Air Force Mourns Likely Passing of A-10 Warthog

Air Force Mourns Likely Passing of A-10 Warthog

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — As an old Warthog pilot, Lt. Gen. Stanley E. Clarke III spoke in near mournful tones Wednesday of the likely mothballing of the venerable A-10 close air support aircraft and tank killer.

“Can we save the A-10?” was the question from the audience Wednesday at the Air Force Association’s Air & Space Conference here.

Clarke, director of the Air National Guard, came at the question in roundabout fashion. He loved flying the A-10 Thunderbolt, better known as the “Warthog,” Clarke said. He noted that the plane was “near and dear to land warriors” for its GAU-8 Avenger, a 30mm rotary cannon that is the heaviest such weapon mounted on an aircraft.

But the Air Force was “looking at reducing single mission aircraft,” Clarke said, and under the sequestration process “we’re not getting any more money – that option is out.”

The Air Force “has to have a fifth generation force out there” of stealthy, fast and maneuverable aircraft, and the low and slow A-10 just didn’t fit in, Clarke said.

“We’re on board with moving towards Air Force 2023,” the concept for the future of the force which has no room for the A-10, Clarke said.

Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff, also declared his affection for the A-10, which happens to be an aircraft he has 1,000 hours flying.

“I love that old ugly thing,” Welsh said.

However, the chief of staff explained the service has to take part in finding over a trillion dollars in cuts to the defense budget over the next ten years because of sequestration. In this budget environment, he said the Air Force will likely be unable to afford the Warthog.

The A-10, developed by Fairchild-Republic in the 1970s, was credited with destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks in the first Gulf War and has been a close air support mainstay in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

However, Welsh said the A-10 finds itself on the chopping block because “it’s a single-mission airplane, essentially,” and would struggle in more contested airspaces.

“We’re looking for every option for where you can cut money, every modernization/recapitalization program,” Welsh said. “If we have multiple-mission airplanes that can do the mission – maybe not as well, but reasonably well – you would look at eliminating the single-mission platform.”

Tags: , ,

Join the Conversation

The stupidity goes back to the 1962 Bermuda tri-service conference, in which the roles and missions for SEA were parceled out, and the horrendous results (imagine F-100’s doing CAS) resulted in the AX specification in 1967. The USAF stopped A-10 production prematurely because they didn’t really want the fixed-wing CAS role, but they also didn’t want anyone else to have it either (ref. what happened the Army’s Grumman OV-1 Mohawk Program). The joke at FRC was that if the A-10 were an Army program, we’d be selling 4,000 of them.

It will never happen, but it would be cool to let the Army operate, and pay for the operation of, 4 or 5 squadrons of A-10’s. It wouldn’t be hard for them to find the pilots, given the affection Warthog pilots have for the aircraft. But the Air Force wold have a conniption fit if the Army got fixed wing aircraft, and that would be even worse if the Army poached several dozen air force pilots, and then cube that since those fixed wing aircraft are about as useful to the Army as the Sherpa, which also got the ax…
Ok, that last sentence didn’t quite make sense even to me, and I wrote it.

Cutting the A-10 would be the worst military decision of the past and this new century! Just plain stupidity!

that’s not just a dumb move, that’s air force dumb…

They’ll either put them into protected storage, Davis Monathan, or sell all spare parts for scrap just before scrapping the A-10.

Maybe they’ll sell them to Israel…who will probably need to bust tanks and fight in the near future.

AFSOC should take them over. It has other “1 mission” MDSs.
The price paid in blood and treasure will far exceed what is being saved now.
Piss poor leadership from the POTUS on down.
“Dear Mom your son is dead”

So what can take over the warthogs mission. Ground support, tank and armored vehicle killer?? Dont say the F-35 either. They wont endanger one of those budget killers to take out a tank or armored vehicle or for supression of ground forces? So what will they use that has the same ability to louiter and fly slow. Well Beuller, Beuller!!!!!!

Public mourns likely passing of USAF.

The Air Force truncated production of the C-17 (perhaps not enough to support rapid deployment of Army’s brigade combat teams), got rid of the Army’s C-27J, and now is looking to get rid of the A-10 tank buster.

It is well beyond time to revist old decisions and let the Army fly fixed wing aircraft, and not just tactical air cargo, but also some ground attack gunships.

They ended up making more C-17s than the Air Force wanted. Congress forced them to keep the line going for years longer than they originally intended.

The F-35 would FOD its engine out if it had to operate in some of the areas that the warthog has had to operate in! Bad decision by obamma’s so called leaders/yes men!

Unlikely that the Army would harvest a significant number of USAF pilots. The reverse is true…the Army has the problem of keeping their pilots from jumping ship to the Air Force .

This is the best close air support plane ever built. Does the AF plan to leave the soldiers on the ground to risk their lives because the AF wants to save money. How many other jets can turn on a dime and get back into the middle of the mission and lay down devastation to the enemy. The 30mm cannon alone can demoralize any potential aggressor. Have the AF leaders that want to do away with it lost their warrior thinking?

You can blame Obama for carrying out his grand plan of disarming the US unilaterally by bankrupting us and turning the population into buffons that let it happen.

This is a great CAS, anti tank hug the earth air support plane that will be needed to fight small wars where an F35 can’t do that mission. Maybe we can get the enemy to fight the way we want them to!!

Give the A-10 to the Marines! They’d be glad to provide CAS to their Army buddies, and SOF with the SEALS as part of the package. And they could cover the Ospreys when in hover mode. Sounds like an idea to me. But getting rid of them is just plain dumb! That’s DUMB!

The AF only cares about the AF, and could care less about CAS for a bunch of soldiers. Dog fighting at 40,000 feet and strategic bombing is what gets the AF leadership off.

I just can’t believe that I’m readin’ this, what will replace the cas mission let alone the “airborne GAU-8″?.…. The AF wants to “Push” the BUFF’s into 2030, (still an awesome platform!) …but retire the A-10???? & the Bones??? 4 the F-35???? wtf is goin’ on??? ohhh that’s right, we don’t need a “Land Army” let alone CAS 4 it! Now I got it fig’ed out.….…

I pray and hope these aircraft do not get mothballed! They play such an important roll in protecting our ground troups! The Obama administration should make sure their budget cuts do not jeapordize our defence capabilities! Thus putting our troops at risk! Otherwise, bring them all home!

Of course Air Force doesn’t want more C-17s. Air Force would rather aquire new fighters, new bombers, and new tankers to improve the Air Force’s war fighting capacity rather than use more of their limited budget to create more air lift capacity for the Army, toward improving Army’s war fighting ability by reducing the time needed to deploy Army BCTs from CONUS to a theater of war elsewhere in the world.

Merely because Air Force doesn’t want more C-17s doesn’t mean that they have enough to meet the need to enable such a capability while also meeting the high level of demand for other heavy lift cargo, demand that would be contemporaneous with events needing rapid response.

The fact that US has been funding NATO’s charter-leasing of Antonov AN-124 heavy lift cargo aircraft from Ruslans (Ukranian and Russian joint business entity) to augment our own tells me that we don’t have enough of our own, regardless Air Force’s claims otherwise.

Have you seen the numbers we’ve spent on contracted short-range transport in Afghanistan? It’s hilarious how under-equipped the Air Force has been for the Army’s needs. TRANSCOM is pretty much tapped out whenever a single brigade of the 82nd needs to jump or the President goes overseas.

The article said the SEQUESTER is forcing the Air Force to cut the program…not Obama.

Kill the F-35 and F-22 programs and you could keep the A-10’s and buy some Silent Eagles…

The USAF high command was apparently upset that the F-35 office got to make all of the bad choices, and are apparently trying to top them. Lest us forget that the A-10 was only upgraded to the new A-10C model very recently at a pretty good cost. At the very least, they should give the army a chance to take them instead of just mothballing.

The army almost got the A10s just before Iraq 1. Deal was cancelled at last minute. My father ran the Combat Surveillance and Target Acquisition School in 1961–63 which used the Mohawk for part of its mission. Just to keep the local AF spy revved up, he would put the gun pods on the plane and fly out to do target practice. The AF spy was so fast reporting the transgression of the Army/AF agreement to not let the Army have armed fixed-wing aircraft, that the Pentagon would be on the phone before my father even landed to tell him to knock it off. A fast mover can’t acquire the target and certainly can’t loiter long enough to support the ground forces especially when the target isn’t painted by someone on the ground. By the way AF, stealth doesn’t apply during daylight fighting. The enemy can see you by eye and shoot you down. Just ask your stealth fighter jock who got shot down by a lousy MG in Serbia. I agree with a previous writer, the AF will soon mourn the loss of the AF to armed Army fixed-wing aircraft, the Drone force, and the Space Force. Finally AF, why did you love the Sandy to protect your SAR missions in VN, oh yeah, it was slow, it could loiter forever, and was still hard to shoot down. AF, you exist only to enable the ground forces to seize the enemy’s territory, whether you do it by strategic bombing, air superiority, or close air support.

I guess their USAF priorities for Close Air Support (down and dirty) don’t include the need to support Ground Troops in Combat. I don’t think the USAF will risk their super expensive F-22s and F-35s in a Ground Support roles where Stealth means nothing and Ground “Eyeball” AA Fire is the winner.

I still remember how they sold out the Army with their demanding that the Army’s C-123 Caribou’s be transferred to the USAF.

Marines have fixed wing squads and they do CLS on the beach and inland. The A-10 would be an easy fit and it can operate on forward airstrips(roads) and it does NOT need long runways and was designed to be easily maintained by forward units. It would be low cost to move them into Marine Air Corp squads. Of course this would make to much sense and so do NOT tell Washington DC types about this. They want multi-billion dollar and multi-year development programs which cost BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

We just upgraded several hundred of the A-10C standard, now we’re going to retire them, what the hell?

Same nonsense they tried years ago when they wanted the F-16 to replace it.

Let me see if I have this straight:

USAF are proposing to retire an aircraft, the A-10, which does one mission superbly well, so that they can afford to fund an aircraft, the F-35, which has been assigned multiple missions, and cannot accomplish any of those missions, and has no hope of ever doing so.

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

There are instances of A-10s having been stitched up with heavy bursts of 30mm cannon fire, and having calmly flown back to base, having been promptly repaired in the field, and returned to the fight. Get back to us when an F-35 can soak up even a single 30-mike hit and remain flyable.

” Lest us forget that the A-10 was only upgraded to the new A-10C model very recently at a pretty good cost.”

There is a long history in USAF procurement of spending megabucks to upgrade airframes with the latest and greatest avionics and structural mods just in time to stuff those frames into the boneyard eighteen months later.

It’s almost as though defense contracts were run for the benefit of politically well connected defense firms, instead of for the benefit of the nation as a whole. But we know that can’t possibly be true.

Tell me that this is a nightmare, and not for real. When you are doing CAS, you do not fly high and fast, you fly low and slow for better accuracy. And here is the ONE aircraft that could take a beating, and keep on fighting. When the troops on the ground see one of these babies coming in, they KNEW that the enemy was going to have Hell to pay, and they would be safe. Is this a perfect example of the PETER PRINCIPAL? The higher you go in management, the dumber you get.

Like the F-16 or just about any fighter, it depends where the F-35 gets hit. The F-35 can accomplish the missions it has been assigned which originally consisted of replacing the F-16, classic F/A-18, and AV-8. This isn’t about the F-35 however. The USAF tried the same thing in the past with the F-16. They said the A-10 was too slow, single mission, wouldn’t survive against the latest generation of Russian air defense systems. So they made the case for more multi-role F-16s and even tried fitting a 30mm gun pod to the thing. Yet low and slow are good for CAS and the A-10C is still survivable in many potential conflicts.

“Long history”? The greatest examples of this occurred with the end of the Cold War and budget cuts throughout the ‘90s, which wasn’t some contractor conspiracy.

Man what the has become of our military? They need to cut spending elsewhere like the bloated BIG GOVT Agencies like for starters Dept of Ed, IRS etc.

The Sequester was the brain child of the Obama Administration and sent to Congress on the wager that Congress would give into Obama’s plan for Economy instead of sending a Sequester scenario to the President for signature. I know fact checking is hard but it only took 10 seconds of typing to find this out. Not to mention that if you had watched any news broadcast in the last 8 months since Woodward’s book came out you would know this already. The sequester idea is all Obama’s rotten egg.

I’m not here to argue politics, and the administration did indeed come up with the idea, but it was a response to congressional deadlock on budget. Congress implemented it, and since they failed to agree on a budget, and continue to, it took effect and has held since. By now, given the 2 years of time to fix it, congressional budget shenanigans are the main reason for the (Purposefully) atrocious sequester. The government does deserve blame, but primarily congress.

After the Air Force has retired its A-10s, B-1s, and KC-10s to save money. Congress will take that savings from the Air Force budget and say “thank you very much.…now go find some more savings!”.

USAF is trying to get out of low and slow CAS missions again !!!

Unbelievable!! The AF has lost its mind once again. The US KIAs would be at least hundreds if not thousands more if it had not been for this awesome friend of ground troops. I still remember the call signs of the pair of A-10s that saved our unit’s ass in a valley in Afghanistan. We the ground troops will pay for this AF blunder in blood. I hope the photo ops they get with their billion dollar fighters are worth it. –Thanks for the help Warthogs, you guys are awesome.

I wonder if we could for the first time do a split operation between the army and air force. its a great concept. The army wants us and the air force likes us. and is finding it hard to get rid of our a-10. Maybe the first time we could patch a couple squadrons together and specifically work it out between the two.

A huge mistake. Good close air support will end if the the Air Force goes to using only multipurpose fast movers. The A-10 was and is our only “Stuka”. It performed it’s mission better than any other aircraft. This will be a detriment to our ground troops. Fighter pilots are NOT ground support pilots.

Are any of these fifth generation force of stealthy, fast and maneuverable aircraft going to be able to provide support to ground troops? Well, I suppose one could always get a fleet of drones to do what the A-10 used to.

Why is it that the military seems to be bearing the brunt of sequestration?

Rather than scrap them if the USAF doesn’t want the aircraft or the role they should transfer their aircraft over to either the Army or the Marines, they are the people being protected by the A-10 the vast majority of the time. They’re the ones who need the A-10. The A-10 is uniquely suited to todays operational environment in the middle east. The need for it is greater now than ever! Here’s a unique way to find the $$$ to support the A-10 program, stop PCS moves for officers every two years! Give them long or extended long tours just like the enlisted airmen! They’re not in place long enough to really learn the base or their jobs before their time ends and they’re off to a new base! Two years and out is an extreemly waseful policy!

The A-10 was new when I left the Air Force in 1982. The GAU-8 Avenger is still hard to improve on in over thirty years. We have un-manned drones that have taken the A10’s place. Soon the pilot will be extinct.

You’ll be sorrrrrry!!!!!!!!!!

The Army already has fixed wing aircraft Ziv.

I can solve all the budget problems for the USAF in one swift move. Defund the F35, buy the Silient Eagle. Problems solved. Let the F22 be your Air-to-Air superiority platform. Since the F22 exists, there is no need for the F35 in my eyes.

You just hit the nail on the head here.

Remember when most of the aircraft of the Century Series, F-100, F-102, F-104, F-106 and F-110 (F-4) hearalded the age of the missile fighter, that dogfighting was a thing of the past? Well, we re-thought that one didn’t we, but only after scores of pilots and ground pounders died needlessly. Now we have drones to do the work? Imagine that, a 30mm on a Predator. That will slow it down some, make it a little more nose heavy. The awful truth is that most of the upper echelon brass never liked the A-10 to begin with and thought it took too much money away from other programs. Not everyone, mind you, but a lot of them and they have actively sought to retire the bird on more than one occasion. Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom both countered this trend and saved the A-10. But, why do things that make sense when we can do something that’s so obviously foolish and look stupid at the same time?

As a former Infantry officer I am shaking with rage at what the AIr Force is doing here. They are trying to salvage their failed F35 platform at the cost of ground soldiers’ lives. Yes, it does one mission, but it does it superbly, and it just so happens to directly support the real objective of land war, killing the enemy, blowing up their stuff, and taking their turf.

Far better to have one thing that does its job better than anything else ever made anywhere than another thing that fails at all of the missions it’s handed. The A-10 is the epitome of “beauty is in the functionality” while the F-35 is ugly everywhere but the outside.

Even Russia and China are putting at most a half-hearted effort into their fifth-generation fighter, most likely to egg us on into spending a trillion on a couple hundred planes. The F-35 is not a solution to problems. It’s a collection of problems that is outmatched by the tasks it is set to. This current crop of Air Force Generals were teenagers when Top Gun came out. They are blinded by fast and flashy, and have forgotten that they are nothing more than a support service for the real warriors.

It was the GOP that INSISTED we needed to cut the budget to pay for tax cuts and bailouts for Wall Street. Your rich buddies got themselves into trouble so they sank an aircraft carrier and destroyed the A10.

Any grunt who has been outnumbered, outmaneuvered or just plain in trouble will tell you the value of a close air support gunship..starting with Thunderbolts in WWII, Corsairs in Korea and “Puff the Magic Dragon” in VietNam…take that away and you will find yourself facing some serious wrath.…..good luck with that idea geniuses.….

The ONLY thing that could replace the A-10 is an upgraded A-10B or such. This is a unique aircraft with the ability to hang around the battlefield for long periods of time and deliver a massive amount of firepower to support our front line troops. This is beyond stupid to get rid of the A-10,to whoever’s making this decision: Who’s side are you on?

Sell or donate them to Israel who will upgrade them and use them to destroy Russian tanks used by Iran’s proxies.

I don’t know…AC-130…AH-64

Maybe it is time for an “Army Air Corps” to provide battlefield support and leave the USAF to its strategic bombing missions. The USMC has its own air support, why not the Army? Best thing we could do is an ARMY A-10 follow-on airframe updated to current standards, can’t keep flying these old birds forever. And forget the “stealth” because when you are eyeball to eyeball with your enemy all the stealth in the world won’t save your butt from a 12.7 mm, but a titanium bucket sure will.

Better order more body bags if the A-10 gets mothballed. The Warthog has saved so many US Soldier’s lives that the total count can’t be calculated. It’s a beast.. can take a licking and keep on flying. The place was designed for CAS. No F-35 could ever do the same as the A-10.. EVER. Damn POTUS and his cronies gutting the military for their ‘utopia’ world. We better start planning for WWIII and soon.

Where would the Army get the money to takes possession of, maintain, and operate the A-10s? Where would they put them? The budget environment is not an Air Force problem, but a DoD level issue.

Low & slow works well supporting the ground forces. You need a single purpose aircraft for that mission. So now the USAF wants to spend multi-billions for a fast-high flying aircraft that is not suited for the close air support mission. An F-35 would cost much more to purchase & support. The life cycle cost will be much greater expense over the years than the A-10.

It’s just amazing how much hatred oozes out of any column over President Obama. This could be an article on kitten rescue and someone would lever it into an Obama slam. How about the Bush’ wars done on the credit card Jiminy? The money and lives pissed away in Iraq never seem to get much mention in these columns. It did make a lot of millionaires, none were soldiers or widows and orphans.

A10 WARTHOG, first plane i worked on, and i was a weapons loader… this bad boy can carry almost anypayload any other AC can and then some and that 30MM gun does some serious damage, whether TP or HEI or API.. the Hog was outfitted with the AIM 9 sidewinder (air2air) many years back for self defense, carried mavericks and smart bombs, also a pave penny pod.. also worked F16 (presumably took over the A10s mission) although the F16 is fast and agile and a awesome plane, it aint nothing when you have to “get in the mud like a warthog”

There’s just no way the F35 can do CAS anything like the A10. The multi-service req for the F35 is what’s killing it. Anyone remember the the original F-111 fiasco? McNamara wanted the F-111 to fill both the AF & Navy’s needs and that didn’t work out did it. Sure the Vark was a fine bird for penetration but it was never a true Fighter when the Navy wanted an Interceptor. It couldn’t do Both! If it comes down to it, sure, let the Army & Marines do their own CAS and let the Zoomies just clear the skies and bomb the big stuff.

The Army could open the cockpit up to NCO’s as they do for helo pilots. That would really frost the Air Force brass.

This auto edit is wierd. What else do you call the place where the pilot sits?

You are dead wrong. Obama in 2011 said any budget that came to his desk that didn’t include automatice budget cuts, would be vetoed. Google or go to Utube and you will find it.

When you reach a certain rank, (NCO or Officer) you cross into the realm of the “Twilight Zone” where there are unbelievable views of the future set up with push buttom results according to some political need to help maintain a district employed by a “military complex” lobyist under the guise of “new and improved”.
The twisting of the arm, the career incentive or threats, make your oppinions, aprehensions and votes nullified and part of the greater good (according to the political muscle).
If the A-10 goes into mothball and not into “excess”, than it might just be able to be resurected like it did before when the need arises. Lets hope that it stays in the inventory for the time being. It will “be back”

Any service that has lost “nukes” should not be allowed to make and decisions on anything more complicated than a mess hall menu. The F35a would be a great target during the day and I am sure one or two hits would toast it. There goes a multi million dollar toy. What is wrong with a one mission aircraft. Maybe the air-farce should stop building cargo and tanker aircraft and turn the C130’s and C17’s into multi purpose attack, fighter,cargo planes. I still say the farce dresses like bus drivers and could not land or take of on a runway less than a mile long. If it was not so critical to support our “boots on the ground” the demise of the A10 would be comical. Makes this old sailor want to puke. Of course the USN is not doing much better the LCS’s, cost over runs, etc. MMCS(SS)(SW) KC Badoian USN Ret. More Navy stuff at my blog kcbadoian​.com

Our MILITARY and its men and women are the BEST in the World! Our Top Brass and Administration are starting to make it a low end 3rd world type military Soon countries with low rate military’s will start to challenge us. Right now our top brass and administration will just do the standard CLUSTER “F!@#‘s that they truly are, they dont care about the men and women in uniform now.… they want to save their salaries and start cutting the fundamental equipment that has proven it’s worth to save face and give to WORTHLESS programs like the JSF (A-10 and FA18C) replacements as well as the C17 production. Our BRASS and Administration must have their heads so far up their CLUSTER A!@#s that they can see straight. Get rid of the JSF and LCS programs and upgrade “PROVEN” Programs such as the A-10, C-17 and Perry Class Frigates. You can modernize ships like our Iowa Class with upgraded modern weapons why cant they do it for these programs? Bunch of Top Brass, Ass kissing Political Officers.….….….….Yes they serve but since they are NO longer in the field they can start to affect our brothers and sisters who are.!!!! Pathetic BRASS and Administration and it’s “So-Called” leadership.

The insistence on budget cuts came from the GOP. Obama was in favor of increase govt spending, as are economists, because you can’t cut your way out of a recession. A lesson the GOP has never learned.

I think the Chief of Staff AF has been wearing a 1st generation F22 oxygen system, and not really contemplating his situational awareness. If this is the way this aircraft is to be parked at Davis Monthan, then the AF brass is just is dead wrong.
Not a AF CAS asset, then give the whole fleet, spares and all to the Marine Corp, I sure that their Commandant would jump at it.. The A10 squadrons are the only true warriors, Stop wasting money on B52’s, B1B, cut 10 F35’s and SURPRISE we have $$

The USAF never gave a damn about ground soldiers, they did not want this plane to begin with and they never wanted to keep it. It (protection of ground soldiers) never fit in when the overlords of the Air Force were from the bomber section, and it never fit in when the overlords were from the fighter section. It is a mission that the fools in the USAF high command just don’t care about. This outdated “rule” that the Army can’t have fixed winged aircraft needs to go, and this is the best example why. The best suggestion that I have heard today is give the A-10 to the Marines, now that is an group that cares about the ground pounders. The joke is the USAF cried like a baby when the Army started flying drones, claiming that it was their job. When you have a unit that has to work in close co-ordination like a drone unit, the best thing going is to have someone with skin in the game in control, not some flyboy that is more concerned about what his wife is cooking for dinner and will he be late due to a traffic jam on the outer belt tonight.

Army Air Corps, hell yes! A-10’s working in conjuction with AH-64’s, coordinating fires on the enemy! The Army could do a much better job of CAS with it’s own pilots. Never happen now until at least you know who is out of the White House. American Soldiers put in peril by their own government. Outrageous!

Chair-force management at its finest.

Maybe it is time for the Air Force to return back to the Army where the A10C would be the CAS for the land forces. There are a lot of hostile armored vehicles in foreign armies and the bad guys on the land are not going away. Look at how well the USMC land and air units work together, why can’t the Army do the same?

“..would struggle in more contested airspaces”. Wait a minute — I thought it was the AF’s job to make sure its NOT a contested airspace. Without air superiority, everybody struggles! All these general’s sentiments notwithstanding, if memory serves the USAF has been trying to kill the A-10 since it came on the scene. I’m predicting right here that this plane is not going to be mothballed. It will quietly remain in service to placate the Army and keep them out of the fixed wing CAS business.

Q: “What can take over the mission?” A: Cessna Scorpion!

Made sense to me.

I just looked this up, do you mean to tell me that an drone or F35 will be the replacement to the A10, really?
How many passes of an entrenched enemy or armor will the 220 rounds of the untested F35 really be effective in a CAS role.

NUTS just plain NUTS

The US never lost a war until the air force was created.….since then we have not won one. It needs to go away. We did win against the super power Grenada, but then the air force did not participate.….….

This is insane as it was just reported on September 4th, 2013 that Boeing had just finished building 56 new wings for the A-10 as the 56 is part of an order of 242 sets of wings which was supposed to keep the A-10 flying for the next 30 years as talk about the right hand not know what the left hand is doing.

…“This comment has been deleted by the administrator.”

Way to bomb, Buzz.
Your automated BS thread clipping software was written by some real d*cks, you know that right?
There was NOTHING in that reply that should’ve flagged it for deletion.

There was some talk of moving A-10s to the army in 1992 when the Clinton Admin scrapped the OV-1, the Air Force shot that discussion down fast.

Yeah as I recall it was under a Republican administration and legislation passed by Conservatives when our economy tanked in 2008. Let’s not forget who was at the helm then and lay all the blame on the next guy in office. With that said, politicians on both sides of the aisle have had a few years to get their act together to right this ship but can seem to cooperate, interested rather in their own careers and wealth.

in the “80’s”„ as an Infantry Platoon Sergeant„ I loved the A-10„ we would “pop smoke” and they were there to put “steel on target”„ and saved many lives..„ This is the best aircraft„ and the Infantryman could wave„ and give the pilot a “thumbs up”„ you could not only talk to the pilots„ but thank them for SAVING YOUR BUTT..!!!

I believe the Army at one time had the OV-10; why couldn’t they save this valuable aircraft?

This is partly about the F-35. It’s one of the reasons the USAF is so cash-strapped.

Funny, when one reads some of the biographies about John Boyd, the notorious creator the “energy” concept of air warfare and designer of the F-16 specs, that he indicates the USAF wanted to kill the A-10 in the womb before it ever saw a moment of daylight. The AF brass has been jonesing for killing this plane since forever and the current budget crisis has just presented them with a convenient pretext to do so.

Yeah, we used those fast, sleek, mulit-mission fighter-bombers for close air support in Vietnam and they were “hit or miss” if you catch my drift. I wish we had A-10s! Spooky was a damn good weapon system — I hope they don’t kill that technology also, if they haven’t already done so.

So true. With the types of wars we have been fighting, you need something that can hover in the area for awhile, doesn’t cost an arm or a leg to buy or operate, it hardly ever fails to launch, is so much easier to maintain and can hit the those little terrorist right where they live. Now they are going to rely on the F-22 and F-35 (assuming it can really fly and we are able to actually afford to pay the personnel that will be required to operate and maintain it). It is a dumb move all around.

Right now I say that if the air force is getting away from them then they have no say if the Army wants to pick them up.

The F35 is there to soak up funds. It is there to keep engineers employed. It used to be called “battleship economics”.

In reality the Army does, or at least did in the late 90’s have authorization for 10 A-10. Because of not wanting to ‘slight’ the AF they never filled those slots.

They lost their warrior thinking when they turned air combat and bombing missions into a video game with the drones. Remember when they tried to give the Chair Force “pilots” (using that term very loosely) a higher priority than the Bronze Star. What a slap in the face to real warriors.

The A10 when first introduced into the Air Force inventory was not well received by Air Force pilots assigned to fly them because they lacked the image associated with fighter aircraft. This went on to change over time especially after Gulf War I. The A10 was staged at Eglin after delivery where the joke was; that the frogs came out at night to mate with the airplane. Firing all the ordinance at one time at low altitudes put you in danger of stalling the plane because of the recoil; rockets, Gatling gun, and so on. A real work horse if there ever was one and the avionics HUD, IR was outstanding.

I am simply amazed at the stupidity of the Air Force top brass. Textron wants to sell the Scorpion to the Air Force that does the same job as the A-10. If we had the A-10 in Vietnam in stead of F-105 and F-4’s things would have been different. Also, in Iraq and Afghanistan the A-10 would have been a better choice!

…yes, this website automatically censors the word cockpit…
…but, this might get past the censor… < c.o.c.k.p.i.t. >…

The A-10 was build for close ground support for Infantry troops, the Army was going to fly it until the Air Force started whinning about how they were the flyers, so the Army let them have it, now they(AF)don’t want it anymore. It’s a Tank Killer, give it back to the people that kill tanks.

Another bad move by the fools who control America.

Don’t forget the F-35 for Marines and Navy have no gun. They want to rely on a gun pod which is dubious for accuracy and will not carry many rounds. It is amazing how one program is bringing down all the services. Yes sequestration is bad but this program is draining the purchase accounts. Why can’t we forget this stupid trend of one platform for everything.

Jiminy, take your lying on back to FAUX, we don’t need it here.

I agree that both the AC-130 and the AH-64 can do the job of the A-10. The downside is that it would take them longer to get to the hotspot which might mean the difference.

Dead Wrong. But lets not allow the facts to influence opinions too much — otherwise, the GOP wouldn’t exist in much more than name today.

Obama didn’t crush the economy: the responsibility for the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression lies squarely on the administration of George W Bush, who inherited the smallest and most efficient government since the Kennedy Administration, and an $800B annual surplus.

Here is a simple comparison for you to consider:

State of the union inherited by George W Bush, versus State of the Union inherited by Barak Obama.

Any questions?

I believe the Caribou was a C-7 not a C-123.

The Air Force never wanted the A-10. They transferred them to the reserves as soon as possible. To the AF CAS was best provided from a supersonic missile fighter which could only engage one or two targets per sortie and had a TOS of 15 minutes before it had to RTB for refuel. The A-10 went against everything the Air Force wanted but it was the perfect CAS weapon. Can a new CAS platform be developed using new technology (A-10 was a product of the 1970’s) and be fielded at a price that matches today’s budget constraints? Better to commit to life extension upgrades for now. Don’t mothball them before a replacement is fielded. No, the F-35 can’t do the CAS mission.

There is no “blame” needed. The federal government spends too much money. P E R I O D. Cuts, and increases in spending that are smaller than what someone had previously projected ARE NOT CUTS, have to happen or we are doomed.

There isn’t enough space here to fully discuss this deplorable decision.
I guess it comes down to what, “Reasonably Well” means. Everybody admits there is no replacement for the A10 in anybody’s inventory. Further, the Air Force couldn’t care less about CAS. If it’s not in the air, and/or they are unable to deploy it’s inventory of heavy hauling bomb trucks, it’s not a threat they care about. This is really and extension of the policy of WWll England’s, Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Travers Harris, commonly known as “bomber” Harris. The advocate of the “Big Wing” philosophy, which said that the bombers will always get through, and the enemy can be bombed into submission. Well, we know that didn’t work. It’s a good thing today’s Air Force generals weren’t in charge of weapon procurement used in WWll. They would have never approved the P-47, after all it really was a CAS tank killer. How the outcome of battles fought in 1944 would have changed. We would have won the war, but many more body bags would have been filled.
If the Air force is only interested in Air Superiority, that is great. If so, make them let the Army, procure and deploy, it’s own fixed wing assets as it sees the need. Or at least make the Air Force brass send out the letters to grieving family members explaining why they were unwilling to give better than “Reasonable” CAS!

Desert Storm, Bosnia conflict, the second invasion of Iraq, Libya No Fly Zone intervention…

Thay all say “Hi”!

…In the 2000 Presidential Primary election, here in N.H., McCain beat Gore fairly easily…Bush, jr., was a
DISTANT THIRD, behind McCain & Gore…That was before the Repubthug Convention… So, if the Repubtards had gone with McCain in 2000, we wouldn’t have had 9/11, –OR– War in Iraq 2…-AND– we ONLY went BACK into Iraq, because Daddy Bush didn’t finish the job properly in 1991…
The ONLY real problem in America today, are Democracks & Repubtards…

The USAF isn’t mourning the passing of the A-10: they’ve been trying to make it “pass away” for decades — DESPITE it being the most effective ground support aircraft in history, and its spectacular performance in every theater of war it has been sent to.

The USAF is asking us to believe that the Hog can’t perform in contested airspace, as if ground troops would be sent anywhere where air dominance wasn’t virtually assured to begin with.

The Air Force is demonstrating once again, using the same tired/debunked arguments, that insists that it wants to plan to fight the air wars it wants to fight, instead of the wars it is FAR MORE likely to fight.

C-123 Provider…/// C-7 Caribou… You’re correct, Carl…

Given the testing results for the F-35’s performance published on Aviation Week’s web site, this USAF general doesn’t have much reason for such optimism. The F-35’s mission profile has been repeatedly cut back because it has repeatedly failed to live up to the aircrafts performance requirements.

Of course the F-35 will take over the A-10s mission and perform CAS, and of course it will be used to take out individual tanks, AFVs, etc. The B-1B performs CAS, the B-52 performs CAS, the F-15E performs CAS, the F-16 performs CAS, the F-18 performs CAS, the AC-130 performs CAS, the MQ-9 performs CAS… and so will the F-35. For that matter, the AH-64 performs CAS, and the MLRS and the M109A6 perform the equivalent of CAS, too, just without the “A”.

The USAF/USN/USMC basically won’t use anything to fly “slow”. Instead, they’ll continue to use all of the above to fly “fast”, just like they have been for the last decade.

Only if you’re using a gun. If you’re dropping a bomb you do not need or even particularly want to fly “low and slow” to do it, because they are all JDAMs or LGBs now. That’s why the B-1B is also a great CAS platform in Iraq and Afghanistan: It can loiter for hours, flies above the fight out of any danger, it’s fast to the target in response to a call for support, and has lots of bombs it can drop on a dime without have to come in “low and slow”.

The Air Force “has to have a fifth generation force out there” of stealthy, fast and maneuverable aircraft, and the low and slow A-10 just didn’t fit in, Clarke said.
Tell that to the 100’s the thousands of soldiers and marines that saw it in action, and rejoiced at its arrival over the battlefield.

The USAF is doing the bad guys a big favor: with friends like these — the USA doesn’t need enemies!

No mention of any study or analysis of the F-35 doing CAS — but why would the USMC be buying so many if they weren’t capable of it (isn’t that what the Harriers are supposed to be doing now)?

All three services might be better served if they looked at scaling back some of their F-35s in favor an A-10 follow-on that’s capable of CAS, COIN/COD (long legs, survivable, easily & cheaply maintained, capable of operating off austere stripsn D/N, heavily “linked”). Especially if it can be marketed to some of our friends & allies who can’t afford the F-35 or are looking to fill a niche.


USAF used the B1 in Afgan to quote “support the troops” and missed the target area by miles at times. Just aa dumpex. The ground troops love the A10, Apache and Cobra. Wow how great would that be for the Army and Marines. Marines should dump the F35 and take the A10’s. Of course the USAF is dumping the KC10 to yet they don’t have enough tankers — so they say. They need to dump this new bomber as well. Oh ya they can keep their pools and bars to hang out with their scarfs and flight suits looking cool. !!!!!!!!!. Boy do they need help.

They dont like a single mission aircraft like the A-10 but the CAS mission is one that never goes away and is still used even in counter insurgency wars like were fighting so the crappy JSF is not needed as much as the A-10 think this is more crap from pork spenders in the Pentagon.

Word UP!!

Just ask any grunt on the ground what aircraft do they want providing CAS. Every one will say send me the A-10! They are the only ones that dare to fly low enough to really help the ground pounders. Every other plane is scared to get low in case a AK round hits the F-16, F-18, F-15E, ect.

Another stupid move by our overpaid Generals.

AF is nuts! We should always have this type of aircraft in the arsenal.

The A-10 is down in the Afgan dirt saving lives every day. Where is the F-22? Where will the F-35 be? Same place as the F-22 is today. Safe and out of harms way.

F-18 from USMC works well…

Honestly though, the F22(much like the A10) does its job rather well, but it also isn’t a dual role aircraft. It’s job is strictly air superiority. Last time we shot down a fighter aircraft was during desert storm. So even though that has been a while, I think there is still a need for something like the F22…just in case.

The F-35 is supposed to be a dual role aircraft, but it is a piece of crap money soaking hunk of trash the taxpayers are taking by Lockheed martin. The big problem these days isn’t completely our government, but the contractors building a product that is designed to be fixed non-stop for its life. So the contractors are making way more than the initial cost of the item for the next 30+ years! It’s kind of the same thing that got American auto makers in trouble during the 80’s.

AIM-9M on a Warthog is hilarious. I’m pretty sure it’s there for looks.…maybe it will scare the bad guy away.

Who the hell is running our military and making these stupid ass decisions? Why are they gutting the U.S. Military of all the best things we have which are PROVEN capabilities?

There is NO other weapon system that can even come close to the A-10 and everyone knows it. The Apache cannot match it, the F-16 cannot match it.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

A-!0 re-configured would be most capable of attacking forest fires. Pilots of all services should all chip in to form a private company to provide firefighting services.

…by strafing the forest fire with 30mm rounds and following up with Maverick missiles?

The “single mission” referred to was to PROTECT and SUPPORT US Army Ground troops. Add that to the reitrement of dedicated medical “dust off” capability. Screw the guys on the ground — you are nice and relaticely safe up there. Thanks a lot Air Force brass.

Give the A-10 to the Marines! Close in air support is just what they need.

how very sad! this is one of the real work horses and it gets the job done! sad very sad!

Sell the Scorpion to the Army would be the better solution

The Warthog’s capability in CAS is an advantage to any force in defeating the enemy in a conventional fight, even in an irregular fight. I remember these Great Pieces of Machinery flying just above the palms in Panama during the show of force and Operation Just Cause. As Steve Mendoza said above 30mm cannon alone can demoralize any potential aggressor… and the devastation … as the M/C commercial says “Priceless”

Once again the top brass at the Air Force have their heads planted firmly up their rears. Didn’t they learn anything during Desert Storm? The A-10 is irreplaceable. No other aircraft can do the same job. It is slow, ugly, and decidedly unsexy, but it is a workhorse that must be kept in the air. I have watched my beloved Air Force decline in the past couple decades as “leaders” that are more concerned about the cut of our dress uniform or the color base buildings are painted than having an Air Force that can properly conduct a conflict have destroyed the Air Force from within. Shame on all of them.

I have to say this is the WORST decision the Air Force came up with. What are they going to do next, get rid of the F-117? The A-10 is slow, but it’s a great plane. Those who flew it and were shot up by enemy fire, were able to live, return to base, and fight another day. Try doing that with a stealth fighter. For those of you who don’d know, 1 F-117 was shot down by a SAM during “Allied Force” in 1999.


This decision is once again being made by people so far removed from combat that they see the inside of their belly button. This is the same mistake that the Navy made with the A-6 ‘Intruder’. They (the government — the ones looking at their navel from the inside) thought that they would be able to use the ‘Hornet’ to take over that bombing role. Heck, I was a ‘Mustang’ Maintenance/Material Control Officer in Super Hornets and about the only way we could get a Hornet in the air with 6-six packs of 500 pounders (which is what the A-6 carried with ease) would be to drain all of the fuel out of it and launch it from the catapult. It would be airborne for a few seconds. One of my favorite sayings is “Those who don’t learn from History are doomed to repeat it.

Good point. The Army’s job is GROUND & NEAR GROUND! A-10, AH-64, AH-66 Comanche(WHY in hell did they kill THAT one?),and the armed loach. Common sense is at an all-time low in heavy trading!

F-22 has already been canceled

Have you never heard of the Apache?

> What are they going to do next, get rid of the F-117?

Officially the f-117 retired in 2008 but apparently it have been seen flying in 2010 and after. Anyway getting rid of the f-117 make sense. The f-22 and eventually the f-35 (I assume it will be at least as stealthy than the f-117) can do everything the f-117 could do, and even more. And I am sure that the flying cost of either platform would offset those from the f-117, including its extra logistic cost for operating a supplementary platform. the Not that I am a big fan of the f-35 but I think it’s one of a few niche for which it is well adapted.

None of these apply to the A-10 IMHO. One day or another drone will be able to take part of the jobs from an A-10, probably working semi-autonomously (i.e. a pilot controlling many drones send a list of targets to be killed and the drones executes) but I don’t believe that drone technology is mature enough to handle this task with the required reliability; that is, I wouldn’t have a flying machine getting crazy and starting to attack our troops on the grounds. That’s not ready now and I bet it won’t be ready in 2018 either.

The A-10 could be replaced by the f-35 and f-16 the day hellfire –or else– will cost less than ammo.

No chance in hell!

“Maybe they’ll sell them to Israel…who will probably need to bust tanks and fight in the near future.”

Sell them to Israel???? Since when did they every pay for anything (but a congressmen) than we didn’t give them the money first? Maybe if they didn’t steal their neighbors land they won’t need to bust tanks????

The biggest mistake about the AF was lwhen Eisenhower created it.

…quit shouting, you old FART…
“Sequestration” was the “fault” of BOTh parties, not just Obama…
Don’t you know too much Flush Limpbaugh will rot yur brain?

“Maybe they’ll sell them to Israel…who will probably need to bust tanks and fight in the near future.”

Sell them to Israel???? Since when did they every pay for anything (but a congressmen) than we didn’t give them the money first? Maybe if they didn’t steal their neighbors land they won’t need to bust tanks????

“But the Air Force was “looking at reducing single mission aircraft,” Clarke said, and under the sequestration process “we’re not getting any more money – that option is out.”

So the Air Force who has done almost nothing but ground support and bomb missions needs to retire its FUCKING BOMBERS AND GREATEST GROUND ATTACK AIRCRAFT!!!!!! So it can have more shitty fighters that cost 10 times as much and can’t get below 10,000 ft to do their fucking job.

The Air force has been after this for years.

Excellent point. I suggest it mostly to keep the A-10s alive somewhere. If a foreign user of the A-10 is found, then the subcontractors who are here will stay alive. If A-10’s go into the boneyard, production lines close, subcontractors may quietly retire without alternatives being found, and when we need them again it won’t be very easy to pick up where we left off.

I wonder if the EU would pick up some A-10’s, but I’m skeptical. I know they won’t pick up any KC-10’s or KC-135’s…though finding new homes for our aircraft should be a priority. However, the worldwide recession makes this prospect rather unlikely.

Apaches are good, but certainly not as survivable as the A-10. If we build our military to fight peasants with AK’s, we will mothball the A-10, the B-1B and the B-2, and it will briefly work until we fight someone that can punch above our level. And it will be embarrassing.

Is short-range transport the equivalent of C-130’s, or something small like Pilatus Porter?

If the Air Force won’t do logistics, who will? The Navy? Oy gevalt.

I last saw you on strategypage, many aeons ago.

Yeah, I stopped using “displacedjim” and switched to a different handle for a couple years after two O-6s fucked me over for something I did off-duty, but something weird happened a few years ago and I was never able to post again. I wasn’t locked out, because SYSOPS checked on my account and said they didn’t know why my posts didn’t appear. I could only type in the “Subject” line, but nothing I typed in the actual text box would post to the forum.

Another stupid move by the Air Force. The fleet of A-10’s can be up graded as a more powerful jet for its mission if people would think what they can do with the airframe. What is the cost of couple rounds verses a bomb or a missle to destroy a tank. The cost of up keep of an A10 to a F35. I bet the parts cost is cheaper on the A10 and a good artistic mechanic can keep the plane fly fore ever.

I Got the perfect Perfect Idea!!!! 1.) Get rid of the A–Hole in the Whitehouse! 2.) Start drilling for our own oil and begin our own Oil Independence and bring the prices of gas and diesel fuel down. 3.) This will be the beginning of Economy Stabilization. Bringing Food prices back down… More Jobs!!! 4.) Start Treating those CEO’s of these major corporations like criminals and charge them of Treason! When they Fire American’s ‚Lay off American’s and take there businesses oversea’s and manufacture there goods oversea’s just so they can save themselves money… I call that Gready Scumbags! And they Screw all of us!!! 5.) Kick out all the bleeding liberals out of Congress and the Senate! There the A–holes that Got us into this mess in the first place!!! ( Oh yeah remember when the Helicopters crashed in Iran trying to save the American Hostages… That was because the parts on the helicopters were old and falling apart because of a falling apart Military thanks to the Demorcrats like Carter!) It’s going to happen again! Reagan brought us back and now Oboom boom is selling us out as well!

The A-10 is the best air support vehicle next to “puff the dragon”. It would be a grave mistake to take them out of service. We took military sharp shooters out of service, and now know that was a mistake. Stop the toy fighting, wake up and make the right decision. The Warthog will always be needed.

This had better not happen.
I owe my life literally to two Warthog drivers and their ungainly birds.
I go not know how many other groundpounders of dubious varieties do as well, but I am sure it is many.

Is there something else to take the A-10s place?
Fighter-bombers, smart weapons and even the mighty AC– series do not, no, cannot, do the job the A-10 can do.

When is Congress going to wake up and realize about the mess they are creating for all Americans and our Allies?!?

I would also add the Marines to that list. I think the Marines and the Army could use the A-10. I also agree that it would be a big mistake to mothball the A-10.

RETIRE THE A-10!?! PUT EM TO PROPER USE!! GIVE IT TO THE ARMY!!javascript: postComment(0);

Let’s get this straight, we’re retiring one of the most reliable, efficient, effective, survivable CAS aircraft, that has solid performance record and relatively low purchase/maintenance cost and we’re replacing it with the JSF an unproven aircraft with stacks of technical, performance and maintenance problems and huge price tag that is growing by the day with budget overruns. But this cut is due to sequestration. Those guys are geniuses that are running our military!

The warhog A-10 is defenetly a remarkable ruget aircraft in which as proven its durability in war under the worst circumstances and as been credit for many kills in multiple targets with its weaponry. Turning down this aircraft to the bone yard would be a disaster. I know for a fact that it can be use for the army as a back bone support as well as for the national guard for its paractices and training. The A-10 can be fitted or midifified with modern technology with the exsisting other aircraft and be used as a tactical close ground support. Why spending in newer airfeat when we have good ones to fly. The warhog has no match till today and has proven its devastading fire power. i hope that the military will consider the warhog to continue in service till 2020. Just let us look at the aging B-52 that has come into service since the mid 50s and stil has a life psan most likely to 2025 with its inmensive pay load delivery such a drasticly power punch. The warhog also as proven the same. Let the glory of the A-10 continue to the 2020s.

I’m with you on that.
The A-10 is likely cheaper to build, fly, and maintain, than any other warplane in America’s arsenal. While other warbirds have more expensive electronics, stealth, and fly-by-wire flight controls, the A-10 has got survivability and rapid turnaround time in spades. Again, at a fraction of the cost. Most of the attack and suppress air missions of the past two decades have been performed best by helos and A-10s. No one willingly risks their air assets in direct conflict with America’s Air Forces. Most missions deal with grounded assets. Just what the lower, slower A –10 was designed for. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out certain unmanned aircraft carry higher price tags than the A-10 does.


This is likley a 2015 budget proposal that would be backcast into FY2014…if the AF had more money and did not have to cut so much due to sequestration the A-10 could be saved. There are no good options because of sequestration. Don’t blame the AF — blame the Congress and the Exucutive Branch.

Those cuts make absolutely no sense. When the next boots on the ground dies because of no close air support, let each one of those who approved their cuts send a close family member there to replace them.

Why not take the guns out of the A-10 and fit them into a C-17 as a further subsidy of Boeing restarting the C-17 line. It would also convert a single purpose transport aircraft into an “Attack “plane. I love the Wart Hog, but if I cant have it I want the gun. Imagine the ammo system that could be installed inside a C-17.

God Bless the Prez and his sequester. But he can still take his $100,000,000 vacation to Africa for 2 weeks or his $2,000,000,000 jaunt to Indonesia or Uncle Joe and his Million dollar weekend.

I’m with on this one. The big bosses to care how they do
it as long as they get away with it..

And the higher they go in management, the smaller their balls.

what next the aircraft carrier, the army, Navy etc.

bring back the tomcats


Are there still tanks and artillery? If there are then we need an A-10.

The AF argument, will be high flying aircraft who drop JDAMs directly on targets or shoot Mavericks or other laser guided ordinance from safe distances, kind of like Kosovo but with JDAMs. Also they’ll say the Army should use their AH-64’s more. The problem, is no other aircraft can get low, see its target, take inordinate amounts of damage and still fly and yet be inexpensive enough that it can be repaired or replaced easily. The problem is AF brass likes shiny supersonic toys and doesn’t even like dropping bombs for grunts unless the threat level is null. Essentially, if your fighting in high threat environment you’ll have to wait till air defenses are nill to bring in the Air Force, which means the army won’t move in till that happens. In COIN wars though, one MANPAD and your hundred million dollar plane is toast.

In most larger aircraft they call it the Flight deck so as to not offend female pilots…

F35 is Navy. Their budget probably wouldn’t affect the Airforce or Army…

would be a stupid move and the troops on the ground will pay the price.

the air farce doesn’t want to play with the other services then I say we take their toys away, they never have liked ferrying soldiers around nor supporting them once they were on the ground.

We give ALL of the A-10s to the Marine Corp who knows how to support the boots on the ground in an integrated fashion. Heck, maybe we could put a hook on them and fly them off of carriers ;-P

Re-raise the USAAF, give the A-10’s to them. It’s designed for work with the ground forces so why shouldn’t they have it??

This is sad. As a former AH-64 A “Apache” crew chief I can say that the A-10 is the best CAS fixed winged air craft ever constructed. A true airborne battle ship Perhaps just like the battles ships they will bring it back when the time comes.

Just a commentary. It seems that the White House wants to demoralize the US Military. Haven’t seen this since the Mid 1990’s.











if you voted for Obama or any Democrat shut your pie hole

Give them to the MARINES!

I know. That is what I said. Didn’t say it was right, however.

I rather doubt the man in the White House is all that found of our military and its history.

laws can be amended or repealed by new laws. And it is time new laws are passed to repeal outdated ones that allow the Air Farce to indulge in pathetic notion that what it does requires a separate service.



@ Walker.

You are exactly correct. Low & slow really works well in CAS for supporting ground troops. Single role aircraft is indeed for that mission, being a multi-role platform simply doesn’t work well in most areas. The F-35 or Joke Still Flying will perform pathetic in CAS, deep interdiction bombing and air superiority roles for 3 different services.

@ Brent,

The reason why the A-10 carried the AIM-9M AAMs, it was to shoot down light attack helicopters.

Ken Badoian,

“What is wrong with a one mission aircraft?”

Absolutely nothing. Multi-role platforms like the overweight pregnant pig F-35 is what’s killing it.

Great aircraft on the chopping block like the F-15C/D and A-10 is laughable and very dumb. Protecting the F-35 from the sequestration cuts and speeding the process of the failed programme the worse off the United States by eroding the air power which will make USAF totally ineffective in the next 30 to 40 years.

If I was a fighter pilot in the USAF and logged flying hours on F-15s and A-10s for example and the USAF generals scrap these wonderful aircraft (in order to save money), I’ll resign and feeling embarrassed and outraged.


Yes. Bring back the awesome F-14s for the US Navy and get rid of the F/A-18E/F “Stingless Super Dogs”.

If the defence acquisition was up to me, I will have single-role aeroplanes that can do the mission – reasonably well – I’d be looking at eliminating the multi-role platforms.”

1. Purchasing more advanced F-15s/F-16s
2. Keep the A-10s
3. Restart the F-22 production line
4. Scrap the “overweight pig” F-35 Joke Still Flying (JSF) programme

As a good forward plane doing the essential things first we cannot lose it we need that warthog!!

Yep, nothing to replace it with…not smart. If you DO decide to scrap them, I’ll take 2 please. Park those monsters in my front yard…need the shipping address?

The F-15 doesn’t cut it. For air-superiority something like the F-22 is needed. To replace our F-16s we could never hope to buy or operate the F-15 in large numbers (well over 1,000).

New F-15s would be very good to have to continue the role of our current F-15Es (since we cannot presently afford to develop a new long range strike/interdiction aircraft) but it cannot do everything else we need.

Nicholas Elias Nieves… regarding Army flying fixed wing ground attack aircraft with forward firing weapons, there is no obstacle to this that could not be cleared in the next fiscal year’s defense authorization act.

Awesome plane! I loved seeing them growing up while they used to fly at a military base in Canada, and I loved seeing them while I was on the ground in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan (2008/2010) with the Canadian Army. They would appear almost whenever (the US Army Kiowas always came) we had a serious contact with insurgents, and I remember seeing the pilot one day flying very low, slow, and quiet (after an IED killed a comrade) and looked right at us with a wave. Another time, we had insurgents laying IED wire across a road approx. 400 yards from us, and while two US Navy F-18’s couldn’t locate them visually from high above with their targeting pods, Mr. A-10 Warthog came on the scene, found them with binoculars and killed 3 out of the 4 of them in minutes via 30mm cannon. I have a hard time anything could replace this “keep it simple” plane and it will be missed by all — including all the allied countries that were assisted by them. A big thanks to all the A-10 pilots out there!

Flight deck is another word for c0ckp1t.

The real losers in all this will be our young men toting a rifle.

This is a REMF based decision and may only be revisited when the body count gets too high. They will just tell the ground troops, Air Support is for wimps. We don’t need no stinkin air support.

Thanks for the word, but sometimes the law is far, far away; the Army used OV-1’s for “armed reconnaissance” (which I’m sure that Charlie did not appreciate) as late as 1967, which is when the Air Force woke up and wrote the AX spec.

Stop with the hyperbole and downright inaccuracy. It’s unseemly and makes you sound like a rabid politician.

Not “COMBAT” aircraft.…

I have a better solution. Fire the AF Brass who have their heads up their butts, fire the idiot Politicians that are forcing the “new and half as good” programs to continue so they can save their own jobs with their constituents, and keep the aircraft that do the the job great. The firings alone of both incompetent Brass and incompetent Politicians would save us billions in payroll, benefits, retirements, “perks”, and lawsuits for embezzling and sexual harassment, the consequences of which will ultimately be ignored anyway because the CO chooses to overrule the military court’s ruling or the perp has a daddy whose higher brass, then there’s the politicians (need I say more on these morons?).

This is a remarkable Aircraft, and had it been in A-stan, could have done a much better job at assisting our ground troops in danger-close ambush situations. We could have taught the Taliban to fear the Devil’s Cross as much as the Iraqis did. I’ve always been a proponent of the AF, wanted to join it myself, but this time, they’ve really screwed the pooch.

They do NOT care one bit about the ground pounders. If it ain’t supersonic they don’t want it. Had a-10 CAS during the first go round…OUTFLIPPING STANDING Aircraft!!! Never been a better CAS platform.

This is the 6th or 7th time they’ve tried to get rid of the A-10’s. Best dang CAS platform in history! They don’t like low and slow, it isn’t sexy. But they won’t (can“t?) let the Army (or Marines) have them.…. What a shame…

Sorry william, in anything a multi purpose tool does none of it’s jobs really well. That’s why there are “special tools” for special functions!

You obviously do not fly the A-10 or know anyone who does. My son has flown this aircraft for over 10 years and would cross over to the Army to continue to do it. These pilots are absolutely loyal to the mission of the A-10.

Then. as the constitution provides, we need change the law.

This is yet another version of idiots reinventing the wheel. Just how many times does it have to be demonstrated that CAS is imperative!
To have a stellar example of the state of the art machine, that has CONSTANTLY, proved it’s capability to do the job, to be constantly be threatened by politicians is borderline stupidity. No make that flagrant stupidity.

I strongly support the idea that since the Air Force is way too elite to grub in the mud that the A-10 Fleet be transferred over to both the Army and the Marines.

Let the Air Force concentrate their expertise in flying high, shooting missiles, and chasing UFOs!

andrew… Most F-14 Tomcats have been shredded and scrapped, though Iran does still have some that they acquired from us back in the 70’s.

Supersonic jets make lousy ground support AC unlike the A-10. They’re too damn fast for gun accuracy and the 20mm cannon can’t penetrate tank armor. The Air Force has been totally lacking in foresight since they wanted to kill the AC years before the 91 Gulf War. All they are interested in high tech play toy equipment. Give the A-10’s to the Army where they belong. The Air Force has no business supporting ground troops.

From (http://​cgsc​.cdmhost​.com/​u​t​i​l​s​/​g​e​t​f​i​l​e​/​c​o​l​l​e​c​t​i​o​n​/​p​4​0​1​3​c​o​l​l​1​1​/​i​d​/​7​2​9​/​f​i​l​e​n​a​m​e​/​7​3​0​.​pdf)

Section IV-Functions of the United States Army

“The United States Army includes land combat and service forces and such aviation and water transport as may be organic therein. it is organized, trained and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained combat operations on land…”

The idea that an aircraft that cost $135M will do air to mud is just stupid. If the Air Farce does not know that then the leadership need to be replaced.

Good grief, grow up.

and the Marines are allowed to have fixed wing aircraft, even combat fixed wing, despite being (naval) infantry type land forces. Perfect.

a total air farce

The Air Force forgets that its primary function is to achieve air superiority simply in support of the ground elements’ efforts to achieve the actual victory. The A-10 provides CAS, directly participating in the primary efforts of the ground forces​.to achieve battlefield superiority, while the Air Force fighter jocks’ ancillary role of clearing the sky overhead is necessary, but not as important as the direct role played by the A10. If the Air Force wants to become irrelevant and obsolete in overall war fighting strategy, then they should give all of their A-10s to the USMC air units.

Except of course for the C-23. And the C-12. And…you get my point.

How great would the Warthog be for U.S. Mexican border patrol with that 30mm cannon !

This is a blow for guys on the ground if they pull this aircraft. The 1% don’t fight wars they make $$ on them. Taking this away will cost lives. All to keep their tax loopholes and their racket going. Disgrace.

My son is an A-10 pilot and just loves flying that bird. He has flown in Afganistan (5 months) and is now stationed in Korea.


Sorry to say, a lot of those “buffoons” are right here in Tucson, which stupidly surrounds Davis Monthan AFB…and the ignorant liberal Democrat run city and county allowed all of that development…and none of them think of the revenue the base brings to the area. Tucson is the capital of NIMBY…after they have in-filled the area surrounding DM or Raytheon with cheap housing and bitchers about noise. At least the County did protect Raytheon this year…but still not enough to keep them here more than 10 years. It is only the dry (emphasis) climate to store the munitions or they would be out of here. Not economic friendly and really anti-munitions/military.

To have that tank buster circling your column low and slow, I always thought; this is integrated support. I hope mothball is not complete decommissioning.

Shawn, the A-10 has been in Afghanistan pretty much from the beginning. It’s still there.

I can understand the reasoning behind the AF logic of getting rid of a one mission aircraft, even if it is the best at what it does. The Navy did the same thing using the F/A-18 to replace other airframes that were better for one mission. I think eventually UAV’s will replace even more An MQ-9 can loiter for days and pack a heavy punch even if it can’t carry as much. A T-45C/BAE Hawk T2 could be quickly modified to carry the 30mm ADEN Gatling gun on the center hard point. The T-45C is already in production and in the supply pipeline, is carrier capable, is multi-role, is fairly cheap, and is in the competition for the AF T-X trainer to replace the T-38 Talon. Not as good as the A-10 but it can carry a 25mm or even a 30mm gun and other ordinance. Once again, not as good as the A-10 for CAS but at least it is something. Another option may be the upcoming Sikorsky S-97 Raider or Boeing V-280. An air-refuelable attack version is certainly possible, as is an unmanned version. The services plan on reducing the types of helicopters it has under the JMR/FVL programs. Certainly whatever aircraft come from these programs can be used in the CAS role. Except for the V-22, all the current helos are 60’s-70’s technology.

Must agree with you on this issue, 1 Manpads and your hot shot tinker toy is now falling scrap metal.….. AF needs to get it thru their Fighter Jock mentality, if they don’t want to support the Army for CAS, then give the aircraft, support equipment, maintainers, and pilots to the Army.

Would you please STFU !!!Nicholas Elias Nieves???

Looks like someone forgot to tell the purchasing department, they just placed an order 2 weeks ago for between 56 and 242 new wings to help reduce maintenance costs over the next 30 years.

That was terribly written. Please go back to the interwebs are reread how we lost aircraft in Serbia. You can then tell the real story.

A terrible loss to boots on the ground if terminated, should continue to be maintained to fulfill the CAS role…

They are already working in conjunction with one another. And just how would the Army do a much better job of CAS with its own pilots?

Obama is Nicholas Brody in the White House

There is nothing out there that can destroy the enemy’s means and will to make war as quickly and thoroughly as a formation of iron bomb bearing B-52s overhead or a head on view of a flight of A-10s.

The Warthog is the most awesome sight a soldier can see on the battlefield. I love the fact that they hunt in pairs, covering each other and appear out of nowhere. The Air Force is making a tremendous tactical error. Obama is nearing his goal of making the ultimate apology for the United States.…reduction to a second or third rate power. Go Big O (straight to hell)

>The USAF/USN/USMC basically won’t use anything to fly “slow”. Instead, they’ll continue to use all of the above to fly “fast”, just like they have been for the last decade.

It might not be a bad model by itself, but it cannot be applied everywhere, anytime. One thing that going fast is not going to be able to achieve is the pressure on the enemy forces looking at an A-10 loiting around. What is going to happen when the enemy realize that it happen so fast that it cannot really do anything about it? I bet they will adapt their tactics.

The Marines already have all the F-18 and AV-8 aircraft they want to provide their CAS, and they’re replacing them both with F-35 to provide their CAS–an F-35 with no internal gun, by the way.

What can “take over” is what has already been doing the A-10’s mission: the B-1, B-52, F-15E, F-16, F-18, AV-8, AC-130, MQ-9, MQ-1, and AH-64, and soon the F-35 as it replaces the F-16, F-18, and AV-8.

I can’t, I have a birth certificate ! :-)

Is that a joke? I am pretty sure the bros on the ground getting shot with a choice of any of those aircraft would choose the A-10. If you want high speed bomb droppers and inaccurate strafe passes pick those other guys. For a “troops in contact” situation bombs are usually not the answer

First off, the question wasn’t “What can meet or exceed each and every capability of the A-10.” Second, most CAS in Iraq and Afghanistan was and is not flown by A-10s, so the question has already been answered on the battlefield.

Warrior, although I thought the premise was good. I exaggerated the MG part. The F116 was shot down by a SA-3 missile, a weapon system fielded in 1961. Bottom line the vaunted, invisible stealth fighter was knocked down by a weapon system 40 years older than the best technology the AF could come up with. Bottom line the F116 could not provide close air support to a ground unit in day time and most probably at night. It is a single mission aircraft just like the AF says the A10 is. Lets get rid of all single purpose aircraft in the AF using their logic. Give them instead to the service that wants and needs them, but the AF high level leadership (amazingly all fighter jocks) refuses to provide in the quantities needed.

If you want to talk simply numbers, obviously F16s, F15Es, B1s, F18s and all the rest listed will fly more CAS missions than the A-10 because there are more of them. But, most missions in Afghanistan are not truly CAS. They are ISR providing over watch and not actually employing weapons. And the question was what can kill armored vehicles and support ground forces with long loiter times. A clip from ACC Chief Gen Hostage in a news article regarding cutting the A10: “Hostage said he had already talked to Army officials about losing the A-10 and using other jets to take over the close-air support role. The Army was “not happy” about the possibility, Hostage said.”

Naturally Army’s not happy; no one is: There’s nothing in the idea of premature mothballing of the A-10 for anyone to be happy about. But all those other aircraft can kill tanks and AFVs just fine, thank you. Good point about providing “nontraditional” ISR. There’s also been plenty of close air support in Iraq and Afghanistan at the point of a 500lb bomb, and F-15E/16/18 make gun runs, too.

Wis. Air National Guard flies them over the tree tops above my property, i would seriously miss that as i breaks up the monotony. From the standpoint of a former Navy Gaiter crew it’s like doing away with the Battleships for beach support. i think i would much rather have 16″ support to soften the beach than lobbing million dollar Tomahawks

So which of these do you fly? Not too many guys throwing around NTISR terminology

Absolutely right, John
We have become a nation of critics and not contributors

As a soldier currently deployed, I would prefer to keep to the A-10 around.

Can you give me the law number. All I know about is a Pentagon edict that Army would not have armed, fixed-wing aircraft. Not the force of law.

This has come up before, USAF does not want CAS mission, give it to the Army. Army accepts, but only if personnel & funding comes with it. USAF declines and congress steps into once more to re-iterate the division of turf withing the DoD. I can only hope that this is a repeat of that event.

I was a REMF, recently retired. Spent most of my career as a reservist at NASIC, and most of that as an air defense command and control analyst.

The Marines could definitely use the A-10. we specialize in CAS of the Infantry. It could indeed fly security on Osprey Missions. It is beyond stupid to get rid of such an outstanding aircraft. You want to motivate a bunch of Marines? Call in a squadron of those babies for Strafing runs…

Thank you my son, thank you. Rotor heads speak up!

They tried getting rid of the A10 back in the early 90’s but after how good she did during the 1st gulf war they
decided to keep her flying. The A10 will be around for a while longer

It not just Obama that turned us into stupid lazy citizens. That has been a long slow process. Part of it is the whole “Why do I have to learn to do it if the computer will do it for me?” attitude we have currently. Government is a lot like a computer. It only spits out what you put in. If you input garbage you get garbage back.

9/11 would have happened with or without Bush, and as I recall it, most people were in favor of going to Iraq after that, granted, it did take longer than anyone expected.

Im a Brit my self, but the A10 is without doubt, the best CAS aircraft ever, and with the right equipment, it can do some of that fancy air to air stuff

As expected, the usual A-10 apologists and nostalgics come out of the woodwork, each assuming that the enemy of the future has no responding planes, no radar, no IR, no SAMs, no EW and no laser tech. We have the apologists from the 60’s who miss ‘Ol Spooky’ when the enemy was VC and NVA squatting in the jungle with rusting AK-47s. We have the apologists from Afghanistan where the enemy in pajamas has a dusty AK and a cell phone. But mostly we have A-10 crybabies who just dig the screech of a low pass, the rip of a big gun and a cloud of dust. Who cares if drones, F-35s and hellfires can do it without anyone knowing they were there? Who cares if the A-10 can’t penetrate Chinese, Russian, Iranian or even Syrian radar and air defenses? Forget future adversaries; just give us noise, dust and nostalgia!

Okay, let’s upgrade the 60+ year old B-52H fleet to increase its life span to 2040… even though the relatively slow big buff continues in an almost singular role in a low threat environment. Now the A-10, just as the B-52, has an excellent combat record in low to mid level threat airspace, but the difference is the A-10 is on speed dial to the guys on the ground. Give the hog to the Army is not a player due to the National Security Act of 1947 which created the Air Force as its own entity. The Army did try to get around their ban on fixed wing armed aircraft when they “armed” the OV-1 Mohawk in Vietnam and the Air Force cried foul… The USMC would be glad to have it, but the shear vertical profile of the aircraft and non-folding wings makes things a wee tight for carrier operations. Can it be saved… probably not with the single engine F-35 coming on line, though I learned to go on a mission with one engine and maybe come back, with two almost a guarantee to come home.

AC-130s can’t do CAS in the forward area without substantial air cover hence they only operate in low threat environments. AH-64s are AH-64s. They’re cool to look at but they’re not A-10s.

one MANPAD and your helicopters are toast. There is so much wrong with what you’re typing here. With the invent of targeting pods there’s not reason for any jet to fly in the threat envelope of a MANPAD which isn’t even really a threat to anything except helicopters. “AF brass likes shiny toys and doesn’t even like dropping bombs for grunts unless the threat level is null.” Hey, helicopters wont go into an area unless the threat level is null, but the AF, USN, and USMC have tactics to deal with all kinds of actual threats not just MANPADs. And you want to talk about COIN? First, if you’re using CAS in a COIN fight you already have problems and probably have already lost the COIN war. Second, all through out our “War on Terror” MANPADs have been fired at both fixed and rotary wing aircraft, guess which ones suffered most? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t the fast flying ones.

Congress is to blame because it refuses to spend money for defense. The old days of the cold war are nothing but a memory. The young congressmen have no idea how the military works. They think you can go to war with worn out hardware and soldiers that are not paid enough. The A-10 is one of many systems that will not get funds.

Bankrupting us. Obama? Oh, I forgot he is the white guy from Texas who gave the tax breaks to the super rich while invading Iraq because they had weapons of mass construction ( or something like that) . You conservative racists are so smart I wish I weren’t one of you.

Actually, the AF was publicy behind that initiative, because they never really wanted the A-10 but it was too popular after the Gulf War to continue to retire it (which was what they had already started until the Gulf War intervened). However they put a number of conditions on it that insured it wouldn’t really happen. First, they said Army coulnd’t create any new bases/runways for it. They could usew what they already had or lease space from AF on its bases.. Second, the Army would not be allowed to develop a successor. There were some others, but those were the biggies. Not suprsingly, the Army turned it down.

They tried to palm them off on the Marines as wel„ but USMC turned them down because you could’t fly them off ships at sea, and they already had a superb CAS mchine in the AV-8B.

This kind of stuff transcends Democrats or Republicans Note that in 1992, Clinto was not in office.. AF has been like this since its inception and was formalized publicly in the 1962 Bermuda “agreement”.

What’s especially wierd is that the BUFF costs more to fly than the BONE, but doesn’t carry as much or is as survivable

The AF tried to push the A-10 on the Marines in the ‘90s. Marines turned them down for a number of reasons. Cost of introducing a new a/c and spares that weren’t in the supply system; hard to integrate into the USMC framework and operations;, inability to operate from ships; and (I know some will yell over this) they already had a CAS machine that was at least as good and much better suited to the Marines’ methods of operation (including night operations), the AV-8B.

One of my thesis explorations at Cal Maritime is the RE-USE of the A-10 and C-130 retrofitted to engage the Wild Fire battles in the USA…THEORY: Can these planes be re-purposed as Humanitarian tools in Home Land Defense for Wildfires when GUNS shoot full metal jacket AMMO of flame retardant at the base of fires on the front line to lay down the perimeter?

So the idea is that the A-10 will be placed into storage at Arizona, where we have hundreds or even thousands of aircraft currently located there. HAS anyone ever considered the notion and thought, that this single location is probably targeted by multiple nuclear warheads? How easy to remove these weapons systems from the “game” even before the “game” gets started.

The inability of providing close air support is a shame on the Air Force. The A10 serves the infantry up front and personal. It’s a mission and the hardware that the Air Force had either better do or give up a portion of its budget for the Army to fly them…

Or recent conflict experiences should prove the value of a slow low dwell ability…

And that is the primary thesis point.…Low and Slow…Aircraft in “California” wildfires fly high and fast (or as slow as the plane can) and drop retardant “en masse” which dissipates with the wind…The A-10 can direct fire to the base of flame in a slow and low manner…

As a retired Army Service Member, it’s clear to see that the audience here understands the CAS role and the functions of the A-10 much better than the AF leadership. Sadly, in today’s PC environment, it’s difficult to broach the real reason the USAF wants to eliminate the A-10. It’s actually pretty simple. Nobody else in the USAF has the mojo to go below 10,000 AGL and provide the direct support troops in contact need. They have to get rid of the Warthogs and the maniacs who fly them because it makes the rest of them look very “risk averse”. I say let’s transfer them to the Army and/or the USMC “lock, stock, and barrel”. Win, win. We get pilots who’ve earned their right to swagger, and they aren’t embarrassing the “silk scarf” crowd at the O-club with their slow, ugly, one-mission antique with mud splatter on the belly paint and real bullet holes in the body work.

The problem is no the Air Force. It’s congress’ top down budget. The AF Doesn’t have a choice. Congress say it’ cuts the A-10 it’s cuts. The AF can try to plead to Congress but the AF doesn’t have a chances with social programs and all that PORK. Congress should give the AF a Certain amount of money and what the heck the AF does with it as long as it is Constitutional it’s fine by me.


It appears from your statements, that you have no idea in the world what CAS even means. To explain, it is Close Air Support. It is not to fly miles in the air, and hope that someone on the ground can paint a target, or that you are going to try and kill an ant with an H-bomb. CAS is to fly low and slow in an area where the troops and the enemy are in VERY close proximity, and the fire power of their shooting or bombing must be onto a pin head, not a dime. AND, the A-10 does stay over the target continuing it’s mission until it is done, or relieved.

If this happens, with the Navy being offshore, that will leave these missions back in the laps of the guys who first coordinated them, the MARINES.

keep the A-10 Get rid of the F16 we have the F22 and the F35 to replace them keep the A-10’s we need that plane…doesn’t make any sense to get rid of it
the A-10 is the best close air support plane ever built, Cutting the A-10 would be the worst military decision ever,

I totally agree. After all, these pilots KNOW PERSONALLY the officers on the ground that they either went through OCS, Annapolis, or West point with. And surely are going to look after their buddies better.

Having read almost all of the comments on the A-10, I would say that the percentages are about 99 for, and MAYBE 1 against. So why don’t the brass hats listen to the guys whose live depend on this bird, so much, rather than to just throw it away? When then find out how wrong that they have been, it will cost them MORE than that “arm and a leg” to get these birds back into service.

It appears from your comments that you have no idea in the world how CAS is performed today. CAS is called in by JTACs, who typically do paint the target, and/or transmit video of the target, and/or pass the GPS coordinates fo the target, and/or receive video of the target back from the CAS aircraft and confirm the target in it, although when necessary of course they will still pass a nine-line to get the job done. CAS is often performed by dropping one or more bombs, and they invariably are JDAMs or LGBs, which typically hit within several yards or even feet of their aimpoint. And what is the size of a pinhead as opposed to a dime in this context, anyway? A great deal of CAS since 2001 has been performed from 20,000ft and at 450kts, and more rather than less will be performed that way in the future. Of course A-10 pilots stay over the troops they’re supporting. So do other fighter pilots in other jets, or do you think USMC pilots in AV-8 and F-18, and USAF pilots in F-15E and F-16, do not? In any event, you have not refuted or even addressed what I actually said, instead of going off on what you think I don’t know.

Someone is thinking.…Good idea..

If that isn’t true, it sure looks that way. The A-10 has to be the best ground support ever built. Give it to the Army.

“If we have multiple-mission airplanes that can do the mission…” That’s the problem: we don’t. We won’t, either, since there is no money. This is the best close air support aircraft ever built, by anyone, period. What other airframe in the entire U.S. inventory can match it’s loiter time, payload (both size and variety) and survivability? An F-22? An F-35? Puhlease. Are we going to replace it with J-DAMs? Unfortunately the only realistic outcome here is the the Air Force is abandoning the CAS role. So what role does that leave the Air Force in a small conflict world?

Desert Storm? The Air Force failed to bring him to his knees, it was not until the ground invasion took place quite a while after the AF had their shot, and what 72 hours after tanks rolled he gave up? Awww, nope, sorry, not AF.

Its cute, you think we won the invasion of Iraq? Have you seen the mess we left behind? Pull your head out of the ground and look around, its a disaster. They’re worse off today then the worst day of uprising when we had troops there. Leaving a country worse off then we found is it, is NOT victory under any definition known to man.

Libya, a 10 day mission, impressive. Yup, justification to keep the service. They dropped a few hundred bombs to out a guy who was 80–90% defeated by most estimates. Woo hoo!

F-35C is Navy (carrier variant), the F-35 is like the F-4, multi-service aircraft. You should try reading, oh, ANY article on the aircraft. I’ve not seen a single news article from any major publication that did not stipulate that it was a multi-service aircraft. Probably shouldn’t talk about things you’re clueless of.

A heads up to get rid of triservice. Interservice rivalry results in unwinnable wars.
Tell me, when was the last war we won.

Honestly the AF High Command has been making bad choices based on bean counting for half a century. Remember they were having the Security Police using Combat 38’s for a side arm and qualifying with wad cutters, and firing 22 LR’s out of an M16 to qualify. That’s what happens when the bean counters run the show.

As a crew chief on some of the very first Huey Gunships, I’m all for the CAS concept, I have said for years that it should have been in our arsenal. Lot to be said for; low, slow, and up close with fire power.

its an awesome aircraft.…CTANG had 14, (got xfered to MAANG) had the oppur. to “fly” in the sim. I also saw their effectiveness as a“ground-pounder”.….simply & utterly awesome.….. nothing will come anywhere near their effectiveness as a CAS aircraft in my lifetime!!!

gotta watch those 0–6’s.… they can give u the ****in’ of ur life!

yep…I can close my eye’s see her droppin down otta the clouds w/that 30mm blazin’ away takin’ out a target to close 4 a mk-82 GBU-38 JDAM to do the job.… (close in ambush) ahhhh yes that smell.….. of that GAU-8…that smell.….

rule# 1 after gettin’ elected NEVER let Mr. Woodward near u ever!!!!!

Brad…show some ‘r’spect & READ Woodwards’ books on POTUS Obama.…. u do “read books” don’t u? You’ll learn sumptin’ that four-six-duece is yellin’ about… u young punk!

so what ground units in Iraq & the A-stan did u serve w/Displaceman, where the A-10’s saved many a brave “ground-pounder”??

& the repub controlled congress had nuttin’ 2 do with any of that???? ok..can I have some of your meds????

actually tiltr, not pickin’ a fight, but the buff during the past 10 years had the highest rate of “mission availability for flight” betix the bone, B-2 & BUFF, research it, its close…but the buff was ‘Mission ready”. Im I don’t know the lingo, but I had a post w/good references, not wiki.….. that gave the %‘s…peace!

I think u mean the F-117 ‘Nighthawk’?…the reason it was indeed brought down by a ADS (I don’t think 40 y/o) was do to another reason, something the Russians “discovered by mistake” hint: during a “cellular phone call”.….….

I don’t think so… I flew in the back of a C-7 assigned to a AVCRAD now TASM-? each of the 4 had 2 fixed wing C-7’s replaced by the C-23 for “parts logistics.….….

Wasn’t the Dems in control of the House & Senate during both of Bush’s terms !

Our DC politicians never tell the truth about how much the national debt is not even under the Clinton Adm. We are more like 70 trillion in debt now but you will never hear that figure come out of DC. They do not include all the money they stole from US citizens promising to pay it back (Social Security for one example). You people who keep arguing in defense of the democrats or the republicans are screwed up in the head.….the politicians have gotten to you. Your gray matter has turned to feces. You want to blame the other party when its both. We idiots have set by and let lobbyist take our government from us!!!!! Time to start voting for someone who is not in either party.

Its a good thing the Air Force turned 66 this year. Next year they can collect FULL Social Security.
With that infusion of cash they should be able to find generals who can THINK … and maybe then they can come up with a SMARTER plan like “keep the A-10″ or at WORST “give them to the Army.”

The A-10 ain’t sexy and sleek but then neither is the 66 year old Air Force.


As I said above, I was a REMF. The best chance I had to get to the pointy end was just after the initial invasion of Iraq ended and we sent in the first FMA/FME teams. I was going to be on the first one from NASIC in June 2003, but the decision was made that the physical security risk wasn’t worth the trip for everyone, and most of us stayed home. That was about the closest a reservist O-4/O-5 S&TI analyst could ever get to being with a ground unit.

Since when do the Marine pilots flying CAS missions in AV-8 and F-18, which are the jets the Marines use for CAS, fly them “low and slow”?


Thank you for your voice-of-reason comment.

Good point, Steve. Maybe the Army should designate their “new” A-10’s as the RC-10.
“Honestly, General Welsh, we are just going to use the Warthogs for reconnaissance! Mostly.… Well, ok, there might be a little GAU activity from time to time, and a Maverick or two might get deployed, and we can’t exactly rule out the use of JDAM’s…”

Give me a good horse, and we’ll charge those tanks…said General Herr, and that was about it.

Karbala Gap was a pretty big clue that slow-moving CAS could be trapped and shredded. The A-10 is not as slow-moving as AH-64’s. Not sure how survivable anything in the air will be in the near future. Are we at that machineguns vs infantry point in history when it comes to air platforms? How survivable is modern air against the same threats?

I have to disagree with most of the posters here. In the new reality of American engagement in foreign conflicts the A-10 has a very small chance of being deployed successfully. Why? Because they require AIRPORTS and we are increasingly being denied access to fields close enough to make their combat radius useful (~250nm according to Wikipedia). The reality is that to be able to rapidly deploy close air support it’s going to have to come from carriers, so that means (now) Navy and Marine F-18s, and F-35s if they ever get them sorted out. It’s why they don’t need F-15s, either 0– the Navy is taking over that role.

In the “new normal” the Air Force is the tanker and airlift (people and freight) airline. The Navy does the real fighting in the air; Army and Marines do the fighting on the ground and from helos.

Not sure about Army, but USMC did in 69 before I got out. Suspect the “Hog” is a better platform.

Foolish but i guess they have no choice. Congress needs stop the damn squeeze on the defense budget or things will get worse. Least their not scrapping the plane outright. Mothballing them will be pain to reactivate them if they’re able reactivate them. Stupid Sequestation and US Congress.

The F-35 has a glass jaw because they had to take out alot of the damage control to save weight. William who is a Lockheed shill suggested at the time that Lockheed get a bonus for crippling the F-35.

As the general says the future of the air-force is more expensive less capable aircraft. This has been pushed for months by the contractors who want to deliver a lot less for increased prices.

Lockheed makes hardly anything from keeping the A-10 and stands to make a killing from the F-35 which is why they are spending millions to lobby for this future.

JEEZ, OK F117. No matter what the damn thing is called, it still can’t support ground troops when they need the fire power. They are slow alright, but not survivable after minimal damage. Can’t loiter long enough. Stealth only effective at night or other very low visibility conditions (question becomes whether they can fly in those conditions). Don’t carry a gun for CAS. Limited bomb load compared to other AC. Lets get rid of it and keep the A10.

I hope the Army gets the A10 tank killer! Oh , and by the way some could be sold to Israel to hold off attacks from the syrians no matter which islamic extremist it is.Was in Baumholder when I got the message in my headset {apc} that we were dead and that the A10 Tank killer had got us and was 7 miles in the other direction.Yes Army needs the A10

That is exactly correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>Like the F-16 or just about any fighter, it depends where the F-35 gets hit.

With everything so tightly integrated, I am not sure that will be the case. Not even sure the computer could handle a case where a foot of wing is missing. Is fuel going get off from that hole?

The military has become one soft social engineering failed experiment … just the way Hillary wants it.

That’s a lot of hyperbole. Worse than Gallipoli, Hürtgenwald, Verdun or Viet Nam? Worse than building the F-4 without a gun, worse than the F-111 debacle, worse than all the missteps in the Middle East?

Not quite right. That proposal was the brainchild of Gen McPeak, the Air Force chief of staff. He wanted to trade the A-10 to the Army in exchange for the ATACMS deep strike missions. It was killed by other service chiefs, not the Air Force.
Airmen generally consider McPeak to be the worst CSAF yet.

…ummmm, apparently you haven’t heard that the F-117 was retired several years ago. USAF officially retired the F-117 in 2008.

Citation needed.

SHACK! Another voice-of-reason heard from. I always marvel at how easy it is to tell when someone posts who has actually been there/done that.

THIS IS THE WORST IDEA EVER, why not make budget cuts by first firing all the guys who thought this up! Only 2 planes mess with the heads of our enemies, thats the Spectre gunship and the A-10, and you want to give up one of them? A good chunk of modern warfare is head games, no other planes do that job well, that doesn’t sound like a single mission plane, does it?

Exactly what I was about to suggest when I read the article! A lot of gyrenes would love it & would complement the Harriers. The PLA must be breaking out the maotai bottles to celebrate!

No surprise. The top brass has always been looking for an excuse to mothball the A-10 wings. They were on the chopping block in the 90s. It was their superior performance in the Gulf Wars that kept them around.

BS! The USAF actually rec’d MORE C-17s than originally planned. We have all the C-17s we need and production ends.

If the Army was going to acquire the A-10 fleet, where will it get the money to do so? Train the pilots and ground crew, transfer the logistical system? Pay for O&M, etc? There are 2 reasons the A-10 is on the block
1. Single mission platform
2 Bring home the point to congress as the A-10 fleet is spread far and wide with active, Guard, and reserve units

I wish we could keep it as I believe CAS deserves a dedicated platform. But it seems over the last 20 years the USAF and US Army are the only ones who kept dedicated fixed-wing CAS.

give them to the Air Guard

Why would female pilots be offended by references to roosters?

People keep saying “what can replace it?”… what about teh AH-64 apache? Doesn’t require a full airport, carries the same missiles… and heck, it’s doing most of the CAS mission now, isn’t it?

This gets better and better! Thanks, and glad to hear of it! What a great airplane from the Grumman Iron Works.

Someone had to be on drugs to come up with that SH*t.

When this aircraft was designed the Air Force didn’t want it. They believed that missiles fired from high speed fighter jets would stop the Russians from pour thru the Fulda Gap. Yet this plane was forced on them and has proven to be an absolutely devastating weapon system with a extremely high survivability. It is sad that the Air Force is returning to the mentality of flashy toys and a massive loss to our defense capability.

You’re right. It will never happen. The Air Force is the best.

C-141 Flight Engineer

Great Expectations the Warthog A-10 this baby has everything it needs for a modern, close to close
contact target, its bathtub design is well enough to protect the pilot, and yes it should be the backbone
of the Army given its proven durability in the Iraq war given its worst situations.

When you are on the ground needing cas, nothing tops the Hog. The joystick jockeys can have their Preds but when you hear that GAU you know there is a brother up there and the SOB trying to get to you is in deep s**t

Possibly but there is a cost factor, the A10 has a phenomenal survivability record, and that GAU 8 Avenger just tips the shock and awe scale when you watch a tank turn into a Christmas sparkler. The Apache is a bad muther and it might have but I don’t remember it killing 900 tanks during the first Gulf war.

Do you remember the F-111 killing 1500 tanks during Desert Storm?

I’m sure POTUS personally looked at this line item and suggested the cut…

The short answer is “yes” to all of the above. The army will just have to make do with the Apache.

The Air Force tried this in 1989 and then Desert Storm came along and the A-10 proved itself. There is only an agreement between the Army and the Air Force with regards to fixed wing combat aircraft. The A-10 is an ideal fit for the US Army…let them have the aircraft!!!

It’s a nightmare to even think that these flying tanks would be mothballed,. Give them to Irsael or the
Army, Marines. This most be some of Pontus work. He want’s us to be weak. This was one of
my favorite aircraft. Can’t believe this would happen.

Welcome to the “Change” Obama promised. He’s doing this to all services, cutting all sorts of military equipment.

If you read the story, the Air Force wants to keep them, so it’s not them, it Obama and all his stupid cuts. He can fund 1.5+ million illegal immigrants and put welfare, food stamps, etc. above everything else, but he won’t fund the military that is keeping us safe!

Yeah, the transition of the USAF into an elite flying club without serious military capability can’t be stopped. There is no budget for single mission jets because all of it must be used to procure a multi-mission one that is too big to fail. It is sucking so much resources, there is not even enough to buy the thousands of F-35s planned. Needless to say, some missions will be left behind for lack of jets, weapons clearance and tactics development. Nothing is new about this multi-mission argument either. The F-16 was designated by previous multi-mission Mafiosi as the means to get to that mythical Swiss Army knife of the skies. I believe it was found unsatisfactory for some missions, like CAS. The idea is was recycled again to sell the F-35, and will probably get some officers promoted. I am resolved to the whole catastrophe. Like I said, it can’t be stopped.

No matter how high the revenue side is, the Congress overspends what they get in taxes. On rare occasions, revenue exceeds spending because of an unexpected economic boom. The condition is only temporary until Congress notices. Instead of leaving well enough alone, they pass laws that kill the Golden Goose. The government gets enough, they just spend too much too fast on the wrong things.


The A-10 concept seems to have proven itself, but it was always controversial. If the Army had the mission, the humans in charge would not be able to resist the sales pitches of smooth technology salesmen any better than USAF humans. As evidence of this corruption, I give you the F-35B for the US Marines. It is the most complicated and expensive jet ever fielded, yet they say it is absolutely necessary for the way they fight. Yeah?

The Marines don’t want the A-10. They are committed to the F-35B. If they don’t get their way they are going to hold their breath until they turn blue. It is absolutely impossible for them to do their job without the F-35B. So there.

POTUS didn’t even know what an A10 was…he might have thought it was Air Force 1’s designation.

wrong again.

Yes, I CAN imagine F-100’s doing CAS–because I often saw them do it very well. F-4’s, on the other hand, were a nightmare best forgotten. There were better CAS birds, of course–but not enough of them.

dispacedjim — well let’s just say they are sitting in their hangars at Tonapah and call it a day. The aircraft lasted only 25 years. Was basically ineffective, despite all the hype in Iraq 1 which were AF lies to justify a $111M aircraft. Only built 59 operational F117 because of high cost, high maintenance, low speed, low ordnance load capability, and low effectiveness (other AC did most of the damage in Iraq 1 and flew far more missions). Could have built 250 more A10s for the same amount of the F117 program.

Yes, they’re sitting in their hangars retired from operational use since 2008. They in fact were quite effective. The first day of Desert Storm saw the loss of two jets downtown over Baghdad, and after that first night’s losses, CENTAF figured out that they should only send the F-117s over Baghdad for the rest of the war due to the risk to non-LO aircraft. Their very real capabilities and their very significant reputation made them a very significant weapon system for those two decades.

“he bought the farm today”

The multi billion dollar projects you are talking about is because of the collusion among the parties in the “Military Industrial Complex” each making the other richer and richer…I would say more but it all makes me sooo sick to see our leaders sell out the citizenry ALL the TIME.….

We are support for the real warriors. Really, So next time your ass in pinned down, or you are running out of supplies. Call some one else. That is the most disrespectful and ignorant comment I have ever read and your an Officer. WOW. Thank God your a former officer. I because I wanted to work with the best Aircraft in theworld, I am not a warrior. Well, I will remeber that the next time I get mortared and shot at when I am in the Middle East. Working 12 hour shifts ensuring your ass is covered by our planes. I agree The Air Force shouldnt get rid of the A-10. For she does her role perfectly. But, sequestration is a reality not caused by the Air Force. Oh and speaking from the grounds of I have worked on both the F-22 and F-35 projects at Edwards AFB, these planes are need to gain the Air so your warriors can fight only the groud enamy. Talk to a Vet from WWII were they had to fight the Aircraft bombing them and the soldier in front of them. One last thing, you should take a piece of humble pie and enjoy it, after being deployed countless times,

I have always recieved gratitude from my brothers in the Army and the Marines that were saved by the AF coming in to rescue them when the enamy was over whelming them. Maybe you should thanks the AF instead of being so damn condescending. Support force my ass, it is the AF anfd the Navy that keeps Foreign Goverments afraid to attack the US. Were is the Armies nuclear program, oh thats right. Our goverment doesnt let you play with the big toys. Our enamies fear us because of what we bring to the table. Weapons that are unmatched. Sir with all do respect, maybe there is a reason your a former officer.

Michael L., Are you really trying to blame the USAF for the failures of any of the conflicts you listed? I was going to respond to each of your claims but on second thought decided you don’t have enough understanding of military roles and will just say you need to do some research into what each service’s role is and understand they are constrained to operate under the parameters set forth by the elected officials in office at the time.

LOL. He lied!!!

Yes I have a question, what planet are you from? Everyone knows that the current Administration has the power to implement ot stop the direction our government is going, and this one has been going South all along. Past Administrations have no power, they don’t even exist, so don’t put it on the past. Blame today’s Leaders for continuing to hurt DOD as never before.

Yup time for that old low tech work horse to go. We need new stealthy aircraft to knock down the terrorist air forces in Afghanistan, Somalia, Kenya, etc. Lord knows everyone with boots on the ground is thankful for the B2 and F35 etc! High tech do-dads will win out against terrorism every time! Army, Marines etc on the ground are completely irrelevant in today’s wars, yep, need to keep the sky’s clear of Al-Qaeda.

Easy fix…let the Army tranfer an appropriate amount of its TOA to the AF to allow them to continue to operate the A10 through the FYDP.

Were you there SheriffJohn ? I was. Sadly death is part of war and those who join our military understand that. Do we want to die? NO, but shit happens. Suppose we did nothing after 911, what would America be today besides the broke joke Obama has presently made us? We need the A-10 and not Obama and his foolish spending. If Obama was so concerned with saving money how about stop taking needless vacations or paying millions to transport his dog.

Single mission… REALLY?

Close air support, Battlefield Interdiction, Armed Recon, Combat Search & Rescue, C-130 & Helicopter airborne escort, Convoy escort, Maritime Interdiction & Wild Weasel SAM suppression.….

Single Mission… NOT!!!!

I have flown or trained for all these missions as a former Hawg Driver… INCLUDING flying Wild Weasel missions in Desert Storm!

FACT: The F-16 was a complete failure in Desert Storm, unable to hit it’s assigned ground targets from high altitude. So the A-10 was called upon to support the F-4G and destroy the SAM batteries using the Maverick missile. It was awesome!

Well said!
As a former Desert Storm Warthog driver I would often find myself having to rationalize to my peers why the Army sent us on specific missions… because many pilots in my squadron FORGOT we were there for the ARMY!

Gen. Chuck Horner and the USAF did NOT want the A-10 in the war. HOWEVER, Gen. Norm Schwarzkopf demanded we be invited… for the ARMY!!!!
Thank you Storm’in Norman! RIP

I think you are on to something…petition your Congressmen to stop paying for airpower within the US military.….….go right ahead.

Monthballing these aircraft, will lead tomore base closures, like Davis-Monthan. Its nice to find ways to trim the budget, however, it will also lead to loss of jobs and business closures as well. I’ve been at several bases during my career that such things have happened. Not good for the economy at all! It does appear that in the not so distance future, the U.S. Air Force will become a thing of the past.

Actually, I’m sure the AF would like to close some bases. When Congress mandates budget cuts, but then tells the services they can’t cut infrastructure, that forces them to look at cutting force structure…in other words, force structure like A-10s.….….…..

Let’s get real. No USAF pilots would jump ship to the Army. Reason why? They would never be foolish enough to accept WO pay for doing the same job as they were doing as 0–3 to 0–5. And the Army WO’s would never accept squadrons full of USAF officers who jumped ship with the aircraft as 03’s-05’s. The reason that pilots leave the Army is because the Army has NO RESPECT for its Aviators. Giving them a “Branch of their Own” (Aviation Branch) was absolutely the worst scam ever run on its Aviators. And I say with with NO DISRESPECT FOR THE EXCELLENCE OF THE ARMY’S WARRANT OFFICER CORPS, I WAS PART OF IT FOR A WHILE, having “reverted” when I was up for 0–4 and there were no flying slots available at that grade within any reasonable travel range from my USAR Group, or (quite righfully, they promote their own”, hence after a generous invitation from the unit next door I went from CPT℗ MI USAR to CW2 TNARNG.

Then the politics of a FW career path for which CWO’s & O-3–5’s, which branch would be the “Proponent”, etc. Being Retired now after ~40yrs combined Active, Reserve & ARNG service, reverting back to my Commissioned Officer rank was a privilege, as many of my counterparts who were RIFFED during the post-Vietnam War era were not as lucky to have moved through the system as I have been able to do, including a number of Warrant Officer’s who took Direct Commissions, only to come before the 0–4 Promotion Boards without any tickets punched, all that they had ever done was fly, being an Aviator was their job. What Army Aviation needs far more than the A-10 is the V-22(?) “Osprey”. The USMC also rightfully pays and promotes its pilots rather than denigrating them by “creating” (actually “Perverting”) the purpose of the Warrant Officer due to the “need for numbers” of Aviators to mee the demands of the Vietnam War, yet ensuring that they never developed “Limited Duty Officers” and giveng those aviators proper renumeration, and recognition.[Part II]

The Army always had a Corps of Aviators that were as qualified as pilots as any Aviators in any Military Service, just not recognized by their own kind as such. It is more than likely too late for any constructive change without input from the Quadrennial Review Board, and a DoD reallocation of funding to promote the deserving Aviators who have been undermined by an organizational structure that just viewed Army Aviators, from Ft. Wolters to Ft. Rucker and beyond as “Truck Drivers with O’Club Cards, begruding them “Flight” or its successor pay, one of the way to keep the gross pay of Army Aviators down was to keep their pay grades down so that Flight Pay/Aviation Career Inventive Pay, would not give them any financial advantages derived from skills.Part III]

There is much more to say than I have, but (hopefully) the point has been made, Army Aviation has never been the equivalent of Combat Arms, despite the fact that Apache Longbow pilots are the equivalent of any Armor officer, the 160th is the equivalent of any JSOC Aviator, Quickfix/Guardrail in all of their iterations can match any other branch, Army or Others, [and I doubt that any of them that I know of would have landed and RC-12/EH-60 on an enemy airfield like a certain P-3 pilot, compromising collection & sources technology for many years to come, though it might be said that they don’t have the traditions & footsteps of LCDR Bucher & the U.S.S. Pueblo to follow in) having been in those programs, unfortunately my pension would have gone into the sea with me, and when I faced my maker, the loss of any aircrew members would fall directly on my head. My apologies in advance [Part IV]

My apologies in advance to 99% of the Navy Aviators flying, EA-6B’s who also would have sacrificed whatever was necessary to protect sources and methods, and who do “Night Quals” Carrier Landings, which in peacetime make them perhaps the bravest amongst us. [Part V] 9I respectfully apologize for the need to separate 1 posting into 5, but list rules imposed that upon us)

Good point, but it would require extensive modifications to be able to operate aboard ship.

SW164… BS? If we really do have enough C-17s, then why has the US been funding NATO’s charter-leasing of Antonov AN-124 heavy lift cargo aircraft from Ruslans (Ukranian and Russian joint business entity) to augment our own heavy lift? To me that indicates that we don’t have enough C-17s, regardless Air Force’s BS claims otherwise.

Once again, the ugly sight of inter-service rivalry raises it’s head. There is nothing in the current A.F. inventory that can work as well as the A-10 in CAS for the amount of damage it can do and loiter time over the FOA. Give the Hog to the Army and let the front line pros do the job. Failing the Army getting them, let the USMC have them. They really know how to support the grunts at close range. Save the “lawn darts” for air-to air. Viet Nam vet and retired A.F.

Remember the TFX? Works for the AF and the Navy, right. How long did that joint service, multi task plane last? The F-111

It lasted for about 30years, and during that time it was an outstanding long-range interdiction fighterbomber, as well as *easily* the best tank-killer of Gulf War I. Additionally, it was modified into a powerful escort jammer.

While you’re in a giving mood, you better give them the money that isn’t being given to USAF to fly them.


The A-10 killed far more tanks with AGM-65s than the gun.

Well the 1500 number I think was split between armor and artillery but your point is well taken. And don’t forget F-16 ‘Killer Scouts” killing and spotting targets for others from up on high. ‘Low and Slow CAS’ is a Vietnam legacy cult.

Check your facts re: “last time we shot down a fighter aircraft”, there are some Yugoslav MiG-29 wrecks that say otherwise.

This is the same crap that tried to tie the hands of the Army with armed choppers based on the 1949 Key West agreement (what Army idiot agreed to that). Finally army started arming everything from Bubble Bells to Hueys and told the AF that if they didn’t like it, come downrange and tell us about it. Next thing will be the decision that drones controlled from Disneyland will take over the CAS mission (maybe a good idea except for the collateral damage to the local populace).

Your a buffoon, an 800 bill surplus thanks to a gutted unprepared military in the 90’s. The 2 wars would be long paid for, if not for the useless Obama phones and food stamp nation that has since been created. .….…… 17 x is the number.….that is the debt that bozo has created as opposed to George W Bush.…. Worst President EVER..

The A10 is the scariest aircraft ever built. The Taliban have nicknamed it the Monster. Our ground warriors love the protection it gives them by being able to hang in there and obliterate multiple targets in one pass. Its also the cheapest to fly and maintain. It can be modified and updated with new technology at a huge bargain. Sections can be reproduced because of its simple design compared to modern horribly expensive aircraft. So why get rid of the best attack aircraft of all time. Its to weaken us and to spend money we don’t have. the A-10 as cheap as it is employs a large number of personnel. Still cheaper than our super fantastic billon dollar F-35 that can do everything but nothing very well, except of course cost us taxpayers money. How do I know this…I’m an A-10 mechanic and AEF veteran.

Perhaps they could do an upgrade of the A10. More powerful engines.
Stronger landing gear.
Maybe make it STOL, so it could take off from amphibious aircraft carriers or advanced unprepared airfields.
Five minutes from the forward edge of the battle area.
It might be able to be forward deployed with airmobile divisions.
There has been a great need for airmobile divisions to be able to withstand tank attacks and also for heavy artillery.
It could essentially be a “flying tank” and heavy artillery for an airmobile division.
They’ll never be able to get numbers of tanks to a forward airmobile division, and won’t be able to supply them if they’re there.
This might be the solution.
The three (four services including Marines) are not responding to the need when there’s boots on the ground in a serous combat environment.
There is a need for a “flying tank”, if it could be developed.
Although late model Apache AH64 has been referred to as a flying tank, the A10 would certainly complement it and probably could act as flying artillery as well as tank killer.

Dewey, I’m with you the lobbyists controlling the govt. those idiots in office are strictly puppets, doing the business of their masters and within a couple of months in office they start thinking of ways and spending tons of money to stay there, selling their souls in the process.

Why not get rid of the Hogs? Heck people, wouldn’t you rather have a fast mover come swooping down, drop a load and be gone in a heartbeat? Oh wait, they might have enough fuel left to loiter (without any weapons load) and watch our troops get wiped out. Yep, sounds like pentagon thinking to me. What’s the cost of a Hog, Spooky or Spad fighters than can hover for hours on end vs just one F-22 or F-35? Not what I would call a money saving decision.

Back in the early 1990s the USAF announced that they were phasing A-10 out of the inventory in deference to an F-16 type variant. Congress thought that was a bad idea and said (also put into the Congressional record) that if the USAF did not want the A-10s then they (Congress) would direct their transfer to the US Army and US Marine Corps. The Corps said it was a great airplane, but since it could not land on carriers they would have to pass. The Army said super, we’d love to have it for CAS. The USAF quickly, very quickly changed their minds and decided to keep the A-10; and used them to great effect immediately after that in the 1st Gulf War.

There is no law. It is called the Key West Agreement which was a policy paper called the Function of the Armed Forces and the Joint Chiefs of Staff drafted by James V. Forrestal, the first United States Secretary of Defense. There have been several instances to the agreement changing, most specifically the armed helicopter and the army Caribou. In addition my father flew armed Mohawks during the early Vietnam period and was awarded a DFC for staying over a unit and providing support during a broken arrow senerio. So, while the services do have an agreement, the AF needs to live up to it or the Army will do as it has always done and take care of their own. That is one thing that I admire about the USMC, they didn’t let anybody take away the CAS.

Why is the A10 considered single mission? Like Linn stated…It can carry a ton of different weapons. Killing enemy tanks and infrastructure isn’t considered CAS support unless troops were near. My point many damn fighter only options do we need.Keep the F22,f16 and f15s for air superiorty and a10 for cas and attack. Hell I think it shot down a Iraqi plane in d storm. The argument the air force i s making doesnt make sense. By Their logic the spectre gunship is worthless. We need a lot more of those. they can actually stay on station for a long long time and provide devastating cas. I’m kind of rambling but in Iraq that was the only aircraft that could actually hanga round for any length of time. The rest were always needing to refuel or rearm within 15 minutes.

The money saved on A-10s will be exceeded by the cost of flags draping coffins of groundforces personel that do not get the CAS they need.…. the person signing the scrapping of the A10 needs to be shot for high-treason

Amen Brother!

I’d redo research in the matter. If any service should be relocated to another it shouldn’t be the USAF. They have good, but expensive ideas. Now the Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915… I think if new legislation was passed, like if military patrol the borders… Then Coast Guard could train into Army and/or Naval roles, while DEA counters CIA drug running. Coast Guard seems so like a hybrid Army/Navy to me. Plus, they took a lot of numbers when they were formed. See the difference in US warfare since the Coast Guard was formed?

so the Air force is going to trade in a $7M plane, you can’t shoot down, for a $200M plane you can shoot down. Really Brilliant!

USAF generals pay lip service to close air support, but it is expensive in air crews and aircraft. There is little support for a follow-on dedicated CAS aircraft in the Pentagon.

I hope that if they do decommission it that they put it up for sale to civilian pilots. I am going to start saving now in anxious anticipation lol

Best ground support aircraft ever invented and they’re going to retire it, typical morons calling the shots.
You can tell the government doesn’t care about the guys on the ground anymore -.-
Give them to the army, I’m sure they’ll find a use for them.

Looks like the commanding officers didn’t learn from these last three wars that they participated in.

Maybe if we didn’t have a former President that cut taxes twice during war time we might not have gotten into this pickle barrel. Along with the unfunded wars he increased Medicare benefits without increasing revenues a trillion dollars over ten years. I am not a Democratic fan club member but i don’t understand why Republicans are only conservative when there is a Democrat in the White House. Can you explain that?

The Pentagon should go to Congress and ask for specific funding to build a new type of Close Ground Air Support Platform. The A-10 was never intended to last this long but the nature of war changed and the A-10 adapted easily and performed with honor. I bet the Army grunts will hate to see it go.

A lot US pilots were KIA in Nam because they had no gun.

Do you think the Air Force is going to risk a F35 to do ground support? It aint going to happen. The GI’s will be on their on.

The military as a whole is having financial hardship and the Air Force (AF) falls underneath that umbrella. Due to the governments sequestration the AF has been forced to make cuts wherever they can. They cut daily training sorties at almost every base, training classes for the Airman, limit technical schools, and stop temporary duty’s without justification. In an effort to save more money the sequestration forced all AF employees to take two days off without pay every pay period. All the cuts the AF is making come with a cost that the airman with cut backs in essential training and the tax payers are actually paying more. You would think that the AF would make cuts where that have the least negative impact on the mission and the airman; however that is not the case.

They have decided that with all the money they saved; they can afford to move aircraft and personnel and reconstruct three different bases for no good reason other than what appears to be a political one. This has to a political decision to move all these aircraft around, because it makes no logical sense to do it otherwise.

Holloman AF Base (HAFB) is the perfect place for a next generation aircraft; located to White Sands Missile Range, which is one of the largest bombing ranges in the USA. The AF has the ability to use live ammunition to shot down the F-4 drone aircraft with little to no cost for environmental cleanup. HAFB is established in a desert, so its humidity level and precipitation is low, which keeps the cost of corrosion control on the F-22 and the associated equipment low as well. The base is large enough to accommodate several more squadrons of aircraft. When the F-22 came to HAFB in 2008/2009, the AF spent over $750 Mil preparing the base to be able to support the next generation fighter. In addition they spent another $11.4 mil in 2010, on the F-22’s low observable coating facility and let’s not forget the cost of moving all 600+ personnel and their families to NM. So after spending close to a billion dollars on HAFB less than 8 yrs ago, the AF has decided to throw all that money away by moving the F-22s to Tyndall AFB (TAFB), FL, and move F-16’s to HAFB.

This move will cost the government an additional billion to set HAFB up to maintain the F-16s coming from Luke AFB (LAFB) along with moving the aircraft, equipment and 900 + personnel and their families. Consequently, if you move the F-22s from HAFB, there will be no next generation fighter protection for the west coast of America.

Tyndall AFB has a training squadron of F-22 and they have nothing but problems with the humidity and corrosion from the ocean salt water. The base is not set up to accommodate another squadron of aircraft or personnel. The government must again spend billions to set the base up to support another squadron of F-22s and to move aircraft, equipment and 600+ personnel and their families. It will cost the tax payers more money for the up keep of the aircraft in this part of the US, because of the severe corrosion problems and the environmental cleanup of shooting down the drones into the ocean. TAFB is located on prime real-estate that they locals would like to have back to bring in tourist revenue. TAFB is also scheduled to start a QF-16 drone program in 2014, where the F-16s will be turned into drones and purchased by other agency’s to be shot down. The AF force could save tax payers’ dollars by moving the two squadrons of F-16s from LAFB to TAFB and the F-22s from TAFB to HAFB.

LAFB will be receiving the F-35 in the near future, so they will be making room by moving two squadrons of F-16s to HAFB. LAFB is not ready or able to maintain a next generation fighter aircraft, so the AF will sink another billion or so into renovating the base in preparation for the F-35’s arrival. That would also include moving aircraft, equipment and 500+ personnel and their families to Arizona. They could easily leave the F-16s at Luke AFB (LAFB) and let the F-35s go to HAFB as was the plan before the politicians got involved.
Obviously saving the tax payers money is not on the government’s agenda. Instead they are letting or forcing the Air Force to waste four billion dollars on unnecessary aircraft movements. I am sure they could use that money in other essential areas.

S. Korea would gladly buy them if given the chance.

dont forget the AH 1 skyraider

My personal theory there was that the AF quickly figure out that the Army would have put 20 y/o warrant Officers out of high school to fly them. How then you can justify requiring college degree for your drivers of other airframes? So surprisingly money was found to support the Warthog in AF service. :)

ROKA or ROKAF, the guy who kills my enemies is my friend. For the moment.

The air force is not mourning this. They have been trying to get rid of the A-10 for years. Congress prevented them from scrapping this plane multiple times already.

Time and time again, we go around in circles. The one’s who need and desire it the most are the one’s left standing when the music stops. Where the blood mixes with the soil is where the need is. The air space back in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s were no more as highly contested then it is today? likley more-so then when we were nose to nose with the Soviets and they’re mighty Air to Air capability. As a former U.S. Marine I can attest time and again the need for this single mission capable CAS platform. It save’s lives.….IT SAVES LIVES!!!! and achives victory on the battle field for the guys bleeding their lifes blood into the very soil they’re fighting for…our elected leadership failed us, failed us in the most infamouse way…through Sequestration. Give this mighty battle proven CAS platform to the Army Air Corps or the Marine Corps…we all need it.


We were in a field once on a Air Force military picnic lunch or something like that. Late ‘80s. Bunch of us maybe 100 ~ 200? So anyway out of the blue three A10s suddenly pop-up over the treeline and buzz us. Never heard them coming, no idea they were about to come out. Amazing and scary shit. Looked like they floated about 100 feet over our heads. If we were the bad guys — would have been lights out.
And at 12 million each? Show me some other piece of military hardware today that can perform better (for what its mission is) at a cheaper cost?

A-10, a single mission aircraft, clearly someone is not thinking… It is far more than a “single mission aircraft”. It has the capability to do much more than just one mission, although it does rather excel at low air to ground combat. However the idea that the A-10 cannot do more is ridiculous.

I tell you what… let’s strap a tactical Ku-band AESA radar pod under the thing (think of AN/ASQ-236 sized version of AN/APG-82), add a multifunction color display to the cockpit and some old crappy phoenix missiles with upgraded electronics and see if ANY modern fighter can knock it out of the sky. They won’t, because the slow and low A-10 can hang in the dirt with slow moving ground clutter. Meanwhile, anything high and fast will be toast, and anything close enough to the A-10 to dogfight wouldn’t stand a chance trying to turn with it under 500 knots.

Single mission, perhaps you might make that argument, but this weapon system is paid for, functional, extremely versatile, and has paid for itself many times over. Like the B-52, it’s hard to replace a really great design. The A-10 and B-52 were game changers, kinda like the invention of the wheel.

You folks operate on the premise that AF brass actually care about US ground troops or anyone else for that matter. What really matters is that AF Lieutenants make Captain, Captains make Lt Colonel and so forth. US Marine and Army grunt bodies can lay scattered on the battlefield if it gets in the way of one AF officer getting his 15 minutes of glory. There is not much glory in flying an aged A-10 or new C-27J. Flying a new F-22 or F-35 gets the mojo flowing. But wait– in 6 more years fighter aircraft will not need a pilot due to advances in avionics. Times are a changing and so is the DoD Budget. Let the less of a retard win.

Single mission BS! Last I heard the OA-10 was the AF fast fac. If we loose the OA-10 what will direct the fast movers? A UAV?

This is a great aircraft. 30mm canon gets the attention of all bad guys. I realize money is tight but can’t we “cut the fat” in Washington to pay for this weapon, starting with the expense accounts of all past and present first ladies.

Listen folks this whole shitstorm started with Mr.gates ( former Sec. of Def.) He is responsable for this national disaster , he calcelled the Production of the F-22 which should have been the jet that we bought to replace the Teen series jets. They should have used the f-35 as a tech. demo program and cancelled it and used some of the systems from the F-35 on the F-22, items such the HMD and DAS just to name a couple. The F-22 can carry two 1,000lb JDAMs or eight SDBs plus two Aim-120s and two Aim-9xs and is has the highest hit percentage of any Jet in the Airforce’s history. If we had between 500–700 F-22s the current fleet of F-15Es and NGB we would be in great shape . But Mr.Gates got into a pissing contest with top Airforce brass and basically set out to do whatever he could to make sure we did not get anymore F-22s and as a result went with the F-35s. Please don’t believe me and go do your homework !!! cont. –>

Please don’t believe me and go do your homework !!! cont. ( sorry about first part i forgot to spell check!)
Anyways this is how it played out, the top brass of the Airforce had made remarks at a press conference which basically stated that they were going to get more F-22s despite what the then Sec. of Def. (Sec of Def.Robertt “Bob” Gates) had said . This ticked off Mr.Gates , and Mr Gates does not fight fair, havingg been former director of the CIA I am sure he picked up a few tricks there. A short while after thisfeudd began , somehow a couple of Nukes somehow (wink ‚wink) got left on a B-52 and logged in a few extra miles, which was leaked to the Press and then Mr. Gates told them either early out or hard out meaning retire or get dismissed. The two Airforce men retired , and Gates got some Yes men to replace them , who after seeing how their former bosses were treatedsteppedd up withMrr.Gates and said it is best to stop production of the F-22 andconcentratee on the F-35. Before this all went down the Airforce had made some extraordinary moves to free up some cash for the F-22s. Cont. –>

The Airforce had retired a bunch of B-52s ( called downsizing at the time) and F-16s and the whole fleet of F-117s , all in an effort to get more F-22s. They even stopped upgrading the F-22s and decided to build them first and then upgrade them after we have them. Mr. Gates some how convinced Mr.Obama to keep him on ( probably had some background info on Mr.Obama’s not so American past) and then Mr.Gates told all of us that Russia and China would not have stealth prototypes until 2020 and that we need to be more on par with our enemies! ( OH yes he indeed said that ) Shortly after that the new Airforce Brass agreed with Mr. Gates and the press loved it . See the F-22 like all new programs had and may still have a few hick-ups and was not very popular with the Press. Cont –>

Then Obama stopped the production of the F-22 which at the time each jet was getting cheaper as they learned how to build them and stream lined the production of the F-22 ( which was an est.$140 million each , cheaper than the F-35 right now ) I am sure the price of the F-35 will settle in at around $100 million each, which given todays prices of modern Jet fighters is about right for stealth , but to think this will be a dogfighter — never!! BVR yes , the F-35 will be able to acquire targets from beyond visual range and shoot them down but then again the US Airforce is letting their Air-Air missiles get outdated and out matched by the Russians and even European Air-Air missiles are better than ours. ( but we wont go there yet! ) But if the F-35 gets run down or within visual range it is not going to be very good for our men and women flying them, the best thing for the F-35 to do is let the adversary get on their Six and light the burner and take one in the can at least then they might be able to eject and live but if they get caught with a radar missile all bets are off as to the survival of the pilot. cont.–>

Now how does this relate to the A-10 well the F-22 is and will never be used by the Airforce as a replacement for the A-10 like they are saying about the F-35, so again you can all write Mr. Gates a big fat thank you card for the possible extinction of the warthogs!! The End!
P/S Mr. Gates was the CIA director during 1983 when the USSR almost launched nukes on us over a NATO exercise!! ( Even then he was clueless) The Brit.s had to tell the CIA and our President what was going on because the CIA was DWI at the wheel again!!

Face it folks a F-15, F-16 or the F-22 will be able to do a better job at CAS than the A-10 can, NOT, these airplanes fly to fast and have height restrictions to be really effective for CAS missions But then who runs ACC not A-10 pilots but those who have flow F-15, F-16, F-22 and F-35 who know better than the A-10 and Army or Marines guys who when they are really in trouble there is nothing like the A-10 to silence the enemy God help them all if they retire this aircraft, wait will I get in trouble for the use of “GOD” in this

Let me help you, the caribou was called the C-7, I was a crew chief VN 66–67 on the caribou. I was attached to the 1st Cav at AN Khe when the transfer took place. Moved to Phu Cat AB in Jan 67. Great plane, I read somewhere that the C-7 was given to the South VN air force shortly before we left Nam
I would like to contact anyone who served in the 537 TAC wing at either base.

The A-10 was a really good Acft. It will cost more to produce a whole new plane that won’t do the job as well. History is repeating itself, McNamara of the 1960’s had the same idea with the F-111 and not only killed the F-12 (Blackbird), but had all the tooling destroyed for the SR-71 which made them so expensive to maintain. As for the OV-1 Mohawk, the Airforce was more interested in maintaining contorol of all air assets that they and were embarassed by the OV-1’s performance that they killed the Mohawk too. I think that the AF needs to see past its own nose and keep using there heads as supositories.

Absolutely. The Luftwaffe lost air superiority through the overemphasis on multi-role combat air craft and abolishing the A-10s are emulating the same error.

Folks, see my comments for the LCS & the Navy to get what is going on with the A-10 cuts. As a ground pounder in Desert Shield/Storm, when I saw an A-10, I felt waaaaay better about our chances of “getting some” when the time came for shooting. Our supposed leaders and representatives have ALWAYS been ignorant of history (Pearl Harbor, 9/11, et. al.). You may not agree with what Michael Myers shows in his documentaries but the truth is STILL out there; they don’t care about the troops because they haven’t been there or their children don’t serve. For all of you “patriots” out there, you should demand that at least 50% of Congress should have served in the military or have children that do so. You see, if you’ve been there or have a kid in harms way, then you will do what’s necessary to protect the troops.

USAF already tried to palm A-10 off on marines yeas ago. Problem for Marines using it is it isn’t marinized and can’t operate from ships. Also major logistical and support issues. Too much trouble for what it would bring to them that they don’t already have.. AV-8B responds faster and can operate in conditions the ‘Hog can’t

There was actually a serious proposal a few years back for this role. They would involve deleting the gun and adding a large belly tank being fitted at the cg. They called the “Firehogs”. AF’s response was what we’ve seen before, “…we don’t want ‘em but you can’t heave ‘em ’cause they’re ours”.

“Palm A-10 off”. Okay, that sounds like you’re claiming USAF tried to get USMC to take all the A-10s. I say that never happened. I’d like to read about that. I’d suggest the Marines know they can’t afford to take on an aircraft that is so thoroughly optmized for such a narrowly-defined mission, and they know that they can met their requirements using AV-8Bs and F-18s now, and using F-35Bs in the future.

Army didn’t have OV-10s. Air Force wouldn’t allow it.

He’s right. Key West agreement and other mandates. . Roles and missions is big thing to USAF. AF will block Army and other services from performing what it considers its turf even if it doesn’t intend to perform the mission itself. Example are legion, the most recent of which was the “joint” C-27J.

BTW, in an ironic note one of, if not the main reason AF developed A-10 was to kill the Army’s Cheyenne helicopter which it felt infringed on AF’s sandbox. But then Army canceled AH-56 on its own and AF didn’t know what to do with their new aircraft. That’s why it’s been sort of a stepchild ever since.

Your comments are almost all right on the mark. One historical note: Years ago before the Gulf War AF reportedly did float a trial balloon proposing transferring the A-10 to the Army (so ti would come out of Army’s budget. But they put many conditions on it. Some of the biggest where Army could not develop runways for it (it’s STOL, so that isn’t a show stopper), and they could not in the future develop a successor to it. Needless to say, the proposal was turned down

this gov. is in trouble the a-10 has been in opperations since 1975 &as long as pilots arethere the plane should be. It is the MOST survivable fixed wing craft we have for close air,&tank killers.

I want a surplus WartHog–how can I purchase one?

Why replace the a10? there is currently no plane that we have that can fulfill a close air support role with as much firepower and ability to take damage PLUS loiter time as the a10. and now they are going to replace pretty much all the planes with the f35 JSF which is just pathetic. look at the f35 specs vs. that of the raptor: the raptor is much better. compare the f35 to the a10, CAS wise: the a10 wins hands down. why was this decision even made, the world may never know…

That’s because they can give Bronze Stars to guys sitting in a trailer in Nevada flying a drone! What a pussy service!

It’s interesting that the AF will modernize the B-52 fleet forever it seems, which I’d argue is a single purpose platform, and let the A10s go for being single purpose. I think that argument is nothing more than code for we need more money and the only way to get it is to have a new, more expensive project /air frame to fund.

Being cut because it is a single mission aircraft? And that mission is to provide close air-support to troops on the ground who are often about to be overrun.

Actually it is being decommissioned because it would not fire on its own citizens.

At least once in the last 10 or 20 years, there was a rumor of the AF bundling the A-10s and their CAS mission and turning them over to the Army. Army was salivating over the prospect of returning to the air theater with jet-powered fixed-wing aircraft (i.e., with more than just helos); AF was only too happy to be rid of the unglamorous, slow-speed mission. But somewhere along the line some civilian type, either in DoD or in politics on Capitol Hill, torpedoed the swap.

Give the air force the Patriot Missile as a trade. Air Force then controls everything above 1000 feet and the Army/Marines owns the air below.

I happen to Be an Air Force Vet and I Served My Country Proudly. This just is a whole Defence Budget.
How about a Dumb Obama cut.

The USMC knows that if it accepted the A-10, it would eliminate a good part of their AV8/F35B program!

If they DO mothball the A-10 at DMAFB, then consider that airframe lost forever.

If they DO mothball the A-10 at DMAFB, then consider that airframe lost forever.

Once no one in the military is operating that airframe there will be no need for depot-level maintainence, no need for pilots to learn the cockpit switchology or LASTE, there will be no need to train the maintainers at tech school and there will be no need for operations, maintainance, or logistical tails to keep the airframe alive.

By the time we go toe-to-toe with North Korea, Iran, China, or any other potential adversary, it will be too late to turn on those tails to ramp up in time to make a difference in the next decisive battle.

Instead, this airframe will just be relegated to another airplane on a stick at your local Air Force Base or possibly licensed as another Revell plastic model for kids to assemble and paint so they can imagine what a TRUE air-to-mud fighter pilot once flew.

This is not a policy of the current POTUS. The Air Force has wanted to get rid of the A-10 for a long time in favor of the sleek, go fast fighters. Then Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraq came along and the A-10 proved itself as a capable aircraft. The real fight is with the senators and congresspeople who are benefitting from the boondoggle dollars being spent to build the F-35 and it’s varients

It’s all political because the main purpose of our tax dollars should be for the protection, security and defense of our country and not social programs or cronyism. Notice how sequestration hasn’t effected them?

Infantry men from all branches will morn the loss of the A-10.

I love the A​-10​.as many have said “No other aircraft can do what it does best!” From I what I learned or was told about the history if the A-10. Back in the 70s ‚when Fairchild was building them, someone got there panties in a wad and found out there was an uncle (or some family member) from Fairchild from the government side that was involved in the contract for the A-10 or some such. The USAF/ Congress immediately brought production to a stop.…sometime before it stopped Fairchild made roughly about 10–12 tandem cockpit A-10s as either trainers or an aircraft that would have a Weps officer/JAFO/Wizzo. If the tandem cockpit had been fully developed and made it into to production it truly would have been an “all weather” aircraft. The A-10 cannot be beat at it’s job. Take everyone that is opposed to the A-10 out to a live fire range and see what it can do…watch it fire the 30mm cannon.…hear it’s sound and feel the vibrations in the ground. Watch it turn around 3 times in such a short space and slapping knots on the head and other parts of anatomy. then put the supposed replacement aircraft attempt to accomplish the same. Next it is no surprise that the higher up brass did not want the A-10 and tried to give it away for years…UNTIL Desert Storm…after Desrt Storm there were still those that wanted to get rid of it. The Army cannot have the A-10 because it is a jet engine fixed wing aircraft. Feel free to correct me on that! back in the mid 80’s I saw 2 aircraft on the “ramp” in the Bone Yard. they resembled OV-37 at first, but as you got closer to see them, you saw they were prop jobs. They had a lot of hard points for various weaponry. Never did find out what they were…or anything about them. Some prototype that did not make it for some reason or the other. Now speaking of where the USAF could save money.… Can anyone say C-27J that Congress is forcing the USAF to buy?

A good example, if one would allow, is buying a rifle, one can buy/build a sniper rifle intended for long range accuracy or one can buy/build a rifle that is a “general purpose/ truck gun”. Both rifles do good/adequate at close range and only the sniper rifle excels at long range. Why would one sacrifice the long range sniper rifle for it’s superior long range accuracy, when one already owns one? For something that is not as tough, durable, is not proven, has all sorts of “bugs”/problems/issues. The helmet in the F-35? The O2 issues in the F-22? Didn’t I read sometime back the updated A-10 could now carry Sparrows for A2A? I might be wrong on that but I am sure I saw that somewhere. If one wants to talk of age on the A-10, I say look at the BUFFs!

Note rifles and handguns are tools made for specific roles and jobs. One would not go hunting elephants with .22LR and one would not hunt varmints with a .460 Weatherby Magnum or a .50 BMG. Ask the grunts on the ground what works for their needs BEFORE deciding to get rid of the A-10s, after all it their lives on the line. Lets put the politicos out there with them and see if they still have the same feelings about “THE HOG”!
Long live the Warthog!

Interesting article in this month’s Harpers magazine, examines the complete idiocy of the decision to eliminate the A10 — particularly the value of the aircraft in preventing accidental strikes on innocent civilians — the use for which the F35 and B2 are impossible.

there is no way a F-35 can take the damage and abuse and bring back the pilot safely as the A-10 did in desert storm

A-10’s have no strategic value they’re dinosaurs like battleships and the tea party.

That’s is a very good idea.

Give a few squadrons to the Philippines after putting in the ship killings missiles…

Next “Afg’stan”, they’ll wish that had the Warthog back. Gulf war was not that long ago. ???

As a matter of fact about five years ago when I was working on The Mall in DC I attended a government wide open house which is an annual event on The Mall. I noticed a Marine AH-1 Super Cobra on static display. I went over there to talk to the Cobra’s two Marine pilots. Having an interest in the CAS mission I began talking with these two marines about their mission. Then I mentioned the A-10 to them. Their faces lit up like the Fourth of July. They said that if the A-10 could be fitted with folding wings, and an arresting hook the Marines would love to have the A-10 as the backbone of the Marine CAS mission.

True bur about five years ago when I was working on The Mall in DC I attended a government wide open house which is an annual event on The Mall. I noticed a Marine AH-1 Super Cobra on static display. I went over there to talk to the Cobra’s two Marine pilots. Having an interest in the CAS mission I began talking with these two marines about their mission. Then I mentioned the A-10 to them. Their faces lit up like the Fourth of July. They said that if the A-10 could be fitted with folding wings, and an arresting hook the Marines would love to have the A-10 as the backbone of the Marine CAS mission. Point is that every service EXCEPT the Air Force would desperatly like to have the A-10 in their AOB.

I believe that this is true. Those that fly and maintain the A-10 are totally committed to the ugly Warthog. Know why? Because it’s the best in the US AOB in the CAS role it fills almost perfectly. And when you fly and maintain the best you want to stick with the winner that has allowed you to carry out the mission with many thanks from the troops and Marines that you have perhaps saved from annihilation. You grow to love the machine and the work that you perform regardless of the service.


True but this always happens as Wars close down/ slow down the same during the R.I.F. back in the 70s then it was the “Hueys” under the gun, now we have the “BlackHawk” times change and weapons do to, but until we get a fully operation CAS replacement the “Hogs” should stay!, and then be handed to our allies.

Maybe no strategic value in some eyes but there is plenty of “strategic value” ANYWHERE there are troops on the ground and in need of CAS. Can anyone say Mogadishu (spelling)? They were denied heavy fire support and CAS. I say only replace the Hog when something better comes along.……there is always going to be need for CAS. How long are the BUFFs projected to serve into the future and not be replaced??? Remember the B-58 Hustler? It was “discarded and thrown away”. Yes it had issues but they could have been overcome in time. But the BUFF is still and will be here for quite some into the future. If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it!

Don’t know why the article says the is “Air Force mourning the the loss A-10.” They have been trying to get rid for it for 30 years.
They will problem break out the champagne when the Hogs are gone. Give out a few medals to boot.
I am just imagining the the AF using shiny new multi-billion dollar fighters to “get down and dirty.” and do some messy CAS for the grunts.
Naw not sexy enough

Two words — BIG MISTAKE! What the fuddy duddys in Washington do is transfer the A-10 to the Army. They’re flying Apaches already, aren’t they? What the idiots in Washington decide, just DO NOT SCRAP
the A-10s. There are no other aircraft that can take a beating and give it right back to the enemy.
At least, lay up half in mothballs and the rest should go to the Army. What was all that money for installing new electronics and wings? What should really happen is replace the current moronic government with one that was like Reagan — tough, purposeful, focused and didn’t take crap from anyone!

The military in general seems to be really good at making stupid decisions with regard to aircraft. I mean, look what the Navy dumping the A-6 Intruder and F-14 Tomcat. Granted they were both older airframes and the F/A-18 Hornet is an extremely capable aircraft, but in the case of the Intruder, sometimes you need to just put a lot of dumb old iron on a target.

Not to mention, all the Intruder bombardier/navigators and Tomcat RIO’s suddenly found themselves faced with either becoming pilots or learning a whole new skill set.

That whole situation just made no sense to me.

Well, the Liberals keep spending and now the defense budget will have to pay the price! Pure & Simple.….

They feel that they have to retire the Warthog because they’re ( sung to the theme of the Mickey Mouse Club)

I am writing my congress critter today about this issue maybe the rest of the people here will do the same! The last thing we need to do is cut the military budget, I do know the military has some area’s where they could improve their spending but the way congress doles out money to the Armed services is so out dated. If all of the congress critters didn’t get their cut maybe we could afford the A-10, I know the grunts love the machine and I am all for keeping it and up dating it too. Letting the talking heads in congress tell the war leaders what they have to use just never made any sense to me ever.

The F117 was what the big boys wanted way back when. However I hear Russia has found a way to defeat the stealth technology Hillery probley gave them the spec’s for the F117 anyway we need the A-10 for the troops on the ground, Just like when the seals had to call in fire and all they hadwas high speed jets and they were so close to the troops they were afraid they would kill our guys. I believe we need the A-10 and hope they don’t kill the plane, all the gee wizz planes can’t take fire like the A-10.

We must tune it up with a little more fire power we cannot afford to lose the Top dog A-10 especially knowing it has done so much good work in Irak,when will the brass wake up. We surelly cannot have a Airforce with no pilots all over,that would mean super sopich guarded bunkers for the few men flying them.Lets stay real Man cannot be missed as pilot in air..

Ziv, you’re on to something we should seriously consider. The close-air support mission for Army and Marines should be taken away from the Air Force. They don’t want the job. Once upon a time, they did, because it came with unlimited amounts of money they could siphon off into other pet programs. But since they have been having to live on tighter budgets and be totally accountable, they’ve lost their craving for the mission. Close-air is vital for the Army and USMC. Close-air is a huge factor in controlling the number of body bags they have to buy.
We shouldn’t depend on the Air Force to provide close-air support because the mission is too Congress in a few years and beg for trillions for a new, super-duper ground support aircraft program, and so have been trying to get rid of the A-10 for a long time. The A-10 gets in the way of Air Force plans to spend our money on new whiz-bang technology to perform the exact same mission. The best plane for the job is a single-purpose platform of necessity. Air Force politicians knock the A-10 as a ‘single-purpose’ or ‘single-mission’ type of platform, but when they start begging for the money for the new close-air support aircraft, they will go back to worshiping a single-purpose aircraft as the only way to do the job. Trying to utilize multi-purpose planes for close-air support is too big a compromise. It’s a compromise that fills body bags. Take the mission away from the Air Force and give it to the other services, who have their eyes on saving the lives of the guys on the ground.

A shame a plane that takes out Tanks and alot not to forget the first round on enemies airport destroying that in min. and they want to get rid of it? Were has the brass then looking at our airforce but not evaluating the planes involved. Wich led to fast war and less casualties..

The Warhog save my butt more than once. The Air Force was going to give the A-10 to Army in the early 90s. I know the Army would it now. The CAS mission requires a Low and Slow aircraft period. The AH-64 Apache was limited by Altittude Restrictions. So without the OA-10 or A-10 our troops in the Afganistan are without effective CAS. BAD MOVE..

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | , and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.