Can't believe I actually read the entire thread. Get stupid points, not brownie points for doing so it would seem.
1) As is typical, no one defines the parameters of their arguments; causing stupidity to ensue. Purposefully misconstruing others arguments in the name of "winning"
2) For Petes sake, can ignorants on this forum do everyone the courtesy of at least basing their ignorant rantings from the bare minimal well of knowledge of wikipedia and basic physics instead of 1970's numbers and wishful cogitation? Please? Or hey, use something better? Hmm?
2a) A-10 has new engines giving it 30% more thrust at take off equaling 50% reduction in take off distance or conversely ~~50% higher bomb load, 30% increased loiter time/fuel burn and 100% increase in hours before replacement compared to those ancient wikipedia numbers! Modern A-10 is the A-10C, not A or B. By now, just about every A-10 flying is the A-10C if not every single flying A-10.
2b) A-10 has ability to use all guided weapons now.
3) All airplanes have triple redundant flight systems on critical primary flight controls! Not just the A-10. AT THE TIME, 1970's this was not the case. So, please stop bringing this point up as a ***** in A-10's favor. What A-10 does have, no other has, is completely separate hydraulic systems physically separated by distance so damage in one area is no likely to cause flight control failure!
4) A-10 is "armored". Uh, well, no, no it is not. What it does have is armor around the cockpit/electronics. What the A-10 has that no other plane has is the ability to have large portions of the plane destroyed and yet
still fly through redundancy in its structure and dual hydraulic systems. It has extra wing spar for instance along with extra rudder/tail surface that is redundant. Hey, as an Israeli pilot proved, even an F15 can land without a wing at 300mph!
4a) Of course an F15 and every other fighter out there has 0% ability absorbing shrapnel as it will blow up due to its engines being too danged close to the fuel. Add in an A-10's engines are turbofans(true) unlike a fighters. What this means is that when shrapnel from AAA, A-A missile, SAM etc blows a hole in the engine pressure vessel, the jet of extremely hot gases has somewhere to go, cooling down, depressurizing in the process, limiting the explosion. On a fighter this is not the case. Add in physical distance from the body along with residing in a free atmosphere allowing dispersion of the gases instead of destroying the structure around it and conversely ripping off the back half of the plane as fighter jets are designed to only a service factor(damage tolerance factor) of 1.05 and 1.15 for major structural components! I do not know what the A-10 is, as I did not design it, but with its redundant superstructure, it has to be past 3. If I can super simplify: Civilian airlines for instance, are designed to a one time instance proof tensile stress of 2.5 and a repeated stress factor of 1.5(limited).
These numbers are not truly compatible as civilian safety factors do NOT equate to military redundancy damage factors! But, it is as close as I can describe for a rough "feel" regarding reality to those completely ignorant on the internet.
PS. Rotating the engines for STOL is utterly impractical. If you guys would be bothered to look at a sideview of the A-10 you will see that it has about a 3-5 degree Angle relative to Take-off rolling plane(Old T34 engine A-10A/B) A-10C with its much more powerful engines will have a smaller angle relative. What this means is that this is the design point for minimal loss of cruise efficiency for the gain of minimum take off distance with a war load. Any rotation of the engines past this point will BURY the NOSE wheel and it will take off in a much LONGER distance.
