A Look At Russia's Version Of The A-10 Warthog

The A-4 Skyhawk was used by the U.S.Marine Corps as a close air support platform over South Vietnam.

The U.S, Navy used the A-4 as a deep strike aircraft over North Vietnam where the majority of the A-4 losses occurred. North Vietnam air defenses around Hanoi and Haiphong were the largest air defense in history even today consisting of SAM's, AAA, heavy automatic weapons and Mig fighters. American Air Force and Navy pilots flying over North Vietnam had one arm tied behind their backs when they flew over North Vietnam, LBJ's insane rules of engagement.

Three times the war in Vietnam could have been won
1.# 1965 if LBJ hadn't micromanaged the war from 10,000 miles away and forced stupid ROE on our pilots over North Vietnam.

2.# 1968 after the VC and NVA got their butts pulverized during the Tet Offense of 68. But Walter Cronkite went on television and lied to the American people. Around this time NVA commander, Gen. Giap acknowledged that the American soldier couldn't be defeated on the battlefield and Gen. Giap and Ho Chi Minh were discussing a conditional surrender until they heard Walter Cronkite and looked at the counter culture movement on the streets of America.

3# 1969 when Richard Nixon inherited LBJ's insane Vietnam War policies.

What made the A-4 the best jet powered CAS aircraft ? Not so much the aircraft itself but who was in the cockpit, a grunt, a Marine officer who was trained and qualified to lead a Marine rifle platoon into combat. Every Marine is a rifleman first no matter what MOS they have including all officers including Marine pilots.

The "A" in A-4 represents "Attack" The A-4 isn't an air superiority fighter. It was first designed as a light nuclear attack aircraft. It was also the replacement for the A-1 Skyraider because the U.S. Navy had to get all high octane aviation gas off it's aircraft carriers. Gasoline fumes are extremely explosive.

The A-10 during the Vietnam War probably would have been very successful if the A-10's 30 mm GAU-1 cannons were replaced with four 20 mm cannons.

2X 20 mm cannons and 4X .50 cal HMG would have been very effective. The A-10 was built around the 30 mm GAU-8 as a tank destroyer to destroy Soviet tanks in Europe. Basically not as a CAS aircraft but as a battlefield air interdiction platform. Today the USAF are using the term "Deep Close Air Support" instead of "Battle Field Air Interdiction."

Even today U.S. Air Force pilots who flew both the A-1 Skytaider and would later on fly the A-10 Warthog say the A-1 was the best CAS aircraft ever to fly.

A couple months ago a friend on mine who's a Marine V-22 Osprey pilot were driving to the store. I mentioned how freaking loud the V-22 was but the first thing you notice when an Osprey is approaching isn't the sound but the ground starts shaking before you hear it. In Vietnam Charley would hear UH-1 Huey's approaching miles away from the pop pop pop sound of the blade tips breaking the sound barrier.

Then I asked a question, "I wonder how effective the V-22 would have been in Vietnam." ? He asked "What do you mean"? I replied that the V-22 was the replacement for the Marines assault helicopter, the CH-46 Sea Knight. The V-22 requires twice the size of a LZ than the CH-46. You should have seen the expression on his face while his brain housing group went into thinking mode.

Back in the day 46 or 50 years ago (Vietnam War) American Marines and soldiers had a large selection of weapons platforms and munitions to choose from for fire support. Not today. And back when we had 16" gun BB's and 8" and 6" gun cruisers you were able to turn a jungle in to a large parking lot (LZ) in a couple of seconds.

But I would say it all comes down too who's sitting in the cockpit of any aircraft. The A-1 Skyraider was no dog fighter but U.S. Navy pilots in the cockpit of the A-1 were able to shoot down two Mig-17's during the Vietnam War. The U.S. Navy pilots were just better pilots than the North Vietnam pilots.

 

A4, F4, Intruders, all of them worked in perfectly same conditions, but it was A-4 that suffered heaviest losses, roughly same in marine and airforce.
Once again, this is not the issue of personal heroism or magic. It is an issue of of 7.62 hitting the compressor blade.
Intruder will extinguish the fire and rush home or to evac zone on his second engine.
A-10 has all the chances not to notice a loss of one blade at all. The big fan engines are slow, vibration is not such an issue. Because they are outside debris are not such an issue, they are likely to punch the coating and fly away, and there is two of them.
When you catch a round or a shrapnel in an engine in A-4 (small, high performance, in the fuselage), that’s basically the end of your story.

Nnnno. Definate and big NO . Go shoot your rifles and lead platoons elsewhere . In the air, all the propaganda and brainwashing slips away, that is why we love it

No. Have you tried reading history of creation of A-4? What you have been told in school was given on need-to-know. Google it, it is interesting.
A-4 was a concept of a short range light air superiority fighter at birth. If you would have any aeronautical background you would see it in the wings, guns (100 rounds per gun), in the payload, fuel, gears. But the navy urgently needed a replacement for Skyshark (that was a replacement of Skyraider), that’s why A-4 became (A) not (F). And it was quite a successful replacement.

It would be probably the best CAS in the world if you would dump the GAU-8 for quad 20mm and more armor. Strongly agree.

Nah. That is true but. A-10 is a school bus, A-4 is Porsche 911, very nice to fly, but the guys below, they need a bus.

Have you read Chickenhawk by Robert С. Mason.?
I do not believe there is a place for Osprey in Chickenhawk world.

No, No, that is a dangerous approach. Mig-17 was shot down because they wear stupid. It is very difficult to place Mig17 into a position where a Skyraider would achieve a firing solution, but those idiots have managed. You cannot count on enemy stupidity to win a war. Naturally, ordinary Navy Pilot was superior to ordinary Vietnamise pilot. It is difficult to train in war torn country. In USSR the Vietnamise pilots wear placed on meat diet, they could not pull sustained 4G without fainting, not talking about 9G.

We are far away from discussion topic. I am saying that reopening A-4 is a mistake. Rather go for A-10 with quad 20mm, or drones. What is your point?

 

The U.S. Air Force never flew the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk.

282 Navy and Marine A-4's were lost during the Vietnam war, 195 in combat.

During a CAS mission with a Marine ground FAC team directing the CAS mission, it's the FAC (a Marine fighter pilot who's assigned to a grunt unit) who controls the aircraft by bringing the aircraft onto the target and telling the pilot from what direction to come in from, at what angle of a dive, how low, how fast, and when to vector and in what direction after delivering it's ordnance on target. You don't want the aircraft flying into air space where there's artillery or mortar rounds in the air providing fire support for some other ground unit in the area.

A JTAC team is going to have less control over the aircraft and the FSCC in the rear gets more involved communicating between the pilots and the JTAC.

A Marine pilot who's in the aircraft that's providing the CAS is qualified to command a Marine rifle platoon so he has better knowledge of what exactly is happening on the ground. He also knows exactly what the affect a 250 lb. 500 lb. nap, rocket fire and gun strafing will have on the ground where as Navy and Air Force pilots don't.

The original designation of the A-4 Skyhjawk was the A-4D

A = Attack

4 = 4th attack type of aircraft built by the manufacture for the Navy or Marine Corps

D = Douglas.

F-4 F Wild Cat, the 4th type of fighter to be built for the Navy by Grumman

F-6 F Hell Cat, the 6th type of fighter built for the Navy by Grumman

F-4 U Corsair, the 4th type of fighter built for the Navy by Vought.

TBF Torpedo bomber built by Grumman

TBM same torpedo bomber as the TBF but built by General Motors.

R4D, the fourth type of air transport built by Douglas for the Navy and Marine Corps. In the USAAF / USAF known as the C-47.

PB4Y the fourth type of patrol bomber built by Consolidated for the Navy and Marine Corps,. In the USAAF known as the B-24 Liberator.

During WW ll the TBF / TBM flew more missions attacking ground targets with bombs than attacking enemy shipping with torpedoes. So the Navy wanted to build a dedicated carrier based attack aircraft and it was the AD (Attack-Douglas) The A2D Skyshark would be the second attack aircraft built for the Navy by Douglas.

In 1962 when the Navy and Air Force got into step on designated aircraft types, the Navy's AD became the A-1, the A4D became the A-4 and the R4D became the C-47 and the Air Force B-26 became the A-26.

Now there's the post WW ll Navy's F4D Skyray that looks almost like the A4D (A-4). It was built as a carrier base jet fighter. In 1962 it was redesignated as the F-6S

The A-4 Skyhawk may have been derived from the F4D just like the Navy's Vought A-7 Corsair ll was was derived from the Navy's F8U Crusader and in 1962 it became the F-8 Crusader better known as the Mig Killer.

 

Hot off the presses, A-10 used today in Syria (dabiq).

Can't really make out the aircraft, but the distinct BRRRRRRRRTTTT can be heard.
[video=youtube;RXGo3Z_pfQk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXGo3Z_pfQk[/video]

The Turks are pushing deeper into Syria.

 

My mistake
Some interesting info on A4 losses.
http://a4skyhawk.org/files/gallery/Complete Casualty Records?page=28

I understand the idea, and I quite agree that a CAS pilot has to know what to expect from infantry below, their needs and abilities. But non of infantry operations is rocket science compared to what is needed to perform CAS. You need a weeks training to understand what and why a platoon is doing, the rest of the time should be spent on learning to fly.
And I find it most unnatural for a strike pilot not to know what bomb does to the ground target. I believe it is written in the schoolbook , or you mean something else?

In 1947 Douglas Engineer Eduard Heinemann, as of Fleet request, starts development of Carrier born supersonic fighter F4D Skyray. This is a twin engine fighter (later to set world speed record). Watch closely at the dates, timeline is important.
In 1948 Skyray is transformed in to a single engine fighter with powerfull J40 (Westinghouse)
When first three prototypes are ready, it turns out that J40 is yet not ready, this forces Heinemann to install J35-A-17 (Allison) engine. J35 was roughly twice less powerful than J40. In 1951 XF4D-1 (later F4D Skyray) takes to the sky. But J35 brings its list of problems. Heinemann starts to dance around J35 updating and improving original fuselage of Skyray (it is a long story), and has his hands full till the moment J40 finally comes online in 1953 (and sets a world speed record). F4D was designed for 2 x J35, than redesigned for J40, prototype flew with 1 x J35, redesigned back to J40, made the record, but J40 turns out to be problematic, so F4D is redesigned to fly with next engine the J57, and enters production in 1954 with J57.
Skyray lived happily ever after, but Henemann was pissed off, you can guess why.

Second story, of Skyshark
Skyraider was OK, but new technologies… we need to go on. Logical solution was to install a turboprob in a Skyraider. Several projects wear created… bla bla bla the story is long and difficult, I mean really difficult, twin turboprop power plant with a gearbox, twin propellers, a clutch , turned out to be much more mechanically complicated than a simple turbine like in Skyray story. But lets skip till 1947, when Fleet orders two prototypes. In 1950 first XA2D-1 takes of, and stays airborne for less than a minute, the engine vibrations nearly destroy the plane.
Refined, second flight in 1950, 13 minutes in air. Vibrations are “better” but you cant fly this thing, it is too dangerous.
End of 1950, 23rd flight, engine failure, plane destroyed, pilot killed.
Next flight with updated engine in 1952. It is alive and in air. But the project is possessed by many problems. Initial order of 300 planes decreased to 10. First flight of a serial machine is in 1953, technical failures continue, nothing but trouble, testing flights continue till 1955 and end with another engine failure and crashed machine. The project is abandoned.

Last story, the happy ending.
In 1950, knee deep in Skyray engine, Eduard Heinemann (Skyray designer) comes up with a concept, that modern fighter planes gain weight too fast (with bells and whistles), while engine production fails to keep the pace (this is the time when he is jumping around J35-J57). In 1952 in the beginning of January, he comes up with a report (report goes to Navy) depicting the problem. And offers a solution, home-made, by his own initiative (not Douglas), light fighter, as an example of what a light craft can be. These are the initial drawings of Skyhawk. It is cheap, it is small, it is easy. Yep, surprisingly it looks like a light version of Skyray.
Navy comes up with a tender immediately, in the same month. Yes, they do not need a fighter, but they desperately need a replacement for Skyshark. Eventually the Navy was correct to start a backup project in case of Skyshark failure. The proof that it was backup is a fact that A4D was founded from A2D budget. Heinemann was correct to offer a simple and reliable light platform that grew into an excellent (or Legendary) Attack machine. But on the drawing table, it was born as a fighter.

 

New upgraded Su-25SM3

 

Are you sure Su-25 is a version of A-10? Look at these photos:

[/URL][/IMG]
[/URL][/IMG][/URL][/IMG]

 

Unarmed, comrade?

 

It takes off from the factory.