A-10 Warthog Retirement - A-10 Pilot Reacts

[@harveywallbanger3123]

Best part is that not only did the Air Force brass loudly insist that the A-10 was useless, when the Army said "Okay, give us the planes and we'll use them", they then protested that the Army was trying to steal their missions and procurement dollars....

[@ypw510]

The Air Force has been pretty upfront that they would prefer that they could use the funding for the A-10 on other platforms. And the last thing they want is for Air Force funding to be redistributed towards another service. That's not really all that unusual.

[@Trve_Kvlt]

@@ypw510 And adding onto that, there are 100 or slightly more active A-10 pilots at any given time. I would imagine that if A-10s were moved to the Army, big Air Force wouldn't wanna lose experience pilots, if that's even a worry at all. Just my thought.

[@ypw510]

@@Trve_Kvlt Sure. I understand that their plan is to probably just transition any A-10 pilots to the F-16 and F-35.

[@BenHarding-s2w]

Just go back pre 1949. The Army Air Corp.

[@Ecrocken]

The only bad thing I see from the Army taking over the marvelous machines is the loss of some interservice cooperation. I can't think of another weapon system that unites two services as the Warthog has. The Air Force pilots and the Army grunts have formed a unique relationship that I would hate to see disappear. Otherwise, heck yeah, let the Army take them over.

[@Savage_Viking]

Personally love the aircraft. I've worked with AH-64's, AC-130 Gunships raining down scunion, B-1B flying low at 100 ft in support, F-16's, and of course A-10's. Each has their strengths. A-10 is still a relevant platform in a permissive environment. It can turn on a dime and carry a lot of ordinance. It's not 5 mins out, it's immediate when it gets on station. Lot's of praise from us grunts in the Army and Marines.

[@blackjackshellacque1857]

I love the A-10 too. Supposedly, the A-10 is not survivable in today's battlefield. Is that so? Obviously, it isn't stealth, but the A-10s would only be used after air superiority is gained. Also, we'd target SAMs with different aircraft anyways. I'm just not sure...

[@rauldiaz5315]

As an Army guy I had the A-10 save me a few times. IT is loved by us ground guys. I always thank A-10 pilots for what they do at all the airshows i get to see them.

[@00calvinlee00]

Mover, Gonky, greetings! I just got back from Tucson visiting my Mom for her 78th BD. She is an Air Force Vet and was delighted that this week, everyday at least a two ship of Hogs flew over her house. She was amused that two T-38s fired out of Davis Monthan. She was station at Randolph when they were brand new. She was impressed the T-38s are still around but we discussed the pending demise of the Hog. We had friends from the 103rd FS and 111th FW from our hometown Guard Unit until BRAC 2011. Gonky is correct! When a platform goes away, most of that experience and mission understanding goes with it. The loss of the A-6 for the USN/USMC and for the USMC E/A-6B and soon the F/A-18Delta meant those communities with hard fought, real world experience went away as well. The pool does not come back over night. The F-35 has some awesome capabilities but having many A-4,F/A-18 and A-10 buddies that lived and breathed Close Air Support, FastFAC(A) and RESCAP, the lost of the highly experienced Hog Pilots, Maintainers and Ops folks is a big concern. It was great seeing guys from the 103rd teaching F-14 guys CAS and FASTFAC(A). Ofcourse everyone supporting/flying the Hog will not transition to F-35s or other platforms. It is a huge disappointment that the F-15EX, will not be used as an updated Strike Eagle with a WSO. Hog drivers flying Mud Hens would be awesome in CAS, FASTFAC(A) and others. The USMC does train to do TRAP with all of their assets. I'm sure the F-35 with the targeting and data share can do what the Hornets and Harriers as far as CAS. The Marines have CAS as their bread and butter and the F-35 has to be used as such.And use the AC-130 loss occurred at Al Kafji supporting the Marines.

[@ypw510]

I remember having a KZbin comment discussion with Shanghai about what the A-10 is good for and where it can't be used. And yeah - he's a good guy willing to have an honest discussion. He was very upfront that the A-10 would probably be dead meat against a near peer adversary, and that it wasn't a good idea to send them in without controlling the airspace. However, it was his assertion that it's a very good, inexpensive asset to have when there's little worry about air defenses.

[@moonasha]

I feel like a broken record here, but you can SEAD all you want, but that won't make the humble MANPAD go away. And unlike a helo which can truly hug the terrain to be safer against that threat, the A-10, at least on gun runs, is in a horribly vulnerable position

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

@@moonasha They would have to install something like Trophy or Iron fist and I think V280 Valor might have SEAD covered with 4.2 tons of capacity to play with for weapons.

[@Marteeen261]

Queue the military announcing their plan for a newer 6th gen airframe to replace the A10 that can do CAS as well as stealth, loiter, hold munitions like an F15, ISR, tanker, hover, and will be delivered on time and under budget! Atleast they’re making the Air Tractor into something useful for the SOCOM CAS/ ISR mission… I agree with Mover at the end there, stop this “generalist” Swiss Army knife mentality and just have super specialized roles you can call upon when you need THAT specific job done.

[@johngregory4801]

That manner of specialization is the only way to get a competent airframe for the mission.

[@corvanphoenix]

That air tractor doesn't have an ejection seat, so it'll take pretty big balls to fly it near most hot zones.

[@hommusC1]

@@corvanphoenixhas an armoured canopy

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

​@@johngregory4801 And yet, the "competent" specialized aircraft lost to the multirole.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

​@@corvanphoenix can't fly A-10s near hot zones either

[@brianrmc1963]

I real think CAS is going to evolve into something different than we are not used to: drones controlling stand-off or palletized munitions.

[@Fng_1975]

Yeah, in 25 years, not today. As someone who has planned for and used CAS (USA/13F w/JFO/JFC/WTI qualifications & schools) I wouldn’t trust a drone operator to do CAS and these so called replacements for the A-10 are not designed to do the CAS mission, nor or they proficient as the A-10 pilots are. Lastly, the USAF hates the CAS mission and they refuse to give it to the Army because it’s all about money. The USAF has been trying to cancel the A-10 since its conception and it’s still relevant today. Unfortunately for the grunts, the USAF hates it.

[@R.E.factor]

@@Fng_1975not in 25 years, last year. You should see the stuff that is already being made by countries like Turkey. A UAS that has several 80mm mortars in a rotating cartridge similar to a revolver. This tech is growing faster than you can imagine and the most deadly stuff isn’t reported on much because there’s no cool FPV videos being uploaded to KZbin. I’ve tried to defend the A-10 to AF TACP’s and they tell me they don’t want the A-10 either. It’s too much of a liability in terms of fratricide. They would rather stack several MQ-9’s behind one another to deliver ordnance than take chances with an A-10.

[@brianrmc1963]

@@Fng_1975 As a former USMC F/A-18 pilot, I don’t see any CAS in the Pacific theater as being conducted, if at all, as it was in the past.

[@Fng_1975]

@@R.E.factor Funny, I have never ran into any TACPs or JTACs who have combat experience ever said that. Also, fratricide? What, is this a 90s TACP? After the invasion of Iraq (2003), the USAF pulled their heads out of their butts and took the A-10 CAS mission training seriously. Blue on blue dropped over night. A Reaper doesn’t make you any safer than a fast mover from Blue on Blue possibilities and it has a limited payload. For example, in one battle in Afghanistan, we had 2 A-10s, 2 F-15Es, 2 B-1s and our only reaper go Winchester, after which we had to use 155 w/RAP which is not very accurate. Drones alone will not save the day, and the integration of these platforms into the CAS mission takes time because it requires a lot of training and development of doctrinal procedures. Doing CAS is not like the movies where some dude picks up a radio and calls a plane and says “bomb there.” Just doesn’t work like that. There are many steps and safety procedures that must be followed to prevent fratricide from taking place, even when using Link-16. I would trust an A-10 pilot over any other fastmover pilot. Lastly, Turkey? Really? Who got their butts handed to them by Russia/Syria and ISIS in Syria? Yeah, because they’re the leaders in CAS platforms and tactics. Maybe they should be running our CAS training and development programs. Smh

[@Fng_1975]

@@brianrmc1963 Are you saying that the Corps wasted their money with the F-35, Zulus and Yankees? Because according to the USMC, they are heavily relying on those assets to still fulfill the CAS role with the help of organic assets like suicide drones and ground fire support assets to help independent squads and larger units to complete their missions.

[@fleetwarrior75]

I seem to have heard this story before let me think. Oh yeah, let’s delete all the guns off of our aircraft. It’s a missile age!

[@worldwanderer91]

F-4 Phantoms getting shot down all over Vietnam came to bite the Chair Force in the ass

[@mamarussellthepie3995]

Yeah! Only problem is places the internet is filled with *"experts"* with giant air quotes, who'll throw a wall of statistics at you, saying guns don't work anymore and then won't even consider advocating anything you say or do. All without having an ounce of nuance or object permanence to the circumstances or situation The best part is though, statistics are wrong most of the time 😊 I'd go as far as to say: *(Insert internet nerd saying guns on fighters doesn't work anymore, here)*

[@fjhaq]

That had more to do with shitty ROE because congress thought it was a good idea for the F4 to dogfight the migs

[@griffinfaulkner3514]

​@@worldwanderer91Shitty training, ROE, and not using the best missiles available are more responsible for that mess than a lack of guns. Navy Phantoms never carrier an internal cannon, and they racked up the best kill ratios of the war, because the pilots were actually taught how to get their fighters into a position where their missiles actually worked, and the missiles themselves (particularly their Sidewinder variant) had much better seekers mounted. Is there still a place for a cannon on a fighter? I'd say yes, but it's effectively filling the same role as an infantryman's bayonet at this point, and it's more of a utility item and weapon of last resort than anything else.

[@Akm72]

@@griffinfaulkner3514 Agreed. Back in the 1960s it turned out the missiles of the era were not as good as advertised and the gun was a useful backup. By the 1990s the BVR missiles had finally 'got good' and the short-range missiles were the back-up to them. Guns were the back-up to the back-up. Ask most fighter pilots if they'd like a gun on their fighter and most will say yes. Ask them if they'd like a gun or to spend the same money on some other system (be it a sensor, a datalink, a countermeasure or some other more capable weapon) and it turns out that the gun is really low down the list of priorities.

[@Idahoguy10157]

In 1975 I saw a new A-10 on static display at an airshow

[@Avofan]

The A-10 is the right plane, right time, in the wrong branch. I don’t know why the Army and the Marines didn’t pick it up.

[@connerhodgkins3617]

Apart from the Army generally not operating fixed-wing aircraft, it seems to me that it was a question of doctrine. The Army and Air Force both had to justify to Congress that their new systems, the A-10 and AH-64, were not "duplicative" of each other and that the Air Force maintained the CAS role while the attack helicopter was seen as more of a unit-level weapon system. This was back in the 70's when both platforms were brand new, and maintaining funding for them was crucial. Look into "AirLand Battle" if you're interested. The information I was citing specifically about the A-10 and AH-64 comes from a letter to Melvin Price (congressman on the Armed Services Committee) from the Army and Air Force Chief of Staff. There's some good primary source collections that you can find from the Air Force's history department and a book titled "Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine" in multiple volumes by Robert Futrell if you want to do some further reading on why things went down the way they did. 👍

[@joelellis7035]

Marine aircraft have to be carrier capable.

[@00calvinlee00]

The Marine Corps around the time the Hogs came online had A-4s,A-6s,AV-8,OV-10s in addition to F-4s ,UH-1s and AH-1s for Close Air Support. By 1992, the F/A-18Delta had replaced the A-4,A-6,F-4 and OV-10, upgrades of the UH-1,AH-1,AV-8Bs and F/A-18 gave the Corps all the CAS weaponry it felt it needed. The Hog never was a Naval Aircraft and as such wasn't going gain funds from the Navy and Marine Corps.

[@robertfelger7286]

Hey guys, love your ContentI ,I was an Air Force active duty from 91 to 2011 as a jettroop engine mechanic 17 of those years was on the A10. It’s a shame to see her retire but those engines are worn out at best. Keep up the good work!

[@05140842]

Losing the A-10C would be very detrimental to the CSAR mission and not having the CSAR mission being talked about is dangerous and absurd. Pilots will unfortunately get shot down. This mission is the bread and butter of the Warthog. Plus, as Skid says that once that "skill" and ability is gone it is hard and takes time to get back. I am still going to get my letter out to the 354th fighter squadron (the Bulldogs) based here at Davis Monthan, the base commander and possibly the A-10C demo team and most important the Secretary of the Air Force. There is a good chance it can be revived with a new President upcoming.

[@Mors_Inimicis]

The A10C can certainly still do a valuable job , the main problem is they are wearing out . The A10’s in the boneyard have been picked clean over the years to keep the later Hogs flying.

[@A10_hogdriver]

25 yr A-10 pilot. Two desert wars. The Air Force never liked the A-10 or its mission. It is old but when you look at all past wars you see after a few days the air threat is diminished and more permissive. The age old argument is you can fly anything you want but until a your soldiers occupy the land, you don’t succeed. The primary mission of the A10 is to support the land forces, not make glorious videos.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

That's a lie. The USAF was criticized for buying too many A-10s.

[@doughudgens9275]

There is a steep learning curve on CSAR mission. I talked to A-1 pilots on the Boxer 22 SAR, and they said they had to reinvent the wheel. That was the first high threat mission (just south of the Mu Gia pass in Laos) in years. So with the one year tours, there was no institutional knowledge of how to do that mission. With courage, skill, and some luck they got a survivor out in what turned out to be the largest, successful, USAF SAR. 3 months latter, and about a kilometer away, they did it again (Wolf 06), but without inventing tactics.

[@captainobvious1540]

Thank you for the interesting discussion. A similar story comes to mind: Germany retired its whole Gepard SPAAG fleet to save money after the end of the cold war. 20 Yers later the Gepards get taken out of storage and litteraly from the junk yard, get refurbished and they virtually excell at anti-drone warefare in Ukraine. We now realize that we have made a mistake in retiring it, but all the experience and expertise, all the infrastructure build in four decades has been lost for good and it takes 10x the money and 10x the time to restore this particular capability. We should never have retired it, but instead invested in R&D for a successor model and maintain the core knowledge of this important tool on the battlefield. The A-10 should have long ago received a successor model with the same design philosophy, but as a state of the art platform.

[@Jeff55369]

It's hard to calculate morale into the equation. Both the positive morale it gave to boots on the ground, and the morale hit to the enemy. I agree with these guys that if you get rid of the platform, you wont have anything else that can replace it. Even if those other platforms could go low and slow, they're not survivable in the same way since they're not armored. Also, it shouldn't be forgotten that these planes can take off from farm fields and hold as much ordinance as a b52 on the external pylons.

[@flippinnickelproductions298]

As ground prouder over 32 years ago, I never want them to retire it. They keep the b-52 flying. I know its a matter of money, but ground troops depend on CAS from the Warthog

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The B-52 takes off, flies level, and lands. It's also physically larger so it's easier to keep it service. The A-10 is strained from overuse and is bursting at the seams with upgrades. It can't physically take much more before you're just Ship of Theseusing them and building new ones.

[@99cobra2881]

I see this as a transitional moment similar to the 1960s mentality of the USAF and USN thinking that dogfighting was dead. They were wrong then and it cost airmen and sailors their lives. They are wrong now and it will cost the lives of airmen sailors soldiers and marines.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Except they were taken out in high speed ambush passes, as Red Air doctrine is centered around GCI.

[@Thunder_6278]

These retired A-10's can they be mothballed or sold to individuals. Idea; Mover & Gonky LLC gets a bank loan and start buying A-10's at scrap value.

[@themoverandgonkyshow]

I love it!

[@ypw510]

Unlikely they would be sold. I think even companies like Draken have to take out the ability to deploy weapons. There are lots of them already at the Davis-Monthan boneyard.

[@charleshaggard4341]

I knew an A-10 instructor pilot that was pretty adamant about how it was superior to other planes in the ground support role.

[@ytdlder]

It's like the knowledge lost when the F4G was rotated out, as one of it's drivers said: the F4G guys mostly went to the F-15E and their SEAD school closed down a long time ago and there was no transfer of knowledge to the F-16 guys "dibbling" (his words) in SEAD^^ Loosing the airframe is one thing, but maybe some form A-10 might be built in the future. But loosing the knowledge, now that's gonna hurt the most.

[@johndelta00]

One of my co-workers was stryker infantry in Iraq, in not so many words he told me that he wouldn't have been able to do his job without reliable CAS from A10's, F15's and so on. Losing the A10 will certainly leave a gap between the Apache and the F35.

[@thefrustratedtheologian6238]

When I here “all in one” I remember multicam BDU’s.

[@WarGasm0824]

When it comes to CAS & CSAR the A-10 is like a sore dick you just can’t beat it. They always talk about how the aircraft needs to be flown in a permissive environment Lot of the people that use those words don’t understand what it takes to plan an A-10 sorty to begin with. These people act as if these A-10’s just fly out without any high altitude cap cover or the fact the F-16CJ’s or E/A-18G’s Provide Wild Weasel support To make the mission, they do a permissive one. I like the idea of giving them to AFSOC or some other special operations, oriented, aviation, asset entity. Being somebody that has been on the ground, I tend to worry at times whether that Strike Eagle, Viper, Rhino ect see’s me. It’s still warms my heart to know that they are up there doing what they can to protect us, it just means something different when you have a plane that flies low enough to where you can count the rivets on a swing and see the whites of the pilots eyes, A-10’s have always been those who bring the hate to those Who make our lives difficult. I pray that there is someway they can fight to keep this platform relevant. If not the military needs to do its due diligence in creating the next (DEDICATED) attack platform, We have been focused way too much on JSF, B-21, and NGAD That we are willing to put duct tape, and bubblegum in cracks and separations to keep the old war horse flying. People need to understand that if we are going the extra mile to keep the A-10 relevant then they need to come up with a relevant replacement for the A-10 and it’s got to be something That is dedicated to the work that the A-10 did.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Wild Weasel can't do much about electro-optic, IR, or laser guided SAMs. They rely on enemy radar emissions. So SHORAD has adapted, since they do short range defense, they don't need to broadcast long range radar beams 24/7 to make their presence known.

[@butchshadwell3613]

There is no platform that can do the A-10 mission as well as an A-10. Even something as simple as the fact that the A-10 gun has a built-in down tilt, gives it superior ability.

[@SoloRenegade]

modern weapons have finally matured to the point the A-10 can be replaced.

[@moonasha]

The A-10's gun is completely useless in a modern conflict. To use it it has to fly into MANPAD territory and it won't survive. The only thing it would ever do is launch A2G missiles from 20k feet, which is basically all it did in the Gulf War too. The gun is crap. A giant waste of weight.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@moonasha the gun isn't crap. and when the US fights, we rarely encounter MANPADs. And we have countermeasures against MANPADs. But modern weapons have simply made it unnecessary to use the gun. But the A-10 would have decimated the Russians with the gun in the first week of invading Ukraine.

[@trumanhw]

​@@SoloRenegade It's absolutely shocking to me to hear people claim that "it's not survivable" when that's exactly what it's always been ... TO DATE. The notion that we're only going to fight China from now on is so stupid as to slow the rotation of the earth. We will ALWAYS BE in S--hole countries doing forever wars ... until the Military Industrial Complex ceases to run our war footing by funding think tanks and lobbying congress into whatever shit we start ... further, the idea that the F-35 or F-22 are somehow impervious to MANPADs is also BS. IR has no problem seeing them just about as well as an A10. And those reduction of IR efforts can be done to the A10, also. At the altitudes anything has to fly at to be useful ... it's always going to take small arms fire anyway ... aimed by the Mk1. The difference is, yes, the A10 is durable, but it's robust, also ... and more importantly ... you can't always drop bombs at some of the distances from which A10 can still support TIC. Further ... the F-35 not only has a smaller round (which means less HE even if they make the ammo, which is an IF) ... but it has all of 182 rounds ... on only 1 variant. The other 2 ..? The B and C models ..? Only have any 25mm if they have the POD on them. What we'll do is mothball it ... realize that was stupid bc trying to have pilots who practice CAS for at most 5% of the time do what a dedicated community whose entire TELOS is CAS do will then say, okay, we'll let's make a WHOLE NEW platform. Which'll take way longer than those troops in contact can endure ... only to eventually see that all we needed to do was pull the very aircraft we "divested to invest" back out of mothball ... $50-Billion and a few thousand KIA troops later.

[@Mors_Inimicis]

@@moonashaCurious to know your professional military background, hours flying jets that sort of thing . Just want to see what backs up the gigantic load of verbal diarrhoea that you just spewed from your oxygen thief of a self 😂

[@xyzaero]

In reality the A-10 was never even close to being the most important CAS platform. That was the F-15 and B-1 since 9/11

[@Acula33RC]

I feel like a stealth type replacement has been in development for years. We just haven't seen or heard about it.

[@stupidburp]

Turn a lot of them into ISR drones. They are rugged enough to take some hits while getting intel from close up to the threats. Conversion would likely be a lot cheaper than a new reaper and would be well suited to low level scout and strike.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The airframes are old. A newly built drone will be more capable.

[@stupidburp]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Certainly. But repurposing surplus is an efficient use of resources, as long as it provides good utility value for the investment. A modification is going to be a lot cheaper than new drones. I think that the current situation justifies doing both. Buy the new drones and modify older aircraft into drones. There is work enough to go around.

[@alandaters8547]

If the services would work together (ha, ha), the A-6F Intruder II could have been setup for USAF CAS and a Navy attack role.. Add some armor and 2 pods with 20mm guns and there still is capacity left over for lots of ordnance (example- MANY AGM-179s). Turbofans give great duration with speed, visibility, and maneuverability in between the A-10 and the F-35. The CSAR role might also work for all the same reasons + having 2 sets of eyeballs and more communication ability.

[@torreypine]

The limitation of Fat Amy and Vioers in that role is not tactics or loadout (though those are excellent points), it’s fuel. When the F-35 program started the AF claimed it would take the A-10 role to get budget for the program. But the F-36 program office kept avoiding doing their fuel studies. Or, rather, they had done them and didn’t like the answer. To replace the A-10 with the F-35 one needs a large number of new tankers. Which completely obviates the budget savings of the F-35 taking the A-10 budget. F-35s won’t be on station when needed because they won’t have the gas to be there.

[@Bob-sk6xq]

It’s all about the industry making money. It means new planes can be built.

[@The06mystic]

I appreciate all you guys in-site and real world knowledge of the situation. Couldn't agree more, wish some people in DC and the Pentagon would listen to you guys who actually fly the missions. Look at history, the Luftwaffe made many mistakes trying to use aircraft for the wrong role. (fortunately for us)

[@SPak-rt2gb]

There was talk of converting it to fight forest fires but I guess they changed their minds

[@jlam3927]

2 GigaChads and an A-10 pilot. See that's what the A-10 is all about.

[@sundragon7703]

If anything, there should be a successor to the A-10 that has all the "bells & whistles" of Saab JAS 39 Gripen E in an A-10-like platform.

[@mtevilone]

This mistake, reminds me of reading about our on and off again sniper training. They would develop some amazing snipers during war time, and then cancel it during peace. Thankfully they have not done so again, since the Vietnam War, but I would not be surprised if they did it again.

[@lippertwe]

A-10's would also be useful to counter drones behind-the lines. No SAM threat there. but slower speed and longer loitering time is essential.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

So an ultralight is better.

[@curiousumscientia3648]

What will happen to Davis Monthan AFB with the retirement?

[@Marteeen261]

They are going to transition into the Sky Warden obviously

[@trevorbodnar5495]

Probably go to F-35s. They still have the Compass Call and CSAR units there as well.

[@ypw510]

They still operate the boneyard.

[@curiousumscientia3648]

I’m right on flight path (base to final turn) to Runway 12. Will miss the A-10. F35s are crazy loud. Sky Warden looks like a crop duster.

[@danasimmons6784]

DM will transition to a “Force Projection Wing”. O/A-1K as mentioned, and a greater number of AFSOC assets (PJ’s/CCT’s). They’ll probably get some gunships and spooky birds along with a bunch more rotary wing. Will also probably see a greater intelligence (CIA) presence there as well as a build-up at Pinal Airpark to support those assets.

[@garyramirez1420]

this is why i say we dont need stealth for everything, we should keep our 4th gen aircraft like the A-10 around they are still useful and can do things that stealth cant like carry a LOT of ammo and stay in the fight but everyone wants to make evrything about stealth these days and thats not always a good thing..

[@Raist474]

I'm sure fast-movers can do the CAS mission. The problem is as soon as there's a budget crunch, they will abandon the CAS syllabus. The ACC can't be trusted to not respect anything that isn't the fighter vs. fighter mindset. A big example of this was the Nuclear mishap, and the E-3 replacement fiasco.

[@stephenwheeler-iu3qy]

Just a thought. Would the Army get rid of their light machine guns when they didn't have a suitable replacement? Don't think so!

[@anthonybarrett2446]

Skid. Were you at Bentwaters or Alconbury?

[@somthingbrutal]

will that role be taken over by drones ?

[@unlimitedhornetworks]

Something like the Textron Scorpion seemed like an ideal replacement for the A-10. Low cost, easy to maintain, adapted for low altitude flight with high maneuverability. The airplane needs to go away because of its age. An A-10's no good if its wing snaps off during a turn. But the mission should be able to be accomplished by newer aircraft with younger air frames.

[@CraigBaumer]

My biggest problem is that there isn't enough air frames to go around. My unit that I retired from, the 175WG has lost its flying mission. Maryland will be the only state in the union that has no flying ANG unit. The guys and gals are deployed and when they come back, they are out of a job. Sucks

[@greg8106]

They will never learn their lesson about CAS. This happens after every major war and then the skills need to be relearned

[@lippertwe]

The USAF should just design a new CAS aircraft, basically take the same design lessons of the A-10 (low stall speed, raised engines, less sensitive to damage) - and upgrade them a bit. Upgrades might include aerodynamic and engine modifications to increase the speed (even a bit), smoothing surfaces to decrease RCS, and capability to carry a broader range of weapons. Basically, any other country could probably design such an aircraft for 50 million USD each, but can't due to problems of scale (and demand). But unfortunately one reason the USAF couldnt do this is they are incapable of designing a low-end aircraft that is capable and affordable; one that does not incorporate cutting edge unproven/undeveloped technologies.

[@pauldietrich6790]

Love the A 10....problem is...they are worn the f@^k out. and the huge problem is...limited parts if any and absolutely no replacement in the pipeline. This has to be a dedicated airframe for what it does. Not a fast mover, not a warmed over trainer..but designed from the start as a CAS/in the mud bird.

[@KGSpradleyAuthor]

Reinvent the wheel…we do it every 20 years.

[@jebb125]

ARMY should bring back the OV1D mohawk and slap the rockets back on.. I will be game...

[@TZdesigns]

Just like how the Navy retired Perry-class frigate, now they have to bring back Constellation-class.

[@richdurbin6146]

I served on a Perry. After retiring the SM-1 they were pretty useless. The Constellation at least has VLS though they appear to be giving up on the ASW mission.

[@amench400]

Same thing happened to the Wild Weasels, all that knowledge is gone within the active military.

[@boblynch2802]

I think I read an article back in the 80s/90s time frame the AIr Force wanted to retire the A-10 and replace it with an "Attack" variant of the F-16 and call it the "A-16". But as I recall, it was denied because people thought it was a roundabout way for the Air Force to really acquire for F-16s. Once they got those planes who knows what the Air Force would do with them.

[@ypw510]

The F-16 has been used for ground attack for a long time.

[@boblynch2802]

@@ypw510 Is ground attack the same thing as CAS? Mover and Gonky both talked about the limitations of the F-16.

[@ypw510]

@@boblynch2802 I thought that the A-10 wasn't even used "low and slow" much. Mostly just lobbing precision-guided munitions from higher altitudes as more or a less a bomb truck.

[@SVSky]

The gun pod didn't work on the A-16

[@xyzaero]

DEFINED NOT A DEDICATED CAS PLATFORM, but a tank killer over plains of East Germany and the USAF was expecting to lose the ENTIRE fleet within 7 days !!

[@jamesjacola351]

How many times has the Air Force or military in general, retired platforms, then a new conflict starts and they say, "Oh shit!"?

[@lippertwe]

One should not underestimate the challenge the A-10 might have to getting to the battlefield, in a high SAM environment in particular. It would seem that neither Ukraine nor Russia fly jet aircraft much along the front. However, one shouldn't overestimate it either, as US doctrine is that eventually the US/NATO would be able to significantly reduce SAM and enemy air threats through a combination of tactics and missions.

[@MrAtleem2002]

What about giving the A10s to the army fiscally (funded by the Army) and the current AF maintenance and pilot continue on as a detachment and start transitioning army in those roles over the course of 10 to 20 years.

[@1234597114]

SU-25 is an equivalent to the A-10, but is significantly faster and they are getting shot down en mass. Ukraine was offered the A-10 but declined because they knew it would suffer an even worse fate than the SU-25 due to being so much slower. Ukraine is not Desert Storm or GWOT. Much different environment.

[@Livonia_Livin]

ya its slow and it was designed that way.

[@ypw510]

@@Livonia_Livin I remember hearing about the reports that it was expected to be a sacrificial lamb in a conflict with the Eastern Bloc. Basically lose about half of them fairly quickly, but with the hope that they can take out a fair amount of tanks in the process.

[@archratliff4965]

This is a really important pont - the battlefield is changing and is not conducive to flying tanks.

[@ypw510]

@@archratliff4965 It's not a flying tank. It's got the titanium bathtub around the cockpit, but that's about the extent of its armor. It's mostly an aluminum skin. Empty weight is about that of a legacy Hornet. One can be shot up by small arms fire because the structure is mostly empty.

[@Akm72]

@@ypw510 To be fair it is more survivable (after being hit) than probably any other NATO tactical fighter but that's more due to redundant systems than armour plate. However it's still a lot better to not get hit in the first place and the A-10, while tough, will not survive for long in the face of even 1980s-technology low level air defences.

[@marktisdale7935]

Algorithmic engagement comment.

[@themoverandgonkyshow]

LOL!

[@corvetteworldrob8586]

The Army will adapt. Sent the A-10 to the Army. We need a dedicated CAS fixed wing Aircraft.

[@Evirthewarrior]

The Army is getting a crop duster instead, because the Airforce is being dumb.

[@moonasha]

meanwhile in reality, as soon as the A-10 goes in for that attack run it's going to turn into a fireball thanks to Ivan and MANPADs stockpiled in his trench

[@xyzaero]

You might not know, that the B-1 was the most used CAS platform during the 20 years of “war on terror”. The A-10 is a stupid fanboy jet like the F-14 😂

[@corvetteworldrob8586]

@@xyzaero No, I was in combat during GWOT, the B1's occasional low flybys were not CAS. The A-10 and F16 were the most common CAS fixed wing platforms used. I saw it myself. So, fanboy my ass, the A-10 in Combat is a ground troops best aerial friend. No true supplement for the A-10 is currently in service to replace it fully, unless they call Cessna to restart a modernized A-37 variant program.

[@corvetteworldrob8586]

@@moonasha No. Talk to an Iraqi, they tried. Died often in the attempt.

[@everettputerbaugh3996]

All the haters talk about "survivability", Nothing used in a close air support roll will survive a man-pad. The original intent of the brass-hats was for the A-10 to be cheap and expendable for the purpose of slowing the Soviet tanks coming through "the gap" into western Europe. Now they think of it as some exquisite capital ship that can't be risked.

[@samurai3206]

A loss of a vital airframe but also the loss of accumulated knowledge, as was done when the F-4G went and the Wild Weasel role and institutional knowledge was lost. Big war needs CAS, CSAR and Wild Weasel!

[@daver4435]

I love the A10 as much as anyone but how useful is it going to be when the primary threat to your armor and infantry are drones as we are seeing in the Russo Ukraine war? They are cheap, easy to produce in large numbers and can hunt down and destroy anything. Sad to say but I feel like the modern battlefield has exposed the limitations of the A10.

[@TheZX11]

Yes. I think stand off weapons that can hit precisely are changing the need for a slow and low gun fighter. Slow and low let the old Sandy's (A-1, OV-10, A-10) hit precisely near troops. Now I think jets can stay high and fast (invisible) and still precisely hit the right target. The A-10 specialists can train in a newer faster F-16 or F-35 and still be specialists. The A-1 Skyraider fans likely lamented their retirement for the A-10.

[@SomeoneDK]

No one questions still having the Buff with the airframe hours lol leave the A-10 alone

[@WilliamMurphy-uv9pm]

The B-52 has evolved into a stand off weapon in a war against a sophisticated opponent. The A-10 can't do that. It fights in the middle of the ground battle. VERY dangerous environment. Hand-held missiles really do work and they are not afraid of the sound of the A-10s gun. Slow planes, even with titanium bathtubs to protect their pilots, will be brought down by sophisticated, well-equipped ground troops.

[@epectitus4873]

multi role is fantastic, its great, it can do a wide variety of things, and if you're like us in Australia and you dont have the manpower to have specialist aircraft then it works. But history shows nothing is as good as a dedicated airframe with dedicated specialist crews. Ditching the A-10 without replacement is a rediculous decision. We have tried and tested history to show that the anti air war will happen in weeks, we know the ground war will last much longer, as will the manpad threat. However the A-10 was built to live in that world, let it do its job. Anything else will cost lives while we relearn the lessons.......again

[@richdurbin6146]

Is a dedicated CAS platform survivable on a modern battlefield?

[@chrisvandecar4676]

“Can’t survive in the high threat arena”. Well neither can AWACs, RC-135, KC-135, KC-46 etc etc. with the new loooong range SAMs, those airframes are pushed back to ineffective ranges. Should have built a new run of updated A-10s in the 1990’s. Instead, AF leadership whored themselves out for the F-35

[@ypw510]

An A-10 has to be pushed forward to be effective. AWACs and tankers don't need to be that close to the action. Tankers are never that close to the fighting, or if they are they screwed up. There was nobody to make another A-10. Fairchild existed the business of making complete aircraft as soon as the last A-10 came off the assembly line.

[@chrisvandecar4676]

Interesting, as a KC-135 pilot how did I acquire combat hours if “we are never near combat?” One reason is we will never leave a bro(ette) hanging on the wrong side of the FEBA low on gas after going down town. Increase the range the bomb droppers and shooters have to fly to kill, you reduce payloads and time on target. My CFM-56 engined -135 has the radar signature of a medium city, we can be seen a very long ways away. This is a huge concern in the Pacific with the PRC fielding a Macy and made islands for their military. Anyone airframe company could have built a new A-10, start with the same gun, same mission profile and you end up with an A-10. This is why the C-130 is still in production. You define those mission parameters and you end up with a C-130, it is timeless.

[@ypw510]

@@chrisvandecar4676 I quote this from a former fighter pilot: "Airplanes other than fighters, which I’ll refer to from here on as “targets” are either kept well back from the forward edge of the battle area, or they’re provided with a fighter escort." Sounds reasonable to me. And who said anything about combat or not?

[@chrisvandecar4676]

Yep, the planners never had an refueling station or track on the wrong side of "the line" but stuff happens. What is "combat" other than going in harms way, where you're in danger? My point is myself and many other tanker jockeys have flown (unplanned) into the threat environment. Keep in mind the -135 has ZERO defensive (other than running away) capabilities; no RAW gear, no chaff or flare dispensers, no jamming systems installed. I would never suggest any of us were actually "downtown" but flew to places it could be seen

[@Milesobrian]

Can we have new ones? A-10 ex?

[@ypw510]

Nobody would bid on a clean sheet jet design. That's why the latest call for a replacement were for a modification of an existing propeller driven aircraft.

[@Milesobrian]

@@ypw510 props are fine. But 2 are better than one. We need super broncos.

[@anthonykaiser974]

F-15EX only exists because other nations kept the production line hot.

[@christopherkutchma9226]

Couldn't the air force run some growler aircraft to aid the A10 with surface to air

[@JonathanSigwart]

And this would be a really good reason out of reasons why no body wants to join the army or even the military poor management and planning

[@Acula33RC]

Even GI Joe had an A10.

[@keyboard_g]

Give us stealth vtol Warthogs!

[@luminary69revision2]

If the AF's idea is to just mount more bombs and such on F-35s after enemy radar infrastructure is crippled... wouldn't that be a plenty permissive environment for the A-10? Where its stealth doesn't matter and the pilots are just employing the tactics described here to avoid MANPADS and such? I would think it would be a lot cheaper to use A-10s for CAS after the F-35s have smoked the radars instead of continuing to fly out the F-35s I'm sure the F-35 has some psychological power as a consequence of being both difficult to detect, even more difficult to engage, and having such powerful sensors and integration; at the same time, the A-10 is simply an iconic big-dick badass of a plane with the scariest gun ever put in the air to go with its massive payload capacity in my mind the A-10 is still a scarier presence because its power is so straightforward and easy to understand, particularly to enemies who can't really experience the power of the F-35's electronics as for our own ground forces, I imagine the A-10's presence being more reassuring and motivating in a sense because it sends a very clear message of superiority in not just technology but also fighting spirit and morale like of course the F-35 and other super modern machines are intimidating, but all that's visible on the outside is the stealth shaping which is very easy for other countries to imitate (e.g. China mostly, with all their sharp angular aircraft frames and tank ERA packages that I swear are designed specifically to look scary) but the A-10 is just disrespectful that's all really just my guesses though, I'm just a guy that sits at home and thinks a lot

[@griffinfaulkner3514]

Even with external stores, an F-35 is still significantly more stealthily than an A-10, and critically it has a massively superior sensor and ECM suite. I'd say half the reason the A-10's getting retired is it just can't mount the same level of electronics other fighters can, because of lack of space, cooling, or power generation. That's not even bringing speed and maneuverability into the equation, which only shifts things even further in the F-35's favor. An F-35 can punch the afterburner and motor if a pop-up threat appears, while an A-10 is not just less likely to see it, but much less likely to escape it.

[@dancingferret6654]

F-35 has vastly better situational awareness, better ability to accurately engage ground targets, even from high altitude where it is immune to short and medium range SAM systems, and even when in nonstealthy "murder" configuration is capable of defending itself if it does get targeted by a SAM or enemy aircraft. The A-10 has no ability to kinematically defeat an incoming missile - if the enemy gets a missile off on one it will almost certainly die. This is not the case for the F-35, F-16, F-15E(X), F-18 etc.

[@nogeagor971]

The new Sky Wardens they are making will likely replace the CAS/CSAR roles to some extent in the arsenal of USAF.

[@Ripper13F1V]

The airframe being replaced is one thing, but I find it disturbing that they aren't replacing the mission. Having the capability to prosecute CAS and CSAR in conditions and terrains that other airframes can not (and was proven in Afghanistan) is asanine. Both those missions in particular are highly perishable skillsets bought with the blood of those on the ground. I thought when they said the F35 can do everything, that they were taking pilots from A10's and type coding the mission to a particular squadron for them to continue those missions and capabilities. Why are we giving up capability? This is most definitly a big mistake. I'd rather go back to having A-7's as well than to get rid of the mission. It's that dumb.

[@moonasha]

The best possible insight into how worthless or useful the A-10 would be in a modern conflict, is the fact Ukraine didn't want any of them. The A-10 is borderline useless in a modern conflict not just because of IADS, but because of MANPADs. They'd be relegated to either flying at extreme altitude which renders half the aircraft (brrrt) useless, or lobbing standoff munitions at extreme ranges. Both of which are jobs an F-35 or F-15 are better suited for. The A-10 is pointless unless you're fighting a country with no air defenses, which probably isn't going to happen. And you can go on about "day 30" after the SEAD campaign is over all you want, fact of the matter is there will still be tons of MANPADS distributed throughout the enemy

[@adamyoung9132]

I dont understand why the military is refusing to maintain a low-tech backup ability to all of their new high-tech toys.

[@karlbrundage7472]

Yeah, if the USAF doesn't adopt a dedicated CASAR airframe and support it, the USA will have no choice but to break-out their aviation branch to include a fixed-wing CASAR and CAS branch with their own equipment and TO&E. I think this is what the USAF has wanted since a few years into the old deal. They just couldn't get past the old Army and Marine Corps veterans in Congress, so they continued to run a program and a mission they didn't want.

[@R.E.factor]

You should get the opinions of some AF JTAC’s on the matter. The ones I have spoken to don’t want the A-10 either. They talk about it being a liability due to fratricide. I’ve been told they would prefer to use several UAS lined up behind one another than take chances calling the A-10.

[@davidpalmer4184]

Why wont they consider giving the Army all of the A-10's and offer to transfer all of the pilots and ground crew to the Army as well? There would be little downtime or training to be done and the ex-Air force personnel would eventually get used to the crappy food and accommodations.

[@MrMasterSpam]

Airforce vs Army aviation killed the Cheyanne, then the Comanche, and now FARA. I fear for our ground troops without the A-10.

[@Turboy65]

The A-10s should never be retired until such time as a fully equal replacement aircraft capable of carrying out the close air support role, just as well as the A10 or better, is fully operational. This is more shortsighted decision making within that five sided looney bin called the Pentagon.

[@Corbots80]

Ok. You fly it then lol Our pilots should not be wasted so easily

[@corvetteworldrob8586]

EXACTLY!!!!!!

[@Evirthewarrior]

@@Corbots80 the AT-802U Sky Warden says hi, stop with the nonsense, the A-10 is an amazing aircraft that does something no other plane can do.

[@cjsawinski]

@@Corbots80this is your opinion of a proven flying tank??? Damn I wish I lived under your rock!

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

​@@cjsawinski It's not a flying tank. It just has enough armor to protect the pilot and engines. Hit the fuselage, it gets torn through like all the other jets.

[@EliteAmmunition]

I was a Cav Tanker, I can tell you first hand nothing fast mover can replace the A-10. Guys on the ground are going to be in deep shit without it.

[@JonathanSigwart]

Smart investment at least cut the fleet in smaller numbers

[@GregKrsak]

We need more videos of Gonky stealing the show like this... Maybe do a video on submarines and see how he does! 😎

[@kdaltex]

Why can't this knowledge be written down or programmed into an AI trainer for later generations if needed again?

[@mitchellbailey7030]

Can’t let the A-10 go!!!! The Hog covered our asses in OIF 2003 🫡🇺🇸👍🏻 It’s the ONLY close air support aircraft in the whole Military, how can you let it go🙄

[@Corbots80]

Because it won't make it to save anyone now. It's slow moving, easily detectable target. That's getting taken out by anyone with a Manpad

[@archratliff4965]

not even close that it's the "only close air support in the whole military" in fact the Marines (and to a lesser extent Navy) focus on CAS with Harrier - now F-35B, and F/A-18 - now F-35C. You can argue the wisdom in moving to the JSF platform, but CAS itself is something that the Marines focus on, so let's not act like only the Air Force can do this. That said, the Marines focus mainly on supporting Marines so there is a questions of CAS for Army - But the battlefield is changing and a super slow airframe (basically a flying tank) is going to get eaten up.

[@TheZX11]

@@archratliff4965 Yes. Surely, they are not giving up a capability without other platforms are doing it as well. I think even the A-10's started to stand off and use precision weapons more for close support. Coming down to gun range with all the new anti-air systems could be problematic.

[@connerhodgkins3617]

​@@archratliff4965I think the sarcasm flew right over your head, friend. As far as the Army goes, I'm sure that Vipers, Strike Eagles, and Fat Amy can take care of the CAS mission just fine for them. The wisdom of the JSF is certainly questionable though. Recently, I thought about it fairly often while doing historical research for a paper on USAF strike warfare in the 20th century. Descriptions of "McNamara's aircraft," the F-4 Phantom, aren't always favorable even though it wasn't a terrible aircraft. Makes me wonder if we've doomed ourselves to repeat the same mistakes as the F-4, TFX, and similar joint-development programs with the JSF. Hopefully we won't need to find out firsthand if the F-35 does the job better than the A-10 anyways.

[@Akm72]

@@TheZX11 The A-10 became the primary user of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles back in the 1991 Gulf War. They've been primarily a precision/stand-off weapon user for a long time now.

[@bobkathrynalbin3697]

Also losing the Harrier for CAS.

[@Akm72]

The Harrier made some sense in 1970s when it was simple and cheap compared to the existing F-4s, A-6s and F-111s and could be operated from rough forward bases or small carriers. It made less sense when it cost as much as an F-16 in the 1980s and 1990s but was still just a light attack aircraft in the air without any of the F-16s multi-role performance.

[@adeptusaegis3189]

The Yankees repeat the mistakes of the Soviets, it's quite funny to watch. After World War II, the USSR had a huge fleet and experience in using Il-2 and Il-10 attack aircraft. But in 1950, all this was sent to the trash can, because the new fashion for total nuclear war and fast jet self-propelled guns simply left no place for such a thing as CAS. Everything had to start all over again at the end of 1970, when the SU-25 appeared and it turned out that the army wanted CAS again.

[@MiturBinEsderty]

The air force always hated the A-10!they retired most of the fleet back in 1992-94 the jets were not even 10 years old. 700 were built we have 270 something and they need news wings

[@keyboard_g]

F-35 loitering is a big risk.

[@Akm72]

The A-10 loitering is an even bigger risk. At least the F-35 will probably spot the threat early and will be difficult for the enemy to spot in the first place.

[@Evirthewarrior]

@@Akm72 Anyone that says this is dumb or never served as infantry, other than the A-10 there is no other aircraft that can fly right above the enemy doing gun and missile/rocket runs over and over again and suppressing the enemy so infantry can maneuver on them. Upgrade the A-10 or make a new version of it. Helicopters are great but little birds doing gun runs, is not the same as an A-10. Apaches hovering a few KMs away, is not the same. A drone dropping a couple of hell fires is not the same. An F-35 dropping a hand full of missiles and then leaving is not the same.

[@Akm72]

@@Evirthewarrior The A-10 drops smart munitions like everyone else, from 20,000 ft. It wouldn't be doing gun and rocket runs at low level if there was any ground threat at all.

[@Evirthewarrior]

@@Akm72 1. they still did gun runs while Iraqis and Afghanis had manpads, 2 I would rather have the A-10, because it has far more munitions than F-35s and can still come and do gun runs. I have seen it from the ground with my own eyes. Day 1, A-10s will not be used, but day 100, day 300+, they will be used because they are amazing at their job. Again, the ignorance is baffling to me how people pretend like every single day is going to be day one of a war.

[@Akm72]

@@Evirthewarrior The number of manpads in Iraq and Afhanistan was extremely low because it wasn't worth the effort for the adversaries to buy them as the aircraft stayed at high level most of the time. If the A-10 had routinely operated at low level the MANPAD threat would have quickly increased to the point where the A-10s wouldn't have been able to operate at down there.

[@vincentvalerio915]

From a civilian perspective who has never had the honor to serve is the a10 still viable in a world of Sam s ???

[@ben1l752]

The A10 never served in a world without SAMS

[@BobThompson-y9p]

The A-10 was suited for Afghanistan where there was limited surface to air threat. Its a matter of probabilities that the war planners have to ask: are there any terrorists out there who could attack the US and hide in a country without a functioning government. I think there is but perhaps they want to believe it is not possible.

[@pogo1140]

The A-10 was designed to fight in Europe killing Soviet armor in an arena with SPAA's MANPADS and mobile SAM's

[@Akm72]

Even in Afghanistan they were only cleared low on about 10% of missions, most of the time they were dropping 500lb smart bombs from 25,000ft just like everyone else.

[@pogo1140]

@@Akm72 only because of USAF risk aversion. Bombing from 25,000ft mean 80-90% of the bombs will miss. No, with the A-10 you go up to FL25 to cruise. Down to FL03 above terrain to go to work.

[@Akm72]

@@pogo1140 🤦‍♂

[@pogo1140]

@@Akm72 It is what it is, talk to any Hog driver. They routinely mock Ego Drivers and Viper pilots for being high speed cheerleaders perched above the cloud layer blind and useless while they went to work below the cloud spotting targets, sorting out which puffs of smoke was friend and which was the bad guys.

[@Corbots80]

It's about time. They simply will not survive to complete their mission.

[@gtdcoder]

Useless plane. Should have been retired long ago. The only reason it's so popular is because it has a huge gun. The best way to do CAS effectively is to have dedicated squadrons well-trained for that mission.

[@chrisvandecar4676]

I can’t prove any of the following other than it was widespread (and believed) rumor. After Gulf War 1 and the collapse of the Soviets. Skeletor (c-in-c of the AF) gutted the wild weasel, ef-111, and recce squadrons. A few years later (Kosovo 1) we have an F-117 get shot down. A reason touted was nobody knew how to route plan through a threat environment so just flew the same path as the previous nights. All that knowledge had been lost and or thrown away with BRAC’d bases. Some how the Buffs were able to hang on to some of their knowledge despite the elimination of the SAC schoolhouse.

[@Stinger522]

As good as the Hog is, the world has evolved beyond it. Weapons and tactics on both sides have evolved. Has Army forgotten it has this thing called artillery?

[@05140842]

The world has not evolved beyond it (A-10C). Yes weapons and tactics have changed/evolved, but we as does the enemy have aircraft and they get shot down. Plus our adversaries have armor and the Warthog knows how to deal with that. This is where the A-10C comes into play that has developed its craft (the plane and especially the pilot). Artillery is not always available nor is it movable in a quick fashion and cannot be on station in short order, loiter, dispense ordnance (Mavericks, GAU-30mm gun with armor piercing incendiaries, etc.), take punishment and get the plane and pilot(s) home safe.

[@paulybassman7311]

Runway 33, illuminati confirmed 😂

[@tomte47]

The A-10 did great in Afghanistan, one of the poorest least developed country's on earth who's main form of airdefence was spraying wildly into the air with an AK-47. There are very few places left where you could encounter a similar situation. Even if we went back to Afghanistan right now you can bet Russia is going to supply the Taliban with Igla's as payback for all the support to Ukraine. CAS in the current form of flying expensive planes close to the ground is probably a dead concept against an enemy with ample shortrange airdefence (which is pretty much all of them).

[@clippership8381]

Army should be able to operate Fixed Wing Aircraft (whether manned or unmanned). New environment is expected to be harsh (like Ukraine or worse) so need to think how better to do CAS than using a 50 year old titanium bathtub.