Sen. McCain on the A-10: "... don't insult my intelligence!"

[@thomasjoseph5876]

The bottom line is this, and I have seen it first hand in Combat, when the A-10 comes out to play, it demoralizes and strikes fear into the enemy. Even when my unit was ambushed and outnumbered about 300-12 and pinned down, effectively beaten, when the mini-gun of the A-10 started to play its Happy Brrrrrrrrrpday song, the enemy took off running in all directions to evade the unrelenting rounds coming at them from the A-10. It saved our lives, not because of the destruction it was causing at that moment, but because of the notoriety it has from many past successful missions. The chaos created by the sound of the A-10 and the fact the enemy knows the damage it can do allowed us the necessary time and window to escape. Without the A-10 supporting us, NONE OF US would have survived. TO THIS DAY, I send 50 lbs of Waygu dry aged steaks to that pilot of the A-10 that day, every 4th of July (he hosts a large 4th of July party every year at his home, 2 of which I have even been able to make. The first time I kind of self-invited myself and hand delivered the meat). Yes, with shipping it runs more than $500 but the only reason I am able to be here to do it is because he rerouted and came to our rescue when he didn't have to. There is no monetary value I can ever put on that. EDIT: For the buttstains that can't read the comments, my family owns the farm that raises Waygu beef. That's why I get it as cheap as I do. Seriously, some of you are dense. EDIT 2: It is amazing how ignorant some people are regarding the military and Waygu Beef. Let's address the military first. My last tour to Iraq was over 10 years ago. I no longer use the military "jargon" used during that time. In fact, military jargon varies from war to war and from service branch to service branch. I am friends with hundreds of vets including guys that I served with during my 4 tours and NONE OF US call it the "Sandbox" anymore. We also don't run around using terms like "Battle Rattle", "Haji", "Terp" or any other numerous slang terms used when deployed over there. Many of us would rather we just forget about our time over there as many guys are reminded of it every night in our dreams or actually, nightmares. Stop believing everything you see in the movies or the shit you hear while playing Call of Duty. As for Waygu Beef. There are different types and numerous grades of Waygu Beef. For instance, there is Infused Waygu, American Waygu and Japanese Waygu. My family ONLY SELLS WHOLESALE. Wholesale prices fluctuate often, in some cases, daily. Right now we are getting about $60 per pound while retail in a restaurant can be around $200 per pound for our American Waygu. If you find and order Japanese Waygu you will spend upwards of $400 per pound because that meat is flown here from Japan. No free shipping on that. MY COST is even cheaper than the $60 per pound because that is the price WE sell it at. Yes, my parents are more than happy to donate the meat for the A-10 Pilot every year because it is a small price to pay for them having me, their son, still alive. If your parents don't value your life that much, it isn't my problem, but mine do. So, in conclusion, just because I don't use the "Buzzwords" we used in Iraq doesn't mean I didn't serve. In fact, I am always suspect of people using all the buzzwords we used back then when talking about the Iraq War and more than likely, they are the ones that never served. If your only experience with Waygu Beef is what you read on the internet or watching other people eat it because you can't afford to, then don't comment. Your accumulation of knowledge equals Jack Sh*t and Jack left town. One more thing, I have never seen the inside of an A-10 nor have I ever seen the Big Gun in person, only the business end of it.

[@stopbeingapatheticbitch8628]

@Mike Urashevich

[@antiglobaljoel532]

Glad you’re alive and made it through. The A-10 is a plane built around a gun. It kicks ass. There’s nothing to replace it. There was a pilot in the first gulf war who nearly shot down a MiG with the 30mm cannon. Can you imagine what that gun, which was designed to kill tanks, would have done to a MiG? Wow.

[@TGOIIHome]

The A10 is God's HAMMER to Deliver Close Air Support and LOVE !!!!!!!!!

[@jokerjames5262]

Thomas Joseph - Thank you for your service. I salute you and your fellow soldiers. I'm glad you are still here to celebrate the 4th of July and the A-10 Warthog is a kick ass plane.

[@sokandueler9578]

Thomas Joseph Thank your for your service sir. Also, “Happy Brrrrrrrrrrpday song” has got to be my favorite description of the A-10’s sound.

[@dancingdeaddog4799]

I have a solution...Classify the A 10 as a flying tank and give it to the army infantry...Problem solved.

[@lees.4084]

I agree. If the Air Force has so little appreciation for the A-10, then transfer them to the Army and Marines. They will have much greater appreciation for such an aircraft...

[@lees.4084]

@Jimmy De'Souza Actually, I think OV-10 Bronco costs around $5,000/hr. to operate today. But still a considerable savings. And the OV-10s were operated by Airforce, Navy, and Marines. Apparently, the two brought out of retirement to fight ISIS have been quite successful. I could see a modernized OV-10 would be quite cost-effective and useful in operations against ISIS. Modernize its weapons, avionics, and propulsion for reduced noise, and it would be an incredibly dangerous aircraft...

[@MasterChief-sl9ro]

Cost per hour is not relevant... As the more you use something. The more it cost to Repair. Maintain. Train more Crews to service it.. I could say the OV-10 has a higher survival rate then the A-10.. As there are less OV-10 in service in hostel areas. It would be a factual statement. But means shit... As there are 50x more A-10's which means you would have a higher rate of cost to operate per hour...

[@MasterChief-sl9ro]

I degree in Economics moron.. So get off the Short Bus or get used to being called Idiot... Thank You

[@MasterChief-sl9ro]

Look idiot.. The cost is not in the Aircraft. It's the man power to Repair. Maintain and Service it. As 90% of the United States Military budget goes to Salaries and Training! Not the actual hardware...You have to spend years training them. Which is a huge investment. As once they leave. You still have to cover their benefits and retirement fund! Damn get an education. As America is not 29th in education for nothing....

[@anthonyalise8254]

Give it to the Marines. Marines: "Yo Air force, you done with that? Air Force: "Yeah its old and has lost its shine." Marines: "Works for us, give her here"

[@keshlalish5586]

then proceed to fix it with flex seal and duct tape, still carry it's mission XD

[@dimondlord11]

Na when the plane falls apart the marines will rip the guns off and put a stock on it like they did with stines stinger lol

[@lees.4084]

@@dimondlord11 That better be one helluva stock you put on a GAU-8......😮

[@sabertoothwallaby2937]

Yes please

[@nathanbell8356]

@@keshlalish5586 if you can't duck it, fuck it

[@JakubRosman]

"We will replace the Army's M4 rifle with the HK416 and so forth." "What do you mean by so forth?" "Such as RPGs and Karl Gustav's"

[@justsaiyansteve]

Books, we can throw books at the enemy. That’ll teach em.

[@SRW_]

Explosive if true

[@arghya4NE]

@@justsaiyansteve I see what you did there 😂

[@stewartgrindlay9760]

You may have to educate the COD freedom fighters on the Guatav

[@aaronabney8924]

A walther ppk

[@mykincadult-store1219]

Update: SR71 now deemed fit for close air support

[@dr.palsonp.h.d815]

lol close air support from space XD

[@emperorpawpateen.9992]

@@dr.palsonp.h.d815 100,000 feet is not space, but close

[@emperorpawpateen.9992]

@Mike everything about that comment is wrong. Earths atmosphere continues up to about 62 miles. Earths influence on objects extend to about 6700 miles. The so called space station is about 220 miles up. The sr71 can only reach to an altitude of about 18 miles.

[@emperorpawpateen.9992]

@Mike considering the conversation was about an sr71 in space, you are incorrect

[@emperorpawpateen.9992]

@Mike i refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

[@Ypog_UA]

*Breaking news: B-52 nuclear bomber now deemed Close Air Support* "I'm never asking the Air Force for anything again" -Infantry

[@Andrew-vw5vb]

Yeah I was infantry and the second she said that I was like fuuuck that

[@maxscott3349]

You can push a nuke out of a cessna and call it a bomber. What's wrong with the B-52? Is there a reason you can't drop explosive ordnance accurately enough to serve the purpose?

[@Ypog_UA]

@@maxscott3349 I don't think you can do an attack run with a strategic bomber...

[@DavidEllis94]

Strategic bombers have been used recently in a CAS role quite successfully. Especially with modern guided munitions, those platforms also become much more capable at providing very useful close air support by being able to stay on station and deliver lots of precision strikes on lots of targets. I love the idea of a dedicated CAS aircraft, too, but honestly McCain is the one that looks like a fool here because the A-10C is one of two modern aircraft in the entire world designed explicitly for the CAS role. We are decidedly in the minority in insisting on using a dedicated CAS platform. While that certainly has its benefits, the idea that nothing can possibly do CAS also is just dumb and false.

[@Ypog_UA]

@@DavidEllis94 but the gun go brrrrrrrrr

[@ataarono]

"Mom I want an A-10" "We have A-10 at home darling" A-10 at home... (b1, f15, f16)

[@ahgflyguy]

They should have pub the F117 in there too.

[@willywampus3426]

Well the F 15 Strike Eagle and F 16 has proven to be a perfect Cas plane

[@ataarono]

@@willywampus3426 *Laughs in Brrrrrt*

[@willywampus3426]

@@ataarono yeah I mean the A 10 does have the effect of boosting morale so BRRRTTTTT away

[@keeper9007]

ataarono if we’re paying tens of millions so soldiers can smile and say brrrt when there are other viable options, then I think we could spend that money more wisely

[@seanburke997]

Just because you have successfully used a wrench to pound a nail, that doesn't mean you should get rid of your hammers.

[@zrider100z]

That's actually a very good analogy. Thanks man.

[@joshhorn5131]

Outstanding

[@seanburke997]

@FBI That's weird, because the A-10 is cheaper to build, fly, and maintain, and that one single airframeaccounted for 32% of all combat sorties in OIF/OEF. if one airframe accounts for 1/3 of your missions, I'd call that a standout, not a stand down. There's one reason and one reason only they want to ditch the a-10 (follow the $).

[@altair1x5]

@@seanburke997 but it can’t fill the other missions that those aircraft can also do (SEAD, DCA/OCA, recon, etc). It’s too specific. They could spend money on an aircraft that can do one mission really, really well, or on aircraft that can do a bunch of missions also pretty good. I like the A-10 as well, but as you said, it’s all about the money.

[@seanburke997]

@@altair1x5 Ridiculous. You can buy almost 5 a10's for the cost of 1 f35. The a10 costs $7,000/hr to fly vs $35,000/hr for the f35. The f35 can't carry the weapons loadout the a10 can. The f35 does not perform well under 10,000 feet, and frequently has to reduce weapon loadouts even further to make those runs. This is a joke, as effective CAS has to get WAY lower than that. The A10 is happy as a clam at 1,000 feet or even lower. Further, the f35 has worse cockpit->ground visibility, making ground target acquisition harder, and it cannot loiter in the airspace anywhere even close to what the a10 can. There is absolutely no question for anyone experienced in this field which is the better and more cost effective option. You can kludge an f35 into this role, but that's all it will ever be - kludged. And that isn't the best way to support ground troops. I don't think you've ever spoken to people doing FAC/G. I suggest you do so, and ask them who they'd want watching their back on the battlefield - an A10 or something going 450 knots at 15k feet.

[@memeteam4497]

The U.S. coast guard will also now be using aircraft carriers in the Great Lakes to rescue stranded fisherman.

[@ADAPTATION7]

Yeah, that makes sense.

[@dr.palsonp.h.d815]

lololl could you imagine calling in CAS and a B1 shows up, talk about slow and high XD

[@davidpaul2797]

Well, you see, the navy has less money this year than last year, so it was the aircraft carrier or nothing.

[@decidiousrex]

I think those are actually going to the lifeguards in Baywatch. Swimmer struggling 20 yards away from the sand? Time to beach an aircraft carrier!

[@sarass2197]

😂

[@jbidinger]

Here we are today with the A-10 getting new wings, avionics, radar, weapons pods, and communications equipment. A win for the "boots on the ground".

[@heiko207]

@Chad Klaren it will be valid for service up until 2040

[@Huntress_Hannah]

Chad Klaren, my guy they’re already getting ready to scrap it. They’re cutting the a10 fleet size in half

[@rockspoon6528]

The A10 is such a damn American warplane. It's like they built a gun, and then decided to build a plane around it. Body epic.

[@SamBrickell]

B1s WERE good CAS aircraft. We basically flew the wings off of them. It takes an A-10 a long time to travel a few hundred miles to some grunts who need support. The B1 could fly in quickly AND loiter for hours once it got on scene. It was literally the only aircraft suited to do both of those parts of the CAS mission. And now we flew the wings off of the B1s it's not a bad idea to use the A10s more, but never forget the senator is always the least informed person in these meetings. They are performing for the cameras. John McCain was a pathetic political animal.

[@rockspoon6528]

@@SamBrickell don't like your own comment you cretin.

[@CapitaoAmerica737]

I heard that AC-130s are now doing head to head combat and Los Angeles Class submarines are doing strategic high altitude bombing

[@LeRoux027]

nah they're using the AC-130s for dogfights since it can fire at a 90 degree side angle. They're using Chinooks for head to head combat because their two rotor blades shred everything! /s

[@CapitaoAmerica737]

@@LeRoux027 I love the /s at the end XD

[@grinchyface]

Unfortunately they can't, legally. The DOD avoids duplication of roles and it's the Air Force's role to run fixed wing CAS. This is set in stone in what I believe is called the Key West Agreement

[@CapitaoAmerica737]

@@grinchyface so as long as it is not assigned to any role yet it can be designated as a CAS aircraft if done by the USAF? Can I put weapons in a weather baloon and call it a CAS aircraft? Plz.

[@chipschannel9494]

Hahahahaha

[@brk932]

Is the general suggesting replacing a plane designed exclusively for CAS, costing $1,000 per flight hour with a strategic bomber costing $75,000/h and with a military system that is far more expensive as a cost cutting?

[@VersusARCH]

Yes. Because B-1 can do many other things (and numbers are there so as not to hamper it in those other roles), while A-10 can pretty much only do CAS. Standardization of parts and supply also helps. Besides, 1 B-1 can replace several A-10 as it carries several times greater payload. Finally B-1 would not be the only platform replacing A10s. There are many instances of low intensity combat in which use of B-1 for CAS would indeed be wasteful. Thus, there are also multirole jets, attack helicopters and drones which do CAS. But the whole hearing was a circus for public designed to defeat proposed cuts in USAF budget.

[@kenton6098]

@@VersusARCH That's ridiculous. They are designed for totally different missions. The A10 was designed specifically for CAS and carries the cannon and rockets needed for CAS. The supersonic B1 carries a big payload of bombs, totally inappropriate for CAS unless you don't care how many US troops on the ground being "supported" are killed by those bombs. You are in the Air Force and have been ordered to make social media posts to support the policies of those wanting to get rid of the A10 program.

[@LouisPhillipsNZ]

Fyi a modern upgrade package costs around the same as a new f-35.

[@TheLukio]

No wonder they are on a tight budget. Using Super expensive plains with enormous maintenance costs instead of a tried and tested machine that runs on a much lower cost.

[@chocolatesandwichesofficia8445]

ahh yes, the B-1 lancer, a supersonic high altitude strategic heavy bomber, a perfect close air support alternative

[@TormentedPenguin]

No longer considered strategic since they cant carry nukes. But dropping a high precision guided bomb on the enemy and the ability to loiter for hours on end.. As well as a supersonic travel speed. Its a great CAS system that is widely used. Hell they were using B52s as CAS as well. Put them way up where the enemy cant reach and you have bombs on target in minutes

[@samanmahdiabadi]

@@TormentedPenguin they can't carry nukes? The very first purpose of designing the Lancer was Nuclear operation Sir.

[@TormentedPenguin]

@@samanmahdiabadiAs part of the START Treaty, the B1 was downgraded from nuclear capable to not being able to carry nuclear weapons. This can be reversed, but they do not have the modules for nuclear weapons at this time.

[@samanmahdiabadi]

@@TormentedPenguin A'right, thanks for the heads up.

[@SamBrickell]

It actually is. It's "over"use for CA in the recent wars is basically the reason the fleet is falling apart. Basically it was fast enough that it could be hundreds of miles away but still arrive within minutes over whatever squad was ambushed, and then as an intercontinental bomber it would have the fuel to loiter overhead for hours. With the sniper pod it could drop it's weapons with extreme accuracy, and it could carry more bombs than even the B-52.

[@briant7265]

I fondly remember an A-10 pilot saying, "I couldn't get the missiles to lock on the helicopter, so I shot it with the gun." There was nothing left of that helicopter.

[@karabinjr]

couldn’t get the missiles lock? Come on. A helicopter is huge and slow and hot as heck. He wanted to go air-to-air brrrt, he listened to his heart.

[@briant7265]

@@karabinjr Helicopters don't have the strong heat signature of a jet. Besides, a thousand bullets probably costs much less than a missile.

[@randomanun4278]

@@briant7265 substantially... comparatively pennies to a hundred dollar bill.

[@BloomsIZG]

@@karabinjr all helicopters are not slow, depends on its size

[@briant7265]

@@BloomsIZG Helicopters are slow. The fastest can do almost 200 mph (315 kph).

[@cade8986]

*B-1 drops payload in “CAS” attack Infantry: “how long until you can make another pass?” B-1 Pilot: “whenever we turn around... ETA 30 minutes”

[@mattz9268]

Infantry: "Well don't worry about that pilot, not only have you killed all the enemy combatants, but you've leveled the entire fucking frontline, and killed all of us as well. I see no sense in urgency here"

[@lp115lp]

Since when has a B1 been capable of turning on a dime like an A10? I DID see a video of the new F35 doing gut twisting flips 'in-place' without losing much altitude so I suspect THAT is capable of CAS with guns versus bombs. "When you need that 'surgical' precision to take out a target WITHOUT blowing away a large group of innocents or friendly forces ('It Takes A Village') - there's no substitute for a pop-gun" 'Sec' is probably a lawyer and WHAT is the GG's CV say? Sad example of what can occur when a bomber pilot attempts to stay 'on station' for CAS. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bV62kIGDYpKYrK8

[@johndelper1404]

If by chance one B1 bomber was taken out by a missile, what is the cost of that aircraft? Nearly half a billion dollars new,

[@hifinsword]

@Nick Douglas I wish Gary Powers was around to answer that question for you. No one knew when he took off on his last mission, that the Soviets could launch and hit a U-2 with a missle, until it happened. No one knows right now what capability the Chinese or the Russians will give or deploy secretly to our enemies. Do you want to put half a billion at risk only to find out something you didn't know?

[@johndelper1404]

Nick Douglas, My point is, why risk such an expensive and sophisticated asset, when a less expensive and durable A10 that's made specifically for this task is available.

[@SLWilesFam]

I had a similar conversation with an AF Col who said the A10 was going to be replaced by the F16, F15, etc, in 1989. That O6 after 5 mins of back and forth then told me, "LT, sit down and shut up." He said this to a full class of US Army Armor officers at the Armor Officer's Advanced Course. Then the Gulf War happened. He was replaced within the year from what I heard from my peers that attended the classes after me. That conversation just didn't come up again until 2014, almost 25 years later. The AF still does not have a replacement for the A10 in any form, except for improvements to the existing A10.

[@mrguest3749]

it is very good at doing its job, just needs an update

[@charlesdada6434]

Circa 1988, my Army artillery squad sergeant participated in testing F-16 against ground targets. They rigged the target with explosives ahead of the arrival of certain dignitaries (congresscritters and generals, etc). The F-16 swooped in, missed the target, and the target exploded. It was all a scam. And yet the zoomies persist to this very day in promoting go-fast aircraft that will never have the loitering time necessary to do the job right.

[@Guantanamo8732]

Gulf war literally proved the a-10 needed retire. A-10 only saw EXTREMELY limited action in non contested airspace and even then was shot down by mere MANPADS

[@billhartsford4820]

@@Guantanamo8732 In Iraq the A-10 had 8077 sorties flown and nearly 5000 enemy vehicles destroyed. We also only lost 7 total since Vietnam, and most of those _not_ to MANPADs so not sure what you're on about

[@Guantanamo8732]

@@billhartsford4820 lmao loosing 7 aircraft while having the most restricted missions. Nice aircraft you got there. A-10 has currently highest losses in the us airforce. 3 was shot down by sa-16. 2 was shot down by sa-13. And 1 by sa-9

[@robertjohnston8531]

Doesn't the US have a large number of nuclear ICBMs? They could use them for close air support.

[@samdesplancke3906]

And that kids is how you start the third world war

[@shadysito9915]

we’d have an army of ashes

[@Tactical_Nightwach]

Thats what low yield tactical nuclear bombs are for 😆

[@FinnMcRiangabra]

@@samdesplancke3906 Allow me to suggest that @Robert Johnston was possibly poking fun at the idea of a B1 being a close air support aircraft by humorously and absurdly extending the idea to include ICBMs. Just because there is not an emoji after the statement does not mean it is not a joke.

[@samdesplancke3906]

@@FinnMcRiangabra I litteraly said and that kids is why because it was a joke

[@williamkamenel2362]

I didn't agree with McCain on a lot, but his support of the A-10 couldn't me more accurate! Right on senator, right on!

[@MyriadMythial]

@Ryan Wazenski It wasn't so much how effective it's weapons were in actually killing the enemy as how effective it was at scaring the absolute shit out of the enemy combatants. When you hear that BRRRRRT they start running for cover. You don't hear a guided bomb pretty much until its blows. The A-10 didn't even have to hit anything to give our boots on the ground a strategic advantage. The sheer fact the enemy was trying to get out of sight when they heard that hellish sound gave them the edge.

[@benjaminpadilla1464]

@Ryan Wazenski *sigh, you're not very smart

[@panzerlieb]

Ryan Wazenski you’ve never had to face down an A-10. The Apache is fearsome alright, but the A-10 is absolutely terrifying. The A-10 is a weapon that will make an enemy shit themselves, literally. You ask what role they play? That’s easy. Intimidation.

[@armoredplacoderm]

@Ryan Wazenski I wouldn't say 20mm and 30mm are similar caliber weapons.

[@armoredplacoderm]

@Ryan Wazenski That's right. Apache uses the Bushmaster. I was thinking of the Cobra which uses the M197.

[@takashiross8553]

Would you look at that: a politician with a working understanding of the purpose and function of something they’re discussing.

[@jamesb3497]

Could you picture what would happen if they all did?

[@Nananki]

The fact that this is a rare event is a testament to the incompetence of our elected officials. We could have done worse than McCain, wish we had him now.

[@bigtime9597]

He was a pilot of the A-4B Skyraider, which held a HUGE role for close air support. He was something of an expert on the subject.

[@andrewvelonis5940]

And still a politician

[@johnlloyddy7016]

Does a B-1 use a pump jet or a diesel engine? And is it true that a pump jet B-1 bomber can only stay in the air for 20 minutes?

[@willjerzak5916]

Love that this video is 7 years old and the A-10 hasn’t gone anywhere…

[@JotenTheCorgi]

Respect the Hog, for it lives on!

[@MEGATRYANT]

It really is a shining example of goverment incompetence.

[@MrCoolguy425]

should have been ousted before the gulf war. goes to show how much a little bit of propaganda can do to government policy.

[@kenton6098]

The general has. Today (2024) Welsh is retired and has a position on the Board of Directors at Northrop Grumman. Think he was was preparing for that position when he was trying to get the A10 canceled so that Northrop Grumman could make billions more $ producing a replacement? I do.

[@dLimboStick]

The Air Force doesn't want the A-10. Good! Give them to the Army and the Marines! That's who they're for anyway.

[@tmears42286]

The only reason the marines dont want the A-10 is because it can't be launched from an aircraft carrier.

[@maxofer9354]

I don't think you know what you are talking about. A-10 has great on station time and range. It's high bypass turbofans sip fuel compared to any low bypass turbofan engine that most fighters have. Also, an A-10 is a massive airplane compared to something like the harrier(used for CAS by the marines) that it would take up too much space on a ship. And no you couldn't operate an A-10 off of a carrier because its landing gear is way too weak and it isn't catapult compatible. The marines just wouldn't want it because it cant be deployed from a ship. The fact that the Airforce it trying to replace it with a Super Tucano is hilarious. Marines and Soldiers are gonna feel MUCH safer when they know a very small light attack aircraft without a 30mm cannon is going protect them lol

[@maxofer9354]

first of all thats not a real picture, heres the real one(www.mediabakery.com/STT0018437-An-X-47B-Unmanned-Combat-Air-System-makes-an.html?usource=lc&lctid=46933) I checked. No A-10 has an arresting hook like the one depicted. And no, Id rather you show me an article about how the A-10 landed on a carrier rather than the first picture you found on google images. And careful with the word deployed. That means sent to combat in a squadron. And ur saying that A-10s were sent on an an aircraft carrier across the world? Thats never happened, prove me wrong. 3kg of fuel per hour???? that is like very efficient. The f-18 which is used as CAS today consumes about 8000 kg of fuel per hour. which is like 0.17 km per liter. The A-10 on the other hand does something like 0.60 km per liter (www.aircraftcompare.com/aircraft-specification/A-10-Warthog/8/spec). That my friend is much more efficient. The f-18 costs about USD$24,000 per flight hour whereas the A-10 is USD$11,500 per flight hour. Its much cheaper to fly and much more efficient than some other CAS options. While the Super Tucano will definitely be cheaper, it doesn't have any of the same characteristics that an A-10 has that keep the pilot safe and allow them to return home. If you want me to tell you what those are, I will be happy to.

[@maxofer9354]

"Didn't account for the shadow" classic Well there are 2 f-404 engines on a f-18 so That doubles the fuel use. And of course that all depends on how fast the fighter is moving, the statistic I read might have included afterburning at some point or the jet flying supersonic. And yes Im comparing an A-10 to fighter. But F-18s don't do much these days but CAS (except for the G variant), so they can both be considered CAS aircraft for this argument. And obviously the A-29 or the OV-10 are going to be cheaper and more fuel efficient but they aren't going to be able to carry a wide array of munitions(which is probably fine because of the minimal threats of today's insurgents). Also A29s have a much worse range than an A-10 because they cant midair refuel, which gives them less time defending troops and more time in transit. A-10s can, which gives them basically an unlimited range. Gun ammunition is very cheap compared to bombs, and thats what the A-10 mainly uses. Again the A-29 will probably have a cheaper gun. You are right those flight cost figures didn't account for the expenditure of ammunition but no flight hour cost statistics do, and neither do the A-29s. The A-10 is much safer than an unarmored A-29 because of the titanium bathtub you mentioned. Small arms fire is unable to penetrate it protecting the pilot and allowing the pilot to fly closer to the ground. If the pilot is closer to the ground they can protect troops easier and be more accurate. You cant say that the A-10 is not safe because it is armored, that doesn't make much sense. An A-10 can receive multiple AAA direct hits and even multiple small sam hits and remain flying due to all of its systems that have backups(www.quora.com/How-much-damage-can-the-A-10-Thunderbolt-endure-before-being-shot-down). They don't call it the flying tank for no reason. That would not be the case in the slightest for the A-29. Yes they got shot down more than the other aircraft listed in that study, but thats because they got in close with the enemy. But, according to the statistic that you showed, 5 F-16s were shot down and 6 A-10s were shot down since 1990. That pretty equal, considering the A-10 isn't flying at very high altitudes and is more susceptible to shoulder launched heatseeking missiles. Im sure you could keep finding random photos all day long, but whats important is that what you said initially "They've been carrier launched a couple of times but the issue is that their range is so terrible that it isn't worth it" has been disproven and was complete bs to begin with.

[@maxofer9354]

Nah, I did what I came here for. I proved that you made up that an A-10 could land on a carrier, and im satisfied.

[@Lazybonesitis]

I almost fell off my chair when the words "B-1 Bomber" came out of her mouth

[@camelthegamer7165]

I don't blame you, not one bit.

[@VersusARCH]

Please stay down...

[@jonathanbaird8109]

@@camelthegamer7165 Why? Because you don't know the bones have been doing this successfully for a long time already?

[@ScottRothsroth0616]

Timestamp 2:14.

[@christopherthompson5462]

That’s true, it my next question would be how many of the CAS missions were Danger Close? Because I’ll take an A-10 in a Danger Close situation over an F-16 or god forbid a B-1 any day of the week.

[@Majima_Nowhere]

The only people advocating for the a-10's retirement are the people who've only seen them on spreadsheets.

[@Amnpaterson]

Not true, an air force general advocated for this...and now he works for the corporation that builds the jets to replace the A-10....sketchy as fuck

[@andorfedra]

nope, not even on the spreadsheets, these planes aren't the shiniest, newest thing, but they are the best damn thing at their designated role. anyone who wants to replace them must submit something that will do it better in every way. Including the cost to fly. EDIT: obviously, that isn't going to happen because this aircraft has the lowest cost to run of all others which continue to see consistent use.

[@michaelzhang1891]

@@andorfedra I wouldn't say the best. They're pretty bad actually. As close air support, their role is to destroy ground targets. On the ground, you have Dismounted, Unarmoured, Light Armoured and Armoured targets. The A-10 is only good against Dismounted, Unarmoured and possibly Lightly Armoured targets. I don't expect the 30mm to be able to penetrate any modern armour. From a front line perspective, it's good against massed infantry. But it's kind of a waste because you have artillery, mortars, machine guns and IFVs. It could be used in a defensive context to suppress advancing dismounts on a dug in position when your artillery is focused on another fire mission. It's extremely effective against unarmoured vehicles. But those are usually found behind enemy lines. Where air defence would be present. Then you need SEAD missions and now you're getting into the territory of the F-35's stealth and strike capabilities. It's fairly effective against light armour such as BMPs, BTRs, BRDMs. A strafing run might take out one or two BMPs. You would need multiple runs and multiple planes. And again, you need to look at enemy air defence capabilities. And it being a low and slow flyer, MANPADS systems and other systems like the Tunguska could easily take one out. So in modern conventional warfare, the A-10 is mostly redundant due to air defence capabilities. It's only really effective in an asymmetric war like in Afghanistan where you don't have to worry about air defence at all. Or at least minimally.

[@robh8245]

@@michaelzhang1891 any shortcomings of the 30mm cannon can be made for with the plane's additional payload, which would include JDAMs and the AGM-65 Maverick, both of which can take out enemy armor. As for it's effectiveness in a high threat environment (SAMs and AA platforms present) this represents a complete misunderstanding of Air Force doctrine. In the early stages of any conventional conflict, step one is eliminating any and all AA weapon systems and aircraft that pose a threat and establishing complete air dominance. Only then would you send in aircraft like the A-10. As for the MANPADs, that threat will exist for any aircraft that provides CAS. However, the A-10 is equipped with countermeasures and is extremely well armored for a small support aircraft.

[@scout360pyroz]

@@robh8245 isnt the A-10 extremely hardy for an aircraft as.well when it comes to staying in the air? I heard they can lose an engine and keep flying.

[@jsbcody]

A B-1 bomber as "close air support" would give new meaning to danger close....instead of meters it would be kilometers.

[@thehistoricalgamer]

They do use B-1s in that role with precision guided munitions.

[@RevengeAvenger]

They couldn't even use Mils to coordinate with Artillery. These idiots run this country. I feel like they're tick tockers

[@firstduckofwellington6889]

@@RevengeAvenger Fuck the a-10. The middle east has been holding the US back

[@damiangaming5696]

@@thehistoricalgamer the bigger issue is the fuel consumption and cost difference and the armor Lancers seem to be far more expensive fuel wise

[@Nothing_._Here]

@@damiangaming5696 Alright, B-52H then, or the F-16, F-15E, A-29. A majority of airframes can do the same job and the air force would have no mission gap if the A-10 was taken out of service. It barely sees use since the gulf war to begin with.

[@TheBazino]

I'm from Europe, did civil service instead of the military and even I know that the A-10 is the best close combat support airplane ever built. Only one thing can replace the A-10. An improved version of the A-10.

[@ricky7426]

The best close air suport is a nuclear bomb clears everything in its path

[@ninja23yt]

Just like the C-130

[@ivangrbavac242]

Su-25 does it good enough

[@csme07]

@@ivangrbavac242 yeah su is pretty good I’m Russian and I still like a 10 tho but our as defense is spot on

[@jblockman_59nunyabidnis68]

An a-10 with TWO 30 mm rotary guns

[@tonyharkin7462]

Space Force just offered space shuttle for close air support

[@s.c.p0]

rods from god best cas :D

[@shatner99]

Tony Harkin those loose heat tiles are like ninja stars, glistening in the sun. A poor man's A - 10 Thunderbolt 2 (Warthog).

[@ericburns5359]

Commandant Space Ghost has denied use of the Shuttle due to the commitment to the Star Wars Defense Program.

[@JamsheedRpgGodBoss]

Space shuttle door gunner

[@shatner99]

joe lober instead of CCR, they play David Bowie for the gunners.

[@LOLERXP]

Teacher: "Why didn't you hand in your homework in time?" Me: "Senator, I will always strive to do better in terms of the communication. This week, I believe on day one, when the homework rolled out, I offered an operational laydown in greater detail to two of your colleagues. I will always endevour to do better and take the lessons learned from this week."

[@twig4661]

yeah, but you still didnt turn in your homework

[@lp115lp]

@@twig4661 Like I said - lawyers. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aWbVdqWHqa9pq6M

[@jshepard152]

Exactly. A bunch of bullshit.

[@cafenightster4548]

@Drew Peacock "Plans" I guess.

[@OsoCaliforniano]

Imagine if McCain just responded with "burrrrrrrrrrrr.... burrrrrrrrrrrrrrr" General: excus... McCain "BURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"

[@tonyincs]

lmao

[@jameswhite5720]

I usually have a lukewarm regard for Mr. McCain. But on this day, at this hearing, he is absolutely correct. Thank you sir.

[@williamharless4654]

I have nothing but contempt for the man.

Agreed. Clearly the USAF is trying to rid itself of the A-10 ... it never wanted it and has been trying to get rid of it for 40 years ... it wants to spend its money on sci-fi gadgets instead. When it comes to defining its mission, the USAF has ALWAYS missed the mark. Back in the 50s the USAF wanted to get rid of everything but strategic bombers loaded with nuclear bombs. So we funded fleets of B-36s, B-47s and B-52s. We went into Vietnam with nothing but nukes and had to retrofit the B-52 to deliver conventional bombs. Then the college boys told McNamara we didn't need dogfighting capability so we bought nothing but F-4s ... fast, powerful, majestic ... but couldn't turn or maneuver to save their lives and had no gun ... they got their asses handed to them by MiG-17s, MiG-19s and Mig-21s. The ONLY time in our history that the USAF has been prepared for war was when the First Gulf War broke out and the USAF had A-10s (which defeated the majority of Iraq's Russian-built tanks) ... which the USAF never wanted.

[@sabotabo7476]

William Harless why’s that?

[@Argospete]

James White. Personally, I would send them all home with instructions to get the monopoly out and play with the children !

[@josephososkie3029]

James White I am less than lukewarm in my regard for McCain. I agree that he was correct on this day.... it also provided a platform for him to hot dog which was a bonus for him.

[@mcseforsale]

A-10 is a beast. They need to keep it flying.

[@shanekilleen9022]

Agreed. Until something better is proposed, accept no substitutions.

[@somenerd1182]

The A-10 is a good CAS plane. The A-10 has been great since in the wars we have used it we have had total air supremacy. In any war with a nation that has an air force that can combat ours, like, for example, China, the A-10 would be blown out of the sky every time it goes for a fight. But, for a CAS plane, it is really damn good at its job.

[@VasYevu]

A-10 is THE beast, the only way they can change my mind is until they have a product that surpasses the requirements and qualities of the a-10

[@COUNTERCOM]

@@shanekilleen9022 its called the F15E the F15E can do everything the A10 more and it can carry more weapons.

[@Kishandreth]

@@COUNTERCOM and that would be a blatant lie. While many planes are more capable at striking at pre-planned targets the A-10 excels at sticking around and attacking new targets that pop up. When an A-10 is in an overwatch role of ground troops it is more similar to having an Apache helicopter then a fighter. It can stay around longer in the combat theater and easily take out any targets of opportunity.

[@stevenshelton9443]

I guess they didn’t realize that McCain was an attack pilot flying A-4s and knows a little about the subject.

[@lawzik]

A little. But not quite as much as he thought he did. Two days after the hearing, an actually combat experienced B1 bomber pilot, Jordan Thomas, explained in an article how: "the B-1 has been a close air support weapon since 2001." breakingdefense.com/2014/05/sen-mccain-b-1s-really-do-cas/ War fighting requires flexibility, adaptability and at times creativity. After all, the A-10 had not originally been designed for the CAS at which it was eventually put to superb use, but primarily to hunt and kill tanks. When you're abreast of new and ever evolving technology it's pretty clear how a bomber can have tools available to engage targets close to friendly ground or naval forces and to integrate each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces. Stereotypes can be limiting - in war, downright disastrous. The senator had this opportunity to hear from experts. He should have kept an open mind.

[@steveaustin2686]

@@lawzik The A-10 destroying tanks IS Close Air Support.

[@stevenshelton9443]

Mark Hepworth Mark, that May or may not be accurate. But what they were suggesting to the Senator suggest to me that wasn’t the case. And while they may be aware that McCane was a “famous vet” that doesn’t mean they knew that particulars of his service. After all today’s four stars were either not born or just so when McCane came home. Just sayin.

[@stevenshelton9443]

Trevor Reid Trevor to parrot Steve Austin, yea destroying tanks by air is the very definition of close air support. And B1s bombing enemy positions forward of friendly troops is no different than when B52s did it in Vietnam and B17s did it in WWll. Close air support? Sure, but a B1 B52 it B17, don’t loiter around the battlefield and provide 50 meter or less continuous support to troops in contact with the bad guys. They also don’t provide the incredible moral boast the troops get at seeing A10s clear their direct front in real time. You might want to research the A10 a little if you think that is CAS mission is an afterthought. That damn thing is good at what it does because that’s the ONLY mission it was designed to do, unlike the F15,16,35, B1,2 or B52!

[@stevenshelton9443]

Mark Hepworth And all the best to you as well.

[@1chaplain]

Imagine saying "A submarine can probably defend a carrier with its CIWS" to a Navyman, or "A mortar team can probably destroy a tank" to an Infantryman. I'd be pissed as McCain was

[@adam-rickman]

Gee as a mortarman yeah that sounds awful lol

[@kekistanimememan170]

Except the women is correct tho the B1 has been such successfully in CAS several times over by now.

[@adam-rickman]

@@kekistanimememan170 The definition of CAS makes this true, but not in the same method that an A10 delivers CAS. Just because you can use LGBs doesn’t mean it’s the same as using 30mm gun run. There is a psychological element of the A10 both for friendlies and enemy. As an infantryman, I’ll gladly take the A10 over the B1. The A10 pilot is the grunt of the skies and there is a bond there that others don’t understand.

[@Surpriseify]

@@adam-rickman That may be true, but 3 B1's loitering high in the sky above a MASSIVE operations area would have 10 times the response time to a threat, and with GBU's and sniper pods + the bomb arsenal of a B52, the B1 is a frightening piece of equipment. Once the A10 is on site its great, but i'd personally take the supersonic bomber over the subsonic gunpod monster. The loiter time of the B1 is also very long, its a great plane for the task tbh, just not that many of them sadly. I wish my country would buy some haha

[@gwydionrusso3206]

@@Surpriseify well remember they’re also two completely different aircraft the B1 it’s a giant long range tactical bomber for the A 10 is specifically designed for coming in low and slow giving the enemies a piece of Brrrrt missiles rockets or yes even bombs meanwhile aircraft such as the B1 and B-52 result sit way above the clouds and drop large amount of bombs

[@valkry007]

A-10 is a blue collar "get the job done" workhorse, and it brings the crew back every mission.

[@habe1717]

It really doesn't always bring the crew back. More A-10s have been lost than any other aircraft in the Middle East despite being flown less than other aircraft

[@chucklucas8747]

Keep it simple a weapons platform for years to come

[@Chrinik]

@@habe1717 The A-10 flies into danger, the other CAS planes stay out of it. It's hard to get shot at by AAA and MANPADs when you are 30.000 feet above the enemy dropping guided bombs. However, the A-10 can do something these planes can't. Loiter. When infantry needs cover from the sky, normal jet-fighters can maybe stick around for 20-30, maybe 45 minutes or an hour at best before they have to break away and refuel. That sounds like alot...but A-10s can stick around for HOURS over the same unit, and carry enough ordonance and ammunition to conduct effective CAS the entire time, where an F-16 with fuel tanks maybe carries 4-6 bombs and a couple hundred rounds of 20mm. And an F-16 is probably not going to fly in and gunstrafe often. But that's another thing, the boots on the ground LOVE the A-10 for it's presence...it's a huge morale booster seeing (and hearing) it in the sky. CAS missions by other planes are usually precision strikes against something you need dead, 5 minutes later it explodes, you never saw by what or why...but you can feel the presence of the A-10, and it being relatively close to the action can actually provide visual spotting with mk.1 eyeballs. Many A-10 pilots say they've seen an ambush or a force moving in and engaged straight away, while sitting in your cockpit looking at things through the TGP is like looking through a straw. So yeah, the A-10 is ugly, it's slow, it flies into danger and thus has a higher loss rate (compare the "fighter" losses during the gulf war with the "striker" losses, for example...the iraqi airforce could barely do anything, but the AAA and SAM batteries where a huge threat to the strikers, F/A-18s and F-15Es and F-16s that had to go in and wreck shit.) but I personally feel it makes up for it in things you can not really quantify on a spreadsheet...

[@habe1717]

Chrinik I understand the “moral” aspect, but a B-1 can loiter for longer and can carry a larger payload. A B-1 is far better suited for fighting against a professional force.

[@Chrinik]

@@habe1717 It also costs about 90.000 dollars per flight hour, accourding to the CBO, which actually makes it one of the most expensive assets per operating hour in the US AF fleet... If you want to replace something to cut the costs, replace B-1s, I'd start there. Got plenty of other planes that can do it's missions XD. Hell, a F-22 or F15-E costs like a third of that.

[@SombraPiloto]

I'm not anything close to being a fan of McCain but I'm with him on this.

[@Str8Raiser]

Me too. I would have ousted John McCain and his RINO idiocy a long time ago, but at least he has the good sense to ask the Army and marine commanders with people engaged on the ground what close air support platforms they trust the most when their lives are on the line instead of the Air Force brass who want pretty new toys in favor of the effective old ugly ones. If I were in a foxhole with bad guys shooting at me, I would want the devastatingly accurate, low and slow flying A-10 with the ability to loiter over the battlefield for a long time over any other fixed wing platform. If I am in that situation, gimme an A-10 or a couple Apache helicopters over your fast moving, big money F-15E and F-16s anyday. And if they want to scrap a platform altogether, I'd scrap the B-1 Bombers before I'd scrap the A-10s.

[@Dinsmore1000]

Me too dude. The A-10 has helped and SAVED a shit-ton of foot soldiers. Money talks in DC...OBVIOUSLY.

[@cbmech2563]

Chris Give me a Hog any day of the week

[@mkllove]

The question not asked is what it cost to provide X hours of cover in theater, NO WAY is an F-16 or B-1 less to operate orbiting a hot area in terms of time available on site where it's needed by troops on the ground. McCain rightly asks what they prefer to be supported by.... it's more about loiter time than speed.

[@swainer8014]

You know what? They know how the system works. We put a rookie that has no clue as to how to operate the machinery and now have a national train wreck. We are idiots for putting some one that has no clue how to be a good leader and can only insult, repeat himself and screw around with on his twitter.

[@KW86.]

A 10 is also a psychological wepon, that brrrrrrrup? Gives American soldiers the edge.

[@luvr381]

The A-10s BRRRRRRT sound isn't the gun, it's the sound of anything and everything downrange capable of fecal ejection suddenly shitting themselves in terror.

[@MrBruinman86]

Very well articulated.

[@alanwillett9097]

luvr381 classic

[@bennorthfield4875]

if by edge you mean a raging hard on then your fight

[@jacobdensmore5058]

ben northfield you must be a grunt haha

[@onefastslimjim]

"Senator, we have had success with the Cessna Grand Caravan in close air-support missions."

[@bnegmaster]

This is so old but he could easily counter them by saying this. The B in B-1 stands for bomber. The F in F-16 stands for Fighter. The A in A-10 stands for attacker.

[@demanischaffer]

The thing is though A GBU doesn't care if it's getting dropped by a B Or F Or A Or anything that can carry them

[@demanischaffer]

@Goth Jesus It's about effectiveness not emotions When you call for CAS you don't call for a specific plane, whatever is on station assists Whether it he an F-16. F-15E, F-35A/B, AV-8, B1-B, A-10 or even an F-22 However you're most likely going to get an F-16 as they do a majority of CAS and it's been that way since 91

[@VersusARCH]

Yeah and F-111 and F-117 were fighters...

[@AllisterCaine]

@@VersusARCH That designation was intended to confuse as far as i know. Though there were some ideas to make them go after AWACS, they had capabilities for that.

[@Aphichat.]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. B-1 carry all type of bomb. 20 times more. F-16 faster and can carry nearly the same amount of fuel and bombs. Can get in the battlefield faster. Pretty much F-18 is a better version of A-10. Can take off in carrier. Another Reason, no one wants to buy A-10.

[@dsarmy1]

I like how McCain stuck up for the Army and he was Navy.

[@poiz921]

Wasn't he in the air force? He was shot down over Hanoi.

[@Dischingo]

@@poiz921 navy also has planes.

[@poiz921]

@@Dischingo didn't know that pilots count as navy then. Thanks for clearing that up, mate

[@colinmontgomery5492]

@@poiz921 , of course he was in the Navy.

[@texasowl5356]

Slaangor dumb ass

[@birderjohn3396]

The companies who make new aircraft need the old A-10 to go away, to create an urgency for a new attack aircraft. They give a lot of money to lobby such a change. Problem is that the A-10 works very well.

[@koettfaers]

Probably very close to the truth

[@paulwest9131]

It is also incredibly reliable, incredibly spartan meaning it does not need billions of dollars in constant software upgrades, integration with software outside the aircraft, all of which are usually carried out by Boeing, Northrup/Grumman, Rayetheon, etc.

[@demanischaffer]

However aircraft like the F-16 already have taken over most of the A-10's sorties since the 90's

[@greatbriton8425]

@@demanischaffer You are joking

[@demanischaffer]

@@greatbriton8425 Nope, not joking In Afghanistan A-10's performed less then 10% of all CAS missions In fact in 1991 A-10's flew less sorties in less dangerous areas of Iraq, yet out of every other USAF loss to enemy fire, the A-10 was the top, with the title of "vehicle killer" going to the F-111 which killed more vehicles then the A-10 with *0 losses*

[@A-Non_kma]

Just saw this; HF, anyone having support from an A-10, is so disappointed that our leadership does not look at performance vs cost. I was deployed in a scout and tanker roll, combined-arms training was definitely a force multiplier!

[@melloyellogsxr]

"Calling in air support!" Roger we have a F-16 in bound. "Ahh copy he just flew right past us and now about thirty miles away" roger we got a B-2 spirit inbound. "Ahh please don't, you know what i think we were good here"

[@rusher2937]

"Send in the A-10!" "Ah shit it will take 10 minutes to get here" "Aaaand it got shot down by a MANPAD"

[@thatguy4544]

@@rusher2937 That thing is a flying tank, also ISIS and AQ don’t have access to that many manpads.

[@DonMeaker]

@@thatguy4544 They had enough to make it unhealthy for AC-130s, so they were withdrawn from theater.

[@rusher2937]

@@thatguy4544 most of its losses during operation Desert Storm were due to MANPADs.

[@X.Y.Z.07]

@@rusher2937 they fought AQ and Taliban is Desert Storm? Iraqi Army and Insurgents are not the same you know...

[@gregoryrush1643]

Not a McCain fan, but he's spot on here.

[@sigurdrobertsson2231]

You should be He's the most moderate Republican the Senate has ever seen.

[@FSKN-Rossii]

James Richards Yep, he was quite the democrat!

[@richmacero5062]

Arizona's finest democrat

[@sigurdrobertsson2231]

You guys are insane, he was certainly not Democrat. One could argue he was a warmonger. He was a centrist if anything.

[@JeremyShibby]

Same...not a fan but I like what he said here.

[@melloyellogsxr]

"The B-1 bomber will now conduct close air support?" I take it her son is not in the military.

[@mrlincolnls00]

God let people who actually fight speak who has combat experience.

[@m1a2abrams34]

Why not have a stratosfortress as close air support. It's not THAT big.

[@rusher2937]

Both B-1 (since 2001) and B-52 have already been used for CAS, in the era of precision guided munitions this is perfectly fine.

[@BenderBendingRodriguez2024]

@@rusher2937 I don’t think it’s a question of can it perform the role. The question is, is it as good or better than existing platforms? Is it lower cost? What about support assets? If all you need is BRRRRRRRRRR, why use a multi million dollar precision guided munitions?

[@rusher2937]

​@@BenderBendingRodriguez2024 A valid question. Is the A-10 really cheaper? Since the B-1 can fly higher and faster, with a longer loiter time and quick reaction time to get where it's needed, how many A-10s would you need to cover a large portion of land while being able to reach any friendly troops in contact within say, 5 minutes? How much time and fuel would each of those A-10s need to RTB to be rearmed and refueled compared to a single B-1? Could the maintenance cost of those many A-10s be higher on average due to a higher chance of taking damage? Does it burn more gas / minute or /nm travelled? Why pay for the entire logistic chain of a fleet of aircraft that are only really good for danger-close CAS in low-threat environments, when you could just use multirole fighters that can do that well enough, but that can also be used for most frontline missions in an actual war against near-peer opponents? I don't know accurate answers to these questions, that would require a big chunk of research and maybe access to classified information. What I do know is that a GBU-12 Laser guidance kit merely costs $22k, attached to a $2k bomb, while having a CEP of just over 1 meter. Compare that to a typical load of A-10 ammo, $136.70 x 1150 rounds = just under $160k. The price gap isn't as large as you'd think. www.quora.com/What-is-the-production-manufacturing-cost-of-the-GAU-8-A-Avenger-30mm-gun

[@aloysiusjohn8512]

"ah senator, we would like Domino's Pizza to handle our close air support, their always there in less then 30 mins"

[@InDieTasten]

and they've delivered pizza in afghanistan before as well :D

[@Saxonvts]

Drop the pizza!!

[@edwardhaugstatter3473]

I never thought I would agree with anything McCain had to say. But he is exactly correct. We need more A10s not less. Build new ones and upgrade their systems. One of the best platforms and still is today

[@josephdeliz3455]

We need an upgrade is all, not a replacement. Simple.

[@drifter4training]

Like a A10 mark 1.5 instead of mark 2.0 ?

[@richardlahan7068]

Unfortunately, the A-10 is no longer being produced. Republic Aircraft no longer exists.

[@MJLeger-tz4so]

We agree, but all aircraft have a life-span, which does NOT mean they can't be rehab-ed to fly again and not just become hangar queens, but Congress is pressured by NON-MILITARY advice and often money talks over good common sense! The A-10 proved its worth over and over, our men knew it and so did the enemy! That kind of power is invaluable, and gives an edge in combat!

[@tenminutetokyo2643]

Edward Haugstatter Sen. James is probably bought off by the communist Chinese just like most of our pols.

[@corneliuspraeda6452]

That's a general who sees dead G.I.s as numbers on his spreadsheet...

[@DonMeaker]

This was a senator who was an enemy ace (5 crashed aircraft) and hadn't kept up with the advancement of technology. When he did strike missions, guided bombs didn't exist. He has forgotten nothing, and learned nothing.

[@kevinbutton4580]

He doesn't even have an action ribbon...all his military experience is "participating"

[@ChaimS]

If you think that, you obviously don't know anything about Gen Welsh. I recommend watching this and then re-evaluating your comment. m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYPKf4mmeM5pqLs

[@corneliuspraeda6452]

@@ChaimS I need to do no such thing. I just heard the man, verbatim, with my eyes and ears. Him saying something different, at another time, in another context, is beyond irrelevant.

[@89DerChristian]

No, that's a general who is being told to keep everything running with a smaller budget. If the Senate wants to keep all of it's toys, it needs to provide the budget for it

[@JR-ly2pu]

Imagine being a 4 star general and not having a combat action ribbon.......

[@JDMatthias]

Word

[@carlodagunz]

@Alexander Davies Did he fight, or did he "participate?"

[@Hawkeye-ef4xf]

@@carlodagunz has a General fought since Washington? They are all about logistics.

[@danielmalone8809]

Americans get a medal just for flying over Ireland because the still deem it as a warzone

[@Hawkeye-ef4xf]

@@danielmalone8809 fake news

[@Jordan-rb28]

"Senator, the Boeing 737 has been been engaged in strafing runs for quite some time now."

[@sgt.texasranger4044]

“Senator, The C17 Globemaster has been engaged in dogfights and Air to air combat for quite some time now”

[@darthvadersith514]

Wow, a congressman who actually sounds like he knows what he’s talking about. RIP John McCain, one of the few GOP politicians I actually respected.

[@yourbabyboyfriendonlyme2485]

He's the A-hole up made up the law that made weight classes minatory. Forced the u.s. public to do what he said or be imprisoned. Yea, a really great person :=| thefreethoughtproject .com

[@mikecooper8462]

The very last repub with any common sense or semblance of a spine. And he served our country honorably and with dignity.

[@samadrid6321]

McCain's was a piece of shit.

[@thechumpsbeendumped.7797]

yourbabyboyfriend onlyme Can you repost so what you wrote makes sense?

[@williamtheiss5080]

Mike Cooper funny you should say that. You should hear what the media had to say about him when he was running against Obama. In 10 years Trump might be seen as the “last repub with any common sense”

[@ecleveland1]

The A10 is the best at what it does, just build new ones with updated avionics suites.

[@Nothing_._Here]

The issue with the A10 is it's entire airframe and the extremely old, non updated engines that produce some 40 KN for 20 grams of fuel with a bypass ratio of 6.8 That's terrible by modern standards, you're wasting a lot of fuel for a really stupid aircraft. There's also the issue of the PGU 14/B and PGU 13/B rounds. Theyre about $130~/each and they're ineffective against their intended targets. "BUT LOITER" Thats why you have things like the AH 64.

[@freedomliberty8961]

That's what I've been saying

[@SSgtRobertMorris]

EXACTLY!!!! Did we lose the blueprints or something?

[@Nothing_._Here]

Robert Morris, You're an idiot. You don't seem to have any idea of the matter that you would need to set up a whole new plant+tooling You're also an idiot because you don't realize that the A10 is one of the most expensive aircraft to fly currently.

[@SSgtRobertMorris]

Nothing Here: Perfect name. It would seem that you know nothing of manufacturing. Chrysler made tanks in WW II. Singer (the sewing machine company) made small arms. I am sure that if provided with the appropriate specifications that General Dynamics or Lockheed-Martin or Bell Helicopter even could spool up an A-10 assembly line. Some things are just worth the money.

[@danielb7660]

Hell must be freezing over as I am actually agreeing with John McCain.

[@mecallahan1]

Its a funny feeling isn't it.

[@fluxfirax5.56]

I was thinking the same thing. Maybe the songbird is trying to make up for past mistakes?

[@captainKedger]

Yea exactly what I was thinking

[@smackflack6556]

BRUH FOR REAL

[@rusher2937]

You shouldn't, as the general made a good point backed by evidence, while McCain just went off the now outdated CAS doctrine he was taught when he was in service.

[@fademusic1980]

"they're the ones with troops in harms way" damn that was the most military specific backhanded put down I have ever heard

[@bretatvs]

The more videos I watch of the Late Senator McCain the more I realize we lost a brave, smart, all around caring, humble person. Dude was a badass.

[@CaptainJohn]

Wait, He died?

[@bretatvs]

@@LA_Commander maybe I did dumbass

[@ryanhols5030]

The men in his platoon would tell you differently. Hes a traitor and tyrant.

[@victoreous626]

You were obviously not in the USN

[@derpyhooves4287]

*A10:* i will never leave, you cant make me, i will continue to make swiss cheese, it's my passion!

[@howardchambers9679]

Hey, if you don't want them I'm sure I can get enough friends together to buy a couple off you.

[@derpyhooves4287]

@@howardchambers9679 *A10:* I can give you some Swiss cheese. *Rolls out a tank full of holes as a result of getting strafed*

[@howardchambers9679]

@@derpyhooves4287 thanks!

[@OneRoundDown]

Make swiss cheese and occasionally come back looking like swiss cheese, but come back indeed.

[@derpyhooves4287]

@@OneRoundDown *A10:* sometimes it is extremely painful, one time i lost an engine.

[@stevemiller7433]

What I find appalling is the fact that the A10 fleet is so small. The way wars are fought now an F-22, F-35, F-15s are useless, last I saw, ISIS is not flying a Mig 29. Air dominance? against what? The enemy is in a hole, on the ground, in a building. The only aircraft capable of fighting that mission are Attack Helicopters, A-10s and AC gunships. These are unglamorous missions but they are the missions we are fighting. Arguing that the A10 is flying fewer sorties? The F-16 flies a 5 minute sortie over the battle. The A-10 flies a 2 hour overwatch sortie. For the cost of one useless B-1 you could buy 50 A10s Ask the grunts on the ground which they would prefer. McCain is 100% on this one.

[@jasonvorhees5896]

Shock and awe are important too. When they see what a 30mm round does to a human, it makes a lasting impression.

[@largol33t1]

I've seen the actual gatling gun at a military show and the entire weapon with its gigantic drum dwarf my MINI Cooper easily. It gets the job done. The Raptor is just a waste of fuel and money if used for the A-10's purpose.

[@anothersucker-Youcantfixstupid]

Why is the airforce in such a rush to get rid of it?? I agree with you. I think large strategic bombers days are over.

[@jasonvorhees5896]

Another sucker From what I read, so they can hook up their defense contractor buddies, and line their pockets in retirement. Old planes being fixed - not good for the contractors bottom lines.

[@anothersucker-Youcantfixstupid]

Yes well their job should be focused on saving the guys on the ground..

[@harryjones8275]

I live at Nellis AFB area in Las Vegas, Nevada and have All sorts of aircraft fly over my house daily. The A-10 WortHog is one of the most interesting ones in the air and clearly show that they are what the Military needs for support of our ground troops. The noise they make is distinctive and I'm sure that troops on the ground love to hear that sound overhead in times of need. We call it the" Sound of Freedom"!

[@pickle2636]

the "sound of freedom" unfortunatly isnt a good platform its outdated, slow, vulnerable to most anti air, the gun is so inaccurate it gives the plane a high friendly fire rate and the gun cant even penetrate modern MBTs

[@Kimballgoss]

“It no brrrt? It no work.” - Marines probably

[@jonahhollis3867]

As a marine, this statement is true

[@sheldon-cooper]

@@jonahhollis3867 "The crayon eating crazies and the close air support b2"

[@johnsavchak8202]

As a Marine Gruntshit...I concur with this message!

[@bobdrooples]

Fudds and their WW2 tech.

[@robertharper3754]

@@bobdrooples, except it works well, better than others and the replacements are nowhere close to the same capability. The Chairforce has always hated the CAS mission, it should be taken away from them along with the planes, pilots and crew. AS well as the funding.

[@ramairgto72]

McCain just showed the disconnection between Political Brass and reality. Thank you McCain. U S ARMY

[@chawquee]

ramairgto72 am not an american but i know that a10 is more efficient fuel tanks are away from engine titanium protected chasis etc so an endurable plane especially when you fight against guerella who have zero technology you do not need a f35 gadget thats is flying high....with much higher cost of maintenance and operation....corruption is evident here

[@MartinTraXAA]

Except an F-35 would not have to have the armour of the A-10. The whole point of the platform is to AVOID being hit while presenting a big, slow & low target. "Close Air Support" is not about the plane being close to the target area, but the target being close to friendlies. "Eyeballing" it is not reliable or safe even in the A-10 (evident by plenty of Blue-on-blue in its lifetime, but get a target lock and the F-35 can deliver a deadly payload from OTH or far above where the enemy can reach them.

[@MartinTraXAA]

A bigger issue they should focus on is improving the available payload for CAS missions (especially vs. guerilla forces) and on-the-ground directing of fire. Insisting on using the A-10 cuz it looks and sound cool, and can take unnecessary hits from being a low & slow fatso is not really good arguments.

[@ramairgto72]

Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad game player has spoken, so he has to know more then anyone in the video.

[@MartinTraXAA]

Taking out enemies who don't have AA is fine for now, but the A-10 is outdated and as always, military is refusing to let go of their push-of-pike.

[@ScoutCrafter]

Not only are the A-10's outstanding for close air support they have multiple redundant systems protecting some of the best pilots around. I hope they keep those warthogs flying! 😃👍

[@ryanfolkema6464]

Redundant.... not what you think it means. Scout!

[@thePhished]

the 155 people who upvoted this comment doesn't know the definition of redundant either.

[@aidantruax9716]

And the morale boost of that BRRRRRRT. Impossible to top.

[@AflacMan13]

ScoutCrafter Translation: Secretary James is a patsy, General Welsh is getting a kickback from newer aircraft projects and only makes the extra money he craves from wasting tax payer money on failing aircraft projects. The A-10 is in the way of him making money, and his choice of patsy was poor because she is an idiot. McCain is correct... the A10 has yet to be shown to be lacking. It outperforms EVERY other aircraft in C.A.S. roles with a fixed wing aircraft. The only thing that does better is rotary winged aircraft. McCain is right, the General and his pawn are wrong. Now I have to wonder where the "McCain is evil... blah, blah, blah..." campaign the media has been slinging around since the elections has been coming from... I'll bet this asshat started it. ,

[@swingwizard]

Yes, it comes back even with one wing.

[@christopherjames836]

Nothing tells troops in contact "I love you", like close air support.

[@95TurboSol]

How is an F-16 going to loiter around and do tons of strikes? I don't see how it could but maybe I don't know enough, when crap hits the fan I always see an A-10 fly circles and flat obliterate anything it needs to, doing dozens of strikes if necessary as guys on the ground guide their strafes. And a B1 bomber for CAS, HA!

[@3rdGenGuy]

So both the f16 and f15 have provided MORE CAS than the A-10 has in the past 20 years.

[@edwardmyers8782]

I he point is mad by the amount I f cas missions f 16 run in run-out hit s Target then need to get fuel and ammo a 10 runs out stays there and eventually leaves having hammered the shit out of it's targets b 1 in close air support giant multi billion dollar bombers easy targets nope don't see it .

[@3rdGenGuy]

the issue is how vulnerable A-10s are to any semi modern military target. They are perfect for killing Sand people with AKs sure.

[@kutzbill]

All I want to add is the B1 is one of the very few planes that need no ordnance to be deadly. The B1 can fly low, and the sonic shock wave turns humans to jars of jelly. Having said that, taking the place of the A-10? No way. Can new weapons take out the A-10, yes. Can they take out the F-35? The F-22? Perhaps not in the same numbers that they could take out the A-10's, but can an A-10 be equipped with new electronic countermeasures? Yes. Look at how long the A-6 was extended due to add-on electronic warfare. Plus examine the budget for the entire A-10 program over the cost of one F-22. I recall one story of an A-10 pilot telling the soldiers on the ground to dig a hole and use their strobe to ID their location. The pilot flew low and slow enough that he located the soldiers and blew the enemy away. I have been out of the game for a while, but the Air Force Brass has never liked the A-10 because it doesn't look like a fighter. I know the Army told the AF if they was going to discontinue the A-10, the Army would take them and fly them. The AF Brass didn't like this idea at all. Politics have no place on the battlefield, but it has always been there. PS, Does it surprise anyone that a group of baboons is called a "congress"? Smiles!

[@jcunningham4293]

You

[@mikehundredson584]

Ask anyone who has deployed in combat about the A-10 and everyone of them will say keep the A-10 forever.

[@daetslovactmandcarry6999]

Or build a next-gen Warthog... One with even BIGGER teeth...

[@acoow]

ALL weapons eventually become obsolete.the A-10 is not yet obsolete but it is getting there. We don’t wait for it to become obsolete to replace it. The answer is not to keep the A-10 but to replace it with something better; something that will give another 30 years service.

[@tinyhowie]

you need a Gundam to replace A10

[@danamccarthy5514]

Only other US aircraft that can provide close air support at anywhere near the level of the A-10 are the Apache and Cobra, but unfortunately rotor wing will never be able to take the level of punishment that the A-10 can and still fly home.

[@acoow]

@@danamccarthy5514 That is why the A-10 needs to be replaced. It is an aging plane that is not in production and nothing we have can do what it does. We don't hold on to a weapon because we like it. A new craft needs to be designed that can replace it BEFORE it is too late. A LOT of people are commenting on the video out of emotion instead of logic.

[@McCracken_9]

The dude flew A1 and A4s in Nam. Listen to the man, you may learn something.

[@doggosarus7139]

Rukkkis CAS has changed significantly from the 1960’s

[@benjaminpadilla1464]

@crafty litigator LMAO STFU you POS, McCain flew a Skyhawk,no way he could've avoided the SAM with a fully loaded aircraft, and this so easy for you to say bastard, you weren't the one getting tortured for Intel, pathetic civilian.

[@DokterRoetker]

@crafty litigator you are a low life POS who will never achieve anything in life and can only recite fake news from the internet

[@jrsharker23]

@crafty litigator you haven't served. Stfu. Dont EVER insult a servicemember in a place another servicemember will see it. The only people allowed to insult a servicemember is another servicemember, and with respect to the life, service, and memory of the honorable Senator McCain, I will not. Shut the fuck up, civilian.

[@Aphichat.]

In NAM, doesnt have F-15,16,18. That can do 10 times the better role and drone.

[@ShadowTCMES]

I was a paratrooper in the german Armee forces, an while in basic training, two A-10 flew over the forest in wich we were training. Our NGO turned to us and said:“ you hear that boys? That beast is the end for gruntˋs like us. When someting like that shows up, you get your asses under the trees and put your heads down! Got that?“. Since the i can relate to someone like Sen. McCain wo actually knowed what he is talking about, when he explains the perspective of an infantryman.

[@ElainCorrine]

When I was a child. I was fishing a creek that ran into McChord AFB. They had A-10's there training with the Army at Ft Lewis (before they merged the two bases). I had just cast out my line when I thought I heard something behind me. I turned around, and an A-10 damn near skimming the trees, passed right over my head. I didn't hear that planes engines at all until it was visible just over the trees. Being an airplane buff, I was thrilled to see that plane so close. A few minutes later, that same plane flew over me again, except this time in a mind boggling, edge on bank, and the Pilot was looking down and dead at me. I saluted him and he responded with the same, giving that little girl that was me, a thrill that to this day, I remember so fondly. There is no plane like the A-10, and the United States would be fools to decommission it. Upgrade, Modernize and build more of them, yes. Get rid of it? I would hope we are never so foolish.

[@lafeeshmeister]

Exactly how I feel (minus the specific personal anecdote).

[@guanjun1178]

Lovely story.

[@greatbriton8425]

Thank you so much for sharing that story. It means so much more to me that the loveliness of that actual day, for it shows how there are still people that care, and there is still room for them to care. What America is made of, is still standing to this day. That's an awesome feeling. And sadly I can't help feeling that the move to get rid of the A10 stands somewhat against that America.

[@cslpchr]

Nice story. Post it on Reddit. Preferably on r/quityourbullshit What kinda pilot has time to make out a girl saluting him and salute back while he is in low approach?

[@greatbriton8425]

@@cslpchr Your behaviour is unacceptable. You clearly have never flown a plane. Do you even know what its stall speed is? 138mph. Get a grip on your arrogance and stop throwing crap at innocent people.

[@godstomper]

The a 10 is a great air support weapon. To remove it is a travesty .

[@SPBurt1]

It truly is but its role is limited. I love the A-10 but its time has come and gone. It was designed for a by-gone era of low capability IR SAMS and low saturation AAA environments. Great in asymmetric warfare but beyond that the A-10 is a vulnerable platform outclassed by modern weapons. Since Bosnia it has truly been relagated to stand-by CAS role and primarily AFAC and CSAR roles. I like McCain (RIP) but he was wrong in this discussion and out of touch with what planners have been doing with the A-10 in non-asymmetric theaters for decades.

[@tomhare3190]

godstomper - you are absolutely right. What a lot of people don't know is that the Airforce was against taking on the roll of close air support clear back when it was the Army Air Corps. They did tactical work with fighters like the P-47 against railroad trains and targets of opportunity in Europe but they did not want to be coordinated by people on the ground. The Marines in the Pacific used Corsairs effectively in the close air support role using experienced Marine Aviators as their Forward Air Controllers. The system was so effective that they sometimes brought in Hellcats flown by Navy Aviators in the same role.

[@godstomper]

@@tomhare3190 exactly

[@My-Pal-Hal]

@@tomhare3190 Actually. The Corsairs where deemed "Unacceptable" for carrier use because of landing complications. To put it simply. And the F6F's where found to be the robust carrier aircraft of choice. So corsairs became basically land based aircraft. Still. A-10's and 130's. Have a definite use, and capabilities like no other. And the argument of newer ground based deterrents, makes you wonder why 130's Continue to be updated. With a far expected future. While being even More of a vulnerable target than A-10's. And Psychologically... Nothing like a Good BRRRRRRUP 😈

[@tomhare3190]

TANGLDWEB - In 1943 a Marine Corsair unit re installed their tail hooks and used the USS Bunker Hill for refueling during attacks on Rabaul. On Dec. 28 1944, Two VMF Corsair squadrons embarked from Ulithi aboard USS Essex. They did CAS from the Essex at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. They also were used in attacks on the Japanese Mainland but, of course, not in the CAS roll. At least One VMF Squadron was aboard the Bunker Hill at Okinawa. In addition to close air support, these VMF Corsairs all operated off the carriers in defense of the task force against Kamikaze attacks. Finally, Marine Corsairs were used from carriers in attacks in the Phillipines. There were improvements made to the Corsairs to make them better carrier aircraft. Corsairs were used frequently from carriers during the Korean conflict. You might google “Corsair Essex Images”.

[@davidevans3175]

I sat in the woods in Michigan on the edge of the firing range watching several A-10s engage in target practice for 3 or 4 hours. What an incredible aircraft. Absolutely deadly.

[@nancyjanzen5676]

I did the same thing in central Wisconsin.

[@desertranger9065]

Oh snap hey another michigander

[@matthewmarshall7880]

@@desertranger9065 Be thankful that it was not shooting at you, best cure for constipation known to man. After it left the A.O. you could almost track the bad guys by the trails of crap they left behind them.🤣😎

[@benlooy547]

Same

[@cpt.awesome7281]

Hello from aboard Selfridge ANGB. Ordinance coming your way. 👍

[@CanadianAvian]

Mario: Use the B-1 Lancer. Luigi: *If it doesn't brrrrrt, throw it in the dirt!*

[@brahsumatra]

Turn over control of the A-10 program to the Army or Marines units since they're the forces it currently supports

[@63DW89A]

The A10 provides ground support primarily for the Army because the USMC has had its own air wing since the 1920's. All Marine fighter pilots are also carrier qualified Naval Aviators. Plus all Marine Aviators spend time every annual training season with USMC infantry on the ground calling in air support so that the Aviator instinctively understands both ends of air support. If the A10's landing gear could be cost-effectively strengthened and adapted for carrier landings the USMC could fly it. By law, he Army cannot have aircraft other than helicopters, and must depend on the USAF for ground support.

[@brahsumatra]

The A-10 supports whatever forces are on the ground correct but maybe it makes more sense for the Marines to take over since the Army has Apaches.

[@ghost307]

The change the stupid law.It sucks to be in a firefight and be told that your request for air support is denied because all the planes are busy doing AF stuff that could have waited until later.

[@patrickcurtis5002]

Marines dont want it

[@patrickcurtis5002]

Completely true. Look at the weight ...

[@Rickey85]

Removing the A10 warthog is equivalent to removing all medics in a combat zone !

[@americanchauvinist1325]

Rickey85 we would need a lot more body bags than medics if we didn't have the A-10 to clear things out.

[@Adierit]

f-18's f-16's and f-15's have a limited number of munitions

[@dmac80]

I love how Senator McCain calls out the ridiculous B1 being a replacement for CAS and the general suddenly starts throwing around stats for F16 sorties. Nice try buddy.

[@stovepipe9er]

That dick doesn’t care if it costs infantry lives. Pos

[@MrMalve25]

@@stovepipe9er no the point people are trying to get through here is that it doesn't cost infantry live. They are saying we can AND do successfully complete the same mission the A10 currently fulfills using other assets that are already available including the F16, F15 and B1. In turn we can then redirect the money used to maintain and upgrade a fleet outdated aircraft that can be logistically more difficult and possibly costly to maintain. Everyone is laser focused the B1 comment but that was just the 3 assets mentioned by the secretary and general and does not take into account the other were not mentioned. Just because the guys on the ground THINK it is the only or best option, does not mean it is.

[@stovepipe9er]

Mark Dewees It’s a better aircraft for the job it does, and they’re trying to justify getting rid of it to save money over having the best tool for the job. And the guys on the ground are who have the first hand experience with it and have to deal with the consequences of these decisions.

[@MrMalve25]

@@stovepipe9er firstly I would dispute it is even the tool for the job anymore. The AC130J and F35 are much more advanced and designed for CAS (in the case of the F35 it was designed for both Air Superiority and Strike missions primarily CAS) and the F22, F16, and F15 are highly capable. However even if we granted it was the best possible aircraft, that does not mean it is the most efficient use of resources. If you can complete the same mission using the other assets that are already in the inventory anyway then spending the money to upgrade and maintain an aging airframe is not the most efficient use of your resources. And I will say again that the soldiers on the ground are not the experts as they have a very narrow perspective. The ones who would know best are the ones plan and execute the actual missions or the people who review and analyze the results and data from the said missions including the reports of those on the ground. And those people are the strategists and planners from all the major services. Now I am not saying i know personally all the facts and details, but I trust that the those who are pursuing these aims do, and quite frankly trust them more than people on the internet who all seem to think they are military planners and strategists. Honestly even McCain i would trust more if he provided additional reasoning for his position other than "well the guys on the ground think it is the best". But just like how everyone keeps claiming that the AF leadership has anterior motives, memeber of congress can certainly have them as well. I am not saying that is the case here but certainly is not impossible. Ultimately you have to multiple things into account when making these kinds of decisions and just because some is the best at particular role does not mean it is the most efficient or best option for the service as a whole.

[@MrMalve25]

@@stovepipe9er also the guys on the ground are not the only ones who have to deal with the consequences. Pilots also have to deal with those consequences and while the A10 certainly has formidable defenses, in today's combat theaters it is more vulnerable to enemy actions than any of the other aircraft which fly higher and faster than the A10

[@caldoyle1572]

"Well, you see, Senator McCain, we have to reduce our budget in all areas, so we decided to replace the A-10 with full armament hot air balloons. But the problem we kept running into was, well, who the hell knows which way the wind will be blowing. So we decided on the B-1 instead. It doesn't matter which way the wind is blowing because they are at 80,000 feet. We figure we can replace a 50 million dollar A-10 with a billion dollar B-1 and save money."

[@sheldon-cooper]

Intelligence *100*

[@69696969696969666]

We have the B1. Why not use it? The A10 only works against insurgents without any AA whatsoever. Flying an A10 into a modern battlefield would be like sticking your hand into a blender.

[@jamesbumgardner1469]

@@69696969696969666 you don't know much about the A-10 ehh? You quite literally described its mission statement from it's very conception. It is the only Airframe in the US Air Force to hold two incredible design distinctions. First, it was designed around the weapon system, when the opposite is the design standard. Second, and most importantly, it was designed to be shot and still remain functional with minimal down time for restoration and repair procedures after being shot. No air frame in the US Air Force can withstand the punishment the A-10 was designed from the ground up to take. Every other platform requires either complete air superiority to operate, or is ill suited to providing CAS due to limited loiter time / munition capacity.

[@mpr746]

@@69696969696969666 It is tough to even begin to try and explain how stupid that question is. To be clear, I'm in no way saying you are stupid, just that you're clearly not educated on the subject

[@onefastslimjim]

@@69696969696969666 "Why are we taking the F150 to get soil from Lowes, we have an Aventador! Why not use it?"

[@1houroflove186]

And the A-10 remains flying today so there!

[@MikeinAustin]

A 4 star general responds and McCain says “Don’t insult my intelligence”.

[@TheMock5000]

Tbh, most generals have their heads up their asses.

[@DimensionFluke]

Their generals because they study hard and higher I. Q and get cought up by politics and other threats. If you have that wealth and someone is threatening you mostlikely in bed youd turn suck up too.

[@ethansmith7]

@Advanced Solutions I think you mean serving a specified length of time essentially

[@shywarrior865]

@Advanced Solutions McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1958 and received a commission in the United States Navy. He became a naval aviator and flew ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers. During the Vietnam War, McCain almost died in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. While on a bombing mission during Operation Rolling Thunder over Hanoi in October 1967, he was shot down, seriously injured, and captured by the North Vietnamese. McCain was a prisoner of war until 1973. He experienced episodes of torture and refused an out-of-sequence early release. During the war, McCain sustained wounds that left him with lifelong physical disabilities. He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981 and moved to Arizona, where he entered politics.

[@jeaniewolfe6693]

@@shywarrior865 They don't make em like that anymore! 👍

[@thomasjefferson1457]

McCain was very correct. As a pilot he was well aware of the capabilities of the A10. The finest close air support aircraft of this day. You simply cannot replace it with anything we have.

[@danhersey5619]

James H absolutely. no need to mess with perfection.

[@NikovK]

We said that of the P-51 and B-29. Korea taught otherwise.

[@nehorlavazapalka]

having a battery of GMLRs behind your as is the finest close air support, bar none. It's there within 1-2 minutes from the call and it's always ready. It only cost a lot. The second would be the Excalibur round(s) :D no aircraft can beat that, except maybe some Predator with Hellfire missiles that is always with you. Time matters. A10 is awesome, I'd keep it on that basis alone. You need something to scare your enemies.

[@pigurine]

Destroyed 2 aircraft. Shot down on his first. Combat mission. Allegedly, started a fire on the USS Forrestal. Killed hundreds of sailors. Divorced his MS wife married daughter of a Wealthy mob boss. His vote doomed anti Obama care. Yeah I would believe him.

[@motorbikemadness5773]

Well he may have been correct, but he is still a war mongering POS.

[@StandTallTx]

I'm not a conservative, but an absolutely huge fan of McCain. He was definitely the last of his generation of sane politicians.

[@robertharper3754]

I'm a realist with conservative tendencies, and wasn't a huge fan of his overall, BUT, on this he was dead on right! A problem we have is that that generation is still in office, they don't understand cybersecurity, the internet, ect, while some of them have good moments, hell, some have great moments, overall we sadly have the government we deserve, since we keep voting for people who only seem to care about getting re-elected. McCain had some good moments, some bad, and overall he wasn't too bad, but there are too many on both sides, (which is sad that we have 2 sides, there are way more viewpoints than that, but both parties HATE competition), that just don't live in reality anymore.

[@ShomiTheGreat]

Are you bloody insane? He is one of the main perpetrators who are to blame for the bloodshed in Syria. He formed and armed the ISIS his own later "fought". The way ISIS acted with a total of assaults on the Israeli border and countless atrocities against Iranian-backed opposition, it is obvious he was probably planning to live another 100 years off those shekels. God of good obviously exists for putting that filthy dog out of its misery and stopping his madness. The day he died was celebrated globally by basically everyone - Christians, Muslims, atheists, Europeans, Americans, Asians, liberals, conservatives ---- EVERYONE.

[@clicheguevara5282]

If John McCain was a "sane politician", then AOC is a moderate centrist. Lmao

[@kenton6098]

I don't think putting Sarah Palin in a position in which she might become president is very sane.

[@jmoore8761]

She is a prime example When people talk about things they know nothing about.

[@wmonroe21]

But she has a vagina! And it was her turn to play Secretary of the Air Force, regardless of lack of qualification.

[@Studio23Media]

She knows exactly what she's talking about. McCain is the one that doesn't. Go look up the numbers for B-1 vs A-10 CAS missions in Afghanistan.

[@wmonroe21]

@@Studio23Media She knows exactly what The Industrial Complex is feeding her in order to cancel programs that would free and secure additional funding for newer and more expensive toys. Don’t be naive! McCain didn’t dance to that tune and neither drank their Kool-Aid. Good job John!!

[@levitated-pit]

brit here! i remember being on exercise in the middle of germany ..in the 80s ..stepped into a forest clearing to have a sly smoke... 2 a10s saw me from god knows how many miles away and chose to use me as a target of oppertunity! jinking up/down/left/right it was an awsome (we brits use that word correctly) sight, and a pair of impossible targets to counter! LOVE THE A10 .... i would of been turned into paste!

[@daniellloyd2293]

Awesome ,like a hot dog?🤣

[@jamesmcelhaney5084]

Most brits I know are a bit more erudite. I believe what you were intending to say was " awe inspiring" which is a correct use of the term. The kicker is that you "would HAVE been turned to paste". Not "would of"

[@levitated-pit]

@@jamesmcelhaney5084 id had a whisky or 3 ! its always nice to be told how to phrase ones own language by an internet grammer nazi! lol

[@JonMichael001]

Why not use the space shuttle for CAS? It's absurd that there is talk about replacing the A-10 with a B1. What happened to common sense?

[@Bruce-qb3vu]

JonMichael001 Its called laser guided munitions, if you aren't familiar with that term play Medal of Honor 2010, their sort sort of like that.

[@TheAngrySaxon1]

Oh dear Bruce, you really don't know a lot about CAS do you? Laser guided munitions are but one weapon for ground attack, but they are very specific, and also very expensive. That's like using an artillery shell to take out a gun wielding maniac at your local corner shop! Sure, it'll work well enough, but surely there were better options?

[@Bruce-qb3vu]

Zenith Yes, ground based support like machine guns, mortars and artillery or apaches and super cobras.

[@TheAngrySaxon1]

Okay, so let's scrap all fixed wing CAS and multi-role aircraft then, and see how our foot sloggers get on. I mean, we obviously don't need them, according to you.

[@Bruce-qb3vu]

Zenith Why would we get rid of the multi roles? They're the ones that do the majority of CAS. Against Russia they'd be very important. If we're talking about the A 10 it's not worth keeping in service forever.

[@vishnum6473]

This guy just nailed it 🙌

[@samesaw]

McCain was 100% correct about the A10 close support aircraft.

[@jimmyhaley727]

damn it,,, I hate to agree with any thing ole Commi Cain has to say,,,, but he is/was right on this one,,, ole USN vet

[@scottyweimuller6152]

@@jimmyhaley727 Still a butthurt little #TRUMPTARD I see? What has trump ever done for this country other than poison it with greed and lies. Hes a draft dodging pussy just like his grandfather and father. Stop defending that idiot.

[@jimmyhaley727]

@@AlbertZiegler069 ,,, this ole USNvet votes RED,,, and i love the A10,,,, and i doubt you ever had to eat SeaRats,,,, or did any love for the USA,,, oh,,, God Bless Texas (no more emails as i dont like to lower myself to your level) hehehehehehehh

[@dmac80]

This is what happens when civilians and liberals make decisions for the fighters in the trenches. Idiotic decisions being made to pussify the military even more

[@Tarheel13]

Scotty Weißmüller Clinton the draft dodger?

[@pressendforspanish]

There is no aircraft in existence that is as good as A-10 at close air support.

[@steveng.willis618]

That's right! Age and lack of sophistication cannot change the fact of how well suited this plane is for cas. It's just that good.

[@xX_Skraith_Xx]

It's simply because everything else was designed to do _____, and CAS. Or even CAS, and _____. Until an aircraft is designed completely in mind of close, personal, safe, and deadly CAS and not "oh, and we're also worried about _______," the A-10 will remain the premium of CAS aircraft in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. F-35, while designed primarily on ground support, is designed to do so from a distance, thus its key stealth. While this will surely be effective, it will not have the same effect the A-10 has.

[@vyvyanbasterd7267]

The C-130 is except they're so damn slow.

[@pressendforspanish]

Vyvyan Basterd Not even close.

[@vyvyanbasterd7267]

You obviously don't know what a C-130 is.

[@maikutsukino4743]

Those in the Air Force know the F-16 is rather fragile. The Falcon's motto (whispered under breath of course) is: "One pass, haul a**.". It's ability to loiter is no where near that of the A-10. And they have been using B-1's for CAS? My God, if I was FAC and heard a B-1 pilot say "Pop smoke on target.", my first reaction would be "What, you're kidding right?" and then seeing a B-1 trying to park it's ordinance on the flare would have me ordering all friendlies within a 1/2 mile of the flare to run like hell. I like how the Air Force General tried to make her look good, but as the Senator said: don't insult my intelligence. The A-10 will remain our #1 CAS until it's upgraded variant/replacement (finally) gets off the drawing board and into the sky.

[@Heretic123456]

ever heard of guided bombs? apparently not.

[@maikutsukino4743]

Actually, yes I have. But not on a B-1. They carry standard ordinance and also Cruise Missiles. Never heard of one loaded with LGB's. Last I knew they are not equipped to use those. I'm guessing you're not in the military.

[@SquaredCircle365]

The B-1 doesn't carry guided bombs? Guess all those GBU's I loaded down range were imaginary

[@maikutsukino4743]

I gave you the first thumbs up. Why? Because you made me recheck my facts. My response back to "Heretic123456" I said "Last I knew". Last time I had to be current on military vehicles and aircraft was 1991. My life changed after that and I kinda lost interest. Back then we declined CAS from B-1s if in area because they didn't have precision munitions. They were good, don't get me wrong, but if it wasn't THAT serious we would rather have the A-10, F/A-18, F-15 and F-16 do it. The sound of the A-10 firing still makes me smile. Troubles seem to disappear with that sound. I have now learned that B-1B CAN BE LOADED WITH PRECISION MUNITIONS. My dated information was wrong. It made me question because I know the military isn't stupid. They wouldn't use it for that role if it wasn't equipped to do it. Good to see it with this ability because it really is a good aircraft. Now if we can get it to do CAP..... ^u^. Thank you again for the correction! I was wrong.

[@AIRDAM1]

JDAM

[@EXPLOBRO3]

General: You cut our budget. We literally cannot afford to keep the A10 in service. McCain: The A10 is better than the B1. Just keep making it anyway.

[@TheCamoruneGaming]

General: You cut our budget. We literally cannot afford to keep the A10 in service. Also the airforce: spending over $100 million a pop for some F-15s that will be outclassed by any actual stealth fighter. The airforce has plenty of money. Way, way more than enough. They love to waste it though. They also love to throw out aircraft that aren't brand new and expensive. Why? Because it doesn't make their contractors any money to make affordable, and reliable aircraft such as the A-10.

[@DASDmiser]

I suspect the A-10 will still be in service when you'll have to go to an air museum to see a B-1.

[@steveng.willis618]

Soldiers on the ground want the A-10!

[@cslpchr]

They also want different crayons to chew on.

[@Aphichat.]

But soldier get. Everything else, that do the same job and faster and better. Nah. Soldier want A-10. NOW.

[@BeardMan01]

Why would they even consider such a thing? The A-10 is like a flying tank with big cannons, what else could you ask for?

[@BeardMan01]

I know what it is. How it performs in battle is similar to a flying tank. It can get up close and personal, take big hits and lay down some serious artillery......all with the mobility of an airplane. Flying tank.

[@KB4QAA]

It may be today, But not 20 or 30 years from now. Further, the A-10 is not stealthy, it isn't networked, it's not fast enough and doesn't have enough range for future theatres. Stop thinking "today" and think "Three decades from now".

[@KB4QAA]

***** In one lifetime I flew patrol planes, dropped bombs, fired missiles, mines, torpedos'. Feelings and personal experience are not important. in this discussion. CAS aircraft is a technical discussion. Iron bombs are no longer significant on the battlefield. Guided munitions with stand off capability are now the standard and multi-role aircraft can accomplish the same mission. It is not necessary to have an a replacement with the exact same capabilities of the A-10. Again, the USMC and Navy have never had the A-10 and still get the job done.

[@KB4QAA]

***** You ever dropped a bomb or fired a missile? No? Then you aren't qualified to talk about aircraft. LOL. Chill out guy. If you wan't to save the A-10 write your Congressman to increase USAF funding or transfer them to the Army (better idea, IMO).

[@KB4QAA]

***** I didn't swear at you or use vulgarity. Piss off pal.

[@dshodaw]

Also, if I were an American, I'd happily pay my share of taxes to keep the A10 updated and available for the troops! Our Dutch defense budget is a complete joke in comparison, but even so the US should spend more, not less then it does. Finally, defense budgets should be stable instead of fluctuating. Few things are as damaging as having to scrap ongoing projects, laying off people only to have to rehire and recruit when the budget increases again.

[@joevignolor4u949]

Some people still haven't gotten it from back during Vietnam. Airplanes that go really fast can't do close air support as well as airplanes that go slower and can turn faster. Plus you need an airplane that can take anti-aircraft hits from the ground and still fly.

[@mistert9144]

I'll take an Apache over an A10 for anything smaller than a tank.

[@KB4QAA]

And some people can't stop thinking about the Middle East today. Think about the Far East 20 years from now in a major air battle over long distances. The A-10 isn't up to the task.

[@joevignolor4u949]

I'm not saying that the A-10 isn't outdated or that it should still be around in 20 years. But if you are going to replace it with something that needs to fly at high speeds over a battlefield in order to survive you are going to have the same problems that they had with the F-4's and F-105's back during Vietnam.

[@KB4QAA]

Joe Vignolo "Problems" is the flip side of the F-100, F-4, A-4 served satisfactorily in CAS roles. The Navy and USMC perform the job with F-18's, AV-8B, without the A-10. Multi-mission is the requirement in our current era.

[@xfirehurican]

mister t not exactly. SUPPRESSIVE 30MM and the fact that the A-10 can out-jink and climb out of groundfire better than the Apache.

[@NimdaChayse]

Breaking News: Wings have been attached to the M1 Abrams, now deemed “super tank”, to replace A-10

[@notthesamecc1927]

The Pentagon Wars movie demonstrates how this could actually happen in reality if the wrong person reads your comment. :)

[@grimgrinners]

@@notthesamecc1927 just what I was thinking

[@SerangelROM]

No lie, ive always wonder why they havent put an auto loading howitzer on a fighter since the shells can be gps guided.

[@knightlife98]

Time on target, is what matters!!!!! There is no warplane that can do what the A-10 can do, and more importantly, make the men on the ground love it, and sometimes depend on it!!!!

[@StrokerAce3983]

scott crabtree You are 100% correct. It blows my mind that the Air Force brass want to get rid of the A-10 so badly. The Air Force is doing to get more funding for the way over budget F-35. There's nothing in our inventory of military aircraft present or future. That can even come close to what the A-10 can do in combat. It all comes down to the all mighty $$$. And im sure USAF Gen. Mark Welsh has special interest in the F35. He cares more about the money and his greed and doesn't give 2 shits about the soldiers. On the ground that count on the A10 for help when they are getting shot at and dying. Im my opinion Gen. Mark Welsh has betrayed his country and the oath of office that he sworn to up hold.

[@knightlife98]

Stroker Ace It was especially hilarious, when they actually said, "the B-1B was a viable option to ground support......". They should have just made different versions of the F-22, and developed a new and improved, A-10. >.

[@bearsmith3655]

Totally agree. Well said.

[@henrihallik1747]

I have flown A-10 for thousands of hours in video games and a approve this message. @scott

[@knightlife98]

Henri Hallik Lol...!!!! /salute

[@sir_bumblethump2207]

"...the B-1 bomber is now going to be used as close air support?" I lost it LMAO

[@thehistoricalgamer]

The B-1 has actually been used for CAS in Afghanistan, precision guided munitions, with spotters on the ground, don't always need to make a low pass. Sure a A-10 is probably better (as long as the enemy doesn't have AAA or MANPADs but its not as crazy as McCain makes it out to be because again it has been done on many occasions.

[@0MoTheG]

@@thehistoricalgamer True, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

[@KoruGo]

@@thehistoricalgamer McCain just doesn't know what he's talking about, he thinks close-air support means the aircraft is 'close to the ground' which is stupid. He's then extremely rude about being blatantly wrong, when he spent his military career being locked up and being a terrible pilot. One of the least effective war criminals in history.

[@brad71797575]

An 4 star general states that a B-1 is capable of "close" air support. He must have some left over coke from Iran-Contra in his locker and I'm not a fan of McCain

[@johnroscoe2406]

He's not wrong, per se, he's just playing a little fast and loose with his own definition of "close" air support.... (the 4 star)

[@demanischaffer]

@@johnroscoe2406 Close air support has nothing to do with how close the plane is to friendlys, so a B-1 dropping a JDAM at thirty thousand feet is just as much CAS as an A-10 brushing the treetops firing 30mm

[@johnroscoe2406]

@@demanischaffer Jesus Christ yes I know thank you... I'm very impressed with you no really.

[@g__wizz]

they actually attempted a gun ship version of the b1b to justify its cost and lineage lol. that really is the great irony here, the air force trying to prop up a supersonic bomber over a close air support vehicle which really has no peer and using cost as an excuse. def coked out to be that confident saying that level of bullshit. like how the fuck did that shit head get those stars?

[@brad71797575]

Ok. Since I am not specifically an Air Force tactician. And obviously most on this string also are not, can someone with experience in this field at the command level explain the practicality of B-52, B-17, B-1 and all others used as militarily defined "close air support"

[@chadkincham]

If I was soldier in need of CAS, I would absolutely want an A10 or a AC-130 up in the air doing that job.

[@christopherjohnchapman]

I was going to type that but you beat me to it.

[@jfangm]

Nah, the SR-71 is too old They'll try to use the SR-72. And the AC-130 is only useful when we have air dominance.

[@jordansmith3721]

U2 READY FOR CAS. FLY BY SHOWN COMMENCING ATTACK RUN BY LANDING GEAR.

[@saintann5684]

SR-71 will be like ordering a pizza, you'll get it in 30 minutes or less because it takes it that long to circle around

[@jordansmith3721]

U2 STILL ON STANDBY, OVER.

[@sniper60605]

I’m glad that at Least Senator McCain has some common sense.

[@gamjammer]

As a Veteran of the 24th ID, there was no better sound than an A-10 overhead.....the only thing close for us would have been a Blackhawk or Cobra helicopter.

[@icytadbull]

Wasn't the A10 designed solely to be the best at CAS? It's a flying 30mm cannon

[@MrSnowman777]

Tropical Magic yes you are right

[@jimmay1988]

It is a 30mm cannon with wings. They may be ineffective against modern tanks, but haji pig-skin is unarmored. Plus, Apaches cant hold the afgan density altitude as well as an A-10.

[@chrissmilich3530]

Hell yeah...it's a flying tank. It can't be replaced with anything unless its a better version of what already exists. F-35's can do most of the same things but it's not reliable yet..or bulletproof

[@gdrriley420]

yep depleted uranium works magic on tank.

[@christophegroulx8187]

GDR Riley Wrong. The 30mm is nowhere close enough to penetrate a tank

[@troy9er]

Can those planes take the abuse the A-10 can and fly another day?? I don't think so!!! Hell the A-10 has better than triple redundant hydraulic systems and cables as a final back up!!! Dam fine plane and I'll bet it costs a fraction of what the others cost us taxpayers!!!

[@grren1782]

Redundancy is the A10s biggest strength, and the titanium bathtub

[@ohlawd3699]

Nope. They can't. : )

[@DonMeaker]

The B-1B is more redundant than the A-10. For example, if the A-10 has two engines out, it is going down. If the B-1B has two engines out, it is flying home.

[@grren1782]

DonMeaker B-1B has two engine housings, same as the A10. Also with the amount of thrust needed to fly such a low lift aircraft it would die if it lost one engine. And you can't lose just one engine either. And it's not actuated its fly-by-wire which is extremely bad

[@ohlawd3699]

Morte Sumus Agreed. It's like flying a brick, LOL.

[@DJSlipstream1]

Sounds like someone turned up to do a presentation and didn't do their homework...

[@vegas44gp]

looks like a "Mary Kay" salesw..person

[@tenminutetokyo2643]

Russsz Most congresspeople make $175K a year for doing zip. Time to lay them all off and outsource their jobs since they are overpaid.

[@MC-nb6jx]

Russsz .... So did that “General” 🤔😉

[@mis8866]

This is why women shouldn't have any say in the theater of war.

[@MC-nb6jx]

@@mis8866 ... Thats the problem with "filling quotas" rather than the best "person" for the job😨😨

[@joshuamaxwell8376]

I came back from a major European operation last year it was a joint NATO operation and in training guess what aircraft was used when calling in CAS? The A-10.