The A10 is a fascinating case study on the perception of a weapon systems effectiveness from different perspectives.
The leadership of the USAF think it is an over-rated cold war legacy aircraft that belongs in a museum, Congress and much of the think tank/lobbyist crowd think it is the second coming and considerably better than sliced bread.
But what is really interesting is what do the enemy think?
Perceptions are important, if the enemy perceive that a weapon is effective then it is.
Reputations are important, if the enemy fears it then it is an effective weapon.
So regardless of the arguments about the A10’s speed, survivability or technology, if the enemy shit their pants* when it does that brrrrdddd thing and devotes energy and resources to shooting the A10 down then should anyone be arguing for its withdrawal.
I don’t want this to be about the A10 specifically, but is the psychology of weapon effects discounted?
Is it an important factor to consider, how loud or mean looking something is?
Are there other systems other than the A10 that has that elusive quality of being feared regardless of effectiveness**, the Crocodile, Buratino, vehicle mounted miniguns or Ontos for example?
Anyway, have a one of those brrrrddddd videos
If there is an argument for deploying weapons that emphasise noise, flash and dynamic impact, perhaps in built up areas for example, whta would they look like?
A tank mounted minigun, a rocket launcher on a telescopic arm or a Python line charge undersling beneath a Wildcat :)
* assuming this is not a fabrication perpetrated by its cheerleaders
** assuming it is not effective