Your A-10 video sucks and I can prove it mathematically

Buckle up people, this will be long and boring. So, as I said earlier, I would fight LazerPig on his A-10 videos (and I'd love to fight him on the F-35 as well). I am rather a big fan of LazerPig and I like a lot of his videos, as they are usually well researched and sourced. So, I although I do this to malign his video, it's not to malign him, but point out his inaccuracies, bad/lazy research, along with dumb/incorrect info, and biases that affected this video. I would still highly recommend you watch his videos on it (if you can spare an hour and a half), with part one here and part two here. 

That being said, I'm also not the world's biggest A-10 fan. It's certainly far from my favorite aircraft, but I can respect that it's NOT a crap plane. That out of the way, I think I should start by pointing out some things he has gotten very right in his video, and he has accurately sourced a lot of good info:

Yes, he is completely wrong on almost all things military/war. Might as well call him Walter Peck.

- Yes, Pierre Sprey and James Burton had nothing to do with the A-10 airframe design, and were also total hacks that were full of all sorts of crap opinions, false claims, and terrible thoughts about modern warfare in general. Anyone who thinks they were directly involved in the A-10 or any other production aircraft are also full of crap, and have not done their homework. You REALLY didn't have to spend an entire 30 min on this freaking subject (at least if it's supposed to be about the A-10). Should have just made part 1 about Spey and Burton as a separate subject entirely. 

- Yes, the F-111 and F-117 were/are unfairly maligned by reformers in the military, it's industrial complex, and by enthusiasts. They were both retired before their prime (or at least for the F-111, was never properly replaced). Note that the F-111 still has much better range and payload capacity than the F-15E that replaced it (as well as better top speed when internally laden). Also, the F-117 is still flying after being officially retired as it is an excellent training aid for ground sensors, weapon crews, and other aircraft in helping to detect/engage stealth aircraft.  

- Another point of contention I will completely agree with him on, is that the capabilities of the GAU-8 cannon are vastly overrated/exaggerated, and I think the USAF likes it that way. In reality, the USAF even acknowledges that it is no more effective than a 20mm Vulcan in anything other than it's effective range. As an added note, I think the A-10 would be better served by the 25mm Equalizer cannon, to vastly reduce vibrations/reverse thrust that cause the inaccuracies of the A-10, while improving ammunition capacity, or increasing space for much needed ECM and ECCM equipment (a lack of which, I admit will greatly contribute to potentially poor survivability going forward).

Now, on to LazerPig's unfortunate bullcrap, which is sadly plentiful, as he constantly contradicts himself in the 2nd video. It's also funny to hear him admit he's not an aviation expert, but puts out this long form, two-part video explaining why he says it's a crap plane, while saying there are a lack of "facts" in favor of the aircraft. 

- As he himself stated in the video, one goal of the design program was to be a lower tech vehicle with very low maintenance hours and cost, that can be operated from dirt strips and poorly prepared runways. Specifically, it was envisioned to replace the A-1 Skyraider in the "sandy" role. I would suggest this means the A-10 is massively successful from a design perspective as it has fantastically better range, payload capacity, armor, loiter time, more powerful gun, and can carry more sophisticated weapons than the 'ol A-1.

- Also, he stated the A-10 has never been confirmed to survive a SAM hit. A literal ten second google search proves him wrong.  This is also funny, because he uses another picture of this exact missile hit to the above Warthog in his video seconds after stating there is no evidence for it. All you needed was to read the caption for the pic you used, moron! Read all about it here. Another example of one being hit by a SAM and surviving is here.

- Also, he criticizes the armor and gun on the Warthog and says the fact that the armor only protects up to 23mm is lacking. Excuse me, did you not say that war always changes? They didn't have the effing 2K22 Tunguska around when the A-10 was designed or put into service. The Tunguska was only accepted by the Russian military in 1982, and they don't like admitting when they had enough units that were trained for it to reach Initial Operational Capability after that time. The A-10's primary threat was the ZSU-23-4 Shilka, which uses, guess what? 23mm cannons! Shilka's are also used by a plethora of countries in the world which is a lot more than the whopping eight that use the Tunguska. The key here being that the armor can withstand hits from it and the GAU-8 gatling cannon out-ranges the 23mm cannons. Not to mention there are still plenty of old Russian aircraft and AAA pieces in many a country's inventory (including Russia's) who are equipped with 23mm cannons.

- In the video he states the A-10C model has many upgrades that rectify many of the problems he talks about, but then says those upgrades make it so that it can't operate from dirt strips and roads, which you'll find is complete bullshit, if you do a basic google search for it (see also here). Also, even if the A-10C's more sophisticated systems break without being able to be repaired immediately, it still retains the combat effectiveness of the A-10A, as it still has the same engines, gun, payload capability, and more basic avionics systems to use. 

- He also says this "C" model makes the plane much more expensive, which defeats the purpose of the plane being simple and cheap. Well, I did some number crunching, and the basic F-16C (considered to be one of the cheapest planes in the USAF inventory) WITHOUT later block upgrades in today's money costs roughly 32 million a piece (adjusted for inflation from 18.8 million 1998 USD). The A-10C with it's C model upgrade cost INCLUDED and adjusted for inflation comes to roughly 17 million USD in today's dollar value. Seems pretty freaking cost effective to me, you dolt (you can do the math yourself here).

- Yes, the A-10A has been the subject of bad blue-on-blue incidents because it lacks sophisticated sensors, communications, and data link devices as he mentioned, but this illustrates another problem. The plane was not designed with those in mind, because of the mission set it was to perform. It was not meant to be roaming a countryside looking for targets of opportunity; it was meant to operate with other FAC aircraft and/or ground based FACs (as he mentions in the video!) to ensure target discrimination. So the problem comes about with Air force brass using it incorrectly and giving units reckless rules of engagement, making it the Air Force that is crappy, not the A-10.

- Also, as for his comparison of the F-111 with A-10 kills and the unverified nature of the A-10 tank kills, he glosses over the fact that, the F-111 generally did not fly CAS missions int he exact same flight profile as the A-10, and ignores the fact that most tank-busting was done with strike missions and not CAS missions. On a related note, just because a tank is not completely destroyed, doesn't mean it doesn't count as a kill. In military parlance, there is such a thing called a "mission kill", meaning that if the equipment is either inoperable or abandoned because damage from an attack, or threat of attack, it can count as a kill, as long as it will remain out of action.

- Now, come closer...closer still...flying low to avoid ground based radar still works in hilly/mountainous terrain and other disruptive terrain (like over water) and those mountains are the area the A-10 was designed to operate, as you stated yourself in the video, and is still a very viable thing to do in modern air combat if in that terrain. So again, it's a case of the plane not being employed in it's designed for theater of operations, while (as I mentioned earlier) not having sufficient ECM equipment to counter modern threats.

- He also neglects to mention that in the air force's own tests/flyoff between the F-35 and the A-10, despite not being fully declassified, they admitted themselves that the A-10 can't be replaced by the F-35, and that they "need to work together in the future". Some even say the test is rigged in the F-35's favor (also here), and considering the USAF history on those kind of things (also see the KC-46), I can believe it. The F-35 was a massive overreach in scope and is a compromised design, that would have been better served by a separate, dedicated design for each of the services (sounding familiar? *cough*  the F-111! *cough*).

-Another thing he neglects to mention is that the design and performance of the A-10 allow for it to loiter and provide additional fire support for the forces it provides CAS to for a lot longer than many other assets, and allows it to continue to attack new threats as they emerge. 

So, to summarize, it seems like the A-10 not only isn't crap, it's actually pretty great, as it is affordable, effective, and survivable. It has it's share of problems and issues, but any other fighter/attack plane has it's own problems, required upgrades, or has faced changes in mission sets. Heck, your fabled F-111 had plenty of those happen, and it's still an excellent aircraft. 

But, just to address a couple of other issues he brings up in the 2nd video:

- Also, if he had done his homework, he would have known the 0 loss record of the F-15 Eagle is possibly also likely a fudged number, for the sake of national prestige and propaganda (whether Israeli or US, or both), as LazerPig himself pointed out, it has been done by the USAF before. Granted, the source for the losses is via a War Is Boring author, but it's two part article is still worth considering the circumstances of the unconfirmed kills. That, and he says no other plane has come close to it's kill/loss record, but the F-14 he talks about has a much higher kill record with only 4 confirmed A2A losses, which compare VERY favorably to the kill/loss record of the F-15. 

- In his video he states that with the advent of (reliable) long range missiles, dogfights are now a thing of the past. Yes, they have been far less common, but far from eliminated. Despite long range missiles, dogfights still occur on a regular basis in aerial combat, the only change being that guns are no longer as often being the weapon to end it. That, and especially with more countries now obtaining/developing their own stealth aircraft and with the advent of more commonly available, more advanced ECM and ECCM in the hands of more counties, it's likely the dogfight will be back in fashion with a vengeance (not to mention when you include things like current decoys on top of that).  

- Also, John McCain is an moron that deserves no respect, as he was both corrupt, evil, and stupid, despite the Vietnam POW status. Also, the B-1B WAS performing CAS missions in Afghanistan in almost the EXACT same manner/mission profile at medium to high altitude (in a majority of cases) that your fabled F-111 would have, ya dolt.