The Super Armored Aircraft that was Impossible to Take Down
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ต.ค. 2024
- American soldiers were surrounded by the enemy deep in the heart of Vietnam. Their time was running out with every second wasted, but the thick jungle canopy and the treetops made it difficult for conventional aircraft to assist them.
The men on the ground called for immediate close air support, providing the Air Force with accurate locations of the approaching North Vietnamese troops.
Moments later, the roar of engines erupted above the treetop, signaling support was on the way. An innovative Northrop YA-9 Prototype soared through the sky.
The dedicated CAS aircraft with a shoulder-wing monoplane design and aluminum construction approaches the area without hesitation, its twin turbofan below the wings’ roots ready for a swift and precise bombing run.
As the whisper of enemy movements echoes through the canopy, the YA-9 descends with calculated precision, its split ailerons poised for action. With a thunderous roar, the pilot prepares for a low-level and slow run.
Fortunately for him, his YA-9 is heavily armored, with his canopy fully protected by various layers of a honeycomb structure that guarantees his safety and critical components from enemy fire.
The devastating 30-millimeter rotary cannon, firing over 4,000 rounds per minute, instantly tears through the dense foliage, shredding enemy positions relentlessly.
Vietnamese troops are instantly decimated. But it is not enough to lure them away from friendly forces. The YA-9 returns for another strafing run, carving another path of devastation through the thick jungle, dropping several bombs from its wingtips, unleashing a wave of smoldering flames.
This is the YA-9, the direct competitor to the Air Force’s Thunderbolt II.
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas.
It's hard to believe that it's been 40 years since the last A-10 was built.
I used to watch A-10's fly over Klosterlechfeld airbase in the early 80's hard to believe a flying tank could move that slow and stay airborne.
Sorry, lol, but no. The A-10 was selected over the YA-9 because of how much more vulnerable the YA-9 was to ground fire. The A-10 was designed with all sorts of features to protect the pilot and critical systems. The A-9 was far more conventional.
The A-10 could fly with one of its vertical tails shot away. Or one engine blown completely off. Or half a wing missing. The YA-9 was not designed with anywhere near this kind of toughness. One, the engines were close together in the middle of the plane....to shoot one engine away means to basically blow the whole plane apart. Two, the vertical tail was not designed to provide redundancy in case of battle damage. Three, the A-9's engines were low slung with large intakes--below the wing. This means, among other things, that it's far more susceptible to ingesting FOD on takeoff or landing. The correct choice was made, and the A-10 is far more able to absorb tremendous battle damage.
In the event of damage or systems failure, the A-10 can land with its landing gear up, and in fairly short order it can be repaired. The YA-9? Nope, not so much. The A-10 also relied on tried and true engines, while the YA-9's untested YF-102 engines were a risk.
Another factor is that the A10 is almost silent on approach to a target. They used to fly over Hameln in Germany, and if not noticed by sight prior to their arrival, they would be overhead before they were heard. Exactly the sort of feature needed by a slow ground attack aircraft.
@@keithdurose7057 Well, in the interest of fairness, I don't know if the YA-9 was similar in that respect. If you cut to idle and glide in, both planes may have had a similar situation there.
@@keithdurose7057 No so sure about that one. They fly over my house almost every day taking off and in the landing patter for Selfridge ANG base and they make a very distinctive sound.
Another factor for the A-10 is the engine placement in relation to the wings/tail assembly. By being high up, the engines have some protection from ground fire, as the wings and tails can get in the way. And the exhaust is somewhat shielded and disrupted by the airflow over the tails and horizontal stabilizers, helping slightly with infra-red detection issues. They're also on separate engine pods, so a serious problem like an explosion is less likely to destroy the rest of the plane.
The engine and tail layout are similar to the successful Su25
I saw the A-9 at the March Air Museum in Riverside, CA several times. It is a true beast!
Warthog is just beautiful & iconic.
Thunderbolt, not warthog.
World leader on friendly fire
You can. Never know the feeling of Cobras doing staffing runs overhead, or the wave of heat off a Thud putting in a napalm strike or the waves of thunder from a B52 strike in support. Over 50 years on and the cavitation of a chopper still evokes feelings of joy.
I remember those feelings, and still have the hair on my arms and the back of my neck stand up when I hear a Huey or a Cobra flying overhead. I also miss the sound of the A-1 Skyraider (Spad or Sandy) coming in straffing and then dropping some napalm or Willy Pete!
It’s a shame we can only afford one type. Aircraft like the YC-14, F-16XL and the F-23, etc… were great aircraft that would have had great success.
If the pentagon refused to pay for bs we probably could. Things like $1500 per bolt, $1200 for the nut, and $900 for the lock wire. The defense contractors are waddling fat on the teet with executives making many many many millions every single year. I guess they have different definition of ‘patriotism’.
I agree, if two competitors both rank highly, they should split the contract and buy from both vendors, say 80-90% for first place and 10-20% for 2nd place. It never hurts to have two types. Then you'll see true competition on the battlefield with pilot feedback from both. Allies did this all the time in WW2, so USAAF had B-17s AND B-24s; P-38s, P-47s, AND P-51s etc., same for RAF. I don't think it has to cost a fortune, I think the 2nd-place manufacturers, after all their hard work designing & testing & tweaking their offering, would rather see an offer to build 25 aircraft versus none, even with a low profit margin.
@@intercommercethe problem you run into is maintenance cost. If you only have one type of that aircraft, you only have to produce one set of parts for repairs or replacements unless the venders can get together and make parts interchangeable. That’s the reason why they only choose one typically.
@intercommerce EXACTLY THIS!
We should honestly be doing this for the new heli contracts+peototypes being considered+tested+picked atm too!
All of that variety in capability, but they choose less capability. . . What a waste!
@@chrisp.9069sounds like a good excuse to buy more and have practically infinite parts. . . Humvee style! 😎👍
As a vet who got to watch the A-10 close up. I'm a fan of how it got there. Extremely thankful for it too
Not ugly enough!! I want something ugly enough to be called a Warthog Damnit!!, said the General. And that's how we got the A-10.😁
А вот в СССР такого генерала не нашлось, потому сделали штурмовик по традиционной конструкции.
I'll stick with the A10. The Warthog is a beautiful piece of work that just plain gets it right.
It didn't exist when this plane was flying.
It’s beautiful ugly.
YAY! YT's gone back to the old format!! Thank you!
The YA9's engines are more exposed to ground fire than the A10 , making it easier to shoot down . The A10's engines are protected from fire from below by the wings .
How easy is it to down a frog foot.
Face it, CAS aircraft are not SEXY for the USAF. They have been trying to get rid of A-10 for over 30 years. But ask marines and army and they like CAS aircrafts - their services should have them instead of USAF.
I disagree I think CAS are really cool looking planes
They look dope af to me
I think the CAS support aircraft should be transferred to the Army /Marines and remove the USAF from the discussion. Apache helicopters serve a "similar" role and are part of the Army. Why not the A-10 ??
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!!
@@rschneid1996the reason why is the Johnson-McConnell agreement. Simplified version: Army would give up fixed wing, and USAF would give up helicopters.
I had never heard of this aircraft. Thank you for introducing me to it!
And it's a shame because Biden has canceled it this year after 50 years :(
Who else didn’t know this existed until now?
Me 😅
Me too ✋
First I'm hearing about it
Me. I’m an aviation buff and I have no knowledge of this aircraft. WTF?
A9?
Why does this Plane remind me of the SU-25?
is it possible that Su-25 was inspired by Ya-9a ?
both look kinda like
and Ya-9a was made in 1972
and the Su-25 was made in 1975
@@rory5881
I don't think so. It seems more like a case of same requirements lead to the same outcomes.
Because physics, fit form and function. They want specific capabilities, it winds up looking like this. Like cars have four wheels.
@@JSFGuy the Reliant Robin enters the chat... Then takes a corner faster than 15mph and topples over. Ok, point made.
@@wbertie2604 aight
Both the YA-9 and the A-10 great aircraft. We couldn't go wrong with either one. Personally I think the YA-9 a little nicer looking. The tail assembly looks like it was almost lifted directly off of the A-26 Invader.
I wonder if it won out, would it still be in service? The A 10 is beautiful, people make a big deal about the cannon, but the sound of those engines, they have a distinctive sound, once u see one in flight And hear the engines scream by u will never forget it
The A-9, with 50 caliber gun pods and Zuni rockets slung under the high wings would have been the shizzle for CAS.
By the time the YA-9 was developed, the venerable M2 was considered inadequate for CAS use.
is it possible that Su-25 was inspired by Ya-9a ?
both look kinda like
and Ya-9a was made in 1972
and the Su-25 was made in 1975
Yes, there are strong indications that the Su-25 was based on the YA-9. Its interesting that they followed that design instead of the A-10. Maybe a disgruntled aircraft designer sent a one-way envelope to the Soviets? Who knows...
I thought the thumbnail pic was Su-25😁
Nearly everything in the Russian arsenal is copied tech from American research.
@@straywolf77 Or similar design specifications lead to similar solutions. It's called convergant evolution and why aircraft with the same mission tend to look pretty similar. The SU-25 began design work in 1968 while the specifications that lead to the YA-9 and YA-10 were came out in 1970. Doesn't mean there was no input from espionage but too many people see things that look similar and just say A copied B and not that form follows function.
Just simple common sense to not retire the A-10 until a replacement is finalized and has proven itself to be dependable, procurable, affordable, and actually better. Replacement costs are more than the cost of each aircraft. At the moment, we have trained pilots, a matured maintenance and parts program, matured training programs for both maintainers and pilots. We know exactly what it can do and we have reasonable ideas what modernization programs could make it better.
The Air Force does not want to be doing CAS or AC (Army Co-operation). They tried to retire the A-10 years ago, and as soon as the Army heard about it, they started to lobby to take over the A-10 fleet. The Air Force suddenly decided not to retire the A-10 shortly afterwards.
Dark Skies. USMC 64--68. Thank you. This is a very interesting war history video. God Bless.
20mm Vulcans were fitted in the Prototypes.
Never even knew this aircraft existed! It looks allot like the Su-25 Frogfoot and happy they made the right decision choosing the A-10!
It was not necesarilly the right decision, both aircrafts would have been close in performance, but Fairchild really needed that contract.
The Frogfoot was a Russian copy of the the A9. The research a development of the Su25 came post A9 but was well in to the development stage pre A10.
@@grtorrest
The A10 was a better design for the intended use for several reasons, the biggest one being it's engine's and their placement, they were engine's that were already in use plus their placement was much better, in the event of an engine fire it'd just burn through the mounting and fall off, with the A9 it's in the wing root where an engine fire will melt the wing and cause it to fold, being in an external pod makes them easier to change and mounted high up it can operate off of dirt airstrips without sucking up all kinds of FOD into the engine's, it really was a better design for CAS.
@@dukecraig2402 the main advantadge was easier manufacturing, the Lycoming ALF502 was a strange choice for northrop, but it was used by BAe 146 and Challenger 600 so it was not a new unproved engine. In operations both would have been very similar
@@grtorrest
It wasn't in use with the US Air Force, it's their inventory that was the issue, big deal if another country was using it, is that really a point that evades you?
It's a P-59 Airacomet on steroids
That's a whole lot of steroids bro.
Like Bruce Banner vs Hulk type of shit.
"Not ugly enough!! I want something ugly enough to be called a Warthog Damnit!!," said the General. And that's how we got the A-10.😁
When I see a YA-9 I can't help but also notice a Su-25.
> "C.A.S."
*How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, Old Man?*
C.A.S. is Close Air Support. CAS denotes casualties.
@knowplay3258 We got a live one folks.
I was an air battle planner for the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing. It's CAS.
@@cas343 My man what do you think CASEVAC means? Hint: It's not an acronym
The Douglas A-1 Skyraider, or Spad, was the CAS of choice in Nam, along with heli gunships. Never heard of the YA-9 in Nam.
Let’s face it, the YA-10 was picked because it looked cooler!
😂probably 😂
Dark Skies is always in the lead with information and pace, along with the best music and narration combination in the known universe.
This never served.
If you've never seen & heard an A-10 fly over you, I pity you. Life changing, that's really all I can say. We had them fly over very low on Fort Hood some days. Only thing that was nearly as impressive was a flight of Apaches flying just over the trees when I was at Fort Knox on a Field Training Exercise. Seeing them just above the trees, crossing a small creek...man. I'll never forget it.
Ft. Knox, you mean where the gold used to be?
A10 was and is the best aircraft ever made for ground support.
There was one of these on display at Castle AFB back in 1980 when I was going through B52 combat crew training school.
IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, AS A PILOT AND AS A GREEN BERET ON THE GROUND, THE BEST CAS WERE THE F 4 U, T 28, A1E, AND OF COURSE THE A 10. I HAVE BEEN AROUND THEM ALL EXCEPT THE F4 U. GOD BLESS....EACH HAD THEIR OWN SPECIFIC SOUND WHEN "INBOUND".....WHEN YOU ARE ON THE GROUND, THOSE "SOUNDS" MEAN THE WORLD TO YOU. JUST MY OPINION....GOD BLESS
😂😂😂
Fascinating! I didn't know about this..looks similar to frogfoot.
What a cool plane I never heard of! Nose and canopy of an A-10 had me doing double takes. Super neat, I absolutely love close air support planes, not sure how this one slipped past me.
This aircraft did have some attributes that were better than the A-10 and it was seriously considered. Some say the contract was given to Fairchild to save the company from demise at the time because Northrop had contracts already and Fairchild. Fairchild went bust anyway eventually. Many comments state that the aircraft wasn't as robust as the A-10 and that's why they chose the A-10. Not so, this aircraft was very resistant to battlefield damage, just like the A-10 and while it may not have had as many redundant systems, it was still one heck of a ground attack aircraft. The GAU-8 wasn't even fitted to the prototypes I believe due to fitment issues, it was a smaller diameter rotary gun for prototype demonstration purposes only to be fitted with the GAU-8 if they were selected at a later time. I believe it was a 20MM rotary cannon to demonstrate/simulate the capabilities if fitted with the larger GAU-8. Who knows why the A-10 was chosen over the A-9 but the A-10 has proven it was a good choice over it's 50+ year track record and extensive battlefield record.
Range of 4,000 FEET? Not yards, or meters? That's just a little over 1,000 yards! Something is wrong here.
They often fuck up hence why i dont watch them anymore
This comes across as pure fantasy and what-if writing.
I *think* it's supposed to be? I think it was meant to be an alternate history what-if? In which case he should have called it the "A-9" not "YA" during that part of the script...?
YA-9 was good enough for the red flag guys across the pond. They call it “Frogfoot”. Looks almost like an identical twin.
That was new information of a aircraft I never off before. That's was interesting. 👽👍
At the time the decision was made, the A-10's engine was farther along in development. The peculiar mounting made for less direct paths for ground fire to the engines. There were some problems early in production with the cannon smoke affecting turbine blades. The Projection Unit (PU, aka HUD) went through two combiner upgrades to improve pilot viewing angles. Also built into the PU was a rudimentary target aiming system for use in case of a failure of the main electrical power, another bit of redundancy built into the design. The wheels do not retract into the wing fully, to allow landing in case the landing gear cannot be extended. I tested and aligned scores of PUs where they were manufactured in San Jose.
YA-9: "I.. am your father"
A-10: *Deutsch accent* "~NOO- wait but I'm German"
Child : "I want the Warthog"
Mom : "We got the Warthog at home"
the Warthog at home : YA-9
Lots of mythology here and a "tough guy" speaker .
‘The A9 really packs a punch’
A10: RRRRRRRRT
It would have carried the same gun...
@@grtorrest really! Stupid me…🫣.. thx, didn’t know that; thought it would carry a smaller caliber. Thx for putting it right.
@lolkevandewitte1713 But both the YA-9 and YA-10 prototypes only had a 20mm Vulcan cannon, because the GAU-8 hadn't been developed by then. So the gun in the video does look small.
@@robertlight2370 thank you for further explanation!
amazing story. the video editing was perfect.
1:14 - Is there a source showing the YA-9 having a 30mm gun instead of a 20mm Vulcan?
4:43 - Finally saw the tunnel that the multi-barrel gun shoots through. Yeah, that's 20mm.
Lockheed once proposed an F117 derivative for CAS. The idea of putting an outrageously expensive plane into range of every gun on the ground wasn't received well...
all that technology against an enemy with out even one aircraft.......
Man, this channel voice...*shudders*
A10+A9 A10-ized would be a sick combo. . .
Its amazing that anyone watches these videos since they are so riddled with errors.
Looks like a grandaddy to the A-10 warthog.
I worked on the flightline of an A-10 Base. That is one Ugly Beast that chews up people very efficiently!
Before that I worked on the F-15 flightline. The Eagle was the popular jock by comparison.
Is there a contest? Why are you here?
You edit your comment from third to this.
Anyone know what music is accompanying the beginning of this video? Super cool!
Reminds me of a cross between an A-10 and a Skyraider.
I see the resemblance to resemblance of the YA9 to the SU-25 🤔
Because fit form and function. You want characteristic, mannerisms, this is what you get.
Because the Soviets stole the design
@@aaronsanborn4291Probably, but then it might be the other way around.
@@stephenbrecht1696 the YA-9 is 3 years older
Do you see the resemblance to the A-10 though?
Very interesting. I had never heard of this aircraft before this video.
I know the 'warthog' gets a hard time for its looks, but next to the YA-9 the A-10 could have been designed by Pinin farina 😂
No YA-9 ever flew over Vietnam.
Didn't think so. The guy who makes these thinks he knows far more than he actually does. He shows that in virtually every video he posts. He also incorporates blatantly incorrect images in every video of his I've seen. Apparently no one ever taught him to do proper research as seems he only wants to "see his name up in lights".
Did the YA-9 ever become a production aircraft?
It's funny that they always considered the 'Hog to be an ugly airplane. Well, this things got it beat. The A10 is beautiful while the YA9 is most definately a plain Jane...☺
WoWI waw so [oo;p,h forward to this. but no sound Pl'ease. upload again!
The YA-9 never made it to production let alone Vietnam. It lost to the A-10 and only 4 were ever built. So what was that opening all about?
I feel like it was meant to be an alternate timeline thing but then it should have been A-9 in the script to make that clear
Didn't this aircraft loose to the A-10?
I love that aircraft
When did the YA-9 serve in Vietnam? No record of that.....there were only 2 of them, flights in 1972. Disappointing error in this video.
Common for this channel. They do it on purpose to get more comments.
Clearly you didn’t watch this video. 😂
It looks somewhat like the frogfoot, so cool.
9:30 16,000 tons of ordinance? Might have a unit wrong there.
If I could make just one suggestion to the US Army would be to have fix-wing ground support aircraft permanently assigned to the Army, and use them to supplement and support rotary-wing aircraft. The Air Force provides this mission for the Army. But I think having its own fixed-wing aircraft piloted by Army pilots would be much better.
It'll be interesting to see what part the AT802 will play in combat along side the A10
A-9 = susceptible tp ground fire on engines, etc
A-10 = moved engines and other electronics up to minimize ground fire damage..
12:11 was that Gen. Powell?
Looks like an older version of an A10 warthog
This plane's design might have loss to the A-10 Warthog but Russia was paying particular attention to the A-9's design which Su-25 Frogfoot has capitalized on it's form of CAS design and still reigns as a superior CAS design This goes to show no aerodynamic design is ever thrown away but reincarnated
The best thing about the Stuka was it was easy to shoot down!
Northrop YA-9 looks weird with a large tailfin resembling that of a B-29 bomber! 🤔
Was anyone expecting just how much CAD and computer guidance would take over only a few years later?
A good-looking bird.
One of my uncles flew a Skyraider off the Coral Sea.
Fat electrician does a great video on the super tweet. Another great CAS aircraft.
it's just a coincidence that the SU25 looks almost exactly like this plane...
Interesting.
So even though CAS become an important part of USAF duties, they have never loved the idea of “loitering” in an active combat zone. They prefer to provide CAS by zooming in fast and dropping precision munitions and GTFO. But the reality of CAS is that an initial strike may not have achieved the desired results or a rapidly changing situation could render the initial strike moot. Therefore, having an airframe that can loiter and provide CAS until the situation on the ground is more or less decided is more effective. Hence their inability to be rid of the A-10, the only dedicated CAS aircraft in their arsenal.
God this channel has SO many errors in these videos.....🤣 The Air Force was looking for a tank killer and the A-10 is unmatched in this category.
The bit at the start of the video is funny. As neither The YA 9 or YA 10 were combat ascessed.
It wasnt chosen, or was it? Take a good look at Sukhois Su 25 'Frogfoot.'
CAS = long loiter time + survivability + lethality
For the life of me I can't find any mention of the YA-9 flying in Vietnam.
It was a competitor for the a10 which won.
For the record, The United States and its Allies NEVER operated the Ju-87 'Stuka' It was a German WW2 Dive Bomber.
The American SU-25 Frogfoot
I love how often he uses the words 'Furthermore' and 'Nevertheless' in his narration. He should add the phrase 'Would you believe' when getting his facts wrong. But nevertheless, his videos are interesting.
9:33 - 16,000 pounds not tons of ordinance
GRANDDADDY BRRRRRRRT!!!
You should check out WARLPANE by Hal Sundt. The story of the A10.
Showed up this time.
The A-9 has a similar look to a Su-25.
It's always interesting to see pictures of the guys who lost the war in Vietnam for us and then blamed the politicians.
Vietnam was waged and operated by politicians in DC. The Generals there were regulated by DC... Ever read, Rules of Engagement ? Also, catch up on your history about war. The soldiers only always are lead from the top down and if the leadership at the top isn't good, neither will the soldiers be. Many soldiers died from bad decisions made by men in suits who had zero military training.
The A-10 is a sniper rifle with wings that can also drop a bomb on your head... MERICA