Controversial Retirement: Why Neither Drones Nor The F-35 Can Replace The A-10 Warthog Effectively

[rangerrebew]

Controversial Retirement: Why Neither Drones Nor The F-35 Can Replace The A-10 Warthog Effectively
BY
ALEXANDER MITCHELL
PUBLISHED 2 DAYS AGO
Many have advocated against the Warthog's retirement.

 
SUMMARY
 A-10 Warthog's retirement causes controversy due to unmatched close air support capabilities.

 The Air Force is transitioning to F-35s and drones for ground support despite the A-10's effectiveness.

 The A-10's unique features and dedicated pilots contribute to an unmatched close air support culture.


First introduced into service in 1977, the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, more colloquially called the A-10 Warthog, is a single-seat subsonic attack aircraft designed to provide close air support (CAS). After nearly 50 years of service, it is unsurprising that the United States Air Force is looking to retire the decades-old aircraft, citing its obsolete nature in a world of advanced air defenses.

The aircraft, however, has built an extensive reputation for providing strong support to troops on the ground and remains the only aircraft ever exclusively designed for close air support. With accolades from Operation Desert Storm, the NATO intervention in the Balkans, the wars in Afghanistan, and against the Islamic State, many believe that the dynamic aircraft's time for retirement has come too soon.

https://simpleflying.com/controversial-retirement-why-drones-nor-f-35-can-replace-a-10-warthog-effectively/

[DefiantMassRINO]

F the Air Force.  The Army should add A-10 Warthog's to the Air Cavalry.

[Bigun]

F the Air Force.  The Army should add A-10 Warthog's to the Air Cavalry.

That's twice today that I have strongly agreed with @DefiantMassRINO and I have not been drinking!

[Smokin Joe]

F the Air Force.  The Army should add A-10 Warthog's to the Air Cavalry.

If not the Army, the marines, but someone needs to figure out how to land one on a carrier first.

Regardless, the age of the airframe is moot, considering the B-52 fleet.

If you have an excellent design, and it has served well and continues to do so, discarding it is folly.
To make an analogy, the same ecological niche will remain, and tossing the best adapted weapon for the job means less adapted 'species' will fill the niche (with higher losses, or less well filled) or the niche will stay vacant, to the detriment of ground forces and possibly the entire effort.

[Bigun]

If not the Army, the marines, but someone needs to figure out how to land one on a carrier first.

Regardless, the age of the airframe is moot, considering the B-52 fleet.

If you have an excellent design, and it has served well and continues to do so, discarding it is folly.
To make an analogy, the same ecological niche will remain, and tossing the best adapted weapon for the job means less adapted 'species' will fill the niche (with higher losses, or less well filled) or the niche will stay vacant, to the detriment of ground forces and possibly the entire effort.

But how will the PTB make any money off things that work and can be cheaply (relative) produced and maintained?

[Smokin Joe]

But how will the PTB make any money off things that work and can be cheaply (relative) produced and maintained?

Make lots of them. (margin or volume)

In that sense, weapons procurement reminds me of Pharma. The latest newest Improved, lemon scented version is always best...or will be once the bugs are worked out.

I'm all for new tech, just prove the prototypes, work out the bugs, and then take it to production. We would be fools at this point to not assume our enemies are reading the plans for them as we build the jigs, tools, and dies to produce them.

For any weapon that has a role in the battle space, don't discard it until you can replace it with its equal or better to fill that role.

If someone thinks a role is obsolete (the job is no longer there to be done) someone somewhere will exploit that weakness, even if the means are considered antiquated. Pick a war where horses (or other beasts of burden: pack mules, water buffalo, etc.) have not been used, for instance. 

For all our advances, the infantry still walk, when they aren't keeping too low to not do so.

[Hoodat]

F the Air Force.  The Army should add A-10 Warthog's to the Air Cavalry.

Damn right.

[Bigun]

Make lots of them. (margin or volume)

In that sense, weapons procurement reminds me of Pharma. The latest newest Improved, lemon scented version is always best...or will be once the bugs are worked out.

I'm all for new tech, just prove the prototypes, work out the bugs, and then take it to production. We would be fools at this point to not assume our enemies are reading the plans for them as we build the jigs, tools, and dies to produce them.

For any weapon that has a role in the battle space, don't discard it until you can replace it with its equal or better to fill that role.

If someone thinks a role is obsolete (the job is no longer there to be done) someone somewhere will exploit that weakness, even if the means are considered antiquated. Pick a war where horses (or other beasts of burden: pack mules, water buffalo, etc.) have not been used, for instance. 

For all our advances, the infantry still walk, when they aren't keeping too low to not do so.

I forgot to end my post with /S!

[rangerrebew]

Since the name of the game in wokeness is equity, this is the Biden/Austin/Davis way of making us more "equitable" with our enemies by getting rid of a superior aircraft.

[Smokin Joe]

Keep in mind that for every F-35, the AF could buy 10 A-10s (brand new).

While admittedly, the roles are different, that's one heck of an exchange rate, and one I believe the troops would see justified. While an F-35 may be able to fill the CAS role, it can't do it like 10 A-10s.