title=The A-10 is retiring and the Air Force has no close air support replacement |website=Task & Purpose |date=2023-06-29 |url=https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-close-air-support-a-10-retire/ |access-date=2023-09-08}}</ref> According to Dan Grazier from ], the Air Force is ill-prepared for this transition because it requires no Close Air Support training for its F-35 pilots, despite the F-35 being advertised as the main replacement for the A-10.<ref>{{cite web |last=Grazier |first=Dan |title=Documents Show Air Force Leaders Shirking Their Close Air Support Responsibilities |website=Project On Government Oversight |date=2023-02-01 |url=https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2023/02/documents-show-air-force-leaders-shirking-their-close-air-support-responsibilities |access-date=2023-09-08}}</ref><ref name="Losey 2022">{{cite web |last1=Losey |first1=Stephen |last2=Eckstein |first2=Megan |title=A-10 retirements, more Air Force F-35s in Senate defense policy bill |website=Defense News |date=2022-06-16 |url=https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/06/16/a-10-retirements-more-air-force-f-35s-in-senate-defense-policy-bill/ |access-date=2023-09-08}}</ref><ref name="Losey 2023">{{cite web |last=Losey |first=Stephen |title=US Air Force wants to retire all A-10s by 2029 |website=Defense News |date=2023-03-09 |url=https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/03/09/us-air-force-wants-to-retire-all-a-10s-by-2029/ |access-date=2023-09-08}}</ref> | |||
In January 2016, the USAF was "indefinitely freezing" plans to retire the A-10 for at least several years. In addition to Congressional opposition, its use in anti-ISIL operations, deployments to Eastern Europe as a response to ], and reevaluation of F-35 numbers necessitated its retention.<ref> – Airforcetimes.com, 13 January 2016</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/air-force-a-10-isis/index.html|title=ISIS may have saved the A-10|author=Brad Lendon, CNN|date=21 January 2016|website=CNN|accessdate=6 March 2016}}</ref> In February 2016, the Air Force deferred the final retirement of the aircraft until 2022 after being replaced by F-35s on a squadron-by-squadron basis.<ref> – Flightglobal.com, 2 February 2016</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a22924/air-force-delay-a-10-retirement/|title=The A-10 Retirement Could Be Delayed Yet Again|access-date=January 15, 2017|website=Popular Mechanics|date=September 19, 2016|last1=Bennett|first1=Jay}}</ref> In October 2016, the Air Force Material Command brought the depot maintenance line back to full capacity in preparation for re-winging the fleet.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a23537/air-force-fires-up-depot-line-keep-a-10s-flying-indefinitely/ |title=Air Force Fires Up the A-10 Depot Line to Keep Warthogs Flying 'Indefinitely' |last1=Bennett |first1=Jay |date=25 October 2016 |website= popularmechanics.com |publisher=Hearst Communications, Inc. |accessdate=25 October 2016}}</ref> In June 2017 it was announced that the aircraft "...will now be kept in the air force’s inventory indefinitely."<ref name="australian-badass-plane">{{cite news |last1=Haynes|first1=Deborah |title=A-10 Warthog a ‘badass plane with a big gun’ saved from scrapheap |url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/a10-warthog-a-badass-plane-with-a-big-gun-saved-from-scrapheap/news-story/fe24d72a11c0da2b5e467833d6c0602c |accessdate=9 June 2017 |work=www.theaustralian.com.au |date=9 June 2017}}</ref><ref name="t&p-wrench">{{cite web |last1=Keller|first1=Jared |title=Fighter Pilot Turned Congresswoman Throws Wrench In Quiet Plans To Cut A-10 Squadrons |url=http://taskandpurpose.com/a-10-warthog-fleet-mcsally/ |website=Task & Purpose |accessdate=9 June 2017 |date=8 June 2017 |quote=Air Force R&D Chief Lt. General Arnold Bunch testified that the service “is committed to maintaining a minimum of six A-10 combat squadrons flying and contributing to the fight through 2030 additional A-10 force structure is contingent on future budget levels and force structure requirements.}}</ref> | |||
===Other uses=== | ===Other uses=== | ||
], 2005]] | ], 2005]] | ||
On 25 March 2010, an A-10 conducted the first flight of an aircraft with all engines powered by a biofuel blend |
On 25 March 2010, an A-10 conducted the first flight of an aircraft with all engines powered by a biofuel blend comprising a 1:1 blend of ] and ]-based fuel.<ref>Graham, Ian. ''af.mil'', 30 March 2010. Retrieved 18 July 2010.</ref> On 28 June 2012, the A-10 became the first aircraft to fly using a new fuel blend derived from alcohol; known as ATJ (Alcohol-to-Jet), the fuel is ]-based and can be produced using wood, paper, grass, or any cellulose-based material, which are fermented into alcohols before being hydro-processed into aviation fuel. ATJ is the third alternative fuel to be evaluated by the USAF as a replacement for the petroleum-derived JP-8 fuel. Previous types were synthetic paraffinic kerosene derived from coal and natural gas and a bio-mass fuel derived from plant oils and animal fats known as Hydroprocessed Renewable Jet.<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131005024035/http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123308144 |date=5 October 2013}} – Eglin.AF.mil, 2 July 2012</ref> | ||
In 2011, the ] granted $11 |
In 2011, the ] granted $11 million to modify an A-10 for ] for ] at the U.S. ]<ref name=sci> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121211093633/http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6057/747.summary |date=11 December 2012}} '']'', 11 November 2011.</ref> and in collaboration with scientists from the ] (SDSM&T),<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170221105602/http://www.sdsmt.edu/Academics/Departments/Atmospheric-Sciences/Research/Facilities/ |date=21 February 2017}} '']''. Retrieved 20 February 2017.</ref> replacing SDSM&T's retired ].<ref name=sd> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120101162641/http://www.ias.sdsmt.edu/institute/t28/index.htm |date=1 January 2012}} '']''. Retrieved 22 July 2012.</ref> In 2018, this plan was found to be too risky due to the costly modifications required, thus the program was canceled.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24047/the-storm-chasing-a-10-thunderhog-program-is-officially-dead-jet-to-be-returned-to-usaf|title=The Storm Chasing A-10 Thunderhog Program Is Officially Dead, Jet To Be Returned To USAF|last=Rogoway|first=Tyler|work=The Drive|access-date=2018-10-13|language=en-US}}</ref> | ||
==Variants== | ==Variants== | ||
], 29 November 2006.]] | ], 29 November 2006.]] | ||
;YA-10A: Pre-production variant. 12 were built.<ref>Donald and March 2004, pp. 9–10.</ref> | ;YA-10A: Pre-production variant. 12 were built.<ref>Donald and March 2004, pp. 9–10.</ref> | ||
;A-10A: Single-seat close air support, ground-attack production version. | ;A-10A: Single-seat close air support, ground-attack production version.{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | ||
;OA-10A: A-10As used for airborne forward air control. | ;OA-10A: A-10As used for airborne forward air control.{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | ||
;YA-10B Night/Adverse Weather (N/AW): Two-seat experimental prototype, for work at night and in bad weather. The one YA-10B prototype was converted from an A-10A.<ref>Jenkins 1998, pp. 92–93.</ref><ref>Donald and March 2004, pp. 12, 16.</ref> | ;YA-10B Night/Adverse Weather (N/AW): Two-seat experimental prototype, for work at night and in bad weather. The one YA-10B prototype was converted from an A-10A.<ref>Jenkins 1998, pp. 92–93.</ref><ref>Donald and March 2004, pp. 12, 16.</ref> | ||
;A-10C: A-10As updated under the incremental Precision Engagement (PE) program.<ref name=not_fade/> | ;A-10C: A-10As updated under the incremental Precision Engagement (PE) program.<ref name=not_fade/> | ||
;A-10PCAS: Proposed unmanned version developed by Raytheon and Aurora Flight Sciences as part of ]'s ] program.<ref> ''SpaceDaily.com'', 20 February 2012.</ref> The PCAS program eventually dropped the idea of using an optionally manned A-10.<ref>. ''Aviation Week'', 10 September 2013</ref> | ;A-10PCAS: Proposed unmanned version developed by Raytheon and Aurora Flight Sciences as part of ]'s ] program.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120223183606/http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Unmanned_version_of_A-10_on_way_999.html |date=23 February 2012}} ''SpaceDaily.com'', 20 February 2012.</ref> The PCAS program eventually dropped the idea of using an optionally manned A-10.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140423164114/http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2Fawx_09_10_2013_p0-614921.xml&p=1 |date=23 April 2014}}. ''Aviation Week'', 10 September 2013</ref> | ||
; |
;SPA-10: Proposed by the ] to replace its ] thunderstorm penetration aircraft. The A-10 would have its military engines, avionics, and oxygen system replaced by civilian versions. The engines and ] would receive protection from ], and the GAU-8 Avenger would be replaced with ballast or scientific instruments.<ref>{{cite web |title= Next-generation Storm-penetrating Aircraft |publisher= South Dakota School of Mines and Technology |url=http://www.ias.sdsmt.edu/institute/t28/Next-Generation_files/Next-Generation.pdf |access-date= 14 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131112025601/http://www.ias.sdsmt.edu/institute/t28/Next-Generation_files/Next-Generation.pdf |archive-date= 12 November 2013 |url-status= dead }}</ref> Project canceled after partial modification of a single A-10C.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Rogoway |first=Tyler |date=2018-09-24 |title=The Tragic Tale Of The A-10 Thunderhog Storm Chasing Jet That Almost Was |url=https://www.twz.com/23088/the-tragic-tale-of-the-a-10-thunderhog-storm-chasing-jet |access-date=2023-02-24 |website=The Drive |language=en}}</ref> | ||
==Operators== | ==Operators== | ||
] | ] | ||
], ], fly in formation during a refueling mission.]] | ], ], fly in formation during a refueling mission.]] | ||
], ]]] | ], ]]] | ||
] |
], 1991]] | ||
] | ] | ||
The A-10 has been flown exclusively by the ] and its Air Reserve components, the ] (AFRC) and the ] (ANG). |
The A-10 has been flown exclusively by the ] and its Air Reserve components, the ] (AFRC) and the ] (ANG). {{As of|2017}}, 282 A-10C aircraft are reported as operational, divided as follows: 141 USAF, 55 AFRC, 86 ANG.<ref>{{cite book |last=] |date=2018 |title=The Military Balance |pages=54–57 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1857439557}}</ref> | ||
;{{ |
;{{Flagu|United States}} | ||
* |
*] | ||
**] | |||
** ] (], South Korea) | |||
** ] (], |
*** ] (], Utah) (1993–present) | ||
**] | |||
** ] (], ]) | |||
** |
***] (], ]) (1980–1992, 1996–present) | ||
** ] ( |
*** ] (Moody AFB, Georgia) (1980–1991, 1992–present) | ||
** ] |
** ] | ||
** ] (], |
*** ] (], South Korea) (1982–1989, 1993–present) | ||
* ] | ** ] | ||
** ] ( |
*** ] (Nellis AFB, Nevada) (1977–present) | ||
** ] ( |
*** ] (Eglin AFB, Florida) (1977–present) | ||
** ] | |||
** ] (], ]) | |||
** ] ( |
*** ] (Nellis AFB, Nevada) (1977–1981, 2003–present) | ||
* |
**] | ||
** |
***] (], Florida) (1982–present) | ||
** ] |
** ] (Idaho ANG) | ||
** ] |
*** ] (], ]) (1996–present) | ||
** ] (Michigan ANG) | |||
** ] (], ]) | |||
*** ] (], ]) (2008–present) | |||
** ] (Maryland ANG) | |||
*** ] (Warfield ANGB, ]) (1979–present) | |||
** ] | |||
*** ] (], ]) (1979–1982, 1991–2024)<ref>{{cite web |title=Two historic A-10 squadrons inactivate at DM |date=16 September 2024 |url=https://www.dm.af.mil/Media/News/Article/3907134/two-historic-a-10-squadrons-inactivate-at-dm/ |access-date=4 October 2024}}</ref> | |||
*** ] (Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona) (1979–present) | |||
** ] (AFRC) | |||
*** ] (], ]) (1982–present) | |||
** ] (AFRC) | |||
*** ] (Moody AFB, Georgia) (1981–1992, 2009–present) | |||
** ] | |||
*** ] (Whiteman AFB, Missouri) (1979–2014, 2015–present) | |||
**] (AFRC) | |||
*** ] (Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona) (1981–1994, 2009–present) | |||
*** ] (Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona) (1980–present) | |||
===Former |
===Former squadrons=== | ||
*] (1982–1991) | |||
* United States Air Force | |||
* |
*] (1987–1991) (OA-10 unit) | ||
* |
*] (1994–1996) | ||
* |
*] (1995–2000) | ||
* |
*] (1979–1992) | ||
* |
*] (1994–2013) | ||
* |
*] (1978–1992) | ||
* |
*] (1978–1993) | ||
* |
*] (Pennsylvania ANG) (1988–2011) (OA-10 unit) | ||
* |
*] (Connecticut ANG) (1979–2008) | ||
* |
*] (Massachusetts ANG) (1979–2007) | ||
* |
*] (New York ANG) (1979–1989) | ||
* |
*] (Indiana ANG) (2010–2023) | ||
* |
*] (Michigan ANG) (1991–2009) | ||
* |
*] (Wisconsin ANG) (1981–1993) | ||
* |
*] (Arkansas ANG) (2007–2014) | ||
*] (1978–1992) | |||
* Air Force Reserve Command | |||
* |
*] (1978–1992, 1993–2007) | ||
*] (1977–1992){{efn|First unit to become operational with the A-10.{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}}}} | |||
* Air National Guard | |||
* |
*] (1979–1992) | ||
* |
*] (1979–1994) | ||
* |
*] (1980–1992) | ||
* |
*] (1982–1992, 1997–2007) | ||
** ] | |||
==Notable incidents== | |||
** ] | |||
On 8 December 1988, an A-10A of the U.S. Air Forces in Europe ] into a residential area in the city of Remscheid, West Germany. The aircraft crashed into the upper floor of an apartment complex. The pilot and six other people were killed. Fifty others were injured, many of them seriously. The cause of the accident was attributed to ], after both the mishap aircraft and its flight lead encountered difficult and adverse weather conditions for visual flying.<ref>{{cite web |date=December 8, 1988 |title=West Germany / United States Plane Crash NBC News broadcast |url=http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=560592 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120307081941/http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=560592 |archive-date=7 March 2012 |access-date= |website=]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Bittorf |first=Wilhelm |author-link=:de:Wilhelm Bittorf |date=December 25, 1988 |title=Ich hab' meinen Flügelmann verloren |trans-title=I have lost my wingman |url=https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ich-hab-meinen-fluegelmann-verloren-spiegel-autor-wilhelm-a-b202359a-0002-0001-0000-000013532060?context=issue |website=] |language=de}}</ref> The number of cancer cases in the vicinity of the accident rose disproportionately in the years after, raising the possibility that the aircraft may have been loaded with ammunition containing ], contrary to U.S. statements.<ref>{{cite journal|url= |title=Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective|first1=Rita|last1=Hindin|first2=Doug|last2=Brugge|first3=Bindu|last3=Panikkar|journal=Environmental Health|date=26 August 2005|volume=4|issue=1|pages=17|via=www.ehjournal.net|doi=10.1186/1476-069X-4-17|pmid=16124873|pmc=1242351 |doi-access=free |bibcode=2005EnvHe...4...17H }}</ref><ref name="hier und heute">{{Cite web |date=2000 |title=1988 12 08 2000 hier und heute |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGhT9M-7KOQ |website=] |via=YouTube}}</ref> | |||
** ] | |||
** ] | |||
On 2 April 1997, Captain ] was piloting a USAF A-10 when he inexplicably flew hundreds of miles off-course without radio contact, appeared to maneuver purposefully<ref name="radar reports">{{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/11/missing.a10/index.html|title=Radar reports, sightings plot path of missing A-10|publisher=]|date=11 April 1997|access-date=8 January 2016}}</ref> and did not attempt to ] before the crash.<ref name="NYT 18 August 1997">{{cite web|first=James|last=Brooke|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/18/us/jet-s-crash-in-april-still-a-mystery-to-air-force.html|title=Jet's Crash In April Still A Mystery To Air Force|work=]|date=18 August 1997|access-date=8 January 2016}}</ref> His death is regarded as a ] because no other hypothesis explains the events.<ref>{{cite web|first=Matthew|last=Wald|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/25/us/air-force-says-pilot-committed-suicide.html|title=Air Force Says Pilot Committed Suicide|work=]|date=25 October 1997|access-date=8 January 2016}}</ref> The incident caused widespread public speculation about Button's intentions and whereabouts until the crash site was found three weeks later.<ref name="People 12 May 1997">{{cite web|first=Dan|last=Jewel|url=http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20122119,00.html|title=Mountain of Mystery|work=]|date=12 May 1997|access-date=8 January 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/US/9707/07/a10.recovery/index.html|title=Searchers recover remains of A-10 pilot crashed in Colorado|publisher=]|date=7 July 1997|access-date=8 January 2016}}</ref> The aircraft carried live bombs which have not been recovered.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/US/9709/16/briefs.pm/air.force.crash/|title=Air Force ends search for bombs near April A-10 crash site|publisher=]|date=16 September 1997|access-date=8 January 2016}}</ref> | |||
On 28 March 2003, British ] Matty Hull was killed by U.S. ] ground attack aircraft as well as five others wounded in the ].<ref>{{cite news |last=Townsend |first=Mark |date=4 February 2007 |title=Why won't the US tell us how Matty died? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/feb/04/iraq.military |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130831020847/http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/feb/04/iraq.military |archive-date=31 August 2013 |newspaper=] |location=London}}</ref> | |||
==Aircraft on display== | ==Aircraft on display== | ||
Line 278: | Line 291: | ||
===Germany=== | ===Germany=== | ||
;A-10A | ;A-10A | ||
* 77-0264 – ], ] |
* 77-0264 – ], ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | ||
===South Korea=== | ===South Korea=== | ||
;A-10A | ;A-10A | ||
* 76-0515 – ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
* 76-0515 – ]<ref> ''aerialvisuals.ca'' Retrieved: 1 July 2015.</ref> | |||
===United Kingdom=== | ===United Kingdom=== | ||
;A-10A | ;A-10A | ||
* 77-0259 – American Air Museum at ]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://aam.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.1141|title=Welcome to the American Air Museum Home Page| |
* 77-0259 – American Air Museum at ]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://aam.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.1141|title=Welcome to the American Air Museum Home Page|publisher=Imperial War Museum|access-date=1 April 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110827112634/http://aam.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.1141|archive-date=27 August 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref> | ||
* 80-0219 – ]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bcwm.org.uk/|title=Bentwaters Cold War Museum|website=bcwm.org.uk| |
* 80-0219 – ]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bcwm.org.uk/|title=Bentwaters Cold War Museum|website=bcwm.org.uk|access-date=25 September 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161023011149/http://www.bcwm.org.uk/|archive-date=23 October 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
===United States=== | ===United States=== | ||
;YA-10A | ;YA-10A | ||
* 71-1370 – ] (]), ] |
* 71-1370 – ] (]), ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | ||
;YA-10B | ;YA-10B | ||
* 73-1664 – ], ], |
* 73-1664 – ], ], California<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102195232/http://afftcmuseum.org/exhibits/museum-aircraft-exhibits/ |date=2 January 2017}} ''Air Force Flight Test Center Museum.'' Retrieved: 1 July 2015.</ref> | ||
;A-10A | ;A-10A | ||
* 73-1666 – ], ], ]<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130423201755/http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5732 |date=23 April 2013 |
* 73-1666 – ], ], ]<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130423201755/http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5732 |date=23 April 2013}} ''Hill Aerospace Museum''. Retrieved 5 April 2013.</ref> | ||
] | |||
* 73-1667 – Flying Tiger Heritage Park at the former ], ]<ref> ''aerialvisuals.ca'' Retrieved: 1 July 2015.</ref> | |||
* 73-1667 – Flying Tiger Heritage Park at the former ], ] (repainted as 73-3667).<ref>Wrongly described as 73-0667 on {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170707121852/http://englandairforcebase.com/england-air-force-base-static-display.htm |date=7 July 2017}} "England AFB Heritage Park." Retrieved 17 May 2017.</ref> | |||
* 75-0263 – ], ]<ref> ''Empire State Aerosciences Museum.'' Retrieved: 5 April 2013.</ref> | |||
* 75- |
* 75-0263 – ], ]<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130529222610/http://esam.org/ |date=29 May 2013}} ''Empire State Aerosciences Museum''. Retrieved 5 April 2013.</ref> | ||
* 75- |
* 75-0270 – McChord Air Museum, ], ]<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130124183343/http://www.mcchordairmuseum.org/REV%20B%20MAM%20COLLECTION%20a-10%20%20BORDER.htm |date=24 January 2013}} ''McChord Air Museum''. Retrieved 5 April 2013.</ref> | ||
* 75- |
* 75-0293 – ], ]<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202185008/http://www.wingsofeagles.com/?page_id=532 |date=2 February 2014}} ''Wings of Eagles Discovery Center.'' Retrieved: 5 April 2013.</ref> | ||
* 75- |
* 75-0288 – ], ], Florida<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141012072145/http://afarmamentmuseum.com/outside.shtml |date=12 October 2014}} ''Air Force Armament Museum''. Retrieved 5 April 2013.</ref> | ||
* 75-0289 – Heritage Park, ], ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
* 75-0298 – ] (adjacent to ]), ]<ref> ''Pima Air & Space Museum.'' Retrieved: 1 July 2015.</ref> | |||
* 75- |
* 75-0298 – ] (adjacent to Davis-Monthan AFB), ]<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150702072505/http://www.pimaair.org/aircraft-by-name/item/fairchild-a-10a-thunderbolt-ii |date=2 July 2015}} ''Pima Air & Space Museum.'' Retrieved: 1 July 2015.</ref> | ||
], ]]] | |||
* 75-0308 – Moody Heritage Park, ], ]<ref> ''aerialvisuals.ca'' Retrieved: 1 July 2015.</ref> | |||
] | |||
* 75-0309 – ], ]. Marked as AF Ser. No. 81-0964 assigned to the 55 FS from 1994–96. The represented aircraft was credited with downing an Iraqi Mi-8 Hip helicopter on 15 Feb 1991 while assigned to the 511 TFS.<ref> ''aerialvisuals.ca'' Retrieved: 1 July 2015.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.shaw.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123401542|title=The last strike: A-10 Thunderbolt II preserved in Shaw's Air Park|website=af.mil|accessdate=29 November 2015|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208232836/http://www.shaw.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123401542|archivedate=8 December 2015|df=dmy-all}}</ref> | |||
* |
* 75-0305 – ], ], ]<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121105200703/http://www.museumofaviation.org/A10.php |date=5 November 2012}} ''Museum of Aviation''. Retrieved 5 April 2013.</ref> | ||
* 75-0308 – Moody Heritage Park, ], ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
* 76-0530 – ], ]<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130302134510/http://www.whiteman.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123264832 |date=2 March 2013 }}. ''Whiteman AFB.'' Retrieved: 21 July 2011.</ref> | |||
* 75-0309 – ], ]. Marked as AF Ser. No. 81-0964 assigned to the 55 FS from 1994 to 1996. The represented aircraft was credited with downing an Iraqi Mi-8 Hip helicopter on 15 February 1991 while assigned to the 511 TFS.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.shaw.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123401542|title=The last strike: A-10 Thunderbolt II preserved in Shaw's Air Park|website=af.mil|access-date=29 November 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208232836/http://www.shaw.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123401542|archive-date=8 December 2015}}</ref> | |||
* 76-0535 – ], ]<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130325202609/http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/permanent_exhibits/the_jet_age/ |date=25 March 2013 }} ''Cradle of Aviation.'' Retrieved: 5 April 2013.</ref> | |||
* 76- |
* 76-0516 – ] at the former ], ]<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150702140053/http://www.wingsoffreedommuseum.org/index.php/our-aircraft/17-aircraft/aircraft-fixed-wing/44-aircraft-a10-thunderbolt2 |date=2 July 2015}} ''Wings of Freedom Museum''. Retrieved 1 July 2015.</ref> | ||
* 76-0530 – ], ]<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130302134510/http://www.whiteman.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123264832 |date=2 March 2013}}. ''Whiteman AFB''. Retrieved 21 July 2011.</ref> | |||
* 77-0199 – ], ] | |||
* |
* 76-0535 – ], ]<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130325202609/http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/permanent_exhibits/the_jet_age/ |date=25 March 2013}} ''Cradle of Aviation''. Retrieved 5 April 2013.</ref> | ||
* |
* 76-0540 – ], ] (former ]), ]<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130207143808/http://www.aerospaceca.org/fairchild-republic-a-10a-thunderbolt-ii-warthog-2/ |date=7 February 2013}} ''Aerospace Museum of California''. Retrieved 5 April 2013.</ref> | ||
* 77-0199 – ], ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
* 77-0244 – ] Museum, ] ANGB, ]<ref> ''aerialvisuals.ca'' Retrieved: 1 July 2015.</ref> | |||
* 77-0205 – ] collection, ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
* 77-0252 – ], ] (nose section only)<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130325202609/http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/permanent_exhibits/the_jet_age/ |date=25 March 2013 }} ''Cradle of Aviation.'' Retrieved: 5 April 2013.</ref> | |||
* 77- |
* 77-0228 – ], ] (former Grissom AFB), ]<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130313053926/http://www.grissomairmuseum.com/gallery/attack-aircraft/plane-1 |date=13 March 2013}} ''Grissom Air Museum''. Retrieved 5 April 2013.</ref> | ||
* 77-0244 – ] Museum, ] ANGB, ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
* 78-0681 – ], ], ]<ref> ''National Museum of the USAF.'' Retrieved: 29 August 2015.</ref> | |||
* 77-0252 – ], ] (nose section only)<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130325202609/http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/permanent_exhibits/the_jet_age/ |date=25 March 2013}} ''Cradle of Aviation''. Retrieved 5 April 2013.</ref> | |||
* 78-0687 – Don F. Pratt Memorial Museum, ], ]<ref> ''aerialvisuals.ca'' Retrieved: 1 July 2015.</ref> | |||
* 78-0681 – ], ], ]<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150926054855/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/Article/195855/fairchild-republic-a-10a-thunderbolt-ii.aspx |date=26 September 2015}} ''National Museum of the USAF.'' Retrieved: 29 August 2015.</ref> | |||
* 79-0097 – Warbird Park, former ], ]<ref> ''aerialvisuals.ca'' Retrieved: 1 July 2015.</ref> | |||
* 78-0687 – Don F. Pratt Memorial Museum, ], ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
* 79-0100 – ], ]<ref> ''aerialvisuals.ca'' Retrieved: 1 July 2015.</ref> | |||
* 79-0097 – Warbird Park, former ], ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
* 79-0103 – ], ]<ref> ''aerialvisuals.ca'' Retrieved: 1 July 2015.</ref> | |||
* 79-0100 – ], ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
* 79-0116 – Warrior Park, ], ]<ref> ''aerialvisuals.ca'' Retrieved: 1 July 2015.</ref> | |||
* 79- |
* 79-0103 – ], ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | ||
* 79-0116 – Warrior Park, Davis-Monthan AFB, ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
* 80-0247 – ], Republic Airport, ]<ref> ''American Airpower Museum.'' Retrieved: 1 July 2015.</ref> | |||
* |
* 79-0173 – ], ]<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140201213713/http://www.neam.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&layout=edit&id=896 |date=1 February 2014}} ''New England Air Museum''. Retrieved 5 April 2013.</ref> | ||
* 79-0195 – Russell Military Museum ]<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.russellmilitarymuseum.com/exhibits.html|title=RMM Exhibits|website=www.russellmilitarymuseum.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.airhistory.net/photo/42903/79-0195/AF79-195|title=Aircraft Photo of 79–0195 / AF79-195 | Fairchild A-10A Thunderbolt II | USA – Air Force | AirHistory.net #42903|website=AirHistory.net}}</ref> | |||
* 80-0168 – ], ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2024}} | |||
* 80-0247 – ], Republic Airport, ]<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131004215539/http://www.americanairpowermuseum.org/ |date=4 October 2013}} ''American Airpower Museum''. Retrieved 1 July 2015.</ref> | |||
* 80-0708 – ], ], ]<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150702063944/http://www.selfridgeairmuseum.org/A-10A.htm |date=2 July 2015}} ''Selfridge Military Air Museum''. Retrieved 1 July 2015.</ref> | |||
* 81-0987 – ], ]<ref>{{Cite web |title=The AMARC Experience – Fairchild Republic A-10A Thunderbolt II 81-0987 |url=http://www.amarcexperience.com/ui/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121076&catid=17&Itemid=517 |access-date=2023-04-24 |website=www.amarcexperience.com}}</ref> | |||
==Specifications (A- |
==Specifications (A-10C)== | ||
{{stack| | {{stack| | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] cannon]] | ] cannon]] | ||
] pod on pylon]] | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Aircraft specs | |||
|prime units? = kts | |||
{{Aircraft specifications | |||
|plane or copter?=plane | |||
|jet or prop?=jet | |||
|ref=The Great Book of Modern Warplanes,<ref>Spick 2000, pp. 21, 44–48.</ref> ''Fairchild-Republic A/OA-10'',<ref name=Jenkins_p54>Jenkins 1998, p. 54.</ref> ''USAF''<ref name=USAF_factsh/> | |ref=The Great Book of Modern Warplanes,<ref>Spick 2000, pp. 21, 44–48.</ref> ''Fairchild-Republic A/OA-10'',<ref name=Jenkins_p54>Jenkins 1998, p. 54.</ref> ''USAF''<ref name=USAF_factsh/> | ||
<!-- General characteristics --> | |||
|crew=1 | |crew=1 | ||
|span |
|span ft=57 | ||
|span |
|span in=6 | ||
|span m=17.53 | |||
|length main=53 ft 4 in | |||
|length |
|length ft=53 | ||
|length in=4 | |||
|height main=14 ft 8 in | |||
|length m=16.26 | |||
|height alt=4.47 m | |||
|height ft=14 | |||
|area main=506 ft² | |||
|height in=8 | |||
|area alt=47.0 m² | |||
|height m=4.47 | |||
|airfoil=] root, NACA 6713 tip | |||
|wing area sqft=506 | |||
|empty weight main=24,959 lb | |||
|wing area sqm=47.0 | |||
|empty weight alt=11,321 kg | |||
|airfoil=] 6716 root, NACA 6713 tip | |||
|loaded weight main=30,384 lb | |||
| |
|empty weight lb=24,959 | ||
|empty weight kg=11,321 | |||
|loaded weight more=<br />'''] mission:''' 47,094 lb (21,361 kg)<br /> '''Anti-armor mission:''' 42,071 lb (19,083 kg) | |||
| |
|gross weight lb=30,384 | ||
| |
|gross weight kg=13,782 | ||
|gross weight note=<br /> | |||
|more general= '''Internal fuel capacity:''' 11,000 lb (4,990 kg) | |||
**'''] mission:''' {{convert|47,094|lb|abbr=on}} | |||
<!-- Powerplant --> | |||
**'''Anti-armor mission:''' {{convert|42,071|lb|abbr=on}} | |||
|engine (jet)=] | |||
|max takeoff weight lb=46,000 | |||
|type of jet=]s | |||
|max takeoff weight note=<ref>{{Cite book |author=Lockheed Martin |author-link=Lockheed Martin |title=Flight manual TO 1A-10C-1 |author2=HEBCO, Inc. |date=2012-04-02 |publisher=] |pages=5–12 |quote=The maximum gross weight for towing, taxiing, takeoff, and landing is 46,000 pounds.}}</ref> | |||
|number of jets=2 | |||
|max takeoff weight kg=20,865 | |||
|thrust main=9,065 lbf | |||
|more general= | |||
|thrust alt=40.32 kN | |||
|fuel capacity= 11,000 lb (4,990 kg) internal | |||
<!-- Performance --> | |||
|eng1 name=]-GE-100A | |||
|max speed main=381 knots | |||
|eng1 type=]s | |||
|max speed alt=439 mph, 706 km/h | |||
|eng1 number=2 | |||
|max speed more=at sea level, clean<ref name=Jenkins_p54/> | |||
|eng1 lbf=9,065 | |||
|never exceed speed main=450 knots | |||
|eng1 kn=40.32 | |||
|never exceed speed alt=518 mph,<ref name=Jenkins_p54/> 833 km/h | |||
|max speed kts=381 | |||
|never exceed speed more=at 5,000 ft (1,500 m) with 18 ]<ref>Flight manual TO 1A-10A-1 (20 February 2003, Change 8), pp. 5–24.</ref> | |||
| |
|max speed mph=439 | ||
|max speed kmh=706 | |||
|cruise speed alt=340 mph, 560 km/h | |||
|max speed note=at sea level, clean<ref name=Jenkins_p54/> | |||
|stall speed main=120 knots | |||
|never exceed speed kts=450 | |||
|stall speed alt=138 mph, 220 km/h | |||
|never exceed speed mph=518 | |||
|stall speed more=<ref>Aalbers, Willem "Palerider". ''Simhq.com''. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.</ref> | |||
|never exceed speed note=at 5,000 ft (1,500 m) with 18 ]s<ref>Flight manual TO 1A-10A-1 (20 February 2003, Change 8), pp. 5–24.</ref><ref name=Jenkins_p54/> | |||
|climb rate main=6,000 ft/min | |||
|never exceed speed kmh=833 | |||
|climb rate alt=30 m/s | |||
|cruise speed kts=300 | |||
|ceiling main=45,000 ft | |||
|cruise speed mph=340 | |||
|ceiling alt=13,700 m | |||
|cruise speed kmh=560 | |||
|combat radius main= | |||
|stall speed kts=120 | |||
** '''] mission:''' 250 nmi | |||
|stall speed mph=138 | |||
|combat radius alt=288 mi, 460 km) at 1.88 hour ] at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat | |||
|stall speed kmh=220 | |||
** '''Anti-armor mission:''' 252 nmi (290 mi, 467 km), 40 nmi (45 mi, 75 km) | |||
|stall speed note=at {{convert|30,000|lb|abbr=on}}<ref>{{citation |last=Aalbers |first=Willem "Palerider" |url=http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_052a.html |title=History of the Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, Part Two |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080704152926/http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_052a.html |archive-date=4 July 2008 |work=Simhq.com |date=11 May 2001 |access-date=5 March 2010}}</ref> | |||
|combat radius more=sea-level penetration and exit, 30 min combat | |||
|climb rate ftmin=6,000 | |||
|ferry range main=2,240 nmi | |||
|climb rate ms=30 | |||
|ferry range alt=2,580 mi, 4,150 km | |||
|ceiling ft=45,000 | |||
|ferry range more=with 50 knot (55 mph, 90 km/h) headwinds, 20 minutes reserve | |||
|ceiling m=13,700 | |||
|loading main=99 lb/ft² | |||
|more performance= | |||
|loading alt=482 kg/m² | |||
|combat range km=463<ref>{{Cite web |title=Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II Ground Attack Aircraft {{!}} Military-Today.com |url=http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/a10_thunderbolt_2.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070517150453/http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/a10_thunderbolt_2.htm |url-status=usurped |archive-date=17 May 2007 |access-date=2023-04-22 |website=www.military-today.com}}</ref> | |||
|thrust/weight=0.36 | |||
|combat range note=<br /> | |||
<!-- Armament --> | |||
**'''] mission:''' {{convert|250|nmi|mi km|abbr=on}} representing a 1 hour 53 minute of ] time at {{convert|5,000|ft|m|abbr=on}}, and 10 minutes of combat | |||
|guns=1× ] ] ] with 1,174 rounds (capacity 1,350 rd) | |||
**'''Anti-armor mission:''' {{convert|252|nmi|mi km|abbr=on}} with sea-level penetration and exit, 30 min combat | |||
|ferry range nmi=2,240 | |||
|ferry range mi=2,580 | |||
|ferry range km= 4,150 | |||
|ferry range note=with {{convert|50|kn|mph m/s}} headwinds, 20 minutes reserve | |||
|wing loading lb/sqft=99 | |||
|wing loading kg/m2=482 | |||
|thrust/weight=0.47 | |||
|guns=1× ] ] ] with 1,174 rounds | |||
|hardpoints=11 (8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations) | |hardpoints=11 (8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations) | ||
|hardpoint capacity= 16,000 lb (7,260 kg) | |hardpoint capacity= 16,000 lb (7,260 kg) | ||
|hardpoint rockets= | |hardpoint rockets=<br /> | ||
*** 4× LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19×/7× ] mm/]<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/us-air-force-deploys-apkws-laser-guided-rockets-on-f-16s |title=U.S. Air Force Deploys APKWS Laser-Guided Rockets on F-16s |date=8 June 2016 | |
*** 4× LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19×/7× ] mm/]<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/us-air-force-deploys-apkws-laser-guided-rockets-on-f-16s |title=U.S. Air Force Deploys APKWS Laser-Guided Rockets on F-16s |date=8 June 2016 |department=baesystems.com |publisher=BAE |access-date=8 June 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160611120557/http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/us-air-force-deploys-apkws-laser-guided-rockets-on-f-16s |archive-date=11 June 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> rockets, respectively) | ||
*** |
*** 6× LAU-131 rocket pods (each with 7× Hydra 70 rockets)<ref>Flight manual TO 1A-10A-1 (15 March 1988, Change 8), pp. 5–28, 5–50.</ref><ref>Flight manual TO 1A-10C-1 (2 April 2012, Change 10), pp. 5–33, 5–49.</ref> | ||
|hardpoint missiles= | |hardpoint missiles=<br /> | ||
*** 2× ] air-to-air missiles for self-defense | *** 2× ] air-to-air missiles for self-defense | ||
*** 6× ] air-to- |
*** 6× ] air-to-ground missiles | ||
|hardpoint bombs= | |hardpoint bombs=<br /> | ||
*** ] of unguided ] ''or'' | *** ] series of unguided ] ''or'' | ||
*** ] ]s ''or'' | *** ] ]s ''or'' | ||
*** BLU-1, BLU-27/B, CBU-20 Rockeye II, ]<ref>Flight Manual TO 1A-10A-1 (20 February 2003, Change 8), pp. 5–30.</ref> and CBU-52/58/71/87/89/97 ]s ''or'' | *** BLU-1, BLU-27/B, CBU-20 Rockeye II, ]<ref>Flight Manual TO 1A-10A-1 (20 February 2003, Change 8), pp. 5–30.</ref> and CBU-52/58/71/87/89/97 ]s ''or'' | ||
*** ] series of ]s ''or'' | *** ] series of ]s ''or'' | ||
*** ] (JDAM) (A-10C)<ref name= |
*** ] (JDAM) (A-10C)<ref name=USAF_factsh/> ''or'' | ||
*** ] |
*** ] | ||
|hardpoint other= | |hardpoint other=<br /> | ||
*** SUU-42A/A ] and ] dispenser pod ''or'' | *** SUU-42A/A ] and ] dispenser pod ''or'' | ||
*** 2× {{convert|600|USgal|L|abbr=on}} ''Sargent Fletcher'' ]s for increased range/loiter time. | |||
*** AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 ] pods ''or'' | |||
*** ] or ]s (A-10C) ''or'' | |||
*** 2× {{convert|600|USgal|L|abbr=on}} ''Sargent Fletcher'' ]s for increased range/loitering time. | |||
<!-- Avionics --> | |||
|avionics= | |avionics= | ||
*'''Targeting pods:''' | |||
* AN/AAS-35(V) ] laser tracker pod<ref> ''Jane's Electro-Optic Systems'', 5 January 2009. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.</ref> (mounted beneath right side of cockpit) for use with Paveway LGBs (currently the Pave Penny is no longer in use) | |||
**AN/AAQ-28(V)4 ] or AN/AAQ-33(V)1/2 ] | |||
* ] (HUD) for improved technical flying and air-to-ground support.<ref name=Ugly> ''Liveleak.com'', 24 January 2009. Retrieved: 5 March 2010.</ref> | |||
*'''Countermeasures:''' | |||
**AN/ALQ-131<ref>{{cite web |website=fas.org |url=https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alq-131.htm |author=John Pike |title=AN/ALQ-131 Self Protection Jammer Pod |access-date=21 April 2023}}</ref> or AN/ALQ-184(V)-11/12<ref>{{cite web |website=kupdf.net |url=https://kupdf.net/download/t-o-1a-10c-1-flight-manual-usaf-series-a-10c-2012_58f4d870dc0d60a105da981b_pdf0 |title=T.O. 1A-10C-1 Flight Manual USAF Series a 10C 2012 |access-date=2 May 2023 |year=2012 |author= Lockheed Martin |publisher=HEBCO, INC. |page=Change 9 5–44.3}}</ref> ] pods | |||
}} | }} | ||
==Notable appearances in media== | ==Notable appearances in media== | ||
<!-- All content about the aircraft in fictional and gaming use has been moved to ] --> | |||
{{main|Aircraft in fiction#A-10 Thunderbolt II}} | {{main|Aircraft in fiction#A-10 Thunderbolt II}} | ||
==Nicknames== | ==Nicknames== | ||
The A-10 Thunderbolt II received its popular nickname "]" from the pilots and crews of the USAF attack squadrons who flew and maintained it. The A-10 is the last of Republic's jet attack aircraft to serve with the USAF. The Republic ] was nicknamed the "Hog", ] nicknamed "Superhog", and the Republic ] tagged "Ultra Hog".<ref name=Jenkins_p4>Jenkins 1998, pp. 4, backcover.</ref> The saying ''Go Ugly Early'' has been associated with the aircraft |
The A-10 Thunderbolt II received its popular nickname "]" from the pilots and crews of the USAF attack squadrons who flew and maintained it. The A-10 is the last of Republic's jet attack aircraft to serve with the USAF. The Republic ] was nicknamed the "Hog", ] nicknamed "Superhog", and the Republic ] tagged "Ultra Hog".<ref name=Jenkins_p4>Jenkins 1998, pp. 4, backcover.</ref> The saying ''Go Ugly Early'' has been associated with the aircraft for calling in the A-10 early to support troops in ground combat.<ref name="Jenkins_p64-5">Jenkins 1998, pp. 64–65.</ref> | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
{{Portal|United States |
{{Portal|Aviation|United States}} | ||
{{Aircontent | {{Aircontent | ||
|see also= | |see also= | ||
* ]{{snd}}USAF pilot who crashed mysteriously in an A-10 | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
||related= | ||related= | ||
|similar aircraft= |
|similar aircraft= | ||
* |
* {{lwc|Ilyushin Il-102}} | ||
* |
* {{lwc|Northrop YA-9}} | ||
* |
* {{lwc|Sukhoi Su-25}} | ||
* {{lwc|Nanchang Q-5}} | |||
|lists=<!-- lists of similar aircraft (aircraft from the same nation, with the same mission profile, etc.) --> | |||
|lists= | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
}} | }} | ||
Line 445: | Line 465: | ||
===Notes=== | ===Notes=== | ||
{{notelist}} | |||
{{Reflist|group=Note}} | {{Reflist|group=Note}} | ||
{{Clear}} | {{Clear}} | ||
===Citations=== | ===Citations=== | ||
{{Reflist |
{{Reflist}} | ||
===Bibliography=== | ===Bibliography=== | ||
{{Refbegin|50em}} | {{Refbegin|50em}} | ||
* |
* {{cite book|last=Bell|first=Dana|title=''A-10 Warthog in Detail & Scale''|publisher=TAB Books |location=Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania |year=1986 |isbn=0-8168-5030-5 |url=https://archive.org/details/a10warthogindeta0000bell/}}. | ||
* Burton, James G. ''The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard'', Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1993. {{ISBN|1-55750-081-9}}. | |||
* Campbell, Douglas N. ''The Warthog and the Close Air Support Debate''. Annapolis, Maryland: ], 2003. {{ISBN|1-55750-232-3}} | * Campbell, Douglas N. ''The Warthog and the Close Air Support Debate''. Annapolis, Maryland: ], 2003. {{ISBN|1-55750-232-3}} | ||
* |
* {{Cite book |last1= Coram |first1= Robert |title= Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War |location= Los Angeles |publisher= Back Bay Books |date= 2004 |orig-date=2002|isbn= 0-316-79688-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780316881463}} | ||
* Donald, David and Daniel J. March, eds. "A-10 Fighting Warthog". ''Modern Battlefield Warplanes''. Norwalk, Connecticut: AIRtime, 2004. {{ISBN|1-880588-76-5}}. | * Donald, David and Daniel J. March, eds. "A-10 Fighting Warthog". ''Modern Battlefield Warplanes''. Norwalk, Connecticut: AIRtime, 2004. {{ISBN|1-880588-76-5}}. | ||
* Drendel, Lou. ''A-10 Warthog in Action''. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1981. {{ISBN|0-89747-122-9}}. | * Drendel, Lou. ''A-10 Warthog in Action''. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1981. {{ISBN|0-89747-122-9}}. | ||
* |
* "The Fairchild A-10A: More Thunder for the USAF", '']'', Vol. 6, No. 5, May 1974, pp. 219–25, 263. Bromley, UK: Pilot Press. {{ISSN|0306-5634}}. | ||
* |
* "The Fairchild Can-Opener: Shturmovik of the Eighties?", '']'', Vol. 16, No. 6, June 1979, pp. 267–72, 287. Bromley, UK: Pilot Press. {{ISSN|0306-5634}}. | ||
* Fitzsimmons, Bernard (ed.) ''A-10 Thunderbolt II'' (Modern Fighting Aircraft Series). New York: Arco Publishing, Inc., 1984. {{ISBN|0-668-06070-0}}. | * Fitzsimmons, Bernard (ed.). ''A-10 Thunderbolt II'' (Modern Fighting Aircraft Series). New York: Arco Publishing, Inc., 1984. {{ISBN|0-668-06070-0}}. | ||
* Jenkins, Dennis R. ''Fairchild-Republic A/OA-10 Warthog''. North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press, 1998. {{ISBN|1-58007-013-2}}. | * Jenkins, Dennis R. ''Fairchild-Republic A/OA-10 Warthog''. North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press, 1998. {{ISBN|1-58007-013-2}}. | ||
* {{cite |
* {{cite tech report |first1=David |last1=Jacques |first2=Dennis |last2=Strouble |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a530838.pdf |title=A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) Systems Engineering Case Study |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150910033808/http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a530838.pdf |archive-date=10 September 2015 |year=2010 |url-status=live |publisher=Air Force Institute of Technology }} | ||
* {{cite |
* {{cite encyclopedia |editor-first1=Ali |editor-last1= Kamrani |editor-first2= Maryam |editor-last2= Azimi |encyclopedia= Systems Engineering Tools and Methods |title=System Engineering Case Studies |first1=Charles |last1=Garland |first2=John |last2=Colombi |year= 2010 |publisher=CRC Press |isbn= 9781439809273 }} | ||
* {{cite book |last=Knaack |first= Marcelle |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0jKTrdTa9eIC&pg=PA151+|title=Encyclopedia of US Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems: Volume 1 Post-World War II Fighters 1945–1973 |publisher=Office of Air Force History |date=1978 |isbn=978-0-912799-59-9 |
* {{cite book |last=Knaack |first= Marcelle |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0jKTrdTa9eIC&pg=PA151+|title=Encyclopedia of US Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems: Volume 1 Post-World War II Fighters 1945–1973 |publisher=Office of Air Force History |date=1978 |isbn=978-0-912799-59-9 }} | ||
* Melampy, Jake. ''Modern Hog Guide: The A-10 Exposed''. Trenton, Ohio: Reid Air Publications, 2007. {{ISBN|0-9795064-2-5}}. | * Melampy, Jake. ''Modern Hog Guide: The A-10 Exposed''. Trenton, Ohio: Reid Air Publications, 2007. {{ISBN|0-9795064-2-5}}. | ||
* Neubeck, Ken. ''A-10 Warthog, Mini in-action''. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1995. {{ISBN|0-89747-335-3}}. | * Neubeck, Ken. ''A-10 Warthog, Mini in-action''. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1995. {{ISBN|0-89747-335-3}}. | ||
Line 474: | Line 494: | ||
* Stephens, Rick. "Fairchild A-10: Fighting Warthog", ''World Air Power Journal'', Volume 16, Spring 1994, pp. 32–83, Aerospace Publishing, London. {{ISBN|1-874023-36-0}}. {{ISSN|0959-7050}}. | * Stephens, Rick. "Fairchild A-10: Fighting Warthog", ''World Air Power Journal'', Volume 16, Spring 1994, pp. 32–83, Aerospace Publishing, London. {{ISBN|1-874023-36-0}}. {{ISSN|0959-7050}}. | ||
* Sweetman, Bill. ''The Great Book of Modern Warplanes'', New York: Portland House, 1987. {{ISBN|0-517-63367-1}}. | * Sweetman, Bill. ''The Great Book of Modern Warplanes'', New York: Portland House, 1987. {{ISBN|0-517-63367-1}}. | ||
* ] ''Jane's All |
* ] ''Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1982–83''. London: Jane's Yearbooks, 1982. {{ISBN|0-7106-0748-2}}. | ||
* Wilson |
* {{citation |last=Wilson |first=Michael |url=http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1976/1976%20-%200473.html |title=Fairchild A-10 |work=] |date= 20 March 1976 |pages=707–17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150428043736/http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1976/1976%20-%200473.html |archive-date=28 April 2015}} | ||
* Winchester, Jim, ed. "Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II", ''Military Aircraft of the Cold War'' (The Aviation Factfile), Rochester, Kent, UK: The Grange plc., 2006. {{ISBN|1-84013-929-3}}. | * Winchester, Jim, ed. "Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II", ''Military Aircraft of the Cold War'' (The Aviation Factfile), Rochester, Kent, UK: The Grange plc., 2006. {{ISBN|1-84013-929-3}}. | ||
{{Refend}} | {{Refend}} | ||
Line 481: | Line 501: | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
{{Commons|A-10 Thunderbolt II}} | {{Commons|A-10 Thunderbolt II}} | ||
* , , and pages on ] site | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* , , and pages on ] site | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
{{Fairchild aircraft}} | {{Fairchild aircraft}} | ||
Line 492: | Line 509: | ||
{{Authority control}} | {{Authority control}} | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 12:19, 24 December 2024
American close air support attack aircraft "A-10" redirects here. For other uses, see A10.
A-10 / OA-10 Thunderbolt II | |
---|---|
An A-10 of the 74th Fighter Squadron after taking on fuel over Afghanistan in 2011 | |
General information | |
Type | Close air support attack aircraft |
National origin | United States |
Manufacturer | Fairchild Republic |
Status | In service |
Primary user | United States Air Force |
Number built | 716 |
History | |
Manufactured | 1972–1984 |
Introduction date | October 1977 |
First flight | 10 May 1972; 52 years ago (1972-05-10) |
The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is a single-seat, twin-turbofan, straight-wing, subsonic attack aircraft developed by Fairchild Republic for the United States Air Force (USAF). In service since 1977, it is named after the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, but is commonly referred to as the "Warthog" or simply "Hog". The A-10 was designed to provide close air support (CAS) to ground troops by attacking enemy armored vehicles, tanks, and other ground forces; it is the only production-built aircraft designed solely for CAS to have served with the U.S. Air Force. Its secondary mission is to direct other aircraft in attacks on ground targets, a role called forward air controller (FAC)-airborne; aircraft used primarily in this role are designated OA-10.
The A-10 was intended to improve on the performance and firepower of the Douglas A-1 Skyraider. The Thunderbolt II's airframe was designed around the high-power 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger rotary autocannon. The airframe was designed for durability, with measures such as 1,200 pounds (540 kg) of titanium armor to protect the cockpit and aircraft systems, enabling it to absorb damage and continue flying. Its ability to take off and land from relatively short and/or unpaved runways permits operation from airstrips close to the front lines, and its simple design enables maintenance with minimal facilities.
It served in the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm), the American-led intervention against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, where the aircraft distinguished itself. The A-10 also participated in other conflicts such as the Balkans, Afghanistan, the Iraq War, and against the Islamic State in the Middle East.
The A-10A single-seat variant was the only version produced, though one pre-production airframe was modified into the YA-10B twin-seat prototype to test an all-weather night-capable version. In 2005, a program was started to upgrade the remaining A-10A aircraft to the A-10C configuration, with modern avionics for use with precision weaponry. The U.S. Air Force had stated the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II would replace the A-10 as it entered service, but this remains highly contentious within the USAF and in political circles. The USAF gained congressional permission to start retiring A-10s in 2023, but further retirements were paused until the USAF can demonstrate that the A-10's close-air-support capabilities can be replaced.
Development
Background
The development of conventionally armed attack aircraft in the United States stagnated after World War II, as design efforts for tactical aircraft focused on the delivery of nuclear weapons using high-speed designs such as the McDonnell F-101 Voodoo and Republic F-105 Thunderchief. As the U.S. military entered the Vietnam War, its main ground-attack aircraft was the Korean War-era Douglas A-1 Skyraider. A capable aircraft for its era, with a relatively large payload and long loiter time, the propeller-driven design had become relatively slow, vulnerable, particularily to ground fire, and incapable of providing adequate firepower. The U.S. Air Force and Navy lost some 266 A-1s in action in Vietnam, largely from small-arms fire.
The lack of modern conventional attack capability prompted calls for a specialized attack aircraft. On 7 June 1961, the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered the USAF to develop two tactical aircraft, one for the long-range strike and interdictor role, and the other focusing on the fighter-bomber mission. The former was the Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) intended to be a common design for the USAF and the US Navy, which emerged as the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark, while the second was filled by a version of the U.S. Navy's McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. While the Phantom went on to be one of the most successful fighter designs of the 1960s and proved to be a capable fighter-bomber, its short loiter time was a major problem, as was its poor low-speed performance, albeit to a lesser extent. It was also expensive to buy and operate, with a flyaway cost of $2 million in FY1965 ($19.3 million today), and operational costs over $900 per hour ($9,000 per hour today).
After a broad review of its tactical force structure, the USAF decided to adopt a low-cost aircraft to supplement the F-4 and F-111. It first focused on the Northrop F-5, which had air-to-air capability. A 1965 cost-effectiveness study shifted the focus from the F-5 to the less expensive A-7D variant of the LTV A-7 Corsair II, and a contract was awarded. However, this aircraft doubled in cost with demands for an upgraded engine and new avionics.
Army helicopter competition
See also: Key West Agreement and Pace-Finletter MOU 1952During this period, the United States Army had been introducing the Bell UH-1 Iroquois into service. First used in its intended role as a transport, it was soon modified in the field to carry more machine guns in what became known as the helicopter gunship role. This proved effective against the lightly armed enemy, and new gun and rocket pods were added. Soon the Bell AH-1 Cobra was introduced. This was an attack helicopter armed with long-range BGM-71 TOW missiles able to destroy tanks from outside the range of defensive fire. The helicopter was effective and prompted the U.S. military to change its defensive strategy in Europe into blunting any Warsaw Pact advance with anti-tank helicopters instead of the tactical nuclear weapons that had been the basis for NATO's battle plans since the 1950s.
The Cobra was a quickly-made helicopter based on the UH-1 Iroquois and was introduced in the mid-1960s as an interim design until the U.S. Army's "Advanced Aerial Fire Support System" helicopter could be delivered. The Army selected the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne, a more capable attack aircraft with greater speed for initial production. The development of the anti-tank helicopter concerned the USAF; a 1966 USAF study of existing close air support (CAS) capabilities revealed gaps in the escort and fire suppression roles that the Cheyenne could fill. The study concluded that the service should acquire a simple, inexpensive, dedicated CAS aircraft at least as capable as the A-1, and that it should develop doctrine, tactics, and procedures for such aircraft to accomplish the missions for which the attack helicopters were provided.
A-X program
On 8 September 1966, General John P. McConnell, Chief of Staff of the USAF, ordered that a specialized CAS aircraft be designed, developed, and obtained. On 22 December, a Requirements Action Directive was issued for the A-X CAS airplane, and the Attack Experimental (A-X) program office was formed. On 6 March 1967, the USAF released a request for information to 21 defense contractors for the A-X.
In May 1970, the USAF issued a modified, more detailed request for proposals for the aircraft. The threat of Soviet armored forces and all-weather attack operations had become more serious. The requirements now included that the aircraft would be designed specifically for the 30 mm rotary cannon. The RFP also specified a maximum speed of 460 mph (400 kn; 740 km/h), takeoff distance of 4,000 feet (1,200 m), external load of 16,000 pounds (7,300 kg), 285-mile (460 km) mission radius, and a unit cost of US$1.4 million ($11 million today). The A-X would be the first USAF aircraft designed exclusively for CAS. During this time, a separate RFP was released for A-X's 30 mm cannon with requirements for a high rate of fire (4,000 rounds per minute) and a high muzzle velocity. Six companies submitted aircraft proposals, with Northrop and Fairchild Republic in Germantown, Maryland, selected to build prototypes: the YA-9A and YA-10A, respectively. General Electric and Philco-Ford were selected to build and test GAU-8 cannon prototypes.
Two YA-10 prototypes were built in the Republic factory in Farmingdale, New York, and first flown on 10 May 1972 by pilot Howard "Sam" Nelson. Production A-10s were built by Fairchild in Hagerstown, Maryland. After trials and a fly-off against the YA-9, on 18 January 1973, the USAF announced the YA-10's selection for production. General Electric was selected to build the GAU-8 cannon in June 1973. The YA-10 had an additional fly-off in 1974 against the Ling-Temco-Vought A-7D Corsair II, the principal USAF attack aircraft at the time, to prove the need for a new attack aircraft. The first production A-10 flew in October 1975, and deliveries commenced in March 1976.
One experimental two-seat A-10 Night Adverse Weather (N/AW) version was built by Fairchild by converting the first Demonstration Testing and Evaluation (DT&E) A-10A for consideration by the USAF. It included a second seat for a weapon systems officer responsible for electronic countermeasures (ECM), navigation and target acquisition. The N/AW version did not interest the USAF or export customers. The two-seat trainer version was ordered by the USAF in 1981, but funding was canceled by U.S. Congress and was not produced. The only two-seat A-10 resides at Edwards Air Force Base's Flight Test Center Museum.
Production
On 10 February 1976, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill Clements authorized full-rate production while the first A-10 was accepted by the USAF Tactical Air Command on 30 March 1976. Production continued and reached a peak rate of 13 aircraft per month. By 1984, 715 airplanes, including two prototypes and six development aircraft, had been delivered.
When full-rate production was first authorized, the A-10's planned service life was 6,000 hours. A small design reinforcement was quickly adopted when initial fatigue testing failed at 80% of testing; the A-10 passed fatigue tests with the fix. 8,000-flight-hour service lives were becoming common at the time, so fatigue testing of the A-10 continued with a new 8,000-hour target. This new target quickly discovered serious cracks at Wing Station 23 (WS23) where the outboard portions of the wings are joined to the fuselage. The first production change was to address this problem by adding cold working at WS23. Soon after, the USAF found that the real-world A-10 fleet fatigue was harsher than estimated, forcing a change to fatigue testing and introduced "spectrum 3" equivalent flight-hour testing.
Spectrum 3 fatigue testing started in 1979. This round of testing quickly determined that more drastic reinforcement would be needed. The second change in production, starting with aircraft No. 442, was to increase the thickness of the lower skin on the outer wing panels. A tech order was issued to retrofit the "thick skin" to the whole fleet, but the tech order was rescinded after roughly 242 planes, leaving about 200 planes with the original "thin skin". Starting with aircraft No. 530, cold working at WS0 was performed, and this retrofit was performed on earlier aircraft. A fourth, even more drastic change was initiated with aircraft No. 582, again to address the problems discovered with spectrum 3 testing. This change increased the thickness of the lower skin on the center wing panel, but it required modifications to the lower spar caps to accommodate the thicker skin. The USAF found it economically unfeasible to retrofit earlier planes with this modification.
Upgrades
The A-10 has received many upgrades since entering service. In 1978, it received the Pave Penny laser receiver pod, mounted on a pylon attached below the right side of the cockpit, which receives reflected laser radiation from laser designators to allow the aircraft to deliver laser-guided munitions. In 1980, the A-10 began receiving an inertial navigation system.
In the early 1990s, the A-10 began to receive the Low-Altitude Safety and Targeting Enhancement (LASTE) upgrade, which provided computerized weapon-aiming equipment, an autopilot, and a ground-collision warning system. In 1999, aircraft began receiving Global Positioning System navigation systems and a multi-function display. The LASTE system was upgraded with an Integrated Flight & Fire Control Computer (IFFCC).
Proposed further upgrades included integrated combat search and rescue locator systems and improved early warning and anti-jam self-protection systems, and the USAF recognized that the A-10's engine power was sub-optimal and had planned to replace them with more powerful engines since at least 2001 at an estimated cost of $2 billion.
HOG UP and Wing Replacement Program
In 1987, Grumman Aerospace took over support for the A-10 program. In 1993, Grumman updated the damage tolerance assessment and Force Structural Maintenance Plan and Damage Threat Assessment. Over the next few years, problems with wing structure fatigue, first noticed in production years earlier, began to come to the fore. Implementation of the maintenance plan was greatly delayed by the base realignment and closure commission (BRAC), which led to 80% of the original workforce being let go.
During inspections in 1995 and 1996, cracks at the WS23 location were found on many A-10s; while many were in line with updated predictions from 1993, two of these were classified as "near-critical" size, well beyond predictions. In August 1998, Grumman produced a new plan to address these issues and increase life span to 16,000 hours. This led to the "HOG UP" program, which commenced in 1999. Additional aspects were added to HOG UP over time, including new fuel bladders, flight control system changes, and engine nacelle inspections. In 2001, the cracks were reclassified as "critical", which meant they were considered repairs and not upgrades, which allowed bypassing normal acquisition channels for more rapid implementation. An independent review of the HOG UP program, presented in September 2003, concluded that the data on which the wing upgrade relied could no longer be trusted. Shortly thereafter, fatigue testing on a test wing failed prematurely and also mounting problems with wings failing in-service inspections at an increasing rate became apparent. The USAF estimated that they would run out of wings by 2011. Of the plans explored, replacing the wings with new ones was the least expensive, at an initial cost of $741 million and a total cost of $1.72 billion over the program's life.
In 2005, a business case was produced with three options to extend the fleet's life. The first two options involved expanding the service life extension program (SLEP) at a cost of $4.6 billion and $3.16 billion, respectively. The third option, worth $1.72 billion, was to build 242 new wings and avoid the need to expand the SLEP. In 2006, option 3 was chosen and Boeing won the contract. The base contract is for 117 wings with options for 125 additional wings. In 2013, the USAF exercised a portion of the option to add 56 wings, putting 173 wings on order with options remaining for 69 additional wings. In November 2011, two A-10s flew with the new wings fitted. The new wings improved mission readiness, decreased maintenance costs, and allowed the A-10 to be operated up to 2035 if necessary. Re-winging work was organized under the Thick-skin Urgent Spares Kitting (TUSK) Program.
In 2014, as part of plans to retire the A-10, the USAF considered halting the wing replacement program to save an additional $500 million; however, by May 2015 the re-winging program was too advanced to be financially efficient to cancel. Boeing stated in February 2016 that the A-10 could operate to 2040 with the new TUSK wings.
Modernization (A-10C)
From 2005 to June 2011, the entire fleet of 356 A-10s and OA-10s were modernized in the Precision Engagement program and redesignated A-10C. Upgrades included all-weather combat capability, an improved fire-control system (FCS), electronic countermeasures (ECM), smart bomb targeting, a modern communications suite including a Link 16 radio and Satcom, and cockpit upgrades comprising two multifunction displays and HOTAS configuration mixing the F-16's flight stick with the F-15's throttle. The Government Accountability Office in 2007 estimated the cost of upgrading, refurbishing, and service life extension plans to total $2.25 billion through 2013. In July 2010, the USAF issued Raytheon a contract to integrate a Helmet Mounted Integrated Targeting (HMIT) system into the A-10C. The LASTE system was replaced with the integrated flight and fire control computer (IFFCC) included in the PE upgrade.
Throughout its life, multiple software upgrades have been made. While this work was to be stopped under plans to retire the A-10 in February 2014, Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James ordered that the latest upgrade, designated Suite 8, continue in response to congressional pressure. Suite 8 software includes IFF Mode 5, which modernizes the ability to identify the A-10 to friendly units. Additionally, the Pave Penny pods and pylons were removed as their receive-only capability has been replaced by the AN/AAQ-28(V)4 LITENING AT targeting pods or Sniper XR targeting pod, which both have laser designators and laser rangefinders.
In 2012, Air Combat Command requested the testing of a 600-US-gallon (2,300 L; 500 imp gal) external fuel tank which would extend the A-10's loitering time by 45–60 minutes; flight testing of such a tank had been conducted in 1997 but did not involve combat evaluation. Over 30 flight tests were conducted by the 40th Flight Test Squadron to gather data on the aircraft's handling characteristics and performance across different load configurations. It was reported that the tank slightly reduced stability in the yaw axis, but there was no decrease in aircraft tracking performance.
Design
Overview
The A-10 has a cantilever low-wing monoplane wing with a wide chord. It has superior maneuverability at low speeds and altitude due to its large wing area, high wing aspect ratio, and large ailerons. The wing also allows short takeoffs and landings, permitting operations from austere forward airfields near front lines. The A-10 can loiter for extended periods and operate under 1,000-foot (300 m) ceilings with 1.5-mile (2.4 km) visibility. It typically flies at a relatively low speed of 300 knots (350 mph; 560 km/h), which makes it a better platform for the ground-attack role than fast fighter-bombers, which often have difficulty targeting small, slow-moving targets.
The leading edge of the wing has a honeycomb structure panel construction, providing strength with minimal weight; similar panels cover the flap shrouds, elevators, rudders and sections of the fins. The skin panels are integral with the stringers and are fabricated using computer-controlled machining, reducing production time and cost. Combat experience has shown that this type of panel is more resistant to damage. The skin is not load-bearing, so damaged skin sections can be easily replaced in the field, with makeshift materials if necessary. The ailerons are at the far ends of the wings for greater rolling moment and have two distinguishing features: The ailerons are larger than is typical, almost 50 percent of the wingspan, providing improved control even at slow speeds; the aileron is also split, making it a deceleron.
The A-10 is designed to be refueled, rearmed, and serviced with minimal equipment. Its simple design enables maintenance at forward bases with limited facilities. An unusual feature is that many of the aircraft's parts are interchangeable between the left and right sides, including the engines, main landing gear, and vertical stabilizers. The sturdy landing gear, low-pressure tires and large, straight wings allow operation from short rough strips even with a heavy aircraft ordnance load, allowing the aircraft to operate from damaged airbases, flying from taxiways, or even straight roadway sections.
The front landing gear is offset to the aircraft's right to allow placement of the 30 mm cannon with its firing barrel along the centerline of the aircraft. During ground taxi, the offset front landing gear causes the A-10 to have dissimilar turning radii; turning to the right on the ground takes less distance than turning left. The wheels of the main landing gear partially protrude from their nacelles when retracted, making gear-up belly landings easier to control and less damaging. All landing gears retract forward; if hydraulic power is lost, a combination of gravity and aerodynamic drag can lower and lock the gear in place.
Survivability
The A-10 is able to survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles up to 23 mm. It has double-redundant hydraulic flight systems, and a mechanical system as a backup if hydraulics are lost. Flight without hydraulic power uses the manual reversion control system; pitch and yaw control engages automatically, and roll control is pilot-selected. In manual reversion mode, the A-10 is sufficiently controllable under favorable conditions to return to base, though control forces are greater than normal. It is designed to be able to fly with one engine, half of the tail, one elevator, and half of a wing missing. As the A-10 operates close to enemy positions, making it an easy target for man-portable air-defense system (MANPADS), surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and enemy aircraft, it carries both flares and chaff cartridges.
The cockpit and parts of the flight-control systems are protected by 1,200 lb (540 kg) of titanium aircraft armor, referred to as a "bathtub". The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm (0.91 in) cannon fire and some indirect hits from 57 mm (2.2 in) shell fragments. It is made up of titanium plates with thicknesses varying from 0.5 to 1.5 inches (13 to 38 mm) determined by a study of likely trajectories and deflection angles. The armor makes up almost six percent of the A-10's empty weight. Any interior surface of the tub directly exposed to the pilot is covered by a multi-layer nylon spall shield to protect against shell fragmentation. The front windscreen and canopy are resistant to small arms fire. Its durability was demonstrated on 7 April 2003 when Captain Kim Campbell, while flying over Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, suffered extensive flak damage that damaged one engine and crippled the hydraulic system, requiring the stabilizer and flight controls to be operated via manual reversion mode. Despite this, Campbell's A-10 flew for nearly an hour and landed safely.
The A-10 was intended to fly from forward air bases and semi-prepared runways where foreign object damage to an aircraft's engines is normally a high risk. The unusual location of the General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofan engines decreases ingestion risk and also allows the engines to run while the aircraft is serviced and rearmed by ground crews, reducing turn-around time. The wings are also mounted closer to the ground, simplifying servicing and rearming operations. The heavy engines require strong support: four bolts connect the engine pylons to the airframe. The engines' high 6:1 bypass ratio contributes to a relatively small infrared signature, and their position directs exhaust over the tailplanes further shielding it from detection by infrared homing surface-to-air missiles.
To reduce the likelihood of damage to the fuel system, all four fuel tanks are located near the aircraft's center and are separated from the fuselage; projectiles would need to penetrate the aircraft's skin before reaching a fuel tank's outer skin. Compromised fuel transfer lines self-seal; if damage exceeds a tank's self-sealing capabilities, check valves to prevent fuel from flowing into a compromised tank. Most fuel system components are inside the tanks so component failure will not lead to fuel loss. The refueling system is also purged after use. Reticulated polyurethane foam lines both the inner and outer sides of the fuel tanks, retaining debris and restricting fuel spillage in the event of damage. The engines are shielded from the rest of the airframe by firewalls and fire extinguishing equipment. If all four main tanks were lost, two self-sealing sump tanks contain fuel for 230 miles (370 km) of flight.
Weapons
The A-10's primary built-in weapon is the 30×173 mm GAU-8/A Avenger autocannon. One of the most powerful aircraft cannons ever flown, the GAU-8 is a hydraulically driven seven-barrel rotary cannon designed for the anti-tank role with a high rate of fire. The original design could be switched by the pilot to 2,100 or 4,200 depleted uranium armor-piercing shells per minute; this was later changed to a fixed rate of 3,900 rounds per minute. The cannon takes about a half second to spin up to its maximum rate of fire, firing 50 rounds during the first second, and 65 or 70 rounds per second thereafter. It is accurate enough to place 80 percent of its shots within a 40-foot (12.4 m) diameter circle from 4,000 feet (1,220 m) while in flight. The GAU-8 is optimized for a slant range of 4,000 feet (1,220 m) with the A-10 in a 30-degree dive.
The aircraft's fuselage was designed around the cannon. The GAU-8 is mounted slightly to the port side; the barrel in the firing location is on the starboard side so it is aligned with the aircraft's centerline. The gun's 5-foot, 11.5-inch (1.816 m) ammunition drum can hold up to 1,350 rounds of 30 mm ammunition, but generally holds 1,174 rounds. To protect the rounds from enemy fire, armor plates of differing thicknesses between the aircraft skin and the drum are designed to detonate incoming shells.
The A-10 commonly carries the AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missile. Targeted via electro-optical (TV-guided) or infrared systems, the Maverick can hit targets much farther away than the cannon, and thus incur less risk from anti-aircraft systems. During Desert Storm, in the absence of dedicated forward-looking infrared (FLIR) cameras for night vision, the Maverick's infrared camera was used for night missions as a "poor man's FLIR". Other weapons include cluster bombs and Hydra 70 rocket pods. The A-10 is equipped to carry GPS- and laser-guided bombs, such as the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, Paveway series bombs, Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser and AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon glide bombs. A-10s usually fly with an ALQ-131 Electronic countermeasures (ECM) pod under one wing and two AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for self-defense under the other wing.
Colors and markings
Aircraft camouflage is used to make the A-10 more difficult to see as it flies low to the ground at subsonic speeds. Many types of paint schemes have been tried. These have included a "peanut scheme" of sand, yellow, and field drab; black and white colors for winter operations; and a tan, green, and brown mixed pattern. The most common Cold War-era scheme was the European I woodland camouflage, whose dark green, medium green, and dark gray was meant to blend in with the typical European forest terrain. It reflected the assumption that the threat from hostile fighter aircraft outweighed that from ground fire. After the 1991 Gulf War, the threat from ground fire was deemed more pressing than the air-to-air threat, leading to the "Compass Ghost" scheme with darker gray on top and a lighter gray on the underside of the aircraft.
Many A-10s also had a false canopy painted in dark gray on the underside of the aircraft, just behind the gun. This form of automimicry is an attempt to confuse the enemy as to aircraft attitude and maneuver direction. Many A-10s feature nose art, such as shark mouth or warthog head features.
Operational history
Service entry
The first unit to receive the A-10 was the 355th Tactical Training Wing, based at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, in March 1976. The first unit to achieve initial operating capability was the 354th Tactical Fighter Wing at Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, South Carolina, in October 1977. A-10 deployments followed at bases both at home and abroad, including England AFB, Louisiana; Eielson AFB, Alaska; Osan Air Base, South Korea; and RAF Bentwaters/RAF Woodbridge, England. The 81st TFW of RAF Bentwaters/RAF Woodbridge operated rotating detachments of A-10s at four bases in Germany known as Forward Operating Locations (FOLs): Leipheim, Sembach Air Base, Nörvenich Air Base, and RAF Ahlhorn. A-10s were initially an unwelcome addition to many in the USAF; most pilots did not want to switch to it as fighter pilots traditionally favored speed and appearance. In 1987, many A-10s were shifted to the forward air control (FAC) role and redesignated OA-10. In the FAC role, the OA-10 is typically equipped with up to six pods of 2.75 inch (70 mm) Hydra rockets, usually with smoke or white phosphorus warheads used for target marking. OA-10s are physically unchanged and remain fully combat capable despite the redesignation.
The 23rd TFW's A-10s were deployed to Bridgetown, Barbados during Operation Urgent Fury, the 1983 American Invasion of Grenada. They provided air cover for the U.S. Marine Corps landings on the island of Carriacou in late October 1983, but did not fire weapons as no resistance was met.
Gulf War and Balkans
The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, with 132 being deployed. A-10s shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon. The first of these was shot down by Captain Robert Swain over Kuwait on 6 February 1991 for the A-10's first air-to-air victory. Four A-10s were shot down during the war by surface-to-air missiles and eleven A-10s were hit by anti-air artillery rounds. Another two battle-damaged A-10s and OA-10As returned to base and were written off. Some sustained additional damage in crash landings. At the beginning of the war, A-10s flew missions against the Iraqi Republican Guard, but due to heavy attrition, from 15 February they were restricted to within 20 nautical miles (37 km) of the southern border. A-10s also flew missions hunting Iraqi Scud missiles. The A-10 had a mission capable rate of 95.7 percent, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90 percent of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired in the conflict. Shortly after the Gulf War, the USAF abandoned the idea of replacing the A-10 with a CAS version of the F-16.
A-10s fired approximately 10,000 30 mm rounds in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1994–95. Following the seizure of heavy weapons by Bosnian Serbs from a warehouse in Ilidža, multiple sorties were launched to locate and destroy the captured equipment. On 5 August 1994, two A-10s located and strafed an anti-tank vehicle. Afterward, the Serbs agreed to return the remaining heavy weapons. In August 1995, NATO launched an offensive called Operation Deliberate Force. A-10s flew CAS missions, attacking Bosnian Serb artillery and positions. In late September, A-10s began flying patrols again.
A-10s returned to the Balkan region as part of Operation Allied Force in Kosovo beginning in March 1999. In March 1999, A-10s escorted and supported search and rescue helicopters in finding a downed F-117 pilot. The A-10s were deployed to support search and rescue missions, but gradually received more ground attack missions. The A-10's first successful attack in Operation Allied Force happened on 6 April 1999; A-10s remained in action until the end of combat in June 1999.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and recent deployments
During the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, A-10s did not initially take part. Beginning in March 2002, A-10 squadrons were deployed to Pakistan and Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan for the campaign against Taliban and Al-Qaeda, known as Operation Anaconda. Afterward, they remained in-country, fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants.
Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 20 March 2003. Sixty OA-10/A-10s took part in early combat. United States Air Forces Central Command issued Operation Iraqi Freedom: By the Numbers, a declassified report about the aerial campaign in the conflict on 30 April 2003. During the initial invasion of Iraq, A-10s had a mission capable rate of 85 percent and fired 311,597 rounds of 30 mm ammunition. The type also flew 32 missions to airdrop propaganda leaflets. A single A-10 was shot down near Baghdad International Airport by Iraqi fire late in the campaign.
In September 2007, the A-10C with the Precision Engagement Upgrade reached initial operating capability. The A-10C first deployed to Iraq in 2007 with the 104th Fighter Squadron of the Maryland Air National Guard. The A-10C's digital avionics and communications systems greatly reduced the time to acquire and attack CAS targets.
A-10s flew 32 percent of combat sorties in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. These sorties ranged from 27,800 to 34,500 annually between 2009 and 2012. In the first half of 2013, they flew 11,189 sorties in Afghanistan. From the start of 2006 to October 2013, A-10s conducted 19 percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than the F-15E Strike Eagle and B-1B Lancer, but less than the 33 percent flown by F-16s.
In March 2011, six A-10s were deployed as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn, the coalition intervention in Libya. They participated in attacks on Libyan ground forces there.
The USAF 122nd Fighter Wing revealed it would deploy to the Middle East in October 2014 with 12 A-10s. Although the deployment had been planned a year in advance in a support role, the timing coincided with the ongoing Operation Inherent Resolve against ISIL militants. From mid-November, U.S. commanders began sending A-10s to hit IS targets in central and northwestern Iraq on an almost daily basis. Over a two–month period, A-10s flew 11 percent of all USAF sorties since the start of operations in August 2014. On 15 November 2015, two days after the ISIL attacks in Paris, A-10s and AC-130s destroyed a convoy of over 100 ISIL-operated oil tanker trucks in Syria as part of an intensification of the U.S.-led intervention against ISIL called Operation Tidal Wave II (named after Operation Tidal Wave during World War II, a failed attempt to raid German oil fields) in an attempt to stop oil smuggling as a source of funds for the group.
The A-10 was involved in the killing of 35 Afghan civilians from 2010 to 2015, more than any other U.S. military aircraft and also involved in killing ten U.S. troops in friendly fire over four incidents between 2001 and 2015. These incidents have been assessed as "inconclusive and statistically insignificant" in terms of the plane's capability.
On 19 January 2018, 12 A-10s from the 303d Expeditionary Fighter Squadron were deployed to Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, to provide CAS, marking the first time in more than three years A-10s had been deployed to Afghanistan.
On 29 November and 3 December 2024, USAF A-10s were used against targets in Syria to defend US forces in eastern Syria as part of the ongoing Syrian civil war. The USAF said the strikes destroyed vehicles, mortars, and a T-64 tank. Concurrent with the fall of the Assad regime on 8 December, A-10s participated alongside B-52s and F-15Es in what the USAF said were "dozens" of airstrikes against over 75 ISIS targets. The strikes were intended to prevent ISIS from benefitting from the political upheaval in Syria.
Future
The A-10's future remains a subject of debate. In 2007, the USAF expected it to remain in service until 2028 and possibly later, when it would likely be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Project On Government Oversight Winslow Wheeler, a critic of this plan, said that replacing the A-10 with the F-35 would be a "giant leap backwards" given the A-10's performance and the F-35's high costs. In 2012, the USAF considered the F-35B STOVL variant as a replacement CAS aircraft, but concluded that it could not generate sufficient sorties. In August 2013, Congress and the USAF examined various proposals, including the F-35 and the MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle filling the A-10's role. Proponents state that the A-10's armor and cannon are superior to aircraft such as the F-35 for ground attack, that guided munitions could be jammed, and that ground commanders commonly request A-10 support.
In the USAF's FY 2015 budget, the service considered retiring the A-10 and other single-mission aircraft, prioritizing multi-mission aircraft; cutting a whole fleet and its infrastructure was seen as the only method for major savings. The U.S. Army had expressed interest in obtaining some A-10s were the USAF to retire them, but later stated there was "no chance" of that happening. The USAF stated that retirement would save $3.7 billion from 2015 to 2019. Guided munitions allow more aircraft to perform CAS duties and reduce the need for specialized aircraft; since 2001, multirole aircraft and bombers have performed 80 percent of operational CAS missions. The USAF also said that the A-10 was increasingly vulnerable to modern anti-aircraft weapons, but the Army replied that it had proved invaluable due to its versatile weapons loads, psychological impact, and limited logistics needs.
In January 2015, USAF officials told lawmakers that it would take 15 years to fully develop a new attack aircraft to replace the A-10; that year General Herbert J. Carlisle, the head of Air Combat Command, stated that a follow-on weapon system for the A-10 may need development. It planned for F-16s and F-15Es to initially take up CAS sorties, and later by the F-35A once sufficient numbers become operationally available over the next decade. In July 2015, Boeing held initial discussions on the prospects of selling retired or stored A-10s in near-flyaway condition to international customers. However, the USAF stated that it would not permit any to be sold.
Plans to develop a replacement aircraft were announced by the US Air Combat Command in August 2015. In 2016, the USAF began studying future CAS aircraft to succeed the A-10 in low-intensity "permissive conflicts" like counterterrorism and regional stability operations, noting the F-35 to be too expensive to operate in day-to-day roles. Various platforms were considered, including low-end AT-6 Wolverine and A-29 Super Tucano turboprops and the Textron AirLand Scorpion as more basic off-the-shelf options to more sophisticated clean-sheet attack aircraft or "AT-X" derivatives of the T-X next-generation trainer as wholly new attack platforms.
In January 2016, the USAF was "indefinitely freezing" plans to retire the A-10. Beyond congressional opposition, its use in anti-ISIS operations, deployments to Eastern Europe as a response to Russia's military intervention in Ukraine, and reevaluation of F-35 numbers necessitated its retention. In February 2016, the USAF deferred the final retirement date until 2022 after F-35s replace it on a squadron-by-squadron basis. In October 2016, the USAF Materiel Command brought the depot maintenance line back to full capacity in preparation for re-winging the fleet. In June 2017, it was announced that the A-10 is retained indefinitely.
The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine led to some observers pushing for A-10s to be loaned to Ukraine while critics noted the diplomatic and tactical complications involved. In an interview in December 2022, Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov said that in late March he asked the US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin for 100 surplus A-10s, noting their value against Russian tank columns. However, Austin reportedly told Minister Reznikov that the plan was "impossible", and that the "old-fashioned and slow" A-10 would be a "squeaky target" for Russian air defenses.
Due to opposition from Congress, the USAF has failed to retire the A-10 for many years. However, the Air Force's plan to divest 21 A-10s gained congressional approval in the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The retired A-10s at Fort Wayne will be replaced by an equal number of F-16s. The 2024 NDAA is expected to retire an additional 42 aircraft, with Air Force Chief of Staff Charles Brown expecting all A-10s to be retired by 2028 or 2029. However, Congress would pause further cuts unless the Air Force demonstrates how other aircraft can fulfill the Close Air Support missions currently undertaken by the A-10. According to Dan Grazier from Project on Government Oversight, the Air Force is ill-prepared for this transition because it requires no Close Air Support training for its F-35 pilots, despite the F-35 being advertised as the main replacement for the A-10.
Other uses
On 25 March 2010, an A-10 conducted the first flight of an aircraft with all engines powered by a biofuel blend comprising a 1:1 blend of JP-8 and Camelina-based fuel. On 28 June 2012, the A-10 became the first aircraft to fly using a new fuel blend derived from alcohol; known as ATJ (Alcohol-to-Jet), the fuel is cellulosic-based and can be produced using wood, paper, grass, or any cellulose-based material, which are fermented into alcohols before being hydro-processed into aviation fuel. ATJ is the third alternative fuel to be evaluated by the USAF as a replacement for the petroleum-derived JP-8 fuel. Previous types were synthetic paraffinic kerosene derived from coal and natural gas and a bio-mass fuel derived from plant oils and animal fats known as Hydroprocessed Renewable Jet.
In 2011, the National Science Foundation granted $11 million to modify an A-10 for weather research for CIRPAS at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School and in collaboration with scientists from the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology (SDSM&T), replacing SDSM&T's retired North American T-28 Trojan. In 2018, this plan was found to be too risky due to the costly modifications required, thus the program was canceled.
Variants
- YA-10A
- Pre-production variant. 12 were built.
- A-10A
- Single-seat close air support, ground-attack production version.
- OA-10A
- A-10As used for airborne forward air control.
- YA-10B Night/Adverse Weather (N/AW)
- Two-seat experimental prototype, for work at night and in bad weather. The one YA-10B prototype was converted from an A-10A.
- A-10C
- A-10As updated under the incremental Precision Engagement (PE) program.
- A-10PCAS
- Proposed unmanned version developed by Raytheon and Aurora Flight Sciences as part of DARPA's Persistent Close Air Support program. The PCAS program eventually dropped the idea of using an optionally manned A-10.
- SPA-10
- Proposed by the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology to replace its North American T-28 Trojan thunderstorm penetration aircraft. The A-10 would have its military engines, avionics, and oxygen system replaced by civilian versions. The engines and airframe would receive protection from hail, and the GAU-8 Avenger would be replaced with ballast or scientific instruments. Project canceled after partial modification of a single A-10C.
Operators
The A-10 has been flown exclusively by the United States Air Force and its Air Reserve components, the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) and the Air National Guard (ANG). As of 2017, 282 A-10C aircraft are reported as operational, divided as follows: 141 USAF, 55 AFRC, 86 ANG.
- United States
- United States Air Force
- Air Force Materiel Command
- 514th Flight Test Squadron (Hill AFB, Utah) (1993–present)
- 23rd Wing
- 74th Fighter Squadron (Moody AFB, Georgia) (1980–1992, 1996–present)
- 75th Fighter Squadron (Moody AFB, Georgia) (1980–1991, 1992–present)
- 51st Fighter Wing
- 25th Fighter Squadron (Osan AFB, South Korea) (1982–1989, 1993–present)
- 53rd Wing
- 422d Test and Evaluation Squadron (Nellis AFB, Nevada) (1977–present)
- 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron (Eglin AFB, Florida) (1977–present)
- 57th Wing
- 66th Weapons Squadron (Nellis AFB, Nevada) (1977–1981, 2003–present)
- 96th Test Wing
- 40th Flight Test Squadron (Eglin AFB, Florida) (1982–present)
- 124th Fighter Wing (Idaho ANG)
- 190th Fighter Squadron (Gowen Field ANGB, Idaho) (1996–present)
- 127th Wing (Michigan ANG)
- 107th Fighter Squadron (Selfridge ANGB, Michigan) (2008–present)
- 175th Wing (Maryland ANG)
- 104th Fighter Squadron (Warfield ANGB, Maryland) (1979–present)
- 355th Fighter Wing
- 354th Fighter Squadron (Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona) (1979–1982, 1991–2024)
- 357th Fighter Squadron (Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona) (1979–present)
- 442nd Fighter Wing (AFRC)
- 303d Fighter Squadron (Whiteman AFB, Missouri) (1982–present)
- 476th Fighter Group (AFRC)
- 76th Fighter Squadron (Moody AFB, Georgia) (1981–1992, 2009–present)
- 495th Fighter Group
- 358th Fighter Squadron (Whiteman AFB, Missouri) (1979–2014, 2015–present)
- 924th Fighter Group (AFRC)
- 45th Fighter Squadron (Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona) (1981–1994, 2009–present)
- 47th Fighter Squadron (Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona) (1980–present)
- Air Force Materiel Command
Former squadrons
- 18th Tactical Fighter Squadron (1982–1991)
- 23rd Tactical Air Support Squadron (1987–1991) (OA-10 unit)
- 55th Tactical Fighter Squadron (1994–1996)
- 70th Fighter Squadron (1995–2000)
- 78th Tactical Fighter Squadron (1979–1992)
- 81st Fighter Squadron (1994–2013)
- 91st Tactical Fighter Squadron (1978–1992)
- 92nd Tactical Fighter Squadron (1978–1993)
- 103rd Fighter Squadron (Pennsylvania ANG) (1988–2011) (OA-10 unit)
- 118th Fighter Squadron (Connecticut ANG) (1979–2008)
- 131st Fighter Squadron (Massachusetts ANG) (1979–2007)
- 138th Fighter Squadron (New York ANG) (1979–1989)
- 163rd Fighter Squadron (Indiana ANG) (2010–2023)
- 172nd Fighter Squadron (Michigan ANG) (1991–2009)
- 176th Tactical Fighter Squadron (Wisconsin ANG) (1981–1993)
- 184th Fighter Squadron (Arkansas ANG) (2007–2014)
- 353rd Tactical Fighter Squadron (1978–1992)
- 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron (1978–1992, 1993–2007)
- 356th Tactical Fighter Squadron (1977–1992)
- 509th Tactical Fighter Squadron (1979–1992)
- 510th Tactical Fighter Squadron (1979–1994)
- 511th Tactical Fighter Squadron (1980–1992)
- 706th Fighter Squadron (1982–1992, 1997–2007)
Notable incidents
On 8 December 1988, an A-10A of the U.S. Air Forces in Europe crashed into a residential area in the city of Remscheid, West Germany. The aircraft crashed into the upper floor of an apartment complex. The pilot and six other people were killed. Fifty others were injured, many of them seriously. The cause of the accident was attributed to spatial disorientation, after both the mishap aircraft and its flight lead encountered difficult and adverse weather conditions for visual flying. The number of cancer cases in the vicinity of the accident rose disproportionately in the years after, raising the possibility that the aircraft may have been loaded with ammunition containing depleted uranium, contrary to U.S. statements.
On 2 April 1997, Captain Craig D. Button was piloting a USAF A-10 when he inexplicably flew hundreds of miles off-course without radio contact, appeared to maneuver purposefully and did not attempt to eject before the crash. His death is regarded as a suicide because no other hypothesis explains the events. The incident caused widespread public speculation about Button's intentions and whereabouts until the crash site was found three weeks later. The aircraft carried live bombs which have not been recovered.
On 28 March 2003, British Lance-Corporal of Horse Matty Hull was killed by U.S. A-10 Thunderbolt II ground attack aircraft as well as five others wounded in the 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident.
Aircraft on display
Germany
- A-10A
- 77-0264 – Spangdahlem AB, Bitburg.
South Korea
- A-10A
- 76-0515 – Osan AB.
United Kingdom
- A-10A
- 77-0259 – American Air Museum at Imperial War Museum Duxford
- 80-0219 – Bentwaters Cold War Museum
United States
- YA-10A
- 71-1370 – Joint Base Langley-Eustis (Langley AFB), Hampton, Virginia.
- YA-10B
- 73-1664 – Air Force Flight Test Center Museum, Edwards AFB, California
- A-10A
- 73-1666 – Hill Aerospace Museum, Hill AFB, Utah
- 73-1667 – Flying Tiger Heritage Park at the former England AFB, Louisiana (repainted as 73-3667).
- 75-0263 – Empire State Aerosciences Museum, Glenville, New York
- 75-0270 – McChord Air Museum, McChord AFB, Washington
- 75-0293 – Wings of Eagles Discovery Center, Elmira, New York
- 75-0288 – Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin AFB, Florida
- 75-0289 – Heritage Park, Eielson AFB, Alaska.
- 75-0298 – Pima Air & Space Museum (adjacent to Davis-Monthan AFB), Tucson, Arizona
- 75-0305 – Museum of Aviation, Robins AFB, Warner Robins, Georgia
- 75-0308 – Moody Heritage Park, Moody AFB, Valdosta, Georgia.
- 75-0309 – Shaw AFB, Sumter, South Carolina. Marked as AF Ser. No. 81-0964 assigned to the 55 FS from 1994 to 1996. The represented aircraft was credited with downing an Iraqi Mi-8 Hip helicopter on 15 February 1991 while assigned to the 511 TFS.
- 76-0516 – Wings of Freedom Aviation Museum at the former NAS Willow Grove, Horsham, Pennsylvania
- 76-0530 – Whiteman AFB, Missouri
- 76-0535 – Cradle of Aviation, Garden City, New York
- 76-0540 – Aerospace Museum of California, McClellan Airport (former McClellan AFB), Sacramento, California
- 77-0199 – Stafford Air & Space Museum, Weatherford, Oklahoma.
- 77-0205 – USAF Academy collection, Colorado Springs, Colorado.
- 77-0228 – Grissom Air Museum, Grissom ARB (former Grissom AFB), Peru, Indiana
- 77-0244 – Wisconsin Air National Guard Museum, Volk Field ANGB, Wisconsin.
- 77-0252 – Cradle of Aviation, Garden City, New York (nose section only)
- 78-0681 – National Museum of the United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio
- 78-0687 – Don F. Pratt Memorial Museum, Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
- 79-0097 – Warbird Park, former Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, South Carolina.
- 79-0100 – Barnes Air National Guard Base, Westfield, Massachusetts.
- 79-0103 – Bradley Air National Guard Base, Windsor Locks, Connecticut.
- 79-0116 – Warrior Park, Davis-Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona.
- 79-0173 – New England Air Museum, Windsor Locks, Connecticut
- 79-0195 – Russell Military Museum Zion, Illinois
- 80-0168 – Fort Wayne Air National Guard Base, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
- 80-0247 – American Airpower Museum, Republic Airport, Farmingdale, New York
- 80-0708 – Selfridge Military Air Museum, Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Harrison Township, Michigan
- 81-0987 – Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, Goldsboro, North Carolina
Specifications (A-10C)
Data from The Great Book of Modern Warplanes, Fairchild-Republic A/OA-10, USAF
General characteristics
- Crew: 1
- Length: 53 ft 4 in (16.26 m)
- Wingspan: 57 ft 6 in (17.53 m)
- Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)
- Wing area: 506 sq ft (47.0 m)
- Airfoil: NACA 6716 root, NACA 6713 tip
- Empty weight: 24,959 lb (11,321 kg)
- Gross weight: 30,384 lb (13,782 kg)
- CAS mission: 47,094 lb (21,361 kg)
- Anti-armor mission: 42,071 lb (19,083 kg)
- Max takeoff weight: 46,000 lb (20,865 kg)
- Fuel capacity: 11,000 lb (4,990 kg) internal
- Powerplant: 2 × General Electric TF34-GE-100A turbofans, 9,065 lbf (40.32 kN) thrust each
Performance
- Maximum speed: 381 kn (439 mph, 706 km/h) at sea level, clean
- Cruise speed: 300 kn (340 mph, 560 km/h)
- Stall speed: 120 kn (138 mph, 220 km/h) at 30,000 lb (14,000 kg)
- Never exceed speed: 450 kn (518 mph, 833 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,500 m) with 18 Mark 82 bombs
- Combat range: 250 nmi (288 mi, 463 km)
- Ferry range: 2,240 nmi (2,580 mi, 4,150 km) with 50 knots (58 mph; 26 m/s) headwinds, 20 minutes reserve
- Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,700 m)
- Rate of climb: 6,000 ft/min (30 m/s)
- Wing loading: 99 lb/sq ft (482 kg/m)
- Thrust/weight: 0.47
Armament
- Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger rotary cannon with 1,174 rounds
- Hardpoints: 11 (8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations) with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg), with provisions to carry combinations of:
- Rockets:
- Missiles:
- 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for self-defense
- 6× AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missiles
- Bombs:
- Mark 80 series of unguided 'iron' bombs or
- Mk 77 incendiary bombs or
- BLU-1, BLU-27/B, CBU-20 Rockeye II, BL755 and CBU-52/58/71/87/89/97 cluster bombs or
- Paveway series of Laser-guided bombs or
- Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) (A-10C) or
- Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser
- Other:
- SUU-42A/A Flares/infrared decoys and chaff dispenser pod or
- 2× 600 US gal (2,300 L) Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for increased range/loiter time.
- Rockets:
Avionics
- Targeting pods:
- Countermeasures:
- AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184(V)-11/12 ECM pods
Notable appearances in media
Main article: Aircraft in fiction § A-10 Thunderbolt IINicknames
The A-10 Thunderbolt II received its popular nickname "Warthog" from the pilots and crews of the USAF attack squadrons who flew and maintained it. The A-10 is the last of Republic's jet attack aircraft to serve with the USAF. The Republic F-84 Thunderjet was nicknamed the "Hog", F-84F Thunderstreak nicknamed "Superhog", and the Republic F-105 Thunderchief tagged "Ultra Hog". The saying Go Ugly Early has been associated with the aircraft for calling in the A-10 early to support troops in ground combat.
See also
Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era
- Ilyushin Il-102 – (Soviet Union, Russia)
- Northrop YA-9 – (United States)
- Sukhoi Su-25 – (Soviet Union, Russia, Georgia)
- Nanchang Q-5 – (China)
Related lists
- List of attack aircraft
- List of active United States military aircraft
- List of military electronics of the United States
References
Notes
- First unit to become operational with the A-10.
- With the inner wheel on a turn stopped, the minimum radius of the turn is dictated by the distance between the inner wheel and the nose wheel. Since the distance is less between the right main wheel and the nose gear than the same measurement on the left, the aircraft can turn more tightly to the right.
Citations
- Jenkins 1998, p. 42.
- ^ Spick 2000, pp. 17, 52.
- Fairchild Republic A-10A Thunderbolt II, National Museum of the US Air Force, archived from the original on 15 December 2018
- Nijboer, Donald (2016). Fighting Cock[pits. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Zenith Press. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-7603-4956-4.
This would be the first air force fighter designed exclusively for close-air support
- ^ Keller, Jared (8 June 2017). "Fighter Pilot Turned Congresswoman Throws Wrench in Quiet Plans To Cut A-10 Squadrons". Task & Purpose. Archived from the original on 21 September 2017.
Air Force R&D Chief Lt. General Arnold Bunch testified that the service "is committed to maintaining a minimum of six A-10 combat squadrons flying and contributing to the fight through 2030 additional A-10 force structure is contingent on future budget levels and force structure requirements.
- Piehler, G. Kurt, ed. (2013). Encyclopedia of Military Science. associate editor: M. Houston Johnson. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1412969338.
- Knaack 1978, p. 151.
- Hobson, Chris (2001). Vietnam Air Losses, USAF/USN/USMC, Fixed-Wing Aircraft Losses in Southeast Asia, 1961–1973. Specialty Press. ISBN 978-1-85780-115-6.
- ^ Jacques & Strouble 2010.
- Burton, James G. The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard, Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1993. ISBN 1-55750-081-9
- Coram 2004
- Price, Bem (18 September 1966). "Capital still buzzing whether TFX a colossal blunder". Eugene Register-Guard. (Oregon). Associated Press. p. 5A.
- Knaack 1978, pp. 265–76.
- NATO. "A Pledge for Peace and Progress". Canadian War Museum. Archived from the original on 3 October 2016. Retrieved 2 July 2016.
- ^ Jacques & Strouble 2010, p. 24.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, p. 12.
- Jenkins 1998, pp. 16–17.
- ^ "GAO-07-415: Tactical Aircraft, DOD Needs a Joint and Integrated Investment Strategy." Archived 14 June 2010 at the Wayback Machine U.S. Government Accountability Office, April 2007. Retrieved 5 March 2010.
- Jenkins 1998, p. 19.
- "New A-10 Jet Is Rated Over A-7 For Support of Combat Troops". The New York Times. 20 June 1974 – via NYTimes.com.
- Jenkins 1998, pp. 18, 20.
- "Gulf War – Air Power Survey, Volume IV – Weapons, Tactics, and Training" (PDF). U.S. Department of Defense (.gov). p. 53. Retrieved 3 July 2024.
- Spick 2000, p. 18.
- Jenkins 1998, p. 21.
- "A-10A Thunderbolt II". Museum of Aviation.
- "Fact Sheet: Republic Night/Adverse Weather A-10." Archived 14 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine National Museum of the United States Air Force. Retrieved 18 July 2010.
- Spick 2000, pp. 52–55.
- "Aircraft inventory". Flight Test Historical Foundation. Archived from the original on 17 May 2014. Retrieved 16 May 2014.
- Spick 2000, p. 48.
- Jenkins 1998, p. 652.
- Spick 2000, p. 49.
- Donald and March 2004, p. 46.
- ^ Jensen, David. "All New Warthog." Archived 4 December 2008 at the Wayback Machine Avionics Magazine, 1 December 2005.
- ^ "Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II". Military Aircraft Forecast. Forecast International. 2002. Archived from the original on 6 October 2016.
- Garland & Colombi 2010, pp. 192–93.
- Garland & Colombi 2010, pp. 193–94.
- Jacques, David (23 October 2008). "Sustaining Systems Engineering: The A-10 Example (Based on A-10 Systems Engineering Case Study)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 May 2017.
- "Boeing Awarded $2 Billion A-10 Wing Contract." Boeing, 29 June 2007. Archived 29 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Drew, James (4 February 2016). "USAF to continue A-10 'Warthog' wing production". FlightGlobal. Reed Business. Archived from the original on 8 April 2018. Retrieved 8 April 2018.
The same day, the air force released a draft statement of work regarding construction of slightly updated versions of the A-10 enhanced wing assembly currently built by Boeing and Korean Aerospace Industries. Boeing's contract includes 173 wings with options for 69 more, but the Air Force confirms that ordering period ends in September. Boeing has said those wings, based on 3D models of the original thick-skin wing design of the 1970s, could keep the aircraft flying past 2040.
- ^ Tirpak, John A. "Making the Best of the Fighter Force." Archived 3 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine Air Force magazine, Vol. 90, no. 3, March 2007.
- "US Air Force to Build 56 Additional A-10 Wings to Keep the Type Operating Through 2035" Archived 11 September 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Deagel.com, 4 September 2013.
- "Air Force Budget Proposal Preserves Cherished Modernization Programs" Archived 23 October 2015 at the Wayback Machine. Nationaldefensemagazine.org, 4 March 2014.
- "A-10: Been There, Considered That" Archived 24 April 2014 at the Wayback Machine. Airforcemag.com, 24 April 2014.
- ^ "Boeing discussing international A-10 Warthog sales." Archived 22 May 2015 at the Wayback Machine Flightglobal.com, 20 May 2015.
- "A-10 Precision Engagement program holds its final roll-out ceremony." Archived 20 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine Hilltop Times via Ogden Publishing Corporation, 14 January 2008.
- ^ Schanz, Marc V. "Not Fade Away." Archived 10 October 2016 at the Wayback Machine Air Force Magazine, June 2008.
- "Next generation: A-10C arrives at Davis-Monthan". Air Force. Retrieved 20 March 2023.
- "A-10C Capabilities Briefing" Archived 20 September 2016 at the Wayback Machine. U.S. Air Force via media.jrn.com. Retrieved 22 December 2016.
- ^ "A Higher-Tech Hog: The A-10C PE Program." Archived 24 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine Defense Industry Daily, 21 July 2010.
- "Defence & Security Intelligence & Analysis". IHS Jane's 360 (janes.com). Retrieved 1 April 2015.
- Majumdar, Dave. "Air Force Reluctantly Upgrades A-10s After Congress Complains." Archived 27 February 2014 at the Wayback Machine War is Boring blog
- Liveoak, Brian. "AFSO21 Event for Osan's A-10 Phase Dock" (PDF). The Exceptional Release (Winter 2014): 28. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 October 2016. Retrieved 7 July 2016.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II". 10th Air Force. Retrieved 29 March 2024.
- 40th FTS expands A-10 fuel limitations in combat Archived 1 September 2013 at the Wayback Machine – Eglin.AF.mil, 26 August 2013
- Donald and March 2004, p. 8.
- Air International, May 1974, p. 224.
- Drendel 1981, p. 12.
- Stephens World Air Power Journal. Spring 1994, p. 64.
- ^ Taylor 1982, pp. 363–364.
- Spick 2000, pp. 64–65.
- "Fairchild Republic A-10A Thunderbolt II". Air Force National Museum. Archived from the original on 8 December 2015. Retrieved 29 November 2015.
- ^ Donald and March 2004, p. 18.
- Jenkins 1998, p. 58.
- ^ Spick 2000, p. 44.
- Henderson, Breck W. "A-10 'Warthogs' damaged heavily in Gulf War bug survived to fly again." Aviation Week and Space Technology, 5 August 1991.
- "A-10C Thunderbolt II". U.S. Air Force. 22 September 2015. Retrieved 14 May 2021.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, pp. 47, 49.
- Spick 2000, p. 32.
- Pietrucha, Mike (26 May 2016). "It's Not About the Airplane: Envisioning the A-X2". War on the Rocks. Texas National Security Review. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
- ^ Stephens World Air Power Journal Spring 1994, p. 42.
- ^ Air International June 1979, p. 270.
- Spick 2000, pp. 30–33.
- Haag, Jason. "Wounded Warthog: an A-10 Thunderbolt II pilot safely landed her "Warthog" after it sustained significant damage from enemy fire." Archived 9 July 2012 at archive.today Combat Edge, April 2004.
- "Capt. Kim Campbell." stripes.com. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- Bell 1986, p. 64.
- Wilson 1976, p. 714.
- Stephens 1995, p. 18.
- TCTO 1A-10-1089, Flight manual TO 1A-10A-1 (20 February 2003, Change 8), pp. vi, 1–150A.
- Sweetman 1987, p. 46.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, pp. 64–73.
- Stephens World Air Power Journal Spring 1994, pp. 53–54.
- Stephens World Air Power Journal, Spring 1994, pp. 54–56.
- "Tłumacz Google". translate.google.pl. 20 April 2014.
- Stephens. World Air Power Journal, Spring 1994, p. 53.
- Neubeck 1999, p. 92.
- Stephens World Air Power Journal, Spring 1994, p. 47.
- Neubeck 1999, pp. 72–73, 76–77.
- Shaw 1985, p. 382.
- Spick 2000, p. 21.
- Spick 2000, p. 51.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II". Air & Space Forces. Retrieved 17 December 2024.
- Jenkins 1998, pp. 42, 56–59.
- Campbell 2003, pp. 117, 175–83.
- Jenkins 1998, p. 63.
- Stephens World Air Power Journal, Spring 1994, pp. 50, 56.
- Haulman, Daniel L. "Crisis in Grenada: Operation Urgent Fury" (PDF). Air Force Historical Support Division, US Air Force. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 October 2016. Retrieved 1 October 2016.
- Cooper, Tom; Sanjay Badri-Maharaj. "Grenada, 1983: Operation "Urgent Fury"". acig.info. Archived from the original on 14 May 2016. Retrieved 25 September 2016.
- "Factsheets: Operation Urgent Fury". af.mil. Archived from the original on 15 March 2016. Retrieved 25 September 2016.
- "Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of the Air Campaign". www.govinfo.gov. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
- Coyne, James P. (June 1992). "Total Storm", Air Force magazine. Archived from the original on 20 November 2011. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
- Frantz, Douglas (8 February 1991). "Pilot Chalks Up First 'Warthog' Air Kill", Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
- NSIAD-97-134 Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of the Air Campaign. U.S. Government Accountability Office. 1997. p. 94.
- "Fixed-wing Combat Aircraft Attrition, list of Gulf War fixed-wing aircraft losses". Gulf War Airpower Survey, Vol. 5, 1993. Retrieved 24 October 2014. Archived 16 February 2013 at the Wayback Machine
- Friedman, Norman. "Desert Victory". World Air Power Journal.
- NSIAD-97-134 Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of the Air Campaign (PDF). U.S. Government Accountability Office. 1997. p. 36.
- Gulf War Air Power Survey- Volume V. (PDF). United States Air Force. 1993. p. 218.
- "A-10/OA-10 fact sheet". Archived 30 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine U.S. Air Force, October 2007. Retrieved 5 March 2010.
- "A-16 Close Air Support". Archived 29 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine F-16.net. Retrieved 5 March 2010.
- Sudetic, Chuck. "U.S. Hits Bosnian Serb Target in Air Raid". Archived 7 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine The New York Times, 6 August 1994.
- ^ Donald and March 2004, pp. 42–43.
- "Pilot Gets 2nd Chance to Thank Rescuer". Air Force Times, 27 April 2009.
- Haave, Col. Christopher and Lt. Col. Phil M. Haun. "A-10s over Kosovo". Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, December 2003. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- Donald and March 2004, p. 44.
- Donald and March 2004, pp. 44–45.
- ^ "Fact Sheet: A-10 Thunderbolt II". USAF. 22 September 2015. Archived from the original on 11 November 2016.
- Maier, Staff Sgt. Markus. "Upgraded A-10s prove worth in Iraq." U.S. Air Force, 7 November 2007. Retrieved 5 March 2010.
- Doscher, Staff Sgt. Thomas J. "A-10C revolutionizes close air support." Archived 16 December 2008 at the Wayback Machine U.S. Air Force, 21 February 2008. Retrieved 5 March 2010.
- ^ "Fight to Keep A-10 Warthog in Air Force Inventory Reaches End Game" Archived 7 January 2015 at the Wayback Machine. Nationaldefensemagazine.org, September 2013.
- "Air Force, lawmakers clash over future of A-10 again" Archived 30 April 2014 at the Wayback Machine. Militarytimes.com, 29 April 2014.
- "New air missions attack Kadhafi troops: Pentagon." Archived 17 February 2013 at the Wayback Machine Agence France-Presse, 29 March 2011.
- Schmitt, Eric "U.S. Gives Its Air Power Expansive Role in Libya." Archived 19 September 2018 at the Wayback Machine The New York Times, 29 March 2011, p. A13.
- 122nd Fighter Wing deploying 300 airmen to Mideast Archived 24 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine – Journalgazette.net, 17 September 2014
- "Pentagon to deploy 12 A-10s to Middle East". The Hill. 22 September 2014. Archived from the original on 7 April 2015. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
- "House Dem: A-10 jets crucial to ISIS fight". The Hill. 23 September 2014. Archived from the original on 10 April 2015. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
- "A-10s Hitting ISIS Targets in Iraq" Archived 18 December 2014 at the Wayback Machine. Military.com, 17 December 2014
- "A-10 attacking Islamic State targets in Iraq" Archived 19 December 2014 at the Wayback Machine. Militarytimes.com, 19 December 2014
- "A-10 Performing 11 Percent of Anti-ISIS Sorties". Defensenews.com, 19 January 2015
- "US A-10 Attack Planes Hit ISIS Oil Convoy to Crimp Terror Funding" Archived 20 January 2016 at the Wayback Machine. Military.com, 16 November 2015.
- Vanden Brook, Tom (5 February 2015). "A-10 warplane tops list for friendly-fire deaths". Air Force Times. Retrieved 12 October 2022.
- "Air Force deploys A-10s to Afghanistan to ramp up Taliban fight". Fox News. 23 January 2018. Archived from the original on 23 January 2018. Retrieved 23 January 2018.
- Gordon, Chris (4 December 2024). "US Launches Airstrikes, A-10s Overfly Syria amid Civil War". Air & Space Forces Magazine.
- Detsch, Jack; McLeary, Paul (8 December 2024). "US pounds ISIS camps in Syria after Assad flees". Politico. Retrieved 8 December 2024.
- Trimble, Steven. "US Air Force may extend Fairchild A-10 life beyond 2028." Archived 20 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine Flight International, 29 August 2007. Retrieved 5 March 2010.
- Goozner, Merill. "$382 (~$511 billion in 2023) Billion for a Slightly Better Fighter Plane?: F-35 has plenty of support in Congress." Archived 12 February 2011 at the Wayback Machine The Fiscal Times, 11 February 2011.
- "F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10" Archived 19 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine. Flight Global, 16 May 2012.
- "USAF Weighs Scrapping KC-10, A-10 Fleets." Defense News, 15 September 2013.
- "USAF General: A-10 Fleet Likely Done if Sequestration Continues." Defense News, 17 September 2013.
- Army Not Interested in Taking A-10 Warthogs from Air Force Archived 26 February 2015 at the Wayback Machine DoD Buzz, 25 January 2015
- "A-10: Close Air Support Wonder Weapon or Boneyard Bound?", Breaking defense, 19 December 2013, archived from the original on 22 December 2013.
- Pentagon Unveils Program to Help Build 6th Generation Fighter Archived 30 January 2015 at the Wayback Machine – DoD Buzz, 28 January 2015
- Air Force considering A-10 replacement for future close air support Archived 13 February 2015 at the Wayback Machine Flight global, 13 February 2015
- ^ One-week study re-affirms A-10 retirement decision: USAF Archived 18 March 2015 at the Wayback Machine Flightglobal, 6 March 2015
- "USAF rules out international A-10 sales" Archived 26 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine Flightglobal.com, 24 July 2015.
- Drew. James. "A-10 replacement? USAF strategy calls for 'future CAS platform'" FlightGlobal, August 2015. Archive
- "Strategy 2015: Securing the High Ground" (PDF). Air Combat Command, US Air Force. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 October 2015. Retrieved 1 October 2016.
- USAF studying future attack aircraft options Archived 10 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine – Flightglobal.com, 9 March 2016
- Osborn, Kris. "The Air Force Will Build a New A-10-like Close Air Support Aircraft". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 13 July 2016. Retrieved 12 July 2016.
- Report: A-10 retirement indefinitely delayed – Air Force Times, 13 January 2016
- Brad Lendon (21 January 2016). "ISIS may have saved the A-10". CNN. Archived from the original on 8 March 2016.
- DOD reveals 'arsenal plane' and microdrones in budget speech Archived 3 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine – Flightglobal.com, 2 February 2016
- Bennett, Jay (19 September 2016). "The A-10 Retirement Could Be Delayed Yet Again". Popular Mechanics. Archived from the original on 16 January 2017. Retrieved 15 January 2017.
- Bennett, Jay (25 October 2016). "Air Force Fires Up the A-10 Depot Line to Keep Warthogs Flying 'Indefinitely'". popularmechanics.com. Hearst Communications, Inc. Archived from the original on 26 October 2016. Retrieved 25 October 2016.
- Haynes, Deborah (9 June 2017). "A-10 Warthog a 'badass plane with a big gun' saved from scrapheap". The Australian. Archived from the original on 12 September 2017.
- Pratt, Everett (3 March 2022). "Transfer three A-10 aircraft squadrons to Ukraine now". Defense News. Retrieved 8 March 2022.
- Demerly, Tom (3 March 2022). "Sorry A-10 Fans, Stopping the Russian Army Convoy in Ukraine Isn't as Easy as "BRRRRRRT!"". The Aviationist. Retrieved 8 March 2022.
- Karen DeYoung; Dan Lamothe; Isabelle Khurshudyan (23 December 2022). "Inside the monumental, stop-start effort to arm Ukraine". washingtonpost.com. Retrieved 6 January 2023.
- ^ Losey, Stephen; Eckstein, Megan (16 June 2022). "A-10 retirements, more Air Force F-35s in Senate defense policy bill". Defense News. Retrieved 8 September 2023.
- ^ Losey, Stephen (9 March 2023). "US Air Force wants to retire all A-10s by 2029". Defense News. Retrieved 8 September 2023.
- Novelly, Thomas (20 June 2023). "A-10s Were Saved from Retirement for Years. Congress May Not Swoop to the Rescue This Time". Military.com. Retrieved 8 September 2023.
- Schogol, Jeff (29 June 2023). "The A-10 is retiring and the Air Force has no close air support replacement". Task & Purpose. Retrieved 8 September 2023.
- Grazier, Dan (1 February 2023). "Documents Show Air Force Leaders Shirking Their Close Air Support Responsibilities". Project On Government Oversight. Retrieved 8 September 2023.
- Graham, Ian. "Air Force scientists test, develop bio jet fuels." af.mil, 30 March 2010. Retrieved 18 July 2010.
- 46th tests alcohol-based fuel in A-10 Archived 5 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine – Eglin.AF.mil, 2 July 2012
- "NSF to Turn Tank Killer Into Storm Chaser" Archived 11 December 2012 at the Wayback Machine Science, 11 November 2011.
- Dept. of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, Research Facilities: A10 Storm Penetrating Aircraft Archived 21 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine South Dakota School of Mines & Technology. Retrieved 20 February 2017.
- "T-28 Instrumented Research Aircraft" Archived 1 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine South Dakota School of Mines & Technology. Retrieved 22 July 2012.
- ^ Rogoway, Tyler. "The Storm Chasing A-10 Thunderhog Program Is Officially Dead, Jet To Be Returned To USAF". The Drive. Retrieved 13 October 2018.
- Donald and March 2004, pp. 9–10.
- Jenkins 1998, pp. 92–93.
- Donald and March 2004, pp. 12, 16.
- "Unmanned version of A-10 on way." Archived 23 February 2012 at the Wayback Machine SpaceDaily.com, 20 February 2012.
- "Darpa Refocuses Precision Close Air Support Effort On Manned Aircraft" Archived 23 April 2014 at the Wayback Machine. Aviation Week, 10 September 2013
- "Next-generation Storm-penetrating Aircraft" (PDF). South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 November 2013. Retrieved 14 December 2013.
- Rogoway, Tyler (24 September 2018). "The Tragic Tale Of The A-10 Thunderhog Storm Chasing Jet That Almost Was". The Drive. Retrieved 24 February 2023.
- International Institute for Strategic Studies (2018). The Military Balance. Routledge. pp. 54–57. ISBN 978-1857439557.
- "Two historic A-10 squadrons inactivate at DM". 16 September 2024. Retrieved 4 October 2024.
- "West Germany / United States Plane Crash NBC News broadcast". Vanderbilt Television News Archive. 8 December 1988. Archived from the original on 7 March 2012.
- Bittorf, Wilhelm (25 December 1988). "Ich hab' meinen Flügelmann verloren" [I have lost my wingman]. Der Spiegel (in German).
- Hindin, Rita; Brugge, Doug; Panikkar, Bindu (26 August 2005). "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective". Environmental Health. 4 (1): 17. Bibcode:2005EnvHe...4...17H. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-4-17. PMC 1242351. PMID 16124873 – via www.ehjournal.net.
- "1988 12 08 2000 hier und heute". ]. 2000 – via YouTube.
- "Radar reports, sightings plot path of missing A-10". CNN. 11 April 1997. Retrieved 8 January 2016.
- Brooke, James (18 August 1997). "Jet's Crash In April Still A Mystery To Air Force". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 January 2016.
- Wald, Matthew (25 October 1997). "Air Force Says Pilot Committed Suicide". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 January 2016.
- Jewel, Dan (12 May 1997). "Mountain of Mystery". People. Retrieved 8 January 2016.
- "Searchers recover remains of A-10 pilot crashed in Colorado". CNN. 7 July 1997. Retrieved 8 January 2016.
- "Air Force ends search for bombs near April A-10 crash site". CNN. 16 September 1997. Retrieved 8 January 2016.
- Townsend, Mark (4 February 2007). "Why won't the US tell us how Matty died?". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 31 August 2013.
- "Welcome to the American Air Museum Home Page". Imperial War Museum. Archived from the original on 27 August 2011. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
- "Bentwaters Cold War Museum". bcwm.org.uk. Archived from the original on 23 October 2016. Retrieved 25 September 2016.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/73-1664." Archived 2 January 2017 at the Wayback Machine Air Force Flight Test Center Museum. Retrieved: 1 July 2015.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/73-1666." Archived 23 April 2013 at the Wayback Machine Hill Aerospace Museum. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
- Wrongly described as 73-0667 on "A-10 Thunderbolt II/77-0667." Archived 7 July 2017 at the Wayback Machine "England AFB Heritage Park." Retrieved 17 May 2017.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/75-0263." Archived 29 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine Empire State Aerosciences Museum. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/75-0270." Archived 24 January 2013 at the Wayback Machine McChord Air Museum. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/75-0293." Archived 2 February 2014 at the Wayback Machine Wings of Eagles Discovery Center. Retrieved: 5 April 2013.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/75-0288." Archived 12 October 2014 at the Wayback Machine Air Force Armament Museum. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/75-0298." Archived 2 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine Pima Air & Space Museum. Retrieved: 1 July 2015.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/75-0305." Archived 5 November 2012 at the Wayback Machine Museum of Aviation. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
- "The last strike: A-10 Thunderbolt II preserved in Shaw's Air Park". af.mil. Archived from the original on 8 December 2015. Retrieved 29 November 2015.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/76-0516." Archived 2 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine Wings of Freedom Museum. Retrieved 1 July 2015.
- "Team Whiteman recovers A-10 aircraft." Archived 2 March 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Whiteman AFB. Retrieved 21 July 2011.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/76-0535." Archived 25 March 2013 at the Wayback Machine Cradle of Aviation. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/76-0540." Archived 7 February 2013 at the Wayback Machine Aerospace Museum of California. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/77-0228." Archived 13 March 2013 at the Wayback Machine Grissom Air Museum. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/77-0252." Archived 25 March 2013 at the Wayback Machine Cradle of Aviation. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/78-0681." Archived 26 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine National Museum of the USAF. Retrieved: 29 August 2015.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II." Archived 1 February 2014 at the Wayback Machine New England Air Museum. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
- "RMM Exhibits". www.russellmilitarymuseum.com.
- "Aircraft Photo of 79–0195 / AF79-195 | Fairchild A-10A Thunderbolt II | USA – Air Force | AirHistory.net #42903". AirHistory.net.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/80-0247." Archived 4 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine American Airpower Museum. Retrieved 1 July 2015.
- "A-10 Thunderbolt II/80-0708." Archived 2 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine Selfridge Military Air Museum. Retrieved 1 July 2015.
- "The AMARC Experience – Fairchild Republic A-10A Thunderbolt II 81-0987". www.amarcexperience.com. Retrieved 24 April 2023.
- Spick 2000, pp. 21, 44–48.
- ^ Jenkins 1998, p. 54.
- Lockheed Martin; HEBCO, Inc. (2 April 2012). Flight manual TO 1A-10C-1. Secretary of the Air Force. pp. 5–12.
The maximum gross weight for towing, taxiing, takeoff, and landing is 46,000 pounds.
- Aalbers, Willem "Palerider" (11 May 2001), "History of the Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, Part Two", Simhq.com, archived from the original on 4 July 2008, retrieved 5 March 2010
- Flight manual TO 1A-10A-1 (20 February 2003, Change 8), pp. 5–24.
- "Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II Ground Attack Aircraft | Military-Today.com". www.military-today.com. Archived from the original on 17 May 2007. Retrieved 22 April 2023.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) - "U.S. Air Force Deploys APKWS Laser-Guided Rockets on F-16s". baesystems.com. BAE. 8 June 2016. Archived from the original on 11 June 2016. Retrieved 8 June 2016.
- Flight manual TO 1A-10A-1 (15 March 1988, Change 8), pp. 5–28, 5–50.
- Flight manual TO 1A-10C-1 (2 April 2012, Change 10), pp. 5–33, 5–49.
- Flight Manual TO 1A-10A-1 (20 February 2003, Change 8), pp. 5–30.
- John Pike. "AN/ALQ-131 Self Protection Jammer Pod". fas.org. Retrieved 21 April 2023.
- Lockheed Martin (2012). "T.O. 1A-10C-1 Flight Manual USAF Series a 10C 2012". kupdf.net. HEBCO, INC. p. Change 9 5–44.3. Retrieved 2 May 2023.
- Jenkins 1998, pp. 4, backcover.
- Jenkins 1998, pp. 64–65.
Bibliography
- Bell, Dana (1986). A-10 Warthog in Detail & Scale. Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania: TAB Books. ISBN 0-8168-5030-5..
- Campbell, Douglas N. The Warthog and the Close Air Support Debate. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 2003. ISBN 1-55750-232-3
- Coram, Robert (2004) . Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War. Los Angeles: Back Bay Books. ISBN 0-316-79688-3.
- Donald, David and Daniel J. March, eds. "A-10 Fighting Warthog". Modern Battlefield Warplanes. Norwalk, Connecticut: AIRtime, 2004. ISBN 1-880588-76-5.
- Drendel, Lou. A-10 Warthog in Action. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1981. ISBN 0-89747-122-9.
- "The Fairchild A-10A: More Thunder for the USAF", Air International, Vol. 6, No. 5, May 1974, pp. 219–25, 263. Bromley, UK: Pilot Press. ISSN 0306-5634.
- "The Fairchild Can-Opener: Shturmovik of the Eighties?", Air International, Vol. 16, No. 6, June 1979, pp. 267–72, 287. Bromley, UK: Pilot Press. ISSN 0306-5634.
- Fitzsimmons, Bernard (ed.). A-10 Thunderbolt II (Modern Fighting Aircraft Series). New York: Arco Publishing, Inc., 1984. ISBN 0-668-06070-0.
- Jenkins, Dennis R. Fairchild-Republic A/OA-10 Warthog. North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press, 1998. ISBN 1-58007-013-2.
- Jacques, David; Strouble, Dennis (2010). A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) Systems Engineering Case Study (PDF) (Technical report). Air Force Institute of Technology. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 September 2015.
- Garland, Charles; Colombi, John (2010). "System Engineering Case Studies". In Kamrani, Ali; Azimi, Maryam (eds.). Systems Engineering Tools and Methods. CRC Press. ISBN 9781439809273.
- Knaack, Marcelle (1978). Encyclopedia of US Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems: Volume 1 Post-World War II Fighters 1945–1973. Office of Air Force History. ISBN 978-0-912799-59-9.
- Melampy, Jake. Modern Hog Guide: The A-10 Exposed. Trenton, Ohio: Reid Air Publications, 2007. ISBN 0-9795064-2-5.
- Neubeck, Ken. A-10 Warthog, Mini in-action. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1995. ISBN 0-89747-335-3.
- Neubeck, Ken. A-10 Warthog Walk Around. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1999. ISBN 0-89747-400-7.
- Shaw, Robert. Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1985. ISBN 0-87021-059-9.
- Spick, Mike. The Great Book of Modern Warplanes. London: Salamander Books, 2000. ISBN 1-84065-156-3.
- Stephens, Rick. "A-10 Thunderbolt II". World Air Power Journal, 1995. ISBN 1-874023-54-9.
- Stephens, Rick. "Fairchild A-10: Fighting Warthog", World Air Power Journal, Volume 16, Spring 1994, pp. 32–83, Aerospace Publishing, London. ISBN 1-874023-36-0. ISSN 0959-7050.
- Sweetman, Bill. The Great Book of Modern Warplanes, New York: Portland House, 1987. ISBN 0-517-63367-1.
- Taylor, John W. R. Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1982–83. London: Jane's Yearbooks, 1982. ISBN 0-7106-0748-2.
- Wilson, Michael (20 March 1976), "Fairchild A-10", Flight International, pp. 707–17, archived from the original on 28 April 2015
- Winchester, Jim, ed. "Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II", Military Aircraft of the Cold War (The Aviation Factfile), Rochester, Kent, UK: The Grange plc., 2006. ISBN 1-84013-929-3.
External links
- Republic A-10A page, A-10 Construction, and Night/Adverse Weather A-10 pages on National Museum of the United States Air Force site
- TO 1A-10A-1 Flight Manual USAF Series A-10A Aircraft Serno 75-00258 and Subsequent (1988)
Fairchild aircraft | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Manufacturer designations | |||||||||||
By role |
| ||||||||||
Fairchild (Canada) | |||||||||||
Fairchild-Dornier | |||||||||||
Fairchild Hiller | |||||||||||
Fairchild Republic | |||||||||||
Fairchild Swearingen | |||||||||||
American Helicopter | |||||||||||
United States attack aircraft designations, Army/Air Force and Tri-Service systems | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Army/Air Force sequence (1925–1962) | |||||
Tri-Service sequence (1962–present) |
| ||||
Related designations | |||||
Not assigned • Unofficial designation • Assigned to multiple types Not to be confused with the aerial target or amphibious aircraft sequences. |