As Sweet as a Warthog! The Northrop YA-9A

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Get Surfshark VPN at: surfshark.deals/nash Enter promo code NASH for 83% off and three extra months for free!

[@deadwolf2978]

similar requirements breed similar designs. look at B1B and Tu-160.

[@stephenjacks8196]

Downvote due to exceedingly long ad. TL;DR. Perhaps it should be reported as one long ad.

[@danalim9670]

I think the higher wing loading of the YA-9A was the dealbreaker

[@hugoaerts2347]

@@deadwolf2978 q

[@olivergs9840]

Ed, have you ever thought of making a video on the Sikorsky X-wing?

[@henryford567]

My Son is currently in the Air Force and is heading up the team that is restoring the A-9 at Edward's Air Force Base. Very proud of him.

[@mikethompson2650]

I was in the USAF and stationed at MacDill AFB in Florida when we got the call to look over this new aircraft the Air Force will buy. There was a Lt standing out there holding this massive cannon shell and behind him was the A-10. I was actually speechless, most of us younger guys were. I remember thinking this is a bomber not a fighter. It was high and the engines, which I worked on at the time, was up there in the clouds. Simple, rugged and solid. Now there was a benefit to the engine of the A-10. It was the same, if memory serves, as the S-3 Viking. That engine had a lawn sprinkler system that the Navy wanted to spray water on the blades to fight corrosion but low altitude flights. I remember the LT saying that the sprinkler would also be useful to spray water to keep the gun exhaust from fouling the engine. The engines were spread apart to lessen damage from SA7 heat seeking missiles. And the two huge fins served a heat shields as well.

[@Dave5843-d9m]

During WW2 the British had the Tsetse Mosquito firing an autoloader Six pounder anti tank gun. Ut was devastating but the low firing rate meant only about five rounds could go down range. USA had similar twin engine bombers with big guns and the same issues. A10 was built to throw massive volumes of ordnance downrange, while surviving defensive fire from its victims.

[@mikethompson2650]

@@Dave5843-d9m The USAAF (US Army Air Force) fielded a B-25 Mitchel with a short barreled 75mm cannon in the nose and that also included 4 .50 caliber HMGs right above. A good antishipping weapon. I not sure if that was better than the other option which was 8 HMGs in the nose. Both offered truly massive amounts of firepower.

[@marcoh.3467]

@@mikethompson2650 you ever heard of the German JU87 Stuka? 2x 37mm FlaK 18 under the wings... I would say, the Stuka was the "german A10 Warthog" during WW2 and i believe to remember, that ex Stuka pilots had some influence on the design of the A10 (given the FACT, that the A10 had the same purpose, as the Stuka back in WW2)

[@mikethompson2650]

@@marcoh.3467 Oh of course, there were several aircraft on both sides that large caliber, non MG, mounted. Good for us all that Europeans no longer feel the need to destroy each other. I was born in England and grew up in Texas, but I still have a fond feeling for "home".

[@KingOfAllAnimals]

What had to be sort of crazy was being the guy who was introduced to the B-25 that had a 105mm gun loaded into it. Granted this was a one off but there were several B-25s equipped with the 76.5mm gun and those were hell on Japanese shipping.

[@pauloakwood9208]

I would imagine that in low level attacks, having you engine intakes in the back and sitting high enough to be screened by your wings is an advantage vs two massive open intakes right up front.

[@hueydoc]

Same with using rough airfields- less garbage sucked up into the engines

[@brinsonharris9816]

Also, the A-10’s engine placement allows the tail surfaces to reduce the IR signature against MANPADS.

[@deadwolf2978]

yeah, but that requires much heavier pylons for the engines and shift planes center of mass. not an easy task in engineering. YA 9 having more conventinal design would be easier to produce, if Fairchild wouldnt do such a great job.

[@charleslindsay3201]

yes and up out of the dust /gravel thrown up on a dirt runway

[@brinsonharris9816]

@@deadwolf2978 The engine placement was a trade off of the pylons’ weight for survivability. Each engine can catch fire, burn and fall off and the plane can fly on one intact engine theoretically. They’re separate from the fuselage to avoid fuel spilling on a hot engine if it takes a hit, like many F-4 ejections began with. Hog was designed to be shot at and keep flying.

[@timberwolf27]

Nothing like going straight into a minute and a half of ads to get me ready to definitely watch all of the video ive clicked on

[@android584]

Prefer ads to be placed at the end.

[@AWMJoeyjoejoe]

You know it's possible to skip the ads? Stop whining.

[@timberwolf27]

@@AWMJoeyjoejoeNot always possible, and it's constant skipping after skipping anyway. Stop agitating.

[@jimmyggh1]

I remember seeing the A-9 when it use to reside at the Castle Air Museum in Atwater, CA. It is the one the USAF took back to Edwards AFB.

[@joshkamp7499]

Fantastic video on a truly forgotten aircraft, at least in the mainstream. The unqualified success of the A-10 renders any discussion of the original selection process rather academic at this point. The YA-9 was good, perhaps even equal, but there's simply no way it could've been better. It's also hard to imagine it could've matched the incredible survivability of the A-10, which in no small part is due to its dual tail design and the unique placement of its engines.

[@mikepette4422]

yeah you said basically what I was thinking

[@glennridsdale577]

The A-10's "incredible survivability" is a myth. It was designed for combat in Central Europe, but from 1984 its survival over the Fulda Gap would have been minutes at best. Why? Because it was designed to survive the Soviet air defences of the early 70s - specifically the ZSU-23-4 Shilka. The Soviets responded to A-X by deploying the 2K22 Tunguska with its 30 mm 2A38Ms and 9M311 missiles. The ONLY reason the Warthog has been survivable in the Middle East is that Tunguska wasn't exported to either Iraq or Afghanistan.

[@joshkamp7499]

@@glennridsdale577 I'm going off dozens of accounts, verified with pictures, of A-10s returning with significant combat damage that would've taken down most, if not any other aircraft. Your hypothetical scenario (which assumes A-10s operating alone, with no HARM ordnance or other support) hasn't ever happened. No, their survivability in combat is an empirically proven fact.

[@Vifam7]

@@joshkamp7499 But even during the first Gulf War, A-10s were getting utterly shot up (several shot down) and had to be pulled out of going after the elite Republican Guard. A-10s also had to give up going low level and start using smart weapons from medium height like the Maverick missile. And this was fighting against Iraqis.

[@Matt_from_Florida]

@@glennridsdale577 Excellent observation, Glenn. Although *not designed for it,* the ZSU-23-4 Shilka has proven itself as a very effective inner-city fighting vehicle. Why? The vertical traverse of the four 23mm cannons allow them to be pointed into the tallest of buildings and either eliminate those targets or lay down massive & withering suppressive firepower. Tanks have no such ability.

[@anselmdanker9519]

Thank you for covering this forgotten aircraft. Only ever saw some photos of this Northrop aircraft.

[@uingaeoc3905]

Northrop YA-9 looks so similar in layout to the Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot!

[@skylongskylong1982]

Good aircraft recognition. Seventy years ago you would have been a asset to the Royal Observer Corps.

[@badlt5897]

You are right! They both have wings, two engines, a cockpit, a tail, elevators, and fly!

[@echodelta2172]

@@badlt5897 he's not wrong, your overly snarky comment could be applied to the A10 as well. The Su-25 and YA9 obviously share similar dimensions, wing, engine and control surface layout. He has better eyes than you.

[@mcal27]

Agree. The soviets decide to go in a different direction than the A-10, by making the Su-25 faster and arguably more versatile than an A-10 type design. Su-25 can touch Mach 1 at altitude, but obviously doesn’t pack quite as much punch in the gun dept

[@Farweasel]

@@badlt5897 They fly - Half-arsed comments ....... Well, not so much eh?

[@petesheppard1709]

Thanks for a very informative video--especially the origins and background of the A/X program. I rather liked the YA-9's appearance, but one feature that may have also been a factor was all the visible work Fairchild-Republic put into the YA-10 to maximize its survivability. These features are, after all, a major reason for its rather ungainly appearance.

[@oxcart4172]

Beautiful footage of the XB-70 as well!

[@Nighthawke70]

5:20 Get a load of the vanity tag above the cannon; "MNCHBX".

[@Blackcloud_Garage]

Good stuff. I always like seeing the story of "the runner up/second place" military hardware.

[@terryfreeman1018]

Me too Shane. Its possible we might see second place used in battle if things go bad. Dont you think?

[@Farweasel]

@@terryfreeman1018 Turn that on its head 'tho ....... If Northrop landed the A9 contract alongsidee its others there could have been competition & compromise as to which got full support.

[@etherealessence]

You'll find quite a few Northrop runner ups.... The YA-9, the YF-17, the YF-20 and the YF-23 I'd love to see them make a new fighter, but I could totally understand if they decided not to bother

[@Maria_Erias]

What's really interesting is how similar in performance the YA-9 and YA-10 were. From years of watching Gun Jesus on Forgotten Weapons, with military firearms it's usually the case of one contender knocking it out of the park while the others are typically very 'meh' in quality or performance.

[@KinoTechUSA69]

The American Su-25 more like it

[@Mute_Nostril_Agony]

I thought so too

[@shaider1982]

Yup, when the Su25 was caught o spy satellite footage, it was thought to be a copy of the YA9.

[@IvorMektin1701]

Convergent evolution

[@KinoTechUSA69]

@@IvorMektin1701 yup, as Ed said, Similar design parameters results in a similar design.

[@vncecuh-mw1su]

Siuuu

[@discount8508]

I think northrop were really pissed when they lost out to the F22 .......the YF 23 was killa

[@Tigershark_3082]

I mean, they already got cheated twice before (F-20, YA-9) so it makes sense why they'd be upset that they lost that one, too

[@michaelm8973]

Honestly the yf23 was way better, the only thing that would’ve made it better is if they combined the two designs and gave it the thrust vectoring of the 22

[@anonincognito617]

USAF paid them back by accepting the B2.

[@Tony_7791]

Archie Explodes moment

[@mikeupton5406]

F-23 navalized was a discussion in Hawthorn at one time.

[@Sacto1654]

I wonder did you mention that the placement of the engines on the A-10 made it a lot less vulnerable to ground fire and infrared-seeking MANPAD missiles.

[@josephking6515]

And also makes it easier to upgrade them due to that placement. The other _thing_ is limited to an underwing turbine partially encased in the fuselage.

[@Dimetropteryx]

Does it actually? I mean, I have heard the claim, but has it ever been verified, through testing, to have any impact on vulnerability to ground fire and MANPADs?

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@Dimetropteryx It's kind of complicated to determine. Because the tail does block the exhaust plume, and when MANPADS became a thing they were a single band seeker that follows the heat signature and then proximity fuse detonates the very small warhead to shower the aircraft with fragments. So by physically blocking the IR signal from the sides you can only take a shot at the rear, and any maneuvering will make flares the only target that the seeker can track. But as time went on, MANPADS now have dual band seekers, improved algorithms that reject flares, and the control logic tells the missile to do a last second jink to move ahead of the exhaust plume so that it has a higher chance of colliding with the aircraft and the impact sensors fire the warhead inside the fuselage which is vastly more effective than a fragment shower.

[@Dimetropteryx]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD I am familiar with the reasoning.

[@haloguy628]

The IR signature is not much different on the A-10 from other AC, however what helped the A-10 to win was the protection from FOD and ground fire by placing the engines in the rear and above the fuselage.

[@rafaucett]

Nice video. The appearance of the Northrop YA-9A reminds me of the Douglas F3D Skyknight.

[@All2Meme]

It does have a striking resemblance to the Douglas F6D Missileer fleet defense fighter proposal from 1959, which was a larger and more sophisticated development of the F3D Skyknight.

[@RANDOMNATION907]

I'm so glad that someone has finally done a video of this plane. Thank you.

[@gregoryemmanuel9168]

Interesting material impeccably delivered, as always. Thank you!

[@RyeOnHam]

Having examined both A-9's at Edwards and March and working on the A-10 for several years, I can say that either choice probably would have been outstanding. There is a good mystique around the A-10 that somewhat ignores that it was poorly built. It is only through maintenance that these things keep flying. The A-10 could have died with the company and I would not have shed a tear. The A-9 would have been much easier to maintain and would have served equally well. Having also examined the F-18's, I would say maybe the A-9 would have been the better choice.

[@jasondueck]

The A-10 has some nice design features that put it over the top against the A-9. The A-10 has higher engines that are less susceptible to FOD on unimproved runways or highways as well as helping to keep missile damage localized to on part of the aircraft (less of an issue now). Also the A-10 having a twin tail meant even if you lost one, you still had one left (redundancy) . Finally, the A-10's landing gear does not have to be deployed to land as it extends below the fuselage and wings. A nice touch for a CAS aircraft.

[@benclark1423]

Ed's meme deployment is always on point.

[@asn413]

as someone once said, the only problem with the skyraider was there werent enough built :)

[@mirrorblue100]

Nice work in putting it all in context - thanks.

[@chrisstopher2277]

Your combat footage is amazing. I have usually seen most combat footages but yours are all new to me.

[@30firebirds]

At 5:56, I thought for a moment that the aircraft crossing right-to-left behind the taxiing Ya-9 was a Messerschmitt ME-262. Bit of momentary excitement there.

[@josevicentejrmeneses8552]

it looks to me to be a A37B Dragonfly.

[@lindycorgey2743]

Funny you should say that. The ME262 Replicas built several years ago. They use the same A37 GE engines inside a shell resembling a Jumo 004. The GE produces something like 2 1/2 times the thrust of the WW2 Jumo. So the GE engine throttles are designed to cut back to 85% max power after take off. Otherwise it would overspend the aircraft frame.

[@RCAvhstape]

My dad was in the Navy and his ship operated A1 Skyraiders, which they nicknamed "Spads". They were old fashioned and slow, but they carried an enormous weapon load and could fly forever on a single tank of gas, so they got used a lot for close air support. And according to history, they even managed to bag a MiG jet fighter kill in Vietnam. For what they used it for it is a solid aircraft.

[@stevemiller7433]

My Brother was on the USS Hancock in Vietnam, an old Essex class carrier modified to angle deck. (CVA19) It's short deck was suitable only for A-4's and A-7's and, notably, A-1's he called them SPADs too. He was an ordinance man, loading bombs on these things.

[@flyingnorseman]

Warthog has been my favorite AC since early 1980s. Nothing like the sound of that gun. Apparently it was also able to out turn and defeat one of or air superiority models in the hands of a capable pilot.

[@katherineberger6329]

At Red Flag, under a guns-only condition for the engagement (simulating a winchester AIM-9/120 RTB by one of the big boys where an opfor CAS air asset - read, Su-25 Frogfoot - is a target of opportunity), but yes. If missiles are available, the air superiority bird locks up from BVR and splash one Frogfoot.

[@jantschierschky3461]

I understood that the position of engines played a big role, for unsealed runways and more protection against ground fire

[@jamesricker3997]

Not to mention a lower IR signature

[@Ratty_Rex]

A great examination of a very capable (but oft overlooked) prototype.

[@rogerkay8603]

Hey Ed, talking about the YF-17, can we expect you to cover the "Cobra" off anytime?

[@nicflatterie7772]

They should have built the Cobra version of the A-10 with rotating engine and wings that made it a VTOL aircraft.

[@katrinapaton5283]

Considering how similar the Su25 and the A9 were I can't help wondering if there was an element of the German response to the T34 being the Panther and not an almost direct copy. You'd never mistake an A10 for an Su25 while in the heat of battle, distinguishing an A9 from its Russian counterpart would have been far more likely to lead to misidentification.

[@fightfortrump3905]

That's a very good point, espescially considering that by that time IFF was really rudimentary and mostly depended on human factor

[@tyrantfox7801]

Kinda like how Convergent evolution works. Function dictates the form

[@Tigershark_3082]

@Aqua Fyre Some of those involving the A-10 are terrifying as fuck

[@glennridsdale577]

Frogfoot is a far more flexible aircraft than either YA-9 or A-10. It's a mistake to think of it as their equivalent. Consequently more were built and it was exported to 17 countries. The A-10 literally couldn't even be given away.

[@tinkerpearce]

The A10 was better suited to the mission; the pod-mounted engines made it less likely that a single weapon could damage both engines, and the redundant rudders was also more resistant to catastrophic damage from missiles; the A10 could lose an engine and half it's tail assembly and still have good odds to make it home.

[@jsdreyer2031]

Came here to say this. The A-10 had design elements lacking in the A-9 that aided in its survivability.

[@xyz-hj6ul]

Whereupon it will be blown up because, in a hotwar with Russia, we will be in immediate retreat from FOLs like Sembach or Alhorn and there won't be even time to canbird the jet. All made possible thanks to the Hog's 270 knot cruise as inability to rapidly generate sorties from beyond 150nm radii. Conversely, the titanium keel between the engine bays on the YA-9 and Su-25 acts like a firewall and not having the thrust line above the fuselage actually puts a lot less stress on the wingroots and tails while providing more room for a second seat as the ability to deliver PGMs from altitude. Longer slants = time to see inbound shots coming and gain good effects from flares/IRCM while using shooter-designator teams to avoid pointing the nose down and towards the target. In a COIN environment, which is what the A/X was actually designed for, and as we discovered, repeatedly, over the ART; the low-slow strafe and bomb platform rapidly becomes unsurvivable, even in a nominally 'low' threat environment. In a condition where every threat vehicle has an HMG or autocannon on the roof, and the troop carriers each have a grip stock and 2-3 SA-7/14 in the back, the lolo environment becomes all but unsurvivable as soon as you break LOS. Especially in winter when, in Europe, half the time you could not see more than about 1.5 miles down range and had ceilings of as low as 500ft or so. The A-10 is a legacy of Vietnam slow-COIN with the likes of the A-1, OV-10 and A-37, with a toxic stew of other unwise ideas brought in by the likes of Pierre Sprey, based on his interpretation of Hans Ulrich Rudel's Stuka Lore. You know, one of the guys who lost. Here's the truth: If it's not a single bullet hole in the wing skin or something like a control surface which can be swapped out overnight, damage tolerance extends only insofar as the jet needs to clear back out of the mission area to a designated ejection lane. Because the level of damage is usually such that the airframe is out of the war anyway vs. what you can do, at high ops tempo, while protecting basing, from further back in the Benelux or France, with a fast mover which, having a full function (loft/PGM) weapons system can remain safe because it isn't shot at to begin with.

[@TheStig_TG]

@@xyz-hj6ul the correct person here,

[@georgew.5639]

Engine placement was a factor in it being chosen. The placement protects the engines from foreign object damage. FOD is very possible with aircraft flown off of unprepared airstrips. The engines are in pods which allows the engine to be potentially shot from the airframe without losing the aircraft and pilot. To this day no one has designed an aircraft of the likes of the A 10. And until this happens the A 10 will stay in service.

[@fooman2108]

Tell me that this thing does not look like an A/T-37 after a couple of months in the weight pile? I can still remember pics of a pilot (on the ground after the mission) with his head stuck through the hole in the wing after taking hits during desert storm!

[@avnrulz]

I helped crew two of the last C-7s in service in the 1980s.

[@Paladin1873]

Ed, your slide comparing the Army and Air Force is spot on. Good job.

[@AC_702]

Saw the YA-9 at March. Surreal to see it and that it wasnt scrapped

[@winslowgreaves121]

I really think that the airforce - army agreement really screwed over the army. They honestly should be able to handle their own CAS with fixed wing without having to depend on airforce assets.

[@superduper1917]

Amen!

[@jnmrn4069]

No kidding! The Air Force has been trying to kill off the A10 since it started service. Air Force wants strategic aircraft and the ground troops NEED tactical ground support aircraft. Let the army have some fixed wing aircraft!… or at least give them the A10s and some budget to maintain them.

[@steeltiger5000]

The Army wanted no part of the CAS mission and the Air Force had to assume the responsibility. The Air Force hates a single purpose aircraft, their all about Multirole all day. The Army did not want to spend the budget to acquire and support fixed wing aircraft. My opinion only but I thing the bias was toward rotary wing assets.

[@crocidile90]

@@steeltiger5000 That and the advent of RAM jet propulsion artillery shells that can fit in standard artillery guns (i.e. M109 Paladins) is making (in more traditional combat frontline zones) CAS obsolete...... if you even ignore that almost every world power (except the USA... because SM-3 can be "truck mounted" lol) has a SPAAG with guns and missiles making life hell for Helos and CAS.

[@billballbuster7186]

One of these aircraft is on display at the March AFB Museum, Riverside County, California, just off the 215 Freeway.

[@Tidebo1]

Congrats on 35k! Chugging along steadily.

[@Defender78]

9:03 "the exact reason given" - i am wondering if "Ay-Ten" rolls of the tongue easier than "Ay-Nine", and that might have had something to do wiht the selection....

[@bloodyspartan300]

My A-10's were built to Belly Land and survive helps. Fuselage Splice 11743

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Excellent video...You are one of the very best at this type video...Thanks very much Ed...!

[@geoben1810]

I honestly don't see how you can compare the two. The A-10 is the current and for the foreseeable future, most capable in it's role and then some. It's a formidable, fearsome weapon and I'm sure U.S. adversaries are VERY apprehensive when considering that this aircraft would be deployed against them in the battlefield. Along with combat attack helicopters, this would devastate enemy ground forces. This represents death from above in a very real way.💀

[@Caseytify]

The problem is that both the A-10 and the Su 25 have only been successful in permissive environments. The A-10 was designed to fight Soviet forces in Europe, but never did. In fact the USAF hasn't fought a near peer opponent since the Vietnam war. They've enjoyed air supremacy for over 40 years. The DoD has been trying to find CAS design that can survive a less permissive environment, but all the fans can do is pound their chests and chant "Warthog!! Warthog!!" I suspect drones will prove effective.

[@jeffissimo1221]

I think the A-10 won because of the little things that went into the design that ultimately edged out the win. For example, the titanium bath tub that surrounds the pilot, the externally mounted and separated engines, the dual vertical stabilizers, and the semi-retracted main gear that enables wheels-up landings in the advent of hydraulic pressure loss. All of these equate to increased pilot survivability and airframe survivability.

[@dmasamitsu7720]

Despite the fact that I knew and worked with engineers who worked on the YA-9A, I do agree the A-10 was the better choice. The titanium bathtub was actually part of the A-X specifications. Both aircraft had to have it, but not necessarily in the first pre-production Aircraft Validation (AV). prototypes. Building protos for aircraft that might not get bought by the government is expensive, and major components like the GAU-8 cannon and different engines may or may not be available once the proto is ready. It happens a lot. Both aircraft had to be able to survive multiple hits by Soviet 23mm cannon. Both had to have pilot protection and redundant plus an additional manual flight control systems. Both had to support either the Lycoming YF-102 engine or the GF TF-34 engine. both had to support the GAU-8 cannon. The YA-9A prototypes used an aluminum alloy bathtub which would have been replaced in production versions by titanium. The engine mount locations on the A-10 only somewhat mask the heat signature from certain angles on the ground. It still has a very visible signature when the aircraft maneuvers or if the aircraft is bounced from the side or above by a fighter, and it was discovered when we evaluated captured Soviet IR and Radar seeking missiles from that era that they could still readily achieve a lock on the A-10 in combat and approach conditions. The location and nozzle directions are actually something of a trade off as lift is not quite as efficient as it could be, but the TF-34 had superior max thrust and thrust to weight, while the Lycoming engine was cheaper. Both were excellent aircraft that met the basic criteria. The airframe design of the YA-9A was a more traditional, lower risk approach with maneuverability and control advantages, but the YA-10A protos had gone to the time and expense of incorporating more of the specific features in them, so the protos were closer to what production versions would look like, and there was less risk from that standpoint as more had actually been tested and validated before flyoff, even though the airframe design was a more novel, higher risk approach. Fairchild had to go the extra distance and cost because it could not have afforded to lose the A-X flyoff. It had no other future aircraft contracts. Ironically, Northrop (now Northrop Grumman) bought the A-10 assets of Fairchild Republic in 1987, when Fairchild went out of business. I was working for Northrop when that happened.

[@pickanotherid6646]

Another reason for the A-10 being chosen is left/right parts compatibility, reducing the support 'tail'. The outter sections of the wings are interchangeable. Remove the wing tips and pylons, remove the pylon attachment point covers on the top, flip over and reinstall on what was the bottom, and you have a wing section for the opposite side. An important feature when trying to turn two damaged aircraft into one flyable one.

[@spokanetomcat1]

This prototype aircraft is located at March Field Museum in Riverside California. First time I saw it there when I was stationed there from Nov 1982 to Jan 1990. I had a great time looking it over and under while I was there. Make the time to go see it when in the area.

[@Mishn0]

@4:00 It looks like Grumman invented the Pucara! I know, I know, it's just a Mohawk with a pointy nose. Sort of like how a Cobra is a Huey with a pointy nose. GD's design looks like it should be spraying bugs over a corn field.

[@dkoz8321]

Fun fact. A-10 engines and accessory drive systems, are shared with US Navy's S-3 Viking anti-sub patrol aircraft.

[@nicholasroberts6954]

And if the USAF had gone for the YA-9, with its resemblance to the Su-25, in battlefield conditions, there might have been the possibility of greater mis-recognition and blue-on-blue ?

[@laramyelliott2903]

That's exactly what I thought.

[@Ni999]

That cuts both ways. Also if the US had gone with the A9, would the Soviets have adopted the Su-25?

[@passantNL]

That's why modern fighters carry IFF equipment. Few pilots will come close enough to even see the aircraft, before they fire their missles. It would only matter to the guys on the ground, firing their 50 cals at anything that flies, which is something the A-10 can handle.

[@mvfc7637]

The SU-25 was designed after the appearance of the YA-9 and NATO’s assessment of the aircraft was that the SU-25’s design was heavily influenced by the YA-9.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@passantNL Even into the late 90s there were requirements for visual ID due to rules of engagement. IFF only responds if it's a friendly or unknown, and there's a multitude of reasons why a friendly IFF could be reported as unknown. The MANPADS operators do typically have a IFF antenna, but they typically get to see the aircraft before it's inside MANPADS range.

[@johnparrott4689]

The engines evolved into the ALF-502, used in the BAe-146 and early Canadair Challengers, a geared turbofan- decades before the PW1000g on the Airbus 220- very efficient although somewhat less reliable than the CF-34. It was tested on what surely must have been the last flying North American AJ ‘Savage’ nuclear bomber c.early 1970s, in SoCal. Thanks for a great video, I was intrigued to see the huge lift dump devices on the A-9. Must have been a tough decision between the 2 planes.

[@PW060284]

Can someone explain when you would use a helicopter for cas and when you'd go with a plane?

[@saltyroe3179]

The main advantage of the A9 was lower initial cost and lower maintenance costs because of the Northrop focus on maintainability. The A10 advantage was the more protected engines which also not going to vacuumed up FOD on the runway. The build quality of the A9 was amazing (I got to play with the one at March AFB). My favorite design concept was a turbo prop pusher made of composite that would have had a much lower price tag and been acquired in greater numbers. This was not developed as it would not be as survivable as the A9 or A10.

[@randompheidoleminor3011]

True fans know that this video was posted before a few days ago in the forgotten aircraft playlist :D

[@CrazyDogfighter]

Aaah, thats why i thought it was a reupload

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Lol I'm impressed, wondered how you guys had found it before I'd set it to public 🤣

[@T.Driglok]

I thought I was going crazy. I felt very strongly that I had watched this video before.

[@michaelleslie2913]

My favourite A10 wart hog fact is that Hans Rudel ww2 German stuka was a consultant on the A10 aircraft Although he was a bit of a git he was unsurpassed in the ground attack business.

[@millicentsquirrelhole582]

Yes, well, nice to know ol' Hans wasn't a... you know...a snivelling little rat faced frog foot git...now, isn't it?

[@tossedsaladandscrambledegg8576]

Regardless of the reasons for the choice, history has made it clear the A-10 was the best choice. The position of the engines, dual tails and landing gear pods were genius design choices to keep the A-10 survivable in the worst possible situations. Damage sustained on multiple AC but still capable to fight and return to base demonstrate the worthiness of these decisions.

[@hbtm2951]

In contrast, the YA-9 seems much more fragile than the A-10.

[@bryanrussell6679]

The location of the engines also played a role in which design was chosen. With the engines mounted under the wings at the wing root on the A9, they were more susceptible to taking damage from enemy fire. The engines on the A10 are slightly more protected by being above the wings.

[@axlejohnson9156]

I think I remember reading that maintenance was a key part of the decision making. The Pod mounted engines were much easier to switch or work on. Makes some sense.

[@benwelch4076]

I do agree that the better plane won, the A-10 just has more survivability. I was surprised on how good the YA-9A was, its a shame more people do not know about it. Cheers and thank you.

[@chops0075]

One of the only two YA-9A prototypes produced is at March Air Museum in Riverside, CA. In person, it is a Beast of an airplane.

[@fawnlliebowitz1772]

They made the right choice, the A10 because of it's dual rudders and vert stabs could adsorb a lot more punishment.

[@mikeclarke952]

Fundamental in the better design of the A10 was the engine placement above the fuselage, allowing for better protection from small arms fire and debri being sucked into the engines on take-off and landing in combat make-shift runways. It might be worth noting the Warthog is one of the few loved USAF aircraft by the "grunts" on the ground and the pilots get alot of respect from them if they ever meet.

[@tedsmith6137]

I saw this plane at Merced (or Castle AFB?) in 1989. I had never heard of it before then.

[@wape1]

For a second I thought it was the *F6D Missileer!* 😅 Actually, I'd love to hear what Ed has to say on that topic, how some of the concept and tech trickled down to aircraft like the F-14!

[@aaronsmith8073]

Grumman shared designs with Northrop during the pre-testing phase.

[@shaider1982]

That was also close to the F3D Skynight

[@billyboblillybob344]

The A-10 was just a better aircraft...more well thought out with engine placement and overall design.

[@mrguest3749]

yeah a-10 can take off from a dirt runway while the other aircraft just cant

[@tombates5345]

What about the su 25 which was mentioned. That has low engines and the soviets didn't really take care of their airfields like nato does, so it would have to be tough for that as well.

[@billyboblillybob344]

@@tombates5345 The low engines are less protected from random ingestion (landing zones or in the air) than the A-10's engines being body mounted with the inlets riding over the trailing edge of the wings providing even more protection. The landing gear arrangement of the A-10 allows its gear to be in the 'up' position and still be functional under dire circumstances. The YA-9 (not sure about the SU-25) had landing gear that folded inward thereby making them useless once they were not locked into the landing position. Very well thought out bits like that just push the A-10 to that other level of toughness and survivability...in my opinion.

[@Itsjustme-Justme]

@@tombates5345 The Su-25 simply was the best design the Sowjets had back then. They were missing the layout idea that Fairchild had. Also, the lifetime of 1970s Sowjet jet engines was not very long anyway and I bet they calculated quite a limited lifetime for CAS aircraft in in frontline service.

[@treefittyfoh1562]

The A 9s engines would have been easier to service and so would have a great many other things. As for them ingesting something, then you have not done a FOD walk. The A 10 depends on chaff and flares for missile defense not engine placement. I think I would have liked working on the A 9 as opposed to the A 10. Things were lower to the ground and easier to reach. Not many of you have pushed a toolbox down a flightline with a step ladder on it. I often wonder If pulling the gun system for would have been easier too. A 10s are much larger than people realize. If the A 9 had won everyone would defend them the same way they do the A 10 because it would have been every bit as good if not better. Lets be honest if neither plane had the Gau8 no one would care about either of them. It is clear to me why the A 10 won. It would have had to be seriously flawed not to win. Politics wins again. It has never been clear to me why the YF 23 didn't win ( The Airforce was afraid of it I believe) or why we stopped building F 22s when we did. ( Not buying the reasons given)They should have started building F 23s in their place. I also have to say I banged my head on the bottom of that plane (A 10) more than any other I was ever around. There are times I feel the country is just circling the drain. Sad I know. Maybe I just hit my head a few too many times back then.

[@pookatim]

I was surprised you made no mention of the value of having the engines set high off the ground on the A-10 making them less vulnerable to debris intrusion when operating on unimproved runways. I recall that being a major consideration when this selection process was underway. I think the decision was also related to keeping Northrop in the loop for political reasons. Always best to have have several manufacturers competing and creating new designs.

[@Caseytify]

Weren't the engines less vulnerable to MANPADS as well?

[@jamesredman1263]

One other factor has been mentioned: the higher position of the engines further from the ground in an aircraft that would be spending considerable time near the ground, reducing chances of dirt and sand being sucked into them.

[@tombowers2020]

Wanna see one of these bad boys? Check out the old March AFB museum in Riverside, CA. She’s a beauty! They also have a Aricobra in doors that looks like it came off the production line yesterday.

[@erikandersen2477]

I have always heard it was the location of the engines. If an engine was hit it would do none or only little damage to the rest of the fluselage or wings for that matter.

[@jamesharrison6201]

Northrup also they were working on the XF-20. The resemblance between the A-9 and the Russian plane could/would be have been done by extrapolation from photos and dimensions in the article about the A-9

[@nickpapa1721]

You missed out the OV 10 Bronco during Vietnam. Was that on purpose?

[@mikepette4422]

how dare he

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Lol indeed I did, and the A-37. Great planes, but not the heavy hitters the USAF wanted.

[@RuiRuichi]

Phil Airforce still uses OV10s during the siege of Marawi just a few years ago. And we still use them in Counter Insurgency operations.

[@nickpapa1721]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I'm not nit-picking - just a fanboy who feels that his (alter ego's) steed got left out!

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

@@nickpapa1721 LOL i understand. I'll get to the OV10 one day, promise :)

[@MarkErikEE]

Excellent video as always. Nice aeroplanes both of them.

[@Star_cab]

Northrop's entry reminds me alot of the su-25. No sooner did I type this you comment about the su-25.

[@benhudman7911]

I was honored to tend the Pig.

[@Kabayoth]

Not often discussed is the F-15 program prior to the AX program. Fairchild had developed an F-15 concept. Prior to that, they had an updated F-105 design with an eye towards dogfighting. Neither of these projects bore fruit; consequently, the last production aircraft had left Fairchild when the F-105 program stopped. But the F-15 likely lost out to McDonnell Douglas because right up the road from Fairchild, Grumman was building Tomcats. The Fairchild F-15 is worth looking at. Indeed the failed F-105 update is so obscure that it's sometimes mistaken for the Lockheed F-104 Lancer update being fielded about the same time.

[@usamwhambam]

The A9 sort of looked like a further development of the 1950's era Navy Banshee.

[@Joshua_N-A]

Was the Banshee a Northrop?

[@SteamCrane]

That tail...

[@usamwhambam]

@@Joshua_N-A McDonnell Aircraft made the Banshee. McDonnell was merged with Douglas Aircraft and Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas.

[@irondiver2034]

Battlefield serviceability and survival were the biggest contributors to the Fairchild win.

[@thegodofhellfire]

Another superb video Ed!

[@gpgpgpgp1000]

I think the A-10's engine placement and twin tails, allowing for redundancy and smaller profiles, was the biggest advantage it had over the A-9. An added bonus is there would be no confusion if the plane headed your way was a friend A-10 or a foe Su-25.

[@crekow]

Probably worth noting that the unusually high engine placement on the A-10 with the nozzles over the tailplane helps to reduce it's heat signature from the ground. That's one very good reason to choose it over the Northrop design.

[@ordikaskirita5234]

But you are a hot tamales from above. Ironically the A10 stripped can be caught by most WW2 prop fighters.

[@crekow]

@@ordikaskirita5234 I think the designers of both planes were more concerned about AA flak from below rather than hits from above. Also, it seems to me that both planes were designed to be used in a combat environment where air superiority is assumed. Both the A9 and the A10 would be easy meat for any air to air missile so I don't think a 100 mph speed advantage and better maneuverability would be relevant here.

[@anthonysantiago1999]

Great video, never knew about the YA-9.

[@joshpalmer7416]

Once again, great stuff

[@bobkohl6779]

My brother worked on the YF-17. Fly of with the YF-16 was interesting.

[@markmullins7990]

Good video another aircraft I hadn’t heard of

[@arthurmosel808]

The high mounted engines allowed it to be used from less developed airstrips without over concern of FOD; while the lower mounted engines required a more developed runway to avoid the issue. Additionally being widely separated with little crossconnection (as far as I remember) meant a single hit wouldn't leave the plane as vulnerable to being shot out of the sky by a single hit on a shared fuel and engine system. In other words the A-10 was designed as only for a specialist role, attacking Frontline ground targets, while the other was a more general fighter bomber. Why the Air Force fighter mafia hated it when force reductions dropped the number of aircraft available and they had to keep some around while reducing fighter and high speed fighter bombers that were still capable of air to air combat. Remember, the fighter mafia had taken over from the strategic bomber mafia due to the nature of the Vietnam War and movement away from nuclear weapons use.. Remember the repurposing of the B-52 for the ARC LIGHT conventional bombing; an experiment that was tried in the early 50's with the B-36 which actually carried more bombs; but jets were the thing and big propeller driven were out (SAC was only about nuts then.

[@weaselworm8681]

Do we still need manned aircraft for close ground support or have drones advanced to the point of fulfilling that mission? The A10 has always been my personal favorite. It just looks like it should.

[@etherealessence]

I love Northrop planes. they are all gorgeous

[@spency787]

Interesting insight. I know I’m being picky but jet engine power output is normally “Pounds of Thrust” rather than “pounds of force”. Cheers

[@tartan_ninja69]

Another Great video, Very interesting

[@stephenhudson6543]

The 18 was also chosen because of its engine placement which protects them from heat seeking missiles

[@andrewmullen4003]

I have always thought that the A10 was better protected against ground fire, most notably with the engines and intakes above the mainplanes , thus providing excellent protection

[@mikeupton5406]

Step Mother was a Northorp employee during this time. So yeah team! But the A-10 was the correct choice. Another issue on the A9 was the low slung nacelles were an invitation to FOD on unprepared landing strips. I went on to work on various parts of the A-10. I have seen Hawgs do stuff. I really think the 2 seater was a missed oppurtunity. But now I am old and I embarrass my family when I see a Hawg at an airshow or PIMA and start hugging on it.

[@kfeltenberger]

Meeting the parameters is simply meeting the parameters. Fairchild went above and beyond with their design when it came to survivability, maintainability, and serviceability. Looking at what each aircraft brought to the table, both objective and subjective, the A-9 was a distant second. If the A-9 would have been first flown in 1960, it would have been amazing and better than anything yet flown, but when compared against the design qualities of the A-10...it just couldn't compete.

[@richardscales9560]

I see to recall reading , a good while ago, that the ya9 was much more of a prototype the the ya10 and that this was something of a factor in the final decision.

[@ivanganic3984]

Nice video. I just want to say, what read somewhere, YA-10 have better survavibility. Place of engines on YA-10 say is more advanced than YA-9. On A-10 they are harder to hit from ground because wings, they are not exposed to ground to air guns. Also if one engine is damaged, is very fast and easy to replace(easy mentance) putting back into working condition damaged plane(you can do this in frontline workshop), keep in high ratio of operational units. Mostly if manpads hit engine , you dont have other structural damage on plane, because engines are totaly separate from plane. I dont know how YA-9 was solve that problem...because between engines are big gun, example on su-25 between two engines is big armor plate to separate if one engine from another, if one explode, to not damage another one. SU-25 is not copy of YA-9. They are clasic two engines ground suport planes. YA-9 is worked around AU-8 gun, SU-25 was worked around rocket pods, both like advanced variant of armored IL-2. Simular problems have simular solutions, they look simular on visual, but they are totaly different by enginering side...by enginering side YA-10 and YA-9 more simular , than su-25 and YA-9.

[@RudeCalling]

It does remind me of a Su-25.. either way interesting design.. overall I love the warthog but i'm sure this thing was a beast!

[@jehb8945]

I also read that the greater separation of the engines of the a-10 gave it a marked survivability advantage over the A9A which I am not knocking here because I think it was a good aircraft but I have to agree the A-10 was just a little bit better. Back to the engines an infrared guided missile would have hit the A9A mid fuselage where it would have had the potential to take out both engines but also I assume the fuel piping for both engines is in the same area so you can see where the potential game over moment is and then there's the fact that a burst of antirecraft autocannon fire could have taken out both engines or if you look at the A10 those engines are on their own pylons and separated we're a missile hit wood take out only the engine and the pylon and more than likely not affect the fuel supply system for the other engine.

[@ahafeel]

A very good video on the CAS aircraft.. However, I believe with the widespread use of drones like the TB2 etc, manned systems would gradually give way to drones. The widely circulated video of the duel between an Azeri Su25 and an Armenian ZSU23 Shilka AA system with the former loosing while those of TB2s taking out Armenian ground and AA assets at will seem to point towards this direction (at least that is my view).