Could the Army & Marines operate their own A-10s if they wanted to?

[Dissonance]

The AC-130 is extremely good at its role, but its role isn’t the same as that of the A-10. The AC-130 isn’t designed to operate in an environment where there are substantial air defenses, while the A-10 is. See for example the wiki section on durability of the A-10:

The A-10 is exceptionally tough. Its strong airframe can survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles up to 23 mm. The aircraft has triple redundancy in its flight systems, with mechanical systems to back up double-redundant hydraulic systems. This permits pilots to fly and land when hydraulic power or part of a wing is lost. Flight without hydraulic power uses the manual reversion flight control system; this engages automatically for pitch and yaw control, and under pilot control (manual reversion switch) for roll control. In manual reversion mode, the A-10 is sufficiently controllable under favorable conditions to return to base and land, though control forces are much higher than normal. The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator, and half of one wing missing.

In comparison the AC-130 is quite fragile and vulnerable to ground fire.

ETA: Gray Ghost beat me to it.

[Inigo_Montoya]

@bump

Plus, pilots want to fly what’s sexy, and and A-10s are definitely not sexy.

@Dissonance

The A-10 is exceptionally tough. Its strong airframe can survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles up to 23 mm. The aircraft has triple redundancy in its flight systems, with mechanical systems to back up double-redundant hydraulic systems. This permits pilots to fly and land when hydraulic power or part of a wing is lost. Flight without hydraulic power uses the manual reversion flight control system; this engages automatically for pitch and yaw control, and under pilot control (manual reversion switch) for roll control. In manual reversion mode, the A-10 is sufficiently controllable under favorable conditions to return to base and land, though control forces are much higher than normal. The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator, and half of one wing missing.

OK, not sexy, but badass. I lack the ego of a fighter pilot, but if I had to back up some bravado I think I’d be firmly in the A10 camp. Sure, it’s hard to score a hit on a Raptor before The Grim Reaper already has your address, but nothing delivers an in-your-face smackdown with quite the same style as the Warthog. Go ahead, shoot it. Shoot it with a tank. With five tanks. Bust it damn near in half. Doesn’t matter, bro–it’s coming for you, and it’s going home for suds when it’s done.

[bump]

Sure, they’re badass for close air support, but pilots like to fly high and fast, not low and slow, especially Air Force pilots.

It’s kind of like comparing a dump truck to a formula 1 race car. One can haul a lot over rough terrain, but the other goes 200+ miles an hour.

[Sicks_Ate]

It takes all kinds. A friend who is an Apache pilot was describing the different peronalities that end up being different kids of pilots. It goes back to who they were in high school, he said.

Apache pilots are the jock/bully type.

Chinook pilots were the dorky introverts.

I don’t remember who the Blackhawk pilots were. It made a lot of sense though, and also makes sense that there are pilots who would explicitly want to fly A-10s. They would have been my first choice, for example.

[Inigo_Montoya]

@bump

It’s kind of like comparing a dump truck to a formula 1 race car. One can haul a lot over rough terrain, but the other goes 200+ miles an hour.

You’re thinking of a Hercules pilot vs. Fighter. The indestructible Warthog I think would be better described as … um … one of these except, heavily armed.

[DWMarch]

I’ve always wondered why the US doesn’t sell the A10 fleet to Israel. Israel isn’t a huge country in terms of flying distance and the heavy ordnance load of the A10 seems like it would be an ideal fit for the conflicts the aircraft might encounter there. The IDF already rocks Achzarit and Namer APCs, which are tanks converted to troop carriers. Why not a tank converted to an aircraft too?

[Raguleader]

@bouv

Both of your links are broken.

Here they are fixed:

One.

Two.

Also, unless I’m mistaken, that first one shows an A-10…unless Marines also have the ability to fly…:dubious:

That’s also most likely an Airman, not a Marine. Hard to tell without a uniform top or a hat on (the Marines wear eight-pointed camo caps instead of normal ones, for some unspecified reason).