please compare the pros and cons of the harrier versus the a-10 warthog for close air support.................

Question

only military knowledgable people answer only, please

Answer 1

I was stationed at a Marine base with Harriers and was able to have many conversations with pilots. I was also there when they had multiple crashes. The vertical take off and landing is the only advantage the Harrier has. The A-10 has a titanium "tub" that pilot sits in, which gives him more protection. The A-10 can carry more weapons, and has the largest cannon on any US single pilot aircraft (30mm). And the new Joint Strike Fighter, is replacing the Harrier soon. The A-10 was re activated, because their is no other aircraft present or planned that could do the same job. Harrier pilots told me that when hovering it was "like balancing on a pin head".

Answer 2

the harrier's ground support record isn't exactly stellar. The plane has one engine and that engine sucks up most of the plane so most hits on the fuselage is a hit in the engine and the lose of the plane this happened often in the Gulf wars and during the Falklands. The A-10 on the other hand is armored has two engines and is designed to come home with massive damage. The other plus to the A-10 is it carries way more bombs and missiles and has a massive 30mm Gatling gun. This plane has a very low loss rate. the plane is also very easy to fly where as the Harrier requires experienced pilots as it is known as the ensign eliminator though the AV-8B did eliminate some of these bugs. The only real advantage of the Harrier is that it can operate from any where while the A-10 requires a runway. The A-10 and the harrier are both doomed as they are to be replaced by the F-35 VTOL fighter.

Answer 3

These are two different kind of aircrafts. The harrier jumpjet is a good alround attack aircraft designed to vertical take off and landing or short take off/vertikal landing operations. Otherwise its a fairly conventional aircraft like the f-16 falcon. The a-10/oa-10 is a dedicated tank buster. Its job is to do close support of ground forces. Its heavely armed, has a 30 mm anti tank gun and could drop a lot of bombs and rockets on the enemy forces. If I would choice an ac for the CAS role my preffered bird is the a-10 for a number off reason included better weopon load, longer loiting time and better protection agains sam:s and aaa:s Harriers is the natural choice (until the stovl version of the f-35 arrieves) for protecting a marine MAGTF unit on navy landing ships like wasp. Johan

Answer 4

Its a good question. The Harrier was designed to provide fast ground cover in deep areas where landing strips and aircraft careers aren't readily available, and to be able to operate off of smaller ships. The A-10 is primarily a Soviet armor buster that can get into the air pretty quick and found fame protecting troops. Both were designed to fight a cold war European theatre like conflict against Soviets who operated a massive armored fleet and AAA protection. In such a conventional type of WWIII battle, casualties would unavoidably be high. Neither platform was really designed to be a full on "Boots on the ground" protector but both have excelled quite well at it. However, the A-10 is very limited in its role. It lacks AESA radar, full countermeasures protection against modern SAMs and MANPADS, a precision targeting system and speed. Its main benefit is heavy armor against AAA, large weapons load carrying and long loitering capabilities. But what it lacks is also its Achilles heel. Modern S2A threats are newly lethal SAMs and MANPADS are the big threat to today, not so much AAA fire. It lacks the speed, full countermeasures, sensor fusion and AESA to detect launch threats, JAM radars and provide fast effect evasive maneuvers. It lacks accurate targeting which is why fratricide is high. In fact, A-10 pilots these days prefer to drop smart munitions using targeting pods and only use the 30mm nose cannon as a last resort because of the fratricide risk. In the last 4 years, new optical sensor upgraded vipers, F-15s and B1Bs with highly precise guided munitions have pretty much done away with the "low and slow" loitering because its too risky with those cheap MANPADS. Pilots don't have to get low to get eyes on the battle. They can hold at higher elevations and watch. Thats why those platforms have been handling more of the A-10s job because the A-10 is too slow and vulnerable now despite its armor. Basically the enemy caught up to the A-10.

The Harrier has more diversity, can be operated from carriers as well as remote locations and has better electronic warfare and targeting. It can deploy countermeasures and can has a better chance defending itself against unexpected A2A threats. But it does lack armor and its limited on loitering time when getting "low and slow" and that is its Achilles heal. Even though its faster than the A-10, it still pretty slow against many S2A threats.

Answer 5

The harrier is nice in that it has vert take-off and landing capabilities, but the A-10 is essentially a flying tank. I prefer the A-10.