The P-39 gets speed, Vietnam sees the A-10

A10 in Germany

On exercise in Germany I was on the (fortunately theoretical) receiving end of an A10 attack and I could only think " that bloody thing is an enormous flying target!" In normal NATO mode we had no more local air defence than waving GPMG fire at it but a ZSU 23-4 would have been all over it. So slow and so big. Harriers just appeared without warning and vanished though I was once in a position on a hill where the Harriers were flying past so low I think I could have taken one or two out by throwing rocks down at them.
 
I'm going to disagree that the A-10 would have been meat on the table for ZSU-23s. One reason the production rate of the A-10 was so low was the backlog in producing the Titanium bathtub that the Pilot and avionics sat in. I worked on F-15s in that era but knew some folks at TAC HQ who had helped develop (and flew) A-10s. They showed me pictures and data from tests against ZSU 23s and the results were impressive. Also the tactics that would have been used were designed to keep one of the pair of A-10s assigned to a target engaging the target at all times.

The biggest problem with the A-10 was political. Fairchild brought in a General who was retiring from the Air Force after being part of the A-9/A-10 evaluation team. They were told that they should not hire him because the Air Force would not be able to sign any contract extensions (after the initial 720 or so) for fear of Congressional and media investigations. Fairchild did not listen and hired the guy anyway. When The buildup of the Reagan years came along and GD and McAIr started getting followon contracts for F-16s and F-15s (along with Rockwell B-1Bs, Lockheed C-130s, etc) Fairchild was frozen out of the procurements because no one was going to risk their career on backing a contract as long as there was the appearance of impropriety. So the A-10 became an orphan

Back in the Vietnam Era the Army did have a plane they wanted to turn into a CAS aircraft. From talking to folks who flew it it would have been a pretty good one. But the agreement that the Army could not have armed fixed wing aircraft halted the entire program. The plane ended up being used for observation, survaillance and Electronic warfare. It had multiple hardpoints on the wings and a decent weapons control system. The aircraft? The OV-1 Mohawk.
 
On exercise in Germany I was on the (fortunately theoretical) receiving end of an A10 attack and I could only think " that bloody thing is an enormous flying target!" In normal NATO mode we had no more local air defence than waving GPMG fire at it but a ZSU 23-4 would have been all over it. So slow and so big. Harriers just appeared without warning and vanished though I was once in a position on a hill where the Harriers were flying past so low I think I could have taken one or two out by throwing rocks down at them.

The high velocity 30mm cannon lets the A-10 popup and fire a burst at the ZSU, then break away before the ZSU's counterfire arrives. The A-10 can also fire Mavericks from outside the ZSUs range.

Back in the late 70s Joint tactics (JAWS/JAAT) with both Cobras and A-10s cooperating proved to be several times (3-4) as effective as either operating alone. The Cobras would use terrain masking to sneak up and destroy mobile AA operating with the target tank formation. Then the A-10s would make their run with cannon, mavs, and bombs, getting target information from the Cobras and Scout helicopters. Then the Cobras would clean up with TOWs and rockets.

A-10 pilots also trained to fly at 100' AGL, popping up to 2-300' to make a cannon or Maverick attack. That kept them out of the service envelope of most Soviet mobile SAMs.
 
I'm going to disagree that the A-10 would have been meat on the table for ZSU-23s. One reason the production rate of the A-10 was so low was the backlog in producing the Titanium bathtub that the Pilot and avionics sat in.

The problem isn't just whether or not the pilot makes it back alive, but also how long it takes to return the aircraft to a serviceable state after each sortie. It's not the case that the entire aircraft is immune to 23mm cannon fire; if it was that heavily armoured, it probably couldn't fly. If a burst of cannon fire stops that aircraft from making any more sorties for 24 hours, that's still significant.
 
The problem isn't just whether or not the pilot makes it back alive, but also how long it takes to return the aircraft to a serviceable state after each sortie. It's not the case that the entire aircraft is immune to 23mm cannon fire; if it was that heavily armoured, it probably couldn't fly. If a burst of cannon fire stops that aircraft from making any more sorties for 24 hours, that's still significant.

True but there were procedures to make surprisingly heavy repairs to that bird in a very short time as well as flying with some panels off. A-10 units had a larger sheet metal shop (general term for structural repair) than our F-15 unit did just for that reason

Our Eagles were Thoroughbred racehorses. The Warthogs were plowhorses
 
Nam needed A-10's like Desert Storm needed MOPP gear

A-10's were splendid tank killers.
IMO Spooky and Skyraiders were everything you needed in Nam CAS.

No question, the Warthog was the outgrowth of a lot of lessons in Nam about protecting the pilot and giving a gunship a bit more speed and mission survivability.

In a heavy metal slugging contest, it'd be a star. While squadrons had ammo and birds flying fire missions, it'd tear Ivan's 1970-1990 Pact ORBAT so many new orifices it'd give them serious pause. War winner by itself, probably not, but it would have a serious impact.

In COIN CAS, the A-10's a white elephant shooting very expensive ammo for low-value targets. Would you use Maverick missiles to take out a squad of VC?

What they had to work with in Nam was quite sufficient even to take out the NVA armor and AFVs.
Sure, the A-10 would've been more cost-effective than conventional CAS missions from Navy and USAF F-4's, Thuds, etc flinging a lot of dumb bombs and rockets.
IIRC they were just starting to put Vulcan 20mm cannon on F-104's, and optional F-4 chin pods, before they became standard for dogfighting and possible CAS use.

Probably not, if you had .50 cal MG's, 5-inch rockets, 40 mm grenade launchers as the Huey gunships and A-1 Skyraiders did.

Just my two cents.
 
In this era of precision guided weapons it is easy to forget the standard of delivery in the Vietnam era. In many cases the bombsite was a grease pencil mark on the canopy and the Mk 1 eyeball. The standard close support loadout was 'snakes and nape' (500, 750 or 1000 lb Snakeye retarded delivery iron bombs and 750 lb canisters of naplam) not weapons that you wanted dropped close to you even by the most experienced pilots. 1000 yards from friendly troops was considered very close. Some weapons required safety zones of 3-5 miles.
 
On exercise in Germany I was on the (fortunately theoretical) receiving end of an A10 attack and I could only think " that bloody thing is an enormous flying target!" In normal NATO mode we had no more local air defence than waving GPMG fire at it but a ZSU 23-4 would have been all over it. So slow and so big. Harriers just appeared without warning and vanished though I was once in a position on a hill where the Harriers were flying past so low I think I could have taken one or two out by throwing rocks down at them.

I'm going to disagree that the A-10 would have been meat on the table for ZSU-23s. One reason the production rate of the A-10 was so low was the backlog in producing the Titanium bathtub that the Pilot and avionics sat in. I worked on F-15s in that era but knew some folks at TAC HQ who had helped develop (and flew) A-10s. They showed me pictures and data from tests against ZSU 23s and the results were impressive. Also the tactics that would have been used were designed to keep one of the pair of A-10s assigned to a target engaging the target at all times.

The biggest problem with the A-10 was political. Fairchild brought in a General who was retiring from the Air Force after being part of the A-9/A-10 evaluation team. They were told that they should not hire him because the Air Force would not be able to sign any contract extensions (after the initial 720 or so) for fear of Congressional and media investigations. Fairchild did not listen and hired the guy anyway. When The buildup of the Reagan years came along and GD and McAIr started getting followon contracts for F-16s and F-15s (along with Rockwell B-1Bs, Lockheed C-130s, etc) Fairchild was frozen out of the procurements because no one was going to risk their career on backing a contract as long as there was the appearance of impropriety. So the A-10 became an orphan

Back in the Vietnam Era the Army did have a plane they wanted to turn into a CAS aircraft. From talking to folks who flew it it would have been a pretty good one. But the agreement that the Army could not have armed fixed wing aircraft halted the entire program. The plane ended up being used for observation, survaillance and Electronic warfare. It had multiple hardpoints on the wings and a decent weapons control system. The aircraft? The OV-1 Mohawk.

Although designed for maximum pilot survival, in a standard Cold War scenario a la Fulda Gap an A-10 would have had a life expectancy of hours, if not minutes IIRC, which has everything to do with it's task at low altitude in such a scenario. Attack helicopters would have had an even lower expectancy.

The OV-1 Mohawk had none of the extras which maximised said pilot survival with the A-10. It'd eventually become very vulnerable against AAA, unless you keep it at 10k altitude.
That is at least what has happened to the A-10; exceptions allowed, it stays at altitude and uses smart weaponry.
You might as well use a fighterbomber then...

The OV-1 Mohawk would only be used in a COIN situation at low altitude. Otherwise it'd be at 10k altitude, together with the Warthog and other aircraft.
 
I was not suggesting the OV-1 for a mission similar to the A-10 against the Red Hoards but as a CAS or COIN aircraft in a Vietnam type scenario. Growing up in the '60s meant that every month Popular Science seemed to have an article or pictures in photo shorts about the latest proposed device for anti-guerrilla warfare. P-51s converted to use a turboprop, a CH-47 fitted out as a gun ship, etc. Then when I found Aviation leak at the local library there was everything up to 747s fitted out as cruise missle carriers (with rotary racks on tracks on the main deck kicking the ALCMs out through hatches on the sides!
 
Top