So which came first, the cannon or the aircraft?

[Fdino]

Hello. Would you like to know what is true? When researching the A-10 Thunderbolto II, some sources say that it was built around the cannon. Others say no. So which came first, the cannon or the aircraft? Thanks and very wishes.

[MigBuster]

3 hours ago, Fdino said:

Hello. Would you like to know what is true? When researching the A-10 Thunderbolto II, some sources say that it was built around the cannon. Others say no. So which came first, the cannon or the aircraft? Thanks and very wishes.

Very difficult to say for sure.....sources that use information from people on the A-X program from USAF and Fairchild should be best....but even then you get people on the program who disagree!

What would you say are your best sources?

[streakeagle]

The A-X specification kept changing. At some point, the requirement for 30mm cannon was added. Aircraft designs progressed continuously as the specification changed from turboprop to turbofan and adding the gun. Was the A-10 design significantly complete before the gun requirement was added, then modified? Or was a completely new approach used to accommodate the gun? There is a clear history of the USAF request for proposal requirements. There are examples of proposals with turboprops long before the gun requirement was added. I suspect the designs we know as the A-9 and A-10 were not finalized until after the 1970 RFPs (including the gun). Since the gun was exceptionally large, the aircraft had to be designed around it, but they were also designed around the rest of the specifications for armor, payload, maneuverability, range, loiter time, and redundancy/survivability. The gun was just one of many requirements. But its size, shape, and weight definitely affected the overall design. It is not an exaggeration to say the A-10 was built around the gun, but it was also built around the titanium "bathtub" cockpit and the widely separated pod mounted engines. It is false to believe the gun design came first, then prototype aircraft were designed around it.

[Wrench]

The chicken came first

[yakarov79]

Always took it as a figure of speech. Think of it as a poetic expression.

What sounds better, we have an aircraft, let us add a gun like on every other boring aircraft....or ok we built a muth..fkin gun... add wings and engines and let's fly it.

50 years...or half a century.  first you sound old; latter - venerable.

[Gepard]

12 hours ago, Wrench said:

The chicken came first

No it was the egg!

[Fdino]

On 2/27/2026 at 1:58 PM, MigBuster said:

Very difficult to say for sure.....sources that use information from people on the A-X program from USAF and Fairchild should be best....but even then you get people on the program who disagree!

What would you say are your best sources?

Hello friend. I confess that I've read many references about the A-10 Thunderbolt, including Bill Sweetman, Ken Neubeck and Peter C. Smith. You've read their book. But I like to read articles on the internet that explain about the aircraft.

[Fdino]

On 2/27/2026 at 9:17 PM, streakeagle said:

The A-X specification kept changing. At some point, the requirement for 30mm cannon was added. Aircraft designs progressed continuously as the specification changed from turboprop to turbofan and adding the gun. Was the A-10 design significantly complete before the gun requirement was added, then modified? Or was a completely new approach used to accommodate the gun? There is a clear history of the USAF request for proposal requirements. There are examples of proposals with turboprops long before the gun requirement was added. I suspect the designs we know as the A-9 and A-10 were not finalized until after the 1970 RFPs (including the gun). Since the gun was exceptionally large, the aircraft had to be designed around it, but they were also designed around the rest of the specifications for armor, payload, maneuverability, range, loiter time, and redundancy/survivability. The gun was just one of many requirements. But its size, shape, and weight definitely affected the overall design. It is not an exaggeration to say the A-10 was built around the gun, but it was also built around the titanium "bathtub" cockpit and the widely separated pod mounted engines. It is false to believe the gun design came first, then prototype aircraft were designed around it.

Hello friend. I entirely agree with your point of view. By the way, what you wrote is what I read most of the time. It is no exaggeration to say that the aircraft came first, precisely because, at least from what I read, the requirement for a CAS aircraft to have been made first. I think the cannon was added later. So much so, that they studied many existing attack aircraft, including those from World War II to be able to produce a good CAS aircraft. Yes, there was the thought of making a turboprop aircraft but then they changed precisely because of fragility. So, I believe the aircraft has been modified to accommodate the cannon and tub. The landing gears have also undergone change, including the landing gear near the nose that is not positioned exactly on the centerline. The position of the engines also I think has changed due to the move to lower the infrared signature.

 

[Fdino]

Hello Gepard and Wrench! How are they? It really is funny. But, if we take this chicken or egg approach, we will come to the conclusion that it was the egg laid by the non-avian dinosaur,. Now it is interesting that you mention this because it reminds us of trying to apply cladistics to warships. If we think about this approach, is the A-10 totally unusual, something that we would consider as an evolutionary novelty?

[MigBuster]

13 minutes ago, Fdino said:

Hello friend. I confess that I've read many references about the A-10 Thunderbolt, including Bill Sweetman, Ken Neubeck and Peter C. Smith. You've read their book. But I like to read articles on the internet that explain about the aircraft.

I dont know much about the A-X program and the only thing I have seen with detail on the www that covers the inital A-X program start is this.

A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CASE STUDY David R. Jacques, PhD, LtCol USAF (Ret) Dennis D. Strouble, PhD

Usually the best stuff is not on the www however.