Why the Air Force is Screaming to Retire the A-10 Warthog 

Hey Cappy it's usually pronounced as 'GOW-Eight'.

f*ck I hate using the MK.I eyeball

10:30 „air action by aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly targets”

I’m switching to Air Force from army. You’re missing something big out of this video. Air Force just procured a large order of close range support propeller aircraft with modern avionics and munitions. Modified AT-802U Sky Warden Air Tractor; Fixed-Wing, Armored, Single-Engine aircraft used for Light Attack/ Armed Overwatch Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; built by L3Harris and Air Tractor

It’s a lot more cost effective and still plays the role as a10 in light combat engagements

But there's nothing to replace it with. The F-35 Boondoggle is nowhere NEAR a replacement for an aircraft that can almost take a direct missile hit, and STILL fly home. If this were an Air Superiority thing, I could understand that. I could understand retiring like the F-16. Between the F-15, the F/A-18 and the plans for the F-35, it's probably been squeezed out of whatever specialization it might've fit into. But the A-10 isn't just a workhorse, it's a warhorse. I don't think there's any problem with the A-10 that wouldn't be solved by building NEW ones, rather than trying to fix the old ones. Okay, yes, the old ones are getting broken more and more...but the technology and fabrication techniques of the OLD A-10s have come down in cost. Moreover, they're proven techniques. There's no R&D needed on the armor of the A-10, or wondering if there needs to be VTOL or VSTOL capabilities or if it needs to be Stealth. We can work on lowering the cost and improving the durability of NEW A-10's, without having to roll out a whole new aircraft that as far as I can tell, is unproven in combat, and incapable of stepping in for a Warthog.

@@Khasym Your reasoning is precisely why we DO need the A-10, as well as air superiority. Let the invisible, tech-laden fast-movers clear the path and let the A-10 do what is is superlatively good at.....close ground support.

@@Khasym Once again, it needs total air dominance ahead of it or it dies like a mosquito. Despite its armor, it cannot withstand the newest generation of a2a and sams put against it. Furthermore, the wing rebuilds currently underway are a huge drain on an already tight budget for the AF. I appreciate your passion and love for the A-10, but having crewed them and spent time during the gulf war in 9th AF HQ (Shaw AFB) in maintenance OPS, the end is nigh for the A-10. I like this fact less than most, but it is the reality. She will be missed. It will be up to the AC-130s to cover this role protecting ground troops until something it figured out.

@@k2_tech745 ...we don't need another Spirit 03. Consider what you're saying: a larger, slower, less maneuverable aircraft, with more crew, more costs, and more presence in field, has to fulfill the duty of the A-10 till someone decides that Stealth isn't the end-all be-all. Even worse, the F-35 Budget-eater, is precisely the reason FOR that lean wallet. Despite being proven wrong every time, we cannot make a one-size-fits-all ANYTHING combat related. Even more-so when it comes to combat aircraft. Right now, it would cost about $18.8 million to build one A-10 as modern as we allow at this point. It's expected that with the new engine upgrades, the F-35 will cost about $80 to $90 million, and the AC-130s cost s $130-$190 million a pop. Four A-10s for one thin-skinned F-35, and damn near 10 of em for a single kitted out Ghostrider.

@@k2_tech745 The digest version is that the A-10 is a very expensive piece of kit that works well for insurgencies, but is not fully up to scratch in case of an all out conflict with a near peer. To put another way, sending an A-10 to bomb some angry villagers on a mountaintop is a waste of resources, sending an A-10 into the AA umbrella China would deploy when trying to take Taiwan is also a waste of resources. The discussion around the A-10 often comes with emotional investment and the belief that the "BRRRRT" can fix everything when in fact people were frowning when the concept was being proposed in the first place. But we're almost half a century later and things have changed a lot. AA is a very different game from the airspace the designers had in mind back then.

Technically great maneuver aircraft at low speed standards. Doesn't necessarily means it's awesome at maneuverability

I would never say highly maneuverable when talking about A-10. It’s durable and effective but highly maneuverable no.

It's like a vulture waiting to strike with hell fire when you least expected.

One of the problems is it's low, slow, and can be easily taken out by a drone or a MANPADS.

​highly maneuverable? I dunno. That whistle tho!

Huh... Were those Royal Canadian Armoured Corps?

I can remember when 2x A-10 pilots were directly ordered by a 4* AND a 3* General to "NOT engage the British Armoured convoy". (several times, over nearly 10 minutes) They deliberately disobeyed orders and killed 9 British troops. (Everyone in the UK saw it and heard it, as the comms and video feed from the aircraft was made public during the public enquiry) Those 2x pilots were immediately transferred back to the USA, and 2 months later were training new pilots how to "NOT do friendly fire and kill your allies"

​@@SuperAd1980is that for real?

@@tacomas9602 100% real.

@@SuperAd1980 The A-10 turns enemies into a fine red mist and friendlies into Life Insurance claims

while piloting a Navy H-3 in the pattern along with an A-10 at Tustin MCAS, it was turning circles inside our pattern 😂

Air show in UK 1981 saw an A10 do a tight 180 around a church spire, and was impressed.

A10s smoke dangerous prey on DCS. If the faster jets try to turn with them, they die. Nothing gets inside the circle like an A10.

The A-10 is slow, it's not 'maneuverable'. An illusion of maneuverability comes with slow speeds but that's like saying my shitty 1980s Corolla has better maneuverability than a Zonda F, because when the Zonda is going 180 MPH it can't make a right turn as quickly as my Toyota can at 15 MPH. The A-10's engine are vastly too weak to call it 'maneuverable', its big ass wings mean it bleeds tons of speed with every turn and takes forever to get that speed back.

@@fnhatic6694 We are measuring the A10s maneuverability based on its rate of turn over its total speed range. The A10 crushes all other jets with its RoT. The A10s main gun will destroy anything the A10 can get its nose on, and that's everything in the air. At longer ranges, the A10 can fire the same missiles the faster jets are packing. The launch parameters are crap because of the lower initial speed, but it's still effective. Try gaming it out in DCS; the A10 is a beast. Someone took a shot at me BVR and I turned into the shot and used my gun as a flying CWIS to shoot down the incoming missile. Boy was he surprised when I kept coming. IRL, an A10 pilot and an F16 pilot agreed to meet in an engagement zone over the North Sea for a little practice. The F 16 pilot thought it would be easy, the A10 pilot tore him up over and over again. This happened because the A10 pilot negotiated for a small combat space so he could maximize his advantages. If the F16 pilot had used his speed and range to attack from further away, he would have won from miles away. When drones start dogfighting, the drones based on the A10 will have longer loiter times and greater capacities to destroy enemy aircraft. The country that builds their weapons based on performance instead of emotion will dominate the skys.

I lived and worked near Janesville Wisconsin. A-10s then based at Truax in Madison, would often come to Rock County Airport to practice touch & goes, and, I guess, attack profiles. So maneuverable and so quiet! Also saw them on the gun range at Fort McCoy. Really glad they were on our side!

Glad you experienced the 122nd Fighter Wing A-10s of Fort Wayne, IN, Indiana Air National Guard before they get decommissioned. They train aerial gunnery in Camp Atterbury, along with my Army UH-60 Blackhawk unit sharing the same gunnery ranges. We blow shit up there, but not stationed at Himsel Field (Camp Atterbury). They steal most of the range time from us, but worth the "BURRRRH" sounds and sparks on the ground targets.

Hey Jeff, I lived in East Enterprise in the late 70's. I recall watching them as well. It was awesome. Later I was experience their close air support first hand. With no proven replacement, this is beyond ludicrous.

@@rherman9085 I raised my Kids in Hope, Columbus and then finally right next to Brown County. They graduated in 1999. So it would have been right along Your timeline. My Son got my love of aircraft and being outside of Dallas, TX. now, We are on the phone every time We hear the four engines of the Confederate Air Forces B-17’s come over when they have an Airshow near Us. I love those “old” flying museums. Everyone of them!

​@@jeffstevens156as a teen, I was in the CAP and did security CAF in RG valley. those planes are really awesome and seeing them up close will always be a fond memory

When the S**t hits the fan stealth is the last thing You need

Like killing your own troops? That is certainly a message.

A message that doesn't cost the taxpayer a bizzion dollars like all those missiles do on other aircraft

A10: It's about shooting friendlies.

It's the only aircraft that enemy troops surrendered to just by flying overhead.

💯%

IMO, the problem isn't the long-overdue retirement of the A-10 but the utter lack of an adequate replacement. The F-35's abysmal loitering time, severely limited payload capacity, and hefty price tag make it ill-suited for supplying timely CAS, and drones can only partially compensate for its failings, thanks to their lack of Mk.1 Eyeball and extreme vulnerability to EW and the like. Additionally, the "low-and-slow doesn't work against near-peer adversaries" excuse is so outrageously stupid that it boggles the mind that anyone buys into it. The last seventy years have proved that politicians are nearly as adept at avoiding near-peer wars as they are at creating not-at-all-peer "conflicts," and military technology has changed enough that even near-peers are likely to end up engaging asymmetrically a lot of the time. A properly designed, dedicated CAS airframe would not only be incredibly valuable in the all-too-likely event of another Vietnam or Afghanistan, but also in open war against an opponent like China, doing things like defending against guerilla-style attacks on logistics and C3 and mopping up ground forces after the air defenses had been cleared. Edit: In case it wasn't clear, said dedicated CAS airframe should _not_ be the A-10. While the design goals still hold true, for the most part, some of the approaches taken no longer do. For example, it might make sense to have something gun-like to avoid expending $200k rockets on $20k pickup-with-bolted-on-MG, but there are far better options than 30mm auto-cannons for that task.

​​@@irrelevantfish1978Even guerilla forces can threaten very low flying aircraft with MANPADS. The thing about drones being vulnerable to EW, is any type of CAS relies on communication to be informed of the mission to begin with. Most modern CAS has automated target tracking already. Whatever means you used to call the airbase, you could call an unmanned mini-cruise missile launcher a few miles away that was dropped off by a truck or a helicopter previously.

@@JWQweqOPDH MANPADS will have minimal success against reasonably stealthy aircraft (which any A-10 successor absolutely could and should be), even if it's flying low and slow, and there is a _massive_ difference between the durability of voice comms compared to remote drone operation, which is far higher bandwidth and far less tolerant of signal corruption and latency. And insofar as automating CAS, that's problematic for all kinds of reasons: it's bad PR, it's expensive (if not impossible for such an electronically incompetent outfit as the US military), and turning complete control of bombing runs/cruise missile strikes over to people with infinitely more stress than aerial observation capability (ie, ground troops being shot at) is not a great way to avoid friendly fire and collateral damage.

@@irrelevantfish1978Also, didn’t the A-10 also do CAS for Combat Search and Rescue?

A10s aren't the only planes that plastered the Road of Death.

Yes, against militaries without any type of effective AA countermeasures, or other aircraft to at all challenge air superiority, they work fine. Against a near peer adversary, however.......not going to happen.

Yes theres been countless incidents with A10s and friendly fire on british army personnel, some really tragic ones. They dont like them anywhere near them.

Really should not have to "request" the air force doesn't do practise runs on medical facilities, its bordering on a war crime as well as being absolutely pointless after all as a target you *cant* fire on it all you can do is impede medical procedures and deafen people. So whilst I'm of the view that many service personnel are immature and might do something like this to show off, I'm doubtful that it was sanctioned and if it really happened is just another example of how unprofessional manchilds are a risk behind the controls. Bit of an argument for drones really where everything is recorded.

@@davidspencer7254the request to not do training on red cross facilities was a joke or in other words “we would of course nevrr fucking do this as its our OWN medical facilities…”(their MASH UNITS) but told the EWRs this to calm them down and make sure they can peform their duties without fear!

Thats exactly what is happening, and the US Military is doing what it dos best. Getting rid of good shit for subpar shit.

Your going to me look up apocryphal, aren't you?

Unfortunately it's all about the money. The amount of funding for A10 squadrons can easily fit in the back pocket of the f-35s so the Air Force wants to siphon off all that money to promote their high-speed high flying aircraft which will have nothing whatsoever to do with supporting Army and Marine ground troops. A lightning, if everything worked on it correctly still wouldn't be an equal to a warthog.

Yep

It’s needed to for years

I mean it’s so dog shit compared to everything in its time. The a-10 in an actual war would get stomped, even the Russians unguided AA can take it down considering how slow the plane is

@@masterchief2402 A-10 is like that one kid in your sports team that can't play for shit, but always tries to do some epic moves that he has absolutely no chance of ever actually pulling off. He's kinda useless, but still fun to have around.

​​@@masterchief2402but it's so cooool!!

Stealth is the key to the future considering all nations will be bristling with modern anti air defenses. Even the venerated B52 won't be able to survive in such an environment.

The b52 is literally older than the A 10

They are upgrading the B-52 soon will be B-52J

At the peak of the Cold War several Countries like Denmark and Canada gave the US some very generous overflight rights , but they didn't want those rights to be permanent so they were tied specifically to the operation of the B-52. And that's why the Air Force is still operating a 70 year old bomber. Edit: Because the Air Force needs to keep the B-52 in service in order to avoid renegotiating agreements with other countries , they find some combat role it can still carry out and retrofit the plane to do it. A plane with long range , large payload and a simple frame can always be modified to do something...currently it's hauling cruise missiles closer to the target before launching them, even though military cargo planes can do the same mission.

@@glennchartrand5411 That, and because simply strategic bombers as a whole are somewhat of a relic, so the need to replace them outright is small, because the benefit we would get is minimal to nil. Simply outright impossible to protect them in modern air combat with it's focus on BVR missiles, though in actual combat, there's zero chance we'd fly B-52s alone, it just is a significant downside to them as a concept.

The maintenance hours per hour of flight and survivability of a helicopter vs. an A-10 showed the A-10 to be far superior. I don't recall what the actual uptime vs. real uptime for helicopters was any longer while in the middle east. But helicopters did not do well in that environment at all.

@@thegrimreefer3185 That is one of the advantages of a fixed-wing aircraft, but a fixed-wing drone would be better. I am really curious on how a tilt-rotor compares, especially something like the Army's new V-280 Valor. I know the V-22 Osprey has a few issues that the new 2nd generation tilt-rotor designs have significantly improved.

@@andrewreynolds4949 I really did the V-280 design, but the silhouette is considerably bigger compared to the UH-60 (what's supposed to replace). On the other than, you can cut heads of *insert enemy name* if you fly really low, like a modern gladiator chariot of dead, that's a big bonus for me.

@@canobenitez The V-280's silhouette may be a lot larger than the UH-60, but because of the rotor radii and the V-280 being shorter and wider they actually take up about the same landing footprint

@@andrewreynolds4949 it's easier to rpg'd it.

They complain about the bullet dispersion of the a-10, it's not a sniper weapon! It's there to take out people on the ground, and it does that extremely well. It is a nightmare for the enemies, even give some of our people some Sleepless nights.

Lasers are coming for drone defense.

​@@granatmofand have been since the 60s

I appreciate the well put comment. The AF is definitely adverse to less sexy missions. All systems will be replaced by drones over time. The cost of personnel is to high to be otherwise.

I’m from the 80’s era Army Mech Inf. and I now live in the desert in southern Arizona and I personally have heard and seen the beloved A-1O fly training missions almost daily for over 20yrs and met some of the pilot's. I've also seen my community vote for candidates over the yrs solely to save the A-1O. If it's the end of the A-1O I hope we send them to Ukraine and and let them finally get to do CAS mission to destroy Russian tanks in a last blaze of glory, The job they were built for originally. It would be so sad just to see them rotting away in the Boneyard when I drive by.

@@horatio1962 I kinda doubt they'll go to a boneyard. More likely they'll be sold to someone(assuming Ukraine hasn't beaten back Russia by the time they're retired and they're gifted to Ukraine). It doesn't really matter who they could get sold to, without air superiority they're not a threat, and no one is getting air superiority over the USA or its allies.

Make a mini gun but each barrel is itself a GAU-8

So you're the kid responsible for designing the Mk-19.

Your plane was too awesome for them to comprehend.

I wish i socialized more in highschool so i could know people with cool interests like that

You had me at "...double GAU 8/A..."

P-47 Thunderbolt ONE is the inspiration. Lots of engine, plenty of machine guns, and armor, armor, armor.

Duh?

@@kimweaver1252yeah… and air superiority and already having won basically (thanks to your allies mostly)

That's not very relevent nowadays as you'll get shot down my a missile more than bullets so it's better to be steathy than armored.

@@MaticTheProto The US was the deal clincher. The Europeans went down like stuffed animals, it took the manpower and particularly the materiel of the US to push onto the continent and push the Nazis out. Like in North Africa, Italy, Asia, and the entire Pacific.

Source?

@@strikerdelit2649 Look into it. I dont remember the exact source but I know this is true. Pilots are infamous for faking kills.

There were tons of after-action reports and studies and breakdowns into it, honestly the Apache is a much better use and choice for close air support because the role really kind of changed with more modern AA platforms. People just like the brrrt.... People also forget we grounded it during Iraq and Afghanistan do to friendly fire and civilian casualties more then combatant casualties.

​@ryankral3175 You can't even blame the pilots either. Once their loitering time is done, it's hard to make out if the targets they hit are catastrophic or just a mission kill.

@@strikerdelit2649 Both Military Aviation History and Lazerpig did dive covering how overrated the A-10 is and how poorly it performed in the Gulf War.

Grandpa Buff will still be flying though.

It honestly should have been retired before that but low intensity war kept it around

It would’ve been retired but they are really good at targeting tailbone in the mountains

@@joeswanson5486 tailbone?

Like from CoD Ghosts?

@@nursestoylandhonestly yes

And how will they have real time footage in these areas that don't have coverage?

People will pile on with criticisms, but it's worth a study, and I bet that would be a great topic for a Master's Thesis at the USAFA.

It’d cost less to just make a more efficient drone aircraft.

Yeah, people forget they were designed to fly to Europe using a series of airbases in Canada, Greenland, and Iceland and then stage out of France and the UK to shoot up swarms of tightly packed Warsaw IFVs and tanks in order to blunt the charge while heavy US assets made their way across the Atlantic. They were never intended to operate long distance. Future air operations will by necessity be either long distance or from small makeshift airfields because the only safe airfields will be those outside of missile range. Say what you will about the other aspects of the plane, this alone makes it obsolete.

​@@lordsheogorath3377to be fair it can be maintained and flown off off literal dirt roads/highways so it's actually REALLY good for say, the ukrain war, as long as most long range AA is taken out.

@@lordsheogorath3377 If ONLY Americans built air platforms with the same focus as the old Soviet designers did, they'd have a competent CAS platform like the Su-25. I cannot fathom the A-10 surviving beyond a few sorties in the Ukraine under the everlasting watchful eye of the multiplicity of SAMs on both sides----and yet it's only CAS rival in the world Su-25 s flying daily sorties for both opposed forces....

That's actually super interesting. I've never thought of the complications with low level refueling and civilian airliners. Sounds like a massive headache.

We should give them to Ukraine

Love it. Iconic. Has some uses. Has one hell of an effect on moral. Let's face it. It is obsolete, and a death sentence to the pilots in modern combat. Take the lightest 155mm turret you can find. Put wings and the most efficient engine you can get. Get a damn good ballistic computer. Then make it into a drone and viola. It will be a cool ass aircraft! Effective compared to other methods? Nope. Just putting an engine on 155mm with wings would be better. AKA a kamikaze drone. We just need CAS drones. Cheaper the better.

ya, it's usefulness in a conventional war would be minimal

Do you know the lock=on time required for 50K lasers against hardened targets? > 10 minutes. That will REALLY work against 400 mph 12 g aircraft..not

The claim that A-10 maintenance is too high and replacing them with F-35s sounds a lot like trying to save money by dumping the midwest farm girl for a supermodel. 😂

@@DonariaRegia I mean, if that midwest girl is at the point where her organs don't work well anymore, while the model has everything working well, then yes? A plane's maintenence cost goes up over time, and the a10 upgrade packages (the ones that make them only kinda obsolete instead of completely obsolete) has also made it significantly higher maintenance than it was before.

brt of killing goat herders in 3rd world countries in wars for nothing you mean?

Name an aircraft that isn't vulnerable. 130 Gunships? Attack helicopters? F-16s? This is a tired argument, and its mostly propaganda from the AF brass that wanted to kill the A-10 and divert personnel and funding to the F-35 program, which lacks the loiter time or payload of the A-10 and with external stores is just as vulnerable as the rest.

Stories from Erney and Brrrt.

according to several articles the F35 is going to replace the A10 for CAS. And considering that plane have about half the armor capacity of the A10 I think close air support will be downprioritised by manned aircraft in general. Switchblade drones and other options are more likely replacements I am afraid.

Freedom? Are you for real?

bro it killed more allies than anything. It had literally no electronics for years too. It was stupid. We could have made a much cheaper aircraft or just used our multirole aircraft for strikes. Especially since it was mostly being used against an enemy that had lost basically all AA capabilities within the first day- and if they HAD AA guns, that bathtub is only a deathtrap.

I read one funny thing about the future a while ago "F-22 and F-35 would be already rotting in the graveyard and A-10s and B-52 would still be flying regularly"

Friendly-fire incidents aside, of course. There's a really good reason the military wanted the F-35 so bad.

West Germany 86-88 82nd Eng Bn "Blue Babe Battalion. While training in Graf the A10s would buzz past us low level then fly straight up and would look like a Cross.

What kind of mx man hr/ flight hr did you guys typically see?

@@LRRPFco52 I've been a 2W1, not a 2A so my MX really revolved around how the weapons systems performed or Phase/inspection intervals. Loaded a lot of bombs, rockets, missiles, C/F and swapped a lot of pylons and ran ops checks. Our yearly flight hour contract was always being exceeded so 2500 flt hrs per airframe this year means upwards of 3000 next year because "we can" on an aging airframe. So working 12+hr shifts was normal at Osan and somewhat normal at Moody. Production also had their work cut out for them with standard MX and servicing. Typical flying day was 8 pit 8 turn 6 pit 6 sometimes turn 4. Then surge weeks or FTX ran things up to 12 pit 12 turn 8 pit 8 turn 6 pit 6. Lots of lines/sorties. That was for each unit with 2 active units plus reserve so double those numbers. So working EOR during those weeks was not fun. But it's still better than trying to load 120s into an F-22 internal bay.

@@ctasitrep In the 1970s, my dad brought home a 30mm GAU-8 dummy cartridge from the A-10 CTF at Edwards AFB, while it was still in development. They were having a lot of problems with the gun, gas ingestion, engine stalls, working out the kinks. 20 years later, I was calling in CAS with them.

The recoil from firing is equal to one of the jet engines at maximum output. So they should be used in a dive to maintain airspeed, or throttle up both engines. Also, the gasses from the firing are enough to snuff out engines behind them, so pulling the trigger on the gun causes the engines to go into "relight" mode.

The A10 can not be replaced by F-35. It needs to be replaced by drones.

Turn the A-10 into a drone by auto-pilot control remotely.

​@@williamzk9083there is also the T-6 Texan II and the attack helicopters of the army and marines. Overall there is more than capable firepower to cover the retirement of the A-10

@@almerindaromeira8352 the issue as I see it is not fire power but survivability. Attack helicopters are survivable if used properly. The next generation of helicopters will even have their own drones. Proper use of drones is survivable. Japan isn’t replacing its attack helicopters and is putting its money into drones.

Modern day Mosquito. I say make it out of stealthy wood like the Brit plane.

I think it’s gonna be a situation where brass are being a bunch of good idea fairies to look like they are doing something but when shit hits the fan there’s going to be a niche that will need to be filled and they will end up making something akin to the A-10

I take your point in many of the aspects that you speak of but mine is of a former attack helicopter pilot. The advantage that the Apaches have over the A10 and other fixed Wing assets is that we can hover and monitor the battlefield and hit targets from about 5 MI away. That's a huge asset Builder when you know that you could see the bad guys through thermal imagery better than the guys on the ground who's a thousand meters from them. I think both attack helicopters and the A-10 work well together but each can do a significant job on their own.

There is just more money in building F35 white elephants than there is in upgrading A10s. That's how the military complex works.

A S-300 is a souped-up 1970s SAM system. The Israeli Air Force has spent nearly 50 years laughing at them from F4s, F15s and F16s. My bet is the S-400 not being as "awesome" as advertised...Just as nearly everything Russian.

@@tellyboy17 a modernised A-10 costs more than a brand new F-35 so you are just wrong.

@@mpondachongo1138 a plane that you buy 120 units off will tend to cost more than one you buy 4,000 of

​@@tellyboy17You got a source for that? It seems like the F-35 has been a success and the cost has been dropping due to arms purchases and economies of scale.

Ukraine war / Su25 losses shows this is true.

@@Lucas-st9tgshooting from long ranges is key.

That is why we have artillery and interdiction -- besides, this is war. No one has a guarantee. Which is why we REALLY need to have more care for veterans!

@@Lucas-st9tg BTW Froogfoot is actually better then A-10

Hell yeah. Similar shit happened in Iraq. I was a good distance away, but I witnessed an A10 take out about a platoon sized group of insurgents that were pushing on a bunch of marines. I was on overwatch calling out targets for a different mission is the area. I don't recall ATM what the marines were doing, but they were maybe 3 blocks distance from us? We see this group pull up firing everything they had, and then POOF! I swear I could see the red mist rising up into the air even from where I was. Shit got REAL quiet after that. A10s are absolute beasts.

The m61 Vulcan is no joke

Their role is served by any modern plane with a modern ammunition. The close in close air support does not refer to the distance of the aircraft from the ground, but that it is close to allies on the ground. A WW2 bomber or a drone way, way up high, equipped with a proper targeted precision missile is already way more effective than an A-10 eyeballing it and spraying and praying

Funny you should mention that, the AX program that rfesulted in the A-10 was started in order to give the USAF an excuse to claim duplication of capabilities and get the US Army's Lockheed AH-56 program cancelled, the most capable attack helicopter of all time and a better platform than the AH-64 that came 15 years later (which was deliberately dumbed down so the USAF wouldn't throw a hissy fit again)

They also bought the AT-802 sky warden , which basically an armored crop duster with advanced sensors and weapons pylons . SOCOM is getting 75.

It seems to me to be a very tricky aircraft to replace, even in the modern battlefield. I agree I don't think the f35 has the same skillset

The F-35 is already testing small diameter bombs and can use external pylons. It excels in the air to ground role.

@@richardtuxford1812 How is it tricky when it was never needed in the first place? So any of you know the political history of this airframe and are you aware of the crony capitalism that goes on in Washington DC?

The MQ-9 took over CAS missions for the A-10 like a decade ago and has done 99% of them with greater success and precision than the A-10 ever did.

@@fnhatic6694 Pretty soon these A-10 guys will be saying the USAF should break out P-47 Thunderbolts and A-1 Skyraiders for CAS missions 🤣

The maintenance death spiral - at some point maintenance of old platforms sucks up so much of the budget that you can't afford to buy new kit. The trick is to figure out when the balance shifts from "maintenance is more cost-efficient than buying new" to "maintenance is too expensive, we need to buy new" and get off the ride before that happens.

How much would it cost to build a brand new A-10 versus an F-35? How much does it cost to maintain an A-10 versus an F-35? Hmmmm

Give them to Ukraine 🇺🇦 it's probably cheaper shipping our old stuff to them 👍 problem solved 😉

@@tomstarcevich1147 That's what we've been doing. Some of the kit is new but most of it is ammo and vehicles that are approaching the end of their shelf life, so it's either donate them or scrap them. Cheaper to send them to Ukraine so that's what we're doing.

Meanwhile Russia deploying T55s and Mosin-Nagants :D

Damn! I might have soiled my shorts. Greetings from Sweden

Am surprised the a-10 didn’t blue on blue you lol

My cousin died from A10 friendly fire. Do people even remember Pat Tillman? The military killed him. And they killed my cousin. Pure evil.

I would take every other aircraft as CAS over the A-10. That aircraft killed to many US and allied forces.

Good for you, tho the brits didnt think so.

ERA doesn't work against kinetic armor penetrating rounds, so that's a nonsense argument. ERA is designed to defeat HEAT. Of course the GAU-8 can be effective against 'armor'. Vehicles come in all sorts of armor. The question is, what *kind* of armor, how thick, what is the priority of the vehicles sporting said armor and most importantly: how close did you have to get to penetrate? Do you even realize the GAU-8 was designed to penetrate the top armor of a tank the Soviets weren't even using anymore by the time they spooled up full rate production? The T-55 was replaced with the T-62 which had double the top armor, which meant the A-10 had to get in *significantly* closer, which means that ZSU-23-4s can eat that shit for lunch. Also I don't know why you're pimping up the pilots, dude. The pilot is *wildly* oversaturated with the dogshit antique avionics in that thing (yes, even the C), which is why pilots murder the shit out of their own forces with it at a higher rate than any other airframe. They can't see, they have a thousand things to micromanage, it's way too much for one person with the technology available.

But an F35 simply cannot even attempt to do what the A10 does.

What, fly slower than a P51 mustang with exposed engine pods and eat a MANPAD? You've a better chance surviving in a modern fight using the SU25 and those are getting fucking eaten for breakfast. It only made sense fighting farmers with literally zero air defense.@@tetraxis3011

@@tetraxis3011 because who would want to fly low and slow over an enemy that’s going to be shooting at you when you can be stealth and drop a PGM 80 miles away and still nail the target

@@tetraxis3011yes but the role of the a10 is kinda obsolete in a future war with China

Yhea but the A-10 is just useless..

Those were my thoughts as well. I hate to say it, but I think this has changed my mind.

Lazerpig goes into way more detail on the stuff in the second half of the video, if you're interested check him out

A10 can do it much much cheaper

Dang you changed my mind

A-10 needs to stay

​@@myprivatewar Not really. As it ages, it becomes more expensive to keep alive.

@@myprivatewar Cheaper, yes. Even with all the extra duct tape expense for holding the old airframes together ;) SLEP is almost always cheaper than a new plane. But the issue of what you get for your trouble becomes less attractive. Do it cheaper? yeah. But the A-10 can't do it "better". And being in the plane which is a sitting duck for modern air defense systems, certainly not "cheaper" from the pilot's perspective. Also, you're assuming it will survive long enough to "do it at all". A-10's are about as stealthy as a disco ball. And it has to get to the target area, which by definition is somewhere near the front lines, where there are enemy forces to 'do'. Curvature of the earth & terrain features can offer some protection, until you get close at least. But only if you have total air superiority. If you allow the enemy forces to have any airborne sensors, the A-10 would be lucky to even _see_ a target to 'do'. And after you've gotten through A2AD, and swept all the enemy fighters away, you get your shot. But if properly equipped, the ground forces are likely to shoot back. You won't get very many kills before you get shot down. A shoulder fired MPADS costs anywhere from $100k to a few hundred $k. So you're not going to win any economic equations by maintaining & operating aircraft which feed kills to those. The A-10 was lauded with praise in Desert Storm in 1991. And they did fly a lot of sorties. But they suffered getting hit 18 times in the process, 6 of which resulted in lost aircraft (it is a tough plane, i'll give it that). But that was just against the army of a strong-ish 3rd world country from 32 years ago ...who had no shoulder fired MPADS, and whose entire airforce & A2AD were rendered useless on day 1. They took 18 hits and 6 losses mainly to heavy machine guns on the ground. Which is the least effective tool possible for air defense on a modern battlefield. Even in Desert Storm, they had their sorties reduced and handed over to F-16's, because that was a much safer way to blow up tanks. So even in 1991, A-10's were starting to lose the edge on their blade against upper-3rd world armies. They're going to give A-10's to Ukraine soon. I don't think Ukraine will actually fly them though. Ukraine doesn't have an endless supply of skilled pilots. Even putting ordinance on the A-10's and sending them to an area where there are Russian forces is of questionable value (even if you really hated that pilot, the ordinance has value). The "might" be of limited use, when retreating from a Russian advance, drawing the ground forces away from the protection behind them. Even then, it's debatable. The US isn't going to send any "advanced" aircraft to Ukraine though. Not when they're certain to drop parts into Russian possession. I expect Ukraine will use them as flower planters or crop dusters. Or maybe they'll _try_ to use them in combat. I dunno. It would be a "balls bigger than brains" move, but that _sometimes_ could apply to Ukraine. And yeah, I feel bad saying that they're crop dusters. It was a pretty cool plane when it was brand new. Already behind the obsolescence curve when new (the hidden cost of "cheap" solutions), but it was cool for a while. I just hate seeing it dragged out to fight from it's wheelchair, because far too many people haven't kept up with advances in military tech after the cold war. When it was new, it could do ground attack cheaper, and more survivably, than an F-4 (as long as you had air superiority). But it wasn't an overtly better aircraft overall than a multirole F-4. Now? ...in the coast guard, the long loiter time would still be useful. Other than that, it's way overdue to go to the desert. There's a reason why the F-15E and B-52 have "staying power". It's because range and payload never completely go out of style. At minimum, they force opposition air defense to spread over a _much_ larger area, or risk attack aircraft simply going around the air defense. It's difficult to take that particular leverage away from them with more advanced tech. Also they can both use 'very' beyond visual range ordinance, in effect just acting as a UPS truck to get modern ordinance to a point where the ordinance can do the heavy lifting. A-10 doesn't offer any of that. Also if you want too talk cheaper, compare the A-10 to drones..

Not to mention, missiles cost more than bullets in sales

@@nephron9924 Though the "New" AC-130 does enjoy better standoff with being a "Missile Boat" yeah... That's more expensive than a 105mm. But yeah, same thing ref A-10. 8 combat deployments, 4 as a "Ground Guy" 4 as an AH64 aviator. Sometimes you have to get in close and shoot people in the face... --Not even a tertiary concern for USAF leadership that never wanted the CAS mission in the first place.

The air force just wants the billion dollar planes that we can't afford with our present admin.

@@mikelee6936i assume you have considered the price of the A-10 before you made this cmment? Operating F-35’s is getting cheaper and cheaper and will soon (if it hasnt already) become cheaper to operate than A10’s The A-10 is a heavily dated airplane and keeping it flying requires more and more maintainance and spare parts.

Except the Buff. The Buff lives forever.

B-52?

FUBAR.

So you going to foot the bill for their next over budget, over priced piece of shit that doesn't do it's job that they attempt to replace it with?

"The point is we could see it" this is, unfortunately, also the problem. "If you can see it, you can kill it" applies in air defense just as much as it does to ground warfare, assuming you have the equipment needed to perform the "kill it" part. Peer and near-peer adversaries have that equipment.

@@ShuRugal and the air force will not risk an F35 at its cost and its overheating engine to do CAS, they never wanted to do CAS and all the laser guidance isn't worth a crap if you aren't around and they will not be around.

The replacement needs to be many more cheap, unmanned drones piloted from afar. It enables more CAS over larger areas while not risking lives. The most likely adversaries of Russia and China are loaded with AA, so the A10 will be a sitting duck no matter how many systems are taken out.

Finding parts would be an issue, but it amuses me to think of someone having to put a crap ton of ballast in the body to keep the center of gravity in the right spot with the gun missing 😅

@@ex4787 I think that crushing up a vw beetle is the acceptable solution. The gun is often described as a similar size and weight. Still, wouldn’t need to remove it…easy enough to make it just not work by welding some rotary parts and plugging the barrels.

Let’s have chocolate ice cream but without chocolate or being ice cream

@@tsarnicholasiiiofthegreatr5578 hahahaha! I think the plane would just be a pleasure to fly Braaaaatttt or not. Maybe we make it shoot confetti?

@@done.6191 you're like Mike Sparks if he was smart

The A-29 is a very capable plane for counter insurgency, would hate to see it eaten alive in near-peer combat. The Skywarden is a good US equivalent.

@@BakaVHS I don't think that the A-29 is the best option for the US, I agree with you on that. And I would agree before 2022 invasion of Ukraine that it wouldn't survive in a modern battlefield, but now seeing how pretty much every aircraft are just hugging the ground, I do belive that the A29 availability, easy commands and low stall speeds would make it amazing at hugging the ground, and with it's armored cockpit it would better for Ukraine than it's Su-25

The US fights wars different to Russia, the first stage would be to perform SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence), then DEAD (Destruction of Enemy Air Defence), then follow it up with a combined arms war. So the A10 exists in the space after DEAD with a favourable airspace for United States Air Forces. The Super Tucano could probably fill in the gaps given it has 2 internal .50 cal cannons (250 rounds each), a 20mm cannon pod (650 rounds). I will say the A10 took out the majority of the armor in the Gulf War (more than AH64, M1 Abrams combined) so its very versatile in taking out soft and hard targets. The F35 as a replacement is dumb, $42K USD per flight hour versus the $22K USD per flight hour of the A10, plus it has 17 seconds of gun time, where the F35 has 4 seconds of gun time.

In ukraine, the most shot down jet on both sides is the su 25 because they just get nailed with manpads

@@henryquecabral9357 for all of the reasons you noted... that is why the units sent to Afghanistan... were left in afghanistan... and just like the predocessor to that frame were left in Vietnam...

Drones are doing great on that area. It's nice to know the guy piloting that thing above you is nicely rested, fully operational and comfortably sitting back in the US.

I've seen a range of soft-toy plushie fighters and bombers, I'm pretty sure the maker has an A-10 in the lineup.

"...defend it?" Then YOU pay for it

Uh.... you may want to talk to the friendlies who have been on the receiving end of A-10 fire. This platform is so antiquated, it is time to let it go. The need for air support like this is essentially non-existent.

@@kid31989 and we should get rid of the B-1B because it had friendly fire incidents too? Shit happens in war, it's tragic and horrible. But the call by infantry and marines for CAS has been made time and time again. Sure in a near peer conflict it will likely be less than useful, but it's been a workhorse for longer than most have been alive.

@@kid31989 Only in cases against enemies without AA would you want a weapon *Like* the A-10, but in that case just use a cheaper plane with more modern guided weapons and actual electronics to identify friendlies.💀

@@kid31989 that's what the air force claimed in viet nam.

I think A-10 might still have a space right now, sooner than later we will need a replacement when the gen 4 F-15/ 16/ 18 and gen 5 f-22/ 35 starts "rotting" from doing too much CAS missions in place of the A-10... they should at least start a project to wayfind for a potential replacement, even if they are not ready or wanting one... at least if they need one, they already have a template or blueprint to go... I mean do you really want to use a overkill weapon of essentially gassing the house" just to kill a cockroach or give it the smack and spray...

@@PrograError I keep seeing proposals to get a license to build Super Tucanos. Turboprop for that fuel efficiency and loitering, way more modern avionics, similar payloads.

Drones are so Unamerican, we should strap c4s to bald eagles instead and omg can you imagine the glorious screech of freedom that will sound every time something gets blown up ? 😍

@@Appletank8 Tucanos IIRC are more COIN ops than CAS similar issues remains...

The A10 is about hearts and minds.

Except that's a myth most fighters in Vietnam had four missiles. Each missile had a probability to hit of 60% a hit is a kill whereas your cannon hit and kill rate was pathetic

The A10 has consistently failed to hit its target goals. Everything the A10 has that actually shines in its intended role goes against its chief design. The short of it is "close air support missions are tricky, with a very dense vagueness and incorrectness of information and friendlies are mixed with hostiles more often than not" for "we don't know what we actually have to go there and shoot" the biggest solution is advanced targetting systems, which the A10 does not have natively for "friendlies are close to the hostiles" the biggest solution is precise, guided weapons, which the A10 does not have natively. relying on binoculars and a gun with a bullet spread that you can fit a row of school buses into makes for a horrible close air support weapon. Unsurprisingly, very early on and to this day the A10s in use in this role have extensible upgrades that go against its core design. Namely advanced avionics, targeting and missiles.

Fighters don't need guns anymore, when they can make upsetting posts on the enemys Facebook page or send a mean tweet.😂 A woke approach to airforce assets.

Thing is, vietnam was 50 years ago, missiles and radar have both advanced so much that the saying is for the most part true... A modern F35 is as invulnerable compared to planes from the vietnam war, as planes from the vietnam war era would have been to ww2 planes

@@alamore5084 Ha Ha Ha, I Like that One ! what I think of top brass is not good on a bad day !! they have always had a Tendency To Get Good Men Killed With their guess Work IN Any given Situation !!

Väga tore!

Would you support Estonia becoming a Vassal of the US? You get no freedom but all the security. What do you choose?

@@jacksevert3099 What are you getting at with this comment?

@@slowsubs9355 i truly wonder do people desire security more? Or freedom more? A wise man once said those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither but which would you choose? What would Estonia choose?

This is blatantly not true. If USAF didn't do CAS, Army would get fixed wing combat aircraft back. There is no gap, either, an A-10 is objectively inferior to an F-35 at CAS in every way except cannon size and ammunition. You're right about the dedicated CAS community, though. The only reason A-10 has made it this long is the justification "see! We have an ENTIRE AIRCRAFT and community that is completely incapable of anything else because their aircraft suck. It proves we care about CAS!" * proceeds to conduct CAS better, in larger quantities, with strategic bombers, eating up the airframe life of the entire B-1B fleet *

@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 And the fleet of 64 F-111F's got more tank kills during desert storm than the 144 strong fleet of A-10s. The A-10 has been out classed for decades now, it couldn't even match the now retired F-111 at it's own niche. With the F-15E and AT-802U there's no role left for the A-10 to fill.

@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 Air interdiction is NOT CAS. Fighters don't have loiter time. Fighters, sceam by too fast to put eyes on target. Fighters are not armed to spend time low enough to see what they are doing. But USAF LOooooves it some fighters... Regardless of utility. So keep repeating the line but F35 is not a superior CAS platform. You did hit one thing right. The ONLY reason USAF talks CAS is to hold on to that funding. It will be up to Army to make the case to Congress that F-35 isn't supporting the mission so they can get the money back

​@@jeffprice6421the sniper XLR pod does allow it to see what they are targeting. No one need to go low anymore not that it helped the a10 with its very high friendly fire incident rate

CAS is simply not possible against a modern opponent, no amount of SEAD/DEAD will get rid of all close range systems and manpads. The Ukraine war further validates this, attrition rate is to high for such an expensive platform. The GWT gave the A-10 an opportunity to shine against an opponent with zero airdefence but unless round 2 of Afghanistan is in the works that money is desperately needed elsewhere.

Plus the only unique thing about the A-10 is the gun. 90%; of the A-10’s kills were with bombs and missiles. The gun is responsible for a truly horrific number of friendly fire incidents.

Burt Rutan's Ares would bee a good successor to the A-10. Less expensive and lighter, with a 20mm cannon but the same basic idea.

I'm not saying this shouldn't be accounted for but take into consideration how such predictions have been wrong in the past.

@@foxale08We are watching what a 21st century war would look like in Ukraine, and it’s quite clear that the A-10 won’t work. It’s not about predictions.

Yeah, close air support against anyone who can fight back is dead. Its suicide. Plus the Armed Crop Duster AT-802U Sky Warden attack aircraft, does it cheaper vs those that cant and drones and HIMARS can fill in the rest.

@@foxale08 I assume you're talking about things like the failure of the F4 back in the 60s? You're right that didn't work out but that was largely a failure of the early guided missiles and a doctrine that required positive ID before engaging which removed the F4's advantages in speed and engagement distances and forced them into dogfights. Compare that to the performance of F-15s in desert storm when the weapons had matured and were paired with an aircraft that dominated in long range engagements and dogfights and the difference is night and day. Missile technology has continued to improve since then so I think his statement is more true now then it has ever been

Against who? Have you seen the "2nd most powerful military in the world" fighting in Ukraine? they are basically fighting WW1 with drones. We are allied with all the near-peer countries. China is not as big of a threat as people think it is.

If they stop fighting third world countries they will

True

Congress stopped them in the past

And "they" aren't the ones who get to make the call.

I'd say send them to Ukraine, but I'm not sure how well they would do against "modern" Russian AA and other jets.

You can use it when your going against Taliban in flip flops

We ALWAYS have air superiority.

@@jjww30 you have always had air superiority, that doesn't mean you always will, not to the degree you need for the a-10 anyway.

​@rayanalzahrani8756 Yeah, so air superiority The US is shifting to the Pacific theatre though

Ask yourself, how useful would these be in a modern conflict ie Ukraine? I would think even today they have a role

As good as it is to morale, the A-10 does more harm than good. It's built on an outdated concept and has a notorious reputation for blue-on-blue incidents. The F-35 would get the job done much better. However, you really wouldn't be sending in 5th generation aircraft for CAS. An F-15E or F-16C would be a cheaper option that would still get the job done.

90% of A-10 fire missions are launching hellfires from 12 kilometers away and then going home my dude.

The AF wouldn’t use their expensive F35 on missions the A10 did

Used that cannon a lot

You've witnessed grown men crying over a discontinued airplane? War profiteers?