From what I’ve read, they seem almost indestructible.
Google, “A10 warthog enemy fire”.
http://www.leyden.com/gulfwar/a10.html
So, 21 shot down?
Thanks. It didn’t even occur to me to ‘google’ on the question.
From the numbers, it sounds like 11 were lost in Desert Storm. That’s about 1 in 80 sorties - a higher percentage than I would have guessed (their high risk missions, notwithstanding).
From the numbers, it sounds like 11 were lost in Desert Storm. That’s about 1 in 800 sorties - an impressively low percentage given their high risk missions.
Well, they do the low-flying stuff.
I think you read those numbers wrong. Six were shot down. Fifteen were damaged but five were not returned to service. They call that BCM, beyond the capability of maintenance. Not the same as shot down. The plane is so well designed it took damage beyond repair but still made it back. Easier to replace planes than pilots.
Bear in mind also that they haven’t been tested against the defences they were designed to face (i.e. more ‘modern’ WP air defences in a central European air war).
As I understand it, the USAF wanted to dump the A-10 in the 1990’s (before Desert Storm) as they thought it couldn’t take the improved Soviet air defences. At least that was the party line; some say budget cuts were forcing the AF to choose between fast fighters and slower attack aircraft, and historically the AF is (or was) biased to the air-to-air mission (what they now call “Air Dominance”). Another train of thought that is similar is that the A-10 close-in mission with its implication of some losses of aircraft and aircrew doesn’t fit the more recent fashion of “no-contact” warfare.
What’s that? “Flag Warfare”? 
So the answer is six.
That seems like an impressive record to me given the A-10’s mission.
The A-10 is a marvel of modern engineering. Designed durring the Cold War it is still a capable unit. It’s the perfect example of form following function.
The A-10 was designed around it’s main weapon, the GAU-8 “Avenger” cannon. Firing 30mm depleted uranium shells it can cut through armor like a knife through tin-foil. The gun itself weighs more than a Buick and when they remove it from the chasis they have to jack up the rear tail.
The A-10 was designed as a dual purpose aircraft. It’s primary purpose was close ground support. It’s secondary objective was Wild Weasle missions, or SAM hunting. The A-10 has excelled in both fields.
Sporting steel armor plating, a concrete tub for the pilot and rio, dual hydrolic controls and twin engines it’s capable of taking tremendous punishment. If I remember correctly it was orgianally designed to take a direct hit from a Russian Gecko missle lanucher.
Durring Desert Storm the A-10 proved it’s worth by devastating enemy supply lines. Flying in pitch black night, the pilots were without the benifit of modern day night vision equipment. To compensate, many of the pilots would use the video cameras mounted in the Paveway LGB’s they carried as a night scope. Some even etched into the glass lead indicators for thier guns, a practice which had not been done since WW2.
In todays battlefield, the A-10 is considered a relic. With more modern forms of ground support such as the RAH-64A Apache “Longbow” and the Boing/Sykorski RAH-66C Comanche the A-10 no longer fills a needed roll. The Comanche is much better servered to perform Wild Weasle missions due to it’s decreased radar profile and NOE (Nap of the Earth) flight capabilites. The Apache can carry almost the same payload as the A-10 and has greater low speed manuverability, a crucial component of close ground support.
It’s a shame. The A-10 Thunderbolt II (or Warthog) was a beutiful plane.
Skip: The A-10 armor is titamium, not steel and/or concrete.
As a single seater, there is no “rio” (RIO = Radar Intercept Officer, a Navy term; WSM = Weapon System Officer would probably be the USAF term). The Paveway LBG is a Laser Guided Bomb and so has no “night scope”. You are probably thinking of the Maverick missile in this regard.
Others can comment on whether a helicopter such as the H-64 or smaller H-66 can out-carry a fixed wing aircraft such as the A-10.
Johnny L.A.: Yes, some would agree with you in that non-contact war is like “flag war” in that it assumes one can fight without enduring the pain and sorrows, and especially the losses that go along with fighting. The idea that we can fly anywhere and hit anyone with our magic thunderbolts, getting them to submit to our will, is seemingly as widespread as it is absurd.
Technical marvels and functionality aside, that plane is one mean looking bastard. Having been fortunate enough to work at the EEA in Osh Kosh one year, I got to see a few of 'em up close. IIRC, they still carry the mouth & teeth paint job on the nose. Do any other aircraft still do this?
When I lived in Tucson I saw at least one pair of these in the sky every day, from Davis-Monathan. They cruise around low and slow, like they’re always about to land, and when they bank hard, it’s scary, because then you see just how big they are. For all those manuevers they do over the town, I’m surprised none has crashed and taken out a neighborhood (An A-6 crashed in the 70’s).
I wonder how many people know what they could do to the traffic on Speedway Blvd.
There’s at least one sitting in the Pima Air Museum.
Barton, I think that was an A-7, not a navy A-6. If it’s the same crash we’re talking about it was an Air Force A-7. Pilot ejected and the plane went down in an intersection near the U of A, killing a woman in a car. Several years earlier an F-104 crashed on the northwest side of Tucson in an empty field. Didn’t see the crash but after hearing it we looked out and saw the pilot parachuting down.
Just curious, anyone know of the six planes shot down did any of the pilots survive?
JC - I could have sworn that at one time they had a radar operator in the plane, but when I Googled for it, you were right.
When I stated that there was a “concreate tub” for the driver, that was ment to be in quotes as the armor is so thick there it may as well be concrete.
IIRC, all the piolots of the downed A-10s at least ejected, though I don’t recall if all survived.
A10 pilot Captain Stephen Phillis did not.
Regarding A-10s versus Apaches, I would guess that there has to be a future for fixed-wings. Last I heard, Apaches were notoriously finicky to maintain, and easily grounded in bad weather. If the A-10s are sufficiently more robust, with better all-weather capability, surely they can fill a role that no Apache or Comanche ever will.