Stump Water Posted March 21 Posted March 21 On 3/19/2026 at 7:23 PM, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said: As long as it continues to do its job, they can't come up with any reason replace it with something better, because there IS nothing better. Which is why the retirement schedule was paused. Quote
Nickle Posted March 21 Posted March 21 Artificial intelligence says Here is what the A-10 does better than the F-35 and F-16: The A-10 is built around a 1,200-pound titanium armor shell that protects the pilot from ground fire up to 23mm, and some 57mm projectiles. The aircraft is designed to take heavy damage and still return to base, with redundant hydraulic and mechanical control systems that allow the pilot to fly even with half a wing, one engine, or significant damage to the Its engines are placed high on the rear fuselage, reducing their heat signature from the ground and protecting them from damage The A-10 is designed for low-altitude, low-speed combat, making it easier for pilots to identify targets with the naked eye (FAC-A—Forward Air Controller—Airborne) and deliver precise weapons fire in close proximity to friendly forces. The A-10 can stay over the battlefield for extended periods, providing continuous support to ground troops, unlike the F-16 which has shorter endurance The Gun: The A-10 is built around the GAU-8/A Avenger 30mm Gatling-style autocannon, which fires 3,900 rounds per minute of armor-piercing depleted uranium or high-explosive incendiary shells. Psychological Impact: Known for its signature "BRRRRRT" sound, the gun has a devastating psychological effect on enemy troops, often cited as a greater "fear factor" than precision bombs. More Cannon Payload: While the F-35 has an internal gun, it carries far fewer rounds and is not calibrated for the same type of prolonged strafing runs as the A-10. Visibility: The cockpit is designed for maximum visibility, allowing pilots to see the ground better and interact with ground troops.Short/Improvised Airfields: The A-10 is designed for high-endurance, simple maintenance, and the ability to operate from forward, unimproved airstrips (e.g., dirt or gravel) close to the front lines.High Target Count: In test scenarios, the typical loadout of an A-10 enabled more attacks on target than the F-35, particularly in lower-threat scenarios. 1 Quote
Trailrider #896 Posted March 21 Author Posted March 21 On 3/20/2026 at 5:28 AM, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said: This is yet another example of Air Force officers not being able to think beyond their domain or individual platform. Well, maybe not all AF officers. There has been and still is the 20th AF part of Global Strike Command that have a good overall picture. Don't know about nowadays, but even in SAC, missileers were not given too much respect by the flyboys. For example, in the late 1960's at Malmstrom, if I wanted to go into the O-club, I had to be wearing at least class B's. As I wore mostly fatigues as a missile maintainer, I would have to go to my off-base residence and change. OTOH, the pilots from the 71st FIS or 94th FIS could go in wearing their flight suits without a word being said. So, I very seldom went to the club unless planned for an event, such as a dining-in (command performance). Don't know about the launch officers. They wore either white jumpers or, later, blue. But never had must social contact with them either. Too busy keeping the Strat Alert lights green on their launch panels. Parocialism (sp?) is still much a part of the military, jointness notwithstanding. Some disparage even the land and missile legs of the Triad. Having had a short association (as a summer intern in college), with the Navy "boomer" "boats" at the Cape, I always thought that, difficult as it would be, if our ICBM's could be taken out, the Tridents from the SSBN's could gutshoot an aggressor's population a week after the rest of us were radioactive dust. Of course, with the present situation, it is difficult to deter an enemy who is intent on killing anybody who doesn't believe as they do, and don't care if they die trying to wipe us out. That is why it may be necessary to find and neutralize the 60% Uranium and whatever ballistic missiles may be existing, using other than strictly airpower! And, Cyrus, you know what that would entail! God Bless and protect our troops! 1 Quote
Big Sage, SASS #49891 Life Posted March 22 Posted March 22 Back in the late 60's, early 70's (Can't remember which), I was working as a Manufacturing Engineer on the B-1A. It used massive amounts of Titanium in the wing carry thru and the wing pivots. We were on the leading edge of technology for Ti use on the assembly line at that time. My Manager left and went to Fairchild Republic to oversee assembly on the A-10. They were having a lot of problems with the Ti used for protection of the pilot and to support the gatling gun it had in it's nose. He called me and asked if I would come to Fairchild and help them out with the Ti on the assembly line. I said no as I didn't want to leave my current job. The next day our Vice President of Manufacturing called my into his office and said I was being loaned to Fairchild for a maximum of 90 days. I almost fell over at being told that as it was very unusual. I went to Maryland and got their problem solved. That plane was a tank. Everything was over designed for it's mission. I have lots of respect for it's design and mission performance. I hope they keep it flying as there is nothing that will replace it. 3 3 Quote
Cyrus Cassidy #45437 Posted March 22 Posted March 22 On 3/21/2026 at 5:11 PM, Trailrider #896 said: Well, maybe not all AF officers. There has been and still is the 20th AF part of Global Strike Command that have a good overall picture. Don't know about nowadays, but even in SAC, missileers were not given too much respect by the flyboys. For example, in the late 1960's at Malmstrom, if I wanted to go into the O-club, I had to be wearing at least class B's. As I wore mostly fatigues as a missile maintainer, I would have to go to my off-base residence and change. OTOH, the pilots from the 71st FIS or 94th FIS could go in wearing their flight suits without a word being said. So, I very seldom went to the club unless planned for an event, such as a dining-in (command performance). Don't know about the launch officers. They wore either white jumpers or, later, blue. But never had must social contact with them either. Too busy keeping the Strat Alert lights green on their launch panels. Parocialism (sp?) is still much a part of the military, jointness notwithstanding. Some disparage even the land and missile legs of the Triad. Having had a short association (as a summer intern in college), with the Navy "boomer" "boats" at the Cape, I always thought that, difficult as it would be, if our ICBM's could be taken out, the Tridents from the SSBN's could gutshoot an aggressor's population a week after the rest of us were radioactive dust. Of course, with the present situation, it is difficult to deter an enemy who is intent on killing anybody who doesn't believe as they do, and don't care if they die trying to wipe us out. That is why it may be necessary to find and neutralize the 60% Uranium and whatever ballistic missiles may be existing, using other than strictly airpower! And, Cyrus, you know what that would entail! God Bless and protect our troops! Well pard, it's all of them, and when it comes to thinking above the weapon system level the pilots and missileers are on equal ground. The pilots THINK they're better, but the truth is they're just more self-absorbed because they have a sexy weapon system. But they really are glorified weapon system operators. Their PME program is a colossal joke, unfortunately, so much that no other service will recognize their War College. I don't have anything negative to say about the Navy or Marine Corps (or even the Coast Guard!), but the Air Force is a complete joke if you need them to do anything besides operate a weapon system. And, as I said in my first post, they are the best in the world at operating their weapon systems; they just have no idea WHY or how to develop any kind of coherent plan above the mission level. Even the Air and Space Operations Center is broken into three major planning areas -- ops, plans, and strategy. And the funny thing is, two of the three are misnamed. None of them have anything to do with planning above the mission level. Their "plans" division is just ops two days from now, and their strategy division is ops three days from now. Commander's objectives? End state? STRATEGY???? Clueless. 1 1 Quote
watab kid Posted March 23 Posted March 23 it seems they are way more important and useful then this thread suggests , back in use in iran this week 1 Quote
Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 Posted March 23 Posted March 23 Remember, the Powers That Be had the F-4 Phantom designed without a gun because THEY decided that the era of dogfighting was over. 2 Quote
Caprock Kid Posted March 23 Posted March 23 Here’s the rest of the story. I remember in the late 90’s when the US Army offered to take the A-10s from the USAF. Was at Fort Sill at the time and Field Artillery wanted the as Fire Support like an AC 130. USAF would happily transfer the aircraft, but refused to give up the manpower numbers (pilots/maintainers/support) or budget ($) to support. $’s and manpower drive all decisions. Would have been a marriage made in heaven but was fiscally conservative impossible. Quote
Cyrus Cassidy #45437 Posted March 23 Posted March 23 7 hours ago, Caprock Kid said: Here’s the rest of the story. I remember in the late 90’s when the US Army offered to take the A-10s from the USAF. Was at Fort Sill at the time and Field Artillery wanted the as Fire Support like an AC 130. USAF would happily transfer the aircraft, but refused to give up the manpower numbers (pilots/maintainers/support) or budget ($) to support. $’s and manpower drive all decisions. Would have been a marriage made in heaven but was fiscally conservative impossible. Pard, that fight and that discussion are STILL ongoing thirty years later. Why? Because, as I have been asserting throughout this entire discussion, AF officers don't understand anything above operating their weapon systems. It's an old weapon system, so they want a new one regardless of how it's being employed. 2 Quote
Black Angus McPherson Posted March 23 Posted March 23 23 hours ago, Cyrus Cassidy #45437 said: Well pard, it's all of them, and when it comes to thinking above the weapon system level the pilots and missileers are on equal ground. The pilots THINK they're better, but the truth is they're just more self-absorbed because they have a sexy weapon system. But they really are glorified weapon system operators. Their PME program is a colossal joke, unfortunately, so much that no other service will recognize their War College. I don't have anything negative to say about the Navy or Marine Corps (or even the Coast Guard!), but the Air Force is a complete joke if you need them to do anything besides operate a weapon system. And, as I said in my first post, they are the best in the world at operating their weapon systems; they just have no idea WHY or how to develop any kind of coherent plan above the mission level. Even the Air and Space Operations Center is broken into three major planning areas -- ops, plans, and strategy. And the funny thing is, two of the three are misnamed. None of them have anything to do with planning above the mission level. Their "plans" division is just ops two days from now, and their strategy division is ops three days from now. Commander's objectives? End state? STRATEGY???? Clueless. What is a PME program? Angus Quote
Sedalia Dave Posted March 24 Posted March 24 3 hours ago, Black Angus McPherson said: What is a PME program? Angus Professional Military Education (PME) programs are courses designed to develop leadership, warfighting skills, and strategic thinking for military personnel. 1 1 Quote
Stump Water Posted March 29 Posted March 29 https://theaviationgeekclub.com/a-10-makes-final-luke-days-appearance-as-warthog-divests-and-pilots-transition-to-f-35a/ Quote
Buckshot Bear Posted March 31 Posted March 31 Well...... It looks like they are going to be used again - 2 Quote
Buckshot Bear Posted March 31 Posted March 31 (edited) https://www.twz.com/news-features/dozens-of-a-10-warthogs-appear-poised-to-join-epic-fury Edited March 31 by Buckshot Bear 2 Quote
Stump Water Posted April 8 Posted April 8 A-10 Intruder https://www.twz.com/air/a-10-warthog-being-tested-with-aerial-refueling-probe Quote
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted April 8 Posted April 8 (edited) Just curious: how many who are supporting the retirement of these planes has ever been in a position where they would have sold their soul to have one these "obsolete" planes show up to pull THEIR fat out of the fire? 😮 Edited April 9 by Forty Rod SASS 3935 1 2 Quote
Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062 Posted April 8 Posted April 8 56 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said: Just curious: how many who are supporting the retirement of these planes has ever been in a position where they would have sold their soul to have one these "obsolete" planes show up to pull YOUR fat out of the fire? 😮 .... my guess is none or less. 2 Quote
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted April 9 Posted April 9 I never have either, but there were a few times that I prayed for as many guns and tons of ammo as possible would meander by and make Charlie go away. Fortunately my prayers were answered by guys jockying F-4 Phantoms A-4s, Hueys and LOCHes, and F-100s and 102s, all in groups of three or four or more and one silly little Bronco....and a SPAD....so I got by....but I still would have liked to know that something was available that could just spread hell-fire, death, and destruction all over some of those hill sides and forests. Rockets, machine guns, bombs, and napalm will do most jobs.... but still....! This is MY cute, tender little ass and I want the best I can get to cover it. Quote
Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 Posted April 9 Posted April 9 The silly little Bronco could be well armed, though its primary job was to mark targets for those same F-4 Phantoms A-4s, Hueys and LOCHes, and F-100s and 102s to shoot at. While not a glamorous job, it was essential for it to do so so that the Fast Movers knew where their targets were. 1 Quote
Texas Joker Posted April 10 Posted April 10 On 4/8/2026 at 12:47 PM, Stump Water said: A-10 Intruder https://www.twz.com/air/a-10-warthog-being-tested-with-aerial-refueling-probe New probe to allow refueling from the c130 instead of just the kc135. A10 has had Arial refueling capability for a while 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.