R.I.P A-10 Warthog image - Aircraft Lovers Group

It hasn't past i's era..ask the US Army..they want it and request it by name. it has done wonders in Afghanastan, as well as Iraq. Has the highest level of Sorties and mission success, could easily be overhauled, and I think the tooling still exists to produce more. The plane should go to the Army who said they want it..it's not about "nostalgia". It's So called.. "Successor" is here..the F-35.. It's all Politics and and Lobbying that grounded it, and soon other aircraft as well. With the A-10 PROVEN combat record it needs to stay.

P.S. Sry about the typos fingernails and phones don't mix..

I meant "successor" as in the UAVs that can do the job at a fraction of the cost and no risk for the pilots... Of course, the tech (for UAVs) still need further refinements but is should be more cost effective than the A-10 in the long run. For a lot of aerial warfare hardware for western nations, UAVs are the future.

... The politics I don't want to discuss here is not the lobbying between the defense contracts but rather the debate on what to cut between defense budget or entitlement/infrastructure/education/R&D programs. (I still don't want to discuss that here since it's off topic and get people too heated up and then the discussion devolves into a flame war)

Ahh..But UAVs have their own issues, and I think nations will realize that soon enough ((Like the Russians already have and think manned aircraft will always have a major role)).

But that is a different topic all together.

The A-10 wouldn't succeed on the modern battlefield, you have to keep in mind that it has exclusively operated against an enemy that has had nearly no air support/cover of equal or greater standard and has almost always gone into a situation with good intel. It's the same story as the AC-130. (which would die just as horribly in a real war.)

The main complaint is that it excels at its current job, counter insurgency. Why replace something that isn't broken?

The A-10 would do fine on the modern battlefield. Since AA wouldn't play as big of a part since it will be supporting The advancing Armored Units.

Except every man and his MANPAD can hit a target flying along at mach 0.5, even if your CM is good it ain't going to stop every SAM.
I'd be interested to know how AA doesn't play as bigger role protecting armoured divisions... The various self-propelled air defences would like a word.
If you're talking AGM delivery then that may be more valid, but, still, the A-10 has to make it home. Against an organised front I honestly can't see any real potential for the aircraft. It performs magnificently in its current role but anything beyond that would be asking a lot.

Anyway... Not trying to start anything, just an educated guess at best.

No offense but with that logic helicopters would be obsolete...

Also there are plenty of ways to stop Sams, and shoulder fired missles are not nearly as effective as vehicle mounted ones...

Self Propelled Ari defences have always been around, and will always play a part, but then if that is an issue wild weasels can get the job done.. It's not a video game where you just zerg aircraft or AA, tanks etc.. If AA was the decision all factor you wouldn't see Aircraft in war..

So I guess you think the F-35 could do better?

People need to realize some aircraft are designed for certain things.

I said... As simply an AGM platform then that would be more valid. I apologise, I should've been more specific. When it comes to dropping ordinance I would personally think other aircraft with higher survivability chances (turn and burn) would be more suited to the role. Helicopters are a different breed altogether, so lets not mix species. I personally would chew my nails to shreds every time I sent pilots out in A-10's against an organised enemy.

Please note this is a personal opinion.

Yeah, I think the F-35 is far more effective... At burning in hell.

Life is a video game.

Okay? We good ja? :)

The A-10 isn't about dropping bombs and then flying away, it's close air support. It's meant to Loiter and support the advancing armor Units, and take out enemy armor. Even though it can drop bombs it's not it's main mission. It's also quite agile and tough as well. Turn and Burn? The A-10 is not a fighter aircraft, and was never meant to dog fight Typhoons, Migs, Sukhois and Rafales. The A-10 ((and the SU-25 for that matter)) Have a Niche they o and one they do very well, that no other aircraft can match. Combat records prove that, as well as mission logs.

Also during Gulf war 1 Iraq had a pretty strong AA grid which was taken down quite easily by F-4s and and Intruders so the A-10s, Helicopters etc. Can do their Job. SEAD aircraft are quite effective.

Also I don't know why things wouldn't be good between us XD.

Just a manner of opinion you have nothing wrong with that.

Yeah, I guess I was more questioning the uses of CAS aircraft (although in a way that does include helis) on a fast evolving battlefield. But you pretty much nailed any qualms I had.

Noticed that.

Half Life 3 confirmed.

LOL Wikipedia...

And no I know the Army wants them, but you seem to fail to realize how the US Airforce works.

Reputable sites like Aviation week and Jane's actually think the A-10 may be grounded or at least Moth-balled.