A-10 vs. Taliban fighters shows why so many in the DoD want to keep it. How does this video impact your perception of the A-10?

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 16:20:12 -0500

** Question for RP members: We see the A-10's awesome capabilities in this video clip. As some in the DoD are arguing that we should get rid of it, what other air assets could fill in well during this type of situation? Or is the A-10 the hands down best asset here? **

Survey options (vote below!):

(1) Yes, the A-10 is the perfect air asset for this type of situation.
(2) No, another air asset (explain) would have done just as well here.

//

So much has been debated recently about the A-10 and what role, if any, it deserves to play in our military. I decided to investigate the issue, and while doing so, I encountered this incredible footage of an A-10 turning the tide of a firefight vs. the Taliban. You don't want to miss this clip...let's just say you don't want to be on the receiving end of that "BRRRRRRRRRRRRT" sound.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llEWrL9ghyg

MK-48 With Close A-10 Runs

Daily Military News & Combat Footage at FUNKER530.com - http://vid.io/xGB

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Feb 22 at 2015 4:40 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 16:40:10 -0500

My first reaction (as an Army veteran) was wondering how well the Apache would have done in this type of firefight situation. I am not suggesting that the Apache could at all replace the A-10 (obviously not), but does anyone else think the Apache could have performed fairly well here? Or no?

Response by PO2 Jonathan Scharff made Feb 22 at 2015 5:40 PM

PO2 Jonathan Scharff — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 17:40:05 -0500

Awesome video! The A-10 rocks! Ya know...if you ask those men on the ground...I don't think they want anything else supporting them. Just my 2 cents!

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Feb 22 at 2015 6:46 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 18:46:38 -0500

The A-10 excels at tank busting, I would also point to the AH-64 and AC-130... each have their place.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Feb 22 at 2015 6:51 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 18:51:16 -0500

Can someone educate me on what the A-10 does so much better than the Apache in this specific type of combat situation? The A-10 seems really awesome to me and the video itself was great to learn from. But if there was an Apache in that video, and it did a run on those Taliban fighters, do you think that would have been sufficient? Or would it not have been as effective?

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 22 at 2015 6:55 PM

COL Charles Williams — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 18:55:58 -0500

The A-10 has been the source of "keep or drop" for decades. It has proven its worth time and time again. I think the Army (& Marines) ground forces love it... The Air Force not so much. The Air Force is fixated with bombers and air superiority fighters... Close Air Support and Transport, not so much. If you have even been on the ground when A-10s are in support, or Apaches too... You will never forget it and secure feeling you have. I never believed the F-16 could do the same thing (their cover story during OIF), and who knows what they have in mind now. Just having them (A-10s or Apaches) loitering in the area, make you feel better.

I am clearly not Air Force, but I can remember from more than one place, time, or school, when the Air Force has tried the Curtis LeMay idea that can win it all by themselves... We have ample contemporary examples that don't support that idea.

Ground forces have to go in eventually to affect change, and have to stay.... Close Air Support is a must have. When was the last time we needed an air superiority fighter?

Anyway... If I was in charge, first I would put the Air Force back in the Army, and second I would keep the A-10 until we had a specifically designed close air support replacement... not just this plane can do the same thing if necessary.

Response by SPC Tyler Sitzer made Feb 22 at 2015 7:02 PM

SPC Tyler Sitzer — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 19:02:25 -0500

A-10 or rotorwing work great in these situations

Response by CSM Gerald Utterback made Feb 22 at 2015 7:05 PM

CSM Gerald Utterback — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 19:05:56 -0500

We really need to keep the A-10 if the Air Force does not want to keep it then give it to the Army and let us fly it, put it in the Air Cav...

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2015 7:48 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 19:48:41 -0500

I think the most unbelievable part of this video/situation is that not ONCE did the shooter have to rack or fight with his SAW to get it to shoot. Not one jam or misfeed. Unbelievable.

The A-10 is awesome. But sometimes the government leadership is more interested in being part of something new and big (new aircraft), or leaving a legacy, versus keeping and improving upon what is effective. "If it isn't broken, break it and replace it with something else"

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 22 at 2015 7:51 PM

SGT Jim Z. — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 19:51:06 -0500

The A-10 is perfect with its combat air support role although it is not as fast or pretty as the Air Force wants it is darn functional. I for one will go with functional over pretty especially in a combat zone.

Response by PFC Josh Benoit made Feb 22 at 2015 7:52 PM

PFC Josh Benoit — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 19:52:26 -0500

No other aircraft can preform the close air support function that the
A-10 can and does. Sure it's old but it is the one of the infantry's best support vehicles, I would take an A-10 over artillery any day of the week. It's called danger close for a reason.

Response by CMC Robert Young made Feb 22 at 2015 8:05 PM

CMC Robert Young — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 20:05:29 -0500

The A10 has a storied history of providing close air support. It is a mystery to me as to why we would decommission such a successful platform given it's demonstrated capacity, and the apparent recurrent need for CAS.

Response by SrA Michael Gaytan made Feb 22 at 2015 9:14 PM

SrA Michael Gaytan — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:14:47 -0500

I love it.

Response by Sgt Joshua Anderson made Feb 22 at 2015 9:28 PM

Sgt Joshua Anderson — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 21:28:05 -0500

I say we keep the A-10! It might be a little old, but damn is it a versatile and lethal weapon!

Response by SPC Christopher Green made Feb 22 at 2015 11:00 PM

SPC Christopher Green — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 23:00:19 -0500

Short of the bombers in World War II, I defy anyone to name me a plane that has rained more pants- shitting terror on the enemy than that war-beast named the A10.

Response by SrA Jerry Prizevoits made Feb 23 at 2015 9:33 AM

SrA Jerry Prizevoits — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:33:25 -0500

There were many who wanted to get rid of the A-10's prior to the first Gulf War and it was not long into the campaign that the value of this aircraft was recognized. Its ability to loiter over target at close range give allow it to rain hell down on a target. She can take a hell of a lot of damage, do her mission and return her crew member safely.

Response by SSG Scott Burk made Feb 23 at 2015 9:36 AM

SSG Scott Burk — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:36:50 -0500

When Attack Helos are not in the area, this is the next best thing.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2015 9:46 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:46:04 -0500

I am far from an expert on infantry tactics and I don't think I got a big picture look at that engagement like how far from the airfield they were, size of the enemy force, but would a rotary wing platform have served that situation as well? It seems that if the enemy was unarmored the A-10's weapon might have been used better against hardened targets. Or at least the helos would have served just as well.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2015 9:51 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:51:21 -0500

How about a new tilt-rotor gunship? Gets there in a hurry, but can hover.

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Feb 23 at 2015 10:00 AM

GySgt Joe Strong — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:00:42 -0500

My understanding is that each A-10 has about 20 seconds of gun time(1330 rounds at max rate of fire 70 RPS= 19 seconds, it averages 60 RPS extending out to 22, I'm going to call it 20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II), giving a 2 plane flight 40 seconds of gun runs, each gun run averages 1/2 to 1 second giving us between 40 to 80 runs per 2 plane flight.
My understanding is also that the F-35 will have about 3.5 seconds of gun time per plane. Gives a two plane flight 7 seconds of gun time, using the same metrics 7 to 14 runs per 2 plane flight. (182 rounds at 55 RPS= 3.3 seconds of gun time. I'm going to be generous and call it 7). http://defensetech.org/2015/01/02/a-tale-of-two-gatling-guns-f-35-vs-a-10/ Advantage Warthog.
Loiter times are also an issue, ( I don't have the figures here but the aviation community should easily be able to provide this (any Crew Chiefs out there?)while it's obvious that a F-35 could arrive faster from an airfield launch or racetrack hold, they can't stay up (in either the racetrack hold, or overhead waiting to be walked in on targets) as long as the A-10 and they can't do as quick a turn around when Bingo.

In summary, and this has in no way been an exhaustive comment - it takes between 5.7x (can we just call it 6?)- 12x as many 2 plane flights of the F-35, at a much higher cost per flight, and while putting a much more expensive airframe at risk, to meet the number of gun runs available from one 2 plane flight of the A-10, and that's on gun time alone.
The loiter time figures should also show that the A-10 also provides a longer period of continuous coverage.
I can't see how this works out in favor of the F-35 in any way other than a Political way, or a funding manufacturers way. I absolutely do not understand any attempt at making this a fiscal argument in favor of the F-35. IMHO, nothing rational in a fiscal argument has been proposed other than "We want this plane, not that one."

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2015 10:16 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:16:48 -0500

its hard to beat a platform that has been performing at this level for decades. the 'replacement' is an air platform suited for short takeoff capabilities that it appears they are trying to force a CAS platform upon it. SGT James Elphick can feel me as we've had this discussion :)

Response by CW4 Steve Knotts made Feb 23 at 2015 10:47 AM

CW4 Steve Knotts — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:47:12 -0500

Prior to 1990, the AF wanted rid of the A10. The incredible effectiveness and positive press during DS caused them to rethink that. Let the AF give the A10 to the army where the close air support mission should be. Just what we need is an old w4 with a Warthog. What a rush.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Feb 23 at 2015 11:40 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 11:40:32 -0500

Love the A-10. Best CAS aircraft ever. But, after I discovered SOCOM was keeping its AC-130s for the sole support of Spec Ops troops, even if it meant they sit on the ground while Regular ground forces need them, I've become a big advocate for release of the AC-130s for support to regular ground forces.
AC-130s are the only thing I know of that can loiter longer and put down more precision lead in an area than an A-10. We need to use them.

Response by Sgt Eric Taylor made Feb 23 at 2015 12:33 PM

Sgt Eric Taylor — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:33:32 -0500

Low and Slow, Best way to support ground troops.

Response by PO1 Mark Tabor made Feb 23 at 2015 12:49 PM

PO1 Mark Tabor — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:49:53 -0500

I think the A-10 is a great asset for us on the ground. However as it's been pointed out earlier it was designed to bust tanks.
I love the idea of a dedicated close air support acft. I would lobby for the Army and Marines to adopt a modern update to the AD-1 Skyraider. armed with GAU-12, 25mm, Armored, low, slow & deadly to the bad guys.
JMHO

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Feb 23 at 2015 7:08 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:08:40 -0500

I'm actually more interested in why the Mk48 isn't a standard mTOE item for the infantry. It's lighter than the M240B and punches harder than the M249.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2015 7:19 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:19:26 -0500

This just reconfirms what I have said all along... The A-10 is THE ultimate CAS aircraft. Together with Apache AH-64C/D Longbows attack helicopters, C-130 gunships, and OH-58D armed scouts, these are the aircraft the infantry-man or Special Operations Soldier needs.

The effect of having this kind of CAS is tri-fold: First it DEMORALIZES the enemy - completely... imagine if you were on the receiving end of this.... You'd tuck tail and run if you could, and you probably still wouldn't get away.

Second, it boosts morale of your own troops, especially when you are outgunned... there's nothing better than being in an "OH-SH*T" situation, and getting that kind of support - a complete table turner..

Lastly, when you have this kind of air superiority, there is no place for the enemy to hide. You can get out of just about any kind of situation.

If the Air Force doesn't want to provide CAS anymore, then they need to turn the aircraft over to the Army...

Response by SSG Timothy McCoy made Feb 23 at 2015 7:33 PM

SSG Timothy McCoy — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 19:33:52 -0500

Until you have had to bet your 4th point of contact on the effectiveness of CAS This question should never need to be asked.
As a young Pvt in Desert Storm performing as an Asst gunner to an AT team, in the "Speed Bump" in the Sand as part of the 82nd Abn DIV. the first time I/we saw the A-10s, made those M-47 Dragon AT reload rounds seemed to get lighter.

Response by SGT Jim Perry made Feb 23 at 2015 8:44 PM

SGT Jim Perry — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 20:44:10 -0500

Wish we had those back in my day.

Response by SPC Matt Johnson made Feb 23 at 2015 8:47 PM

SPC Matt Johnson — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 20:47:09 -0500

the A-10 vs the F-22 and the F-35 I'll take the A-10 all day,any day, everyday. It gets there faster than a helo, stays there longer than an F-22 or F-35, It's tough as hell, fast enough that it's hard to shoot down and just slow and steady enough for accurate ground cover fire, and it is more nimble than any fighter jet, it uses a diverse assortment of arms to kill the enemy. Heck their engines are not as noisy. They travel at sub sonic speed. They can be on top of the enemy before they know whats coming and dead before they hear the "BRRRRRRRRRRRT". In the time takes you to say "whats that soun..." you're are already dead

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Feb 23 at 2015 11:14 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 23:14:15 -0500

Seeing this poor guy "rocking it" with a SAW until the A-10 brought the freedom farts made me think of this scene. ******(Explicit hilarious language)*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNXxlYCU0aY

Harlem Nights (5/8) Movie CLIP - Shooting Up Quick (1989) HD

Harlem Nights movie clips: http://j.mp/1JbHoTi BUY THE MOVIE: http://amzn.to/xv8p4l Don't miss the HOTTEST NEW TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/1u2y6pr CLIP DESCRIPTI...

Response by PO1 Tracy Dreyer made Feb 24 at 2015 6:09 AM

PO1 Tracy Dreyer — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 06:09:51 -0500

Freedom Farts for the Win!!!!

Response by PV2 Shawn Wolff made Feb 24 at 2015 9:55 AM

PV2 Shawn Wolff — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:55:05 -0500

I can only refer to what I remember during 1990-1991. It was a flying tank. and could take a beating. very useful for close air support.

Response by LCpl Robert Therrien made Feb 24 at 2015 10:24 AM

LCpl Robert Therrien — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 10:24:43 -0500

That is one sound as an insurgent you don't want to hear coming in. As a grunt on the ground it is the most beautiful sound you can ever hear.

Response by Sgt Dennis Peters made Feb 24 at 2015 10:27 AM

Sgt Dennis Peters — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 10:27:28 -0500

Nerves of steel on that guy.

Response by Cpl Peter Martuneac made Feb 24 at 2015 10:37 AM

Cpl Peter Martuneac — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 10:37:50 -0500

The only people arguing for getting rid of it are those who would profit from expensive new jets being built and purchased. The A-10 is second to none for CAS and needs no replacement.

Also, in almost every video I see of combat in Afghanistan, the guys involved have unlimited freedom of movement. I would have killed for that kind of advantage when I was over there. Seriously, was Helmand the only province where IED's were a major threat?

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Feb 24 at 2015 11:27 AM

1LT Nick Kidwell — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:27:09 -0500

Anyone who thinks some fancy newfangled multi-role fighter can replace the A-10 in its specific CAS mission is sorely mistaken.

Response by SGT Christopher Highe made Feb 24 at 2015 11:29 AM

SGT Christopher Highe — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:29:28 -0500

The A-10 is hands down the best CAS we have out there. Yes, she's an aging design, but by no means should we retire her, just yet. I believe that they should fund a modernization program in which new A-10s are built using modern materials, electronics, and parts, replacing older A-10s as they reach an unserviceable point.

Why try to replace what has, time and again, proven to work?

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Feb 24 at 2015 11:31 AM

GySgt Joe Strong — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:31:51 -0500

And again, "Where's the beef?" There isn't any because the gain is so small. At some point we're going to find out it's cheaper to upgrade the avionics/targeting systems than to retire it.
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/retiring-the-a-10-wouldnt-save-as-much-as-promised/article/2560596

Retiring the A-10 wouldn't save as much as promised

Much of the $4.2 billion the Air Force says it would save by retiring the A-10 attack fleet wouldn’t actually be saved, because it would come from personnel who would be shifted to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.In its fiscal 2016 budget, the Air Force estimates it would save $4.2 billion by retiring 164 of the attack aircraft, nicknamed the Warthog. The cuts would remove all A-10 active squadrons and cull 21 assigned to the Air National Guard....

Response by MSgt Jerry Clark made Feb 24 at 2015 11:34 AM

MSgt Jerry Clark — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:34:13 -0500

No other fixed wing has the ability to insert, loiter, and dominate in the ground support role like the Warthog. Period. No other platform has the ability to take the punishment that the Warthog can, keep the pilot safe, and bring the plane home. Period.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Feb 24 at 2015 11:37 AM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:37:08 -0500

Only other thing I wanted for close support was an Apache!

Response by CPL Sloan Dempsey made Feb 24 at 2015 11:56 AM

CPL Sloan Dempsey — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:56:53 -0500

A-10's are an awesome asset. Aerial protection at its best, if things get really hairy, they can always drop a JDAM!

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2015 12:00 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:00:45 -0500

need to set the timing on the 50. the a-10 is perfect

Response by SGT Bradley Brackett made Feb 24 at 2015 2:37 PM

SGT Bradley Brackett — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:37:27 -0500

The a-10 is a flying tank, we should never loose them, thanks for covering our asses guys.

Response by PO2 Patrick Prichard made Feb 24 at 2015 3:05 PM

PO2 Patrick Prichard — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:05:13 -0500

I say bring in some close air drops and carpet bomb their A$$ES!

Response by 1SG Nathan Root made Feb 24 at 2015 3:41 PM

1SG Nathan Root — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:41:39 -0500

If it ain't broke...

Response by SSgt Sam Zito made Feb 24 at 2015 4:26 PM

SSgt Sam Zito — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:26:28 -0500

no other attack aircraft can match up. Air Force saying they wanted another airplane to replace it were silly. Maneuverable, quiet, versatile, capable of carrying 33 500 lb bombs, 30mm cannon, easy to maintain(did maintenance on them for 5 yrs) There isn't another aircraft in the arsenal that can do it.

Response by PV2 Gary Weller made Feb 24 at 2015 4:37 PM

PV2 Gary Weller — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:37:20 -0500

As an E-2, I'm not even going to act like I know what I'm talking about in this lobby full of high-ranking officers and NCOs. However, I will say this: Keep them around, if just for the sound.

Response by SSgt David Hicks made Feb 24 at 2015 4:49 PM

SSgt David Hicks — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:49:10 -0500

The only air asset with fire power, speed, and fucselage strength for close air support. As nice as Cobra's and Apache's are they are not as capable of taking a beating as A-10's..

Response by Capt Wes Stiner made Feb 24 at 2015 5:14 PM

Capt Wes Stiner — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:14:04 -0500

The A-10 has been tested throughout modern U.S. combat history. It is a work horse that has earned its stay in the arsenal that is U.S. airpower. To get rid of the A-10 would be to have forced Tom Brady to retire in the ten years between his last two SuperBowls. Obviously, as seen in the last big game Tom had and has more in the tank, just as the A-10 does. I was blessed to be on the supported end of those birds and the drivers who flew them in support did an excellent job.

Aim High, or flow low and aim true, Air Force.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Feb 24 at 2015 5:23 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:23:58 -0500

SSG Robert Burns and CPT Private RallyPoint Member this thread has been viewed 55,384 times and counting (growing fast). I am going to take that "RP thread of the year" award from you. Get off me, bruh. ;)

Response by TSgt Robert Padget made Feb 24 at 2015 5:47 PM

TSgt Robert Padget — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:47:22 -0500

The A-10 is the angel on my shoulder.

Response by SGT Shane Daniel made Feb 24 at 2015 5:53 PM

SGT Shane Daniel — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:53:58 -0500

If it's not broken...

Response by PO2 Terry Jones made Feb 24 at 2015 6:43 PM

PO2 Terry Jones — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 18:43:26 -0500

Excellent machine. Exactly what is called for.

Response by Lt Col Gary Hart made Feb 24 at 2015 8:13 PM

Lt Col Gary Hart — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 20:13:48 -0500

Whoever posted this video is NOT Air Force. An A-10 has a rather large cannon in the nose. The clip shows someone HAND firing a machinegun out the side door of a helicopter. Please, do NOT insult our intelligence!!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2015 8:32 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 20:32:11 -0500

I sometimes wonder if the Air Forces wants it the be the sacrifice so that it may distract from reductions in other air frames. I have been saved by an A-10 and think it's removal would only be justifiable if the system was replaced with a very similar plateform with similar capabilities but better.

Response by TSgt Thaddeus Korzeniowski made Feb 24 at 2015 8:44 PM

TSgt Thaddeus Korzeniowski — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 20:44:03 -0500

Just for info, the 2 different types of teeth are sharks (dating back to Chenault) and wild boar (the ones with the tusks) used for the A-10s' nickname, "Warthog". The A-10 also performs as well as helicopters in SAR missions because it can fly low and slow.

Response by SSgt Victor Young made Feb 24 at 2015 9:14 PM

SSgt Victor Young — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 21:14:44 -0500

upgrade the wart hogg !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by Cpl Christopher Tardiff made Feb 24 at 2015 9:19 PM

Cpl Christopher Tardiff — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 21:19:11 -0500

If it ain't broke....don't fix it...
best ground support plane there is.

Response by AN William Perez made Feb 24 at 2015 9:49 PM

AN William Perez — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 21:49:49 -0500

Whatever it takes to wipe out the enemy islamic extremists!

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Feb 24 at 2015 10:01 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 22:01:49 -0500

80,000 views and climbing! Holy crapola CPT Aaron Kletzing , the only time I got that many views was when I was featured in an episode of COPS! (LOL?)

Response by 1SG Jarius Hansen made Feb 24 at 2015 10:27 PM

1SG Jarius Hansen — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 22:27:25 -0500

The A-10, in both Army and Air Force versions, is arguably the absolute best Close Air Support aircraft ever fielded. The attempts to mothball it are poorly disguised attempts to get one Congressman or another's constituent money flow's pet project funded for the replacement......

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2015 10:54 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 22:54:46 -0500

Having called for CAS on several occasions I can tell you that my 1st preference is the A10 and next is the Apache. I have had F-18s, F-16s, and B1s and the A-10 is the best at supporting you on the move or when you are in a jam. The B1 is great for hitting a specific static target and the others have their strengths. I have been made a believer of the A10 through experience.

Response by SGT Jason Weisbrich made Feb 24 at 2015 11:04 PM

SGT Jason Weisbrich — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:04:28 -0500

Honestly I never thought it was a good idea to get rid of them
They aren't pretty, but they sure can make a firefight a lot shorter. Now if the glory hounds don't want to fly them because they are slow and utilitarian, then start training some of the guys on the ground when appreciate them to fly them.

Response by PO3 Cary Hergenrother made Feb 24 at 2015 11:27 PM

PO3 Cary Hergenrother — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:27:09 -0500

Perfect platform for close air support and for taking out columns of White Toyota pickups, It will instill the fear in ISIS that the AC130 did to the Viet Cong on the Ho Chi Minh trail

Response by TSgt Daniel Wyrick made Feb 25 at 2015 12:00 AM

TSgt Daniel Wyrick — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 00:00:35 -0500

I think the A-10 is the best asset we currently have for close air support. I also think the Air Force should be the ones to wield this tool. Not because they are the best but because they need to have it beat into their heads that combined arms and mutual support are the future. Oh, and lest the other services think I'm bashing the AF, I was AF and I think the other services need to have the same message beaten into their heads as well.

Response by SGT Steve Oakes made Feb 25 at 2015 6:00 AM

SGT Steve Oakes — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 06:00:58 -0500

As a former Air Defense Artillery soldier who had to go up against these things in training. I can say with absolute certainty that the A-10 has no equal in the close air support role. I would routinely get MILES kills against Apaches, and Cobras ( only to fall to their wing man ). I never got an A-10. They come in seemingly out of nowhere reek havok and are gone around a tree line or hill before you register what happened. If by some stroke of luck you do hit them. They can get home on one engine missing half a wing or tail. And would probably kill you on the way out.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Feb 25 at 2015 9:50 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:50:45 -0500

Is there any sound nicer than the burrrbbbbb of an A-10 as a US Army Infantryman?

There is no current aircraft that can replace what the A-10 that I am aware of...when there is, we can take them out of service BUT only then.

Response by CPL Michael Moore made Feb 25 at 2015 12:18 PM

CPL Michael Moore — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 12:18:30 -0500

Cheap Air Cover - Keep it!!

Saves tons of lives, easy to operate on station

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 1:26 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:26:55 -0500

I, along with a few buddies of mine could tell a story of an A-10 saving our ass in DS/DS. Some of us might not be here today if not for that beautiful platform called the Warthog!!!!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 1:27 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:27:05 -0500

The Warhog has save my platoon so many times in afghanistan, so as the apache. Both are good in close air support. I'd say keep it. Just give it some upgrades.

Response by LTC Alfred Bender made Feb 25 at 2015 3:03 PM

LTC Alfred Bender — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:03:16 -0500

always there when you need them

Response by SN Douglas Smith made Feb 25 at 2015 3:15 PM

SN Douglas Smith — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:15:41 -0500

The Thunderbolt is BAD...What an awesome machine!!!

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Feb 25 at 2015 3:42 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:42:37 -0500

Yes keep it. The A-10 is a boss in the sky.

Response by GySgt Robert Lawton made Feb 25 at 2015 3:48 PM

GySgt Robert Lawton — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:48:00 -0500

The A-10 is one of the best close air support systems one could ask for in a situation like this. The pilot is protected and the A-10 can take a pounding as well as it can very effectively provide the support ground forces need. To retire it would be a shame, like getting rid of the Battleships, I think that was a bad decision.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 3:52 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:52:09 -0500

Follow the money.. I bet the "total cost of ownership" is prohibitive to sustain the A-10 program... even though the F-35 Lightning II is being touted for its CAS capabilities, how many of those could we lose on CAS missions? That might cost a pretty penny as well... sheesh

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 5:37 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:37:25 -0500

I believe that all the older 10's should be recycled to make newer ones, or at least a modified version of the same one. Once you replace so many parts, the pieces are bound to have issues fitting together. I'm upset at the fact that the OH-58 is getting discarded as well. I know that the 25th loved having our birds backing them up.

Response by Sgt Daniel V. made Feb 25 at 2015 7:10 PM

Sgt Daniel V. — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:10:48 -0500

What our air support needs is a serious upgrade in precision and targeting of ground targets and effectiveness and deployability of munitions. Every aircraft I have seen in action has a HUGE margin of error. I dont know if there is a replacement but considering incidents such as the downed helos on a mountain in Afghanistan the air support was ineffective there does need to be a change. I am not a munitions engineer but I am sure there could be a change in thinking and instead of going after the Air asset itself perhaps they could consider reengineering the munitions and targeting systems to meet the needs of the evolving battelfield.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Feb 25 at 2015 7:28 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:28:39 -0500

The Air Force is not getting rid of the A-10!! Its a red herring for political purposes. The AF is getting mauled to the death with budget cuts. The AF knows the value of and the popularity of the A-10. If you tell congress, that "we have to cut the A-10 to meet your budget limitations," guess what happens? Money appears.

Relax folks, the A-10 is safe. But like almost all AF equipment it is getting very old.

Response by SPC Blake Ryan made Feb 25 at 2015 7:30 PM

SPC Blake Ryan — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:30:06 -0500

TO be frankly honest I don't believe that the A-10 should ever be dropped unless it is reborn on a new chassis that is just as resilient as the current but possibly larger and hell while we are at it add a second Gatling gun and triple the magazine capacity and scare the hell out of our enemy. SCARED to the point that they never dare poke out there heads from the shit hole from wince they came.

Response by SPC Scott Sayre made Feb 25 at 2015 7:30 PM

SPC Scott Sayre — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:30:06 -0500

There is no craft in the inventory that can carry the same firepower and deliver it that close to those who need the support. Period. It can take hits and give them back ten times over. To retire the A-10 would put too many troops at risk. Hell, look how long the B-52 has served. And why? because it fills a need that is supported otherwise.

Response by PO2 Jerome Pollard made Feb 25 at 2015 7:33 PM

PO2 Jerome Pollard — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:33:59 -0500

Good weapon. But he's staying in one place too long in my opinion.

Response by SGT Dan Shank made Feb 25 at 2015 7:56 PM

SGT Dan Shank — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:56:38 -0500

In my experience the A-10 is a too valuable a tool in the kit to even think of getting rid of. I was an F.O. with the 10th MTN in Afghanistan in OEFs 6+ part of 7 & part of 8+9. I had the privilege of working with several kinds of aircraft, and i always preferred the A-10, when dealing with fixed wing. The AC-130 is too hard to get, and everything else just does a show of force after the fact. The pilots aren't able to get down in the thick of things like the A-10's are.

Response by SGT Adam Hebert made Feb 25 at 2015 8:09 PM

SGT Adam Hebert — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:09:40 -0500

A-10 Rocks........

Response by AN Jim Kenihan made Feb 25 at 2015 9:12 PM

AN Jim Kenihan — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:12:35 -0500

If it's not broken, don't fix it.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 9:25 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:25:16 -0500

The level of willful ignorance is out of control in this thread, from an astounding rank level at that.

Response by SSG Randall Speck made Feb 25 at 2015 9:36 PM

SSG Randall Speck — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:36:48 -0500

Don't have a clue why Obama wants to place all A-10's in Mothballs.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Feb 25 at 2015 10:00 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:00:42 -0500

Its incredibly obvious why the Air Force is trying to kill this platform. Cost overruns on their dream platform requires that cuts be made elsewhere. Unfortunately they are attempting to kill an aircraft that has proven its reliability time and time again. The A-10 is cheaper to fly, maintain and upgrade than any other fixed wing platform in our inventory. It would be one thing if they were honest with us as to why they really want to mothball it but so far the reasons they have presented are easily refuted.

Response by TSgt John York made Feb 26 at 2015 12:18 AM

TSgt John York — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:18:14 -0500

The Pentagon has been trying to kill the A-10 for years. We need to build more new updated engines and avionics. The F-22 or F-16 will not do the job nor will a drone and the F-35 is an Obamonation POS

Response by SPC George Long made Feb 26 at 2015 12:39 AM

SPC George Long — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:39:56 -0500

I think it is a good asset that should be transferred to the Army so they have their own CAS, I do believe the 30MM should be changed out for a smaller caliber that would allow the stowage of more Ammo. Since Tank killer is no longer its primary mission this would extend TOT when the gun is needed. Arm it like a Skyraider, give it to the Army and go to work.

Response by SPC Jesse Holder made Feb 26 at 2015 4:36 AM

SPC Jesse Holder — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 04:36:07 -0500

As a former 173rd Paratrooper, the A-10 was one of the number one assets we were happy to see check on station. Its capability to fly at low altitudes, overall size/sound, armament, and ability to stay on station for extended periods of time are four good reasons to keep it. How about these law makers take the advice of the men and women who have seen the Warthog in action!

Response by SPC Jason Willette made Feb 26 at 2015 5:06 AM

SPC Jason Willette — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:06:46 -0500

Angels is what they are. I'd rather see a new improved version of an A10 than anything else. More power for longer gun runs. More high tech target acquisition and thermal cameras. More payload. And whatever upgrades could be made for quicker turnaround to get back in the fight. Good rule of thumb we all know is don't fix what's not broken, but improving a time /war tested aircraft such as the A-10 should be a no brainer.

Response by SPC Michael Ferguson made Feb 26 at 2015 5:15 AM

SPC Michael Ferguson — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:15:33 -0500

Sounds like a keeper 2 me and the guys in that fire fight. What is it now 60 yrs and counting. One of the best planes they ever put in the air. Always a winner and keeps getting better.

Response by SPC Donnie Plamp made Feb 26 at 2015 8:05 AM

SPC Donnie Plamp — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:05:34 -0500

You can bet if they are trying to get rid of the A10.It's so someone can make money of something they want built!

Response by COL Timothy S. made Feb 26 at 2015 9:20 AM

COL Timothy S. — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:20:37 -0500

I suppose an AC-130 could also put prolonged fire in a close support role. My only concern with that platform in this role is that it loiters at a much higher altitude and relies heavily on accurate spotting from observers on the ground, which to me makes it more of an indirect fire asset. The A-10, on the other hand, is a bit more agile and can directly observe round placement as well as BDA.

Response by MSgt Allan Vrboncic made Feb 26 at 2015 10:04 AM

MSgt Allan Vrboncic — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:04:06 -0500

And to think, they want to mothball the most devastating Ground Support Aircraft in all of history.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Feb 26 at 2015 10:25 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:25:09 -0500

No other plane has the A-10's loiter time, redundant flight control systems, and survivability against small arms fire. It would be a serious mistake to get rid of it.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 11:16 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:16:36 -0500

Until someone can put an GAU-8/A Avenger 30mm 7 barrel gatling type cannon on a plane, the A-10 Warthog must stay. That gun is stronger than any argument against the A-10. 1,350 rounds of depleted uranium armor piercing shells fired by one of the cheapest and most durable planes in the Air Force makes any budget argument invalid. 'Nuff said!

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Feb 26 at 2015 11:31 AM

GySgt Joe Strong — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:31:00 -0500

From an F-35 Fanboy http://cimsec.org/f-35-fanboy-makes-case/15207
Problem is, while he makes the case that procurement is a sinkhole, and that the F35 will run to fruition, he's just not convincing as to replacing the A-10.
And if you look at the diverse list of Air frames the F-35 is designed to replace, one of them, the A-10 sticks out like a sore thumb and makes you want to start the song. You know, the song, "One of these things is not like the others...

F-35 Fanboy Makes His Case

Fair warning: what follows is commentary about the F-35. However, this isn't going to be a very popular commentary, as it doesn't follow suit with the endl

Response by PO1 James Booker made Feb 26 at 2015 11:34 AM

PO1 James Booker — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:34:27 -0500

The A-10 is tantamount to a dial watch. It's not fancy, it can't do a LOT of things...but it can do it's primary job as well or better than newer, more sophisticated platforms. No "bells and whistles", no real secondary mission capability...just simple, reliable, and effective. It's a no brainer. As with the P-47 Thunderbolt of WWII...it may not get the "glory" of it's fighter/attack brothers, but it saves lives on the ground. Period.

Response by MSgt Allan Vrboncic made Feb 26 at 2015 12:22 PM

MSgt Allan Vrboncic — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:22:08 -0500

I read an article awhile back about where they were thinking about replacing the A-10 with the F-35. I call bull! There is no way it can do what the A-10 can do.

Response by SPC Donald Moore made Feb 26 at 2015 12:38 PM

SPC Donald Moore — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:38:30 -0500

The A-10 may not be perfect, but it is better than some other alternatives. It is a jet, which makes it able to get on-station faster to provide direct support. That is an advantage over the next best thing, in my mind.
The next best thing being an AC-130 Gunship because they can orbit the location at a relatively slow air speed and provide both "artillery" and machine-gun fire-support.
They both have their advantages.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 1:22 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:22:24 -0500

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 1:23 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:23:11 -0500

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 1:24 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:24:13 -0500

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 1:25 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:25:05 -0500

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 1:25 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:25:42 -0500

Response by SFC Troy Harskjold (Ret.) made Feb 26 at 2015 3:32 PM

SFC Troy Harskjold (Ret.) — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:32:27 -0500

The only people who want to get rid of the A-10 is the Air Force brass. Sherking their responsibilities as usual. The continually excl to be a self-licking ice cream cone instead of supporting the ground forces. Further Close Air stand-off distances, listening to an Air Force MG complain about american artillery possibly shooting his planes down near the DMZ (forgot about the NK arty), bloated spending budgets, over exaggerated JFO requirements for the Army and always trying to get rid of the Big Ugly (A-10) that we grunts love to see. Even the pilots are "down to earth" (pun intended) and we can get an A-10 up quicker in the A-Stan than we can an Apache. Hopefully we keep them as longer or longer than the B-52 Stratofortress. Love that aircraft too.

Response by LCpl Christopher Pickett made Feb 26 at 2015 3:56 PM

LCpl Christopher Pickett — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:56:15 -0500

Until a new platform is made that can provide the valuable support that the A-10 provides, this aircraft should remain in service. Because of its low speed and devastating weapons it is perfect for ground support. No other aircraft can match it's capabilities yet. Until a new aircraft is released that can fly at the A-10s low speed, it should NOT be phased out. The A-10s low speed is its biggest asset, because it can place rounds on target longer and more accurately than any other support aircraft. We cannot rely on the MV-22 because it doesn't have the weapons nor can we rely on helos because their speed is too slow. The A-10 is perfect because while it can slow down for accurate shooting, it can also go higher speed and altitude to protect against ground to air missiles and RPGs. Just my 2 cents

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 4:17 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:17:28 -0500

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 4:18 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:18:17 -0500

nothing is as sweet to the grunts ears as 'BRRRRRRTTTT'!!!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 4:18 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:18:24 -0500

Response by Sgt John "Jack" McCue made Feb 26 at 2015 4:47 PM

Sgt John "Jack" McCue — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 16:47:31 -0500

..i'm an AF vet but i love 2c the ground boys having an A-10 type asset

Response by SGT Frank Ihrer made Feb 26 at 2015 5:38 PM

SGT Frank Ihrer — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:38:01 -0500

A10 rocks!!

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Feb 26 at 2015 5:56 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:56:11 -0500

There are two fundamental differences that the A-10 has over most any other CAS platform: 1.) That monster cannon up front, and 2.) its payload/load-out capacity. Only disadvantage: No tailhook.

Coming from an ol' jarhead, I really don't care what destroyed whatever was in front of me (that's too big for organic weapons). The Hog could bust just about anything into little pieces. However, the AV-8's and F-18, in their CAS configurations, could destroy just about (note: "just about") as much. The Hogs could carry more ordinance and rarely (if, at all) had to make a second pass on targets --unless they missed with the first pass.

Honestly, this platform was a ground-pounder's fav. I mean, who in the world wouldn't want an A-10 loitering in direct support? The only thing that would have made these beasts perfect: adding a tail-hook. If we could have launched/recovered from a carrier, I'd like to think the Marines would (still) be using them to drive bad guys out of their houses --from the inside ...and from the air.

Just. Plain. Jealous. Truly, it was the last of the truly dedicated Close Air Support aircraft.

Response by CPL Rashid Jackson made Feb 26 at 2015 6:51 PM

CPL Rashid Jackson — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 18:51:11 -0500

What is more effective in this modern age of warfare.
Keep the a-10.
Scrap the F-35.
How hard is that?!?!?

Response by SMSgt John Bennett made Feb 26 at 2015 7:02 PM

SMSgt John Bennett — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:02:30 -0500

I have worked the A10 for a number of years and the only thing that scare ground forces worse is an AC130 gunship. If there is armor in the mix nothing rivals an A10.

Response by Cpl David Duke made Feb 26 at 2015 7:17 PM

Cpl David Duke — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:17:02 -0500

If I was on the ground I would be more comfortable with the AC-130 gunship bringing some steel rain.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 26 at 2015 7:23 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:23:47 -0500

Very poor , dumb & stupid question and video. This is a sales promotion. And to a Veteran , after looking this over. It makes you want to punch someone in the face over this. You put a stupid guy , high on something. In a fake 'COMBAT' situation open fire at targets he can't see. He jumps up , moves around. Fires again and takes cover behind a blade of grass/ shrubs. He gives his position away , gets the Platoon killed off and makes viewers angry.
Why because it brings Veterans back to a deadly point in their minds. And shows a fool that nobody would want to work with. A jerk that shoots at nothing. And nobody can tell if the weapon can hit the target. It just makes you mad.

Response by Sgt Dan Caputo made Feb 26 at 2015 8:15 PM

Sgt Dan Caputo — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 20:15:54 -0500

No better friend to the troops on the ground than good close air support. The A-10 is an essential platform that should be kept in service. There is no other aircraft that does what the A-10 does.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Feb 26 at 2015 8:43 PM

SSG John Jensen — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 20:43:07 -0500

the air force never wanted the a-10 - slow movers aren't as sexy as fast movers, no matter how good they are - decades ago when the a-10s were experimental and i had a summer job in mosquito abatement while in high school - while spraying farm ditches near the air base, they were strafing me, with the sprayer pump going, i couldn't hear it until it passed me

Response by Capt Brandon Charters made Feb 26 at 2015 10:59 PM

Capt Brandon Charters — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 22:59:43 -0500

I have a close A-10 friend who would come home to his wife after a few training runs and she could always tell by his smell when he fired the 30MM GAU. I think that's a pretty awesome "how was your day" conversation starter.

Response by CPT Barney Dill made Feb 27 at 2015 3:57 AM

CPT Barney Dill — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 03:57:18 -0500

The A-10 should be given to the Army if the airforce really doesn't want it. Besides, its' a close air support weapon. Not that it will ever happen. That being said an C-130 gunship could do it, but they are generally not stationed closed to the fight. Two apaches could stay 3 to 5k off target and do pinpoint targeting. Between Flachette Rockets, and 30MM HEDP or Incindiary would could make them hurt right up to about 50 meters from friendlies, as long as we told them ahead of time to take cover and we were damn sure it was bore sighted, with the Weapons processor not giving any damn error codes, and only on TADS either Narrow or Zoom under 1.5K on the 30MM. With the SAL 2, we are a precision weapon, but no one should be within a 100 meters, and 2 to 300 meters of one going of unless they have some cover from potential shrapnell. The A-10 was great, really. But in a few years, we will be flying mini copters with cameras and two fulll autos attached at a hover. Hell if a Russian Vet can build one, for a few hundred bucks with 30 minutes of battery life, with a couple of scorpions attached and fired by radio controlled linear actuators, we could be something better and more reliable to operated by the Command and Contol of the very the Co. in Contact. That being said, it can't drop a 500LBS bomb, and make a large field of crusties. There are some advantages to having a few WartHogs around, even if we have to update their air defense capabilities against SA-18,19 and 21's.

Response by Cpl Patrick Denis made Feb 27 at 2015 9:34 AM

Cpl Patrick Denis — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:34:03 -0500

The infantryman's "FARTING AVENGING ANGEL," WartHog we love you!!!

Response by SrA Jon Gulliford made Feb 27 at 2015 10:14 AM

SrA Jon Gulliford — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:14:51 -0500

The A-10 is the perfect weapons system for close air support. I love hearing the round impact then the report of the gatling gun.

Response by SP5 Andy Downs made Feb 27 at 2015 10:36 AM

SP5 Andy Downs — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:36:17 -0500

from my personal experience from the a-10 saving my butt a few times the a-10 is the most practical and best for close air support after a helicopter. a-10 can get there faster than any helicopter and slower than any other jets, and give a pretty serious beat down to anything it wants to shoot at. a-10 was designed specifically for close ground support and tank killing nothing else, its design is for safety of the pilot and security. its designed to take a massive beating that's why we call it a flying tank. it is nothing but a pure killing machine pure destruction on the battlefield. if this vital piece of equipment was removed I would never feel safe in fire fight again. us wonderful infantryman that we are call it the angel on our backs. this 1 single piece of equipment has saved my butt more than any helicopter ever has. thank you for your time sfc downs ret.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 1:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:05:52 -0500

The A-10 is absolutely indispensable, the only way I will consider it a good idea to remove it from the fleet is if they develop an aircraft that is designed to be a direct replacement, i.e., another CAS specific aircraft.

Does the A-10 only have one job. Yes. But that is also irrelevant as it does its one job, CAS, far better than an F-15, 16, 22, or 35 does anyone of its insanely widely varying jobs assigned to it as a multi-role airframe. The Spectre also has only one purpose, and in addition to that it can only fly at night, yet no one is clambering to replace that. Why? Because Spectres are assigned to AFSOCOM and therefore the fighter club doesn't have a say.

If the USAF wants to keep whining about retaining the A-10 just transfer them and all their crews/maintenance teams to the Army, which would adapt pretty quickly to acquiring fixed-wing or the USMC which already have fixed-wing aircraft....I don't think either service would whine as much about gaining that responsibility as the USAF does about keeping it.

Response by PO3 Gerardo Molinar made Feb 27 at 2015 1:22 PM

PO3 Gerardo Molinar — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:22:42 -0500

I like the Warthog for close quarter attack when our troppo are pinned. It ha under armor to protect against being strafed.

Response by SSG James Jackson made Feb 27 at 2015 1:36 PM

SSG James Jackson — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:36:08 -0500

The A-10 is spot on for this situation. It brings the hate when needed, and not many more aircraft can provide that type of close air support given it's capabilities. It needs to remain in our arsenal.

Response by Sgt Rob Boyd made Feb 27 at 2015 2:13 PM

Sgt Rob Boyd — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:13:53 -0500

The A10 saved our asses plenty of times....there may be other assets, but no need to throw away a time tested product!

Response by SGT Joe Sabedra made Feb 27 at 2015 3:10 PM

SGT Joe Sabedra — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:10:20 -0500

The AF argument has always been that the A10 is too slow.

Any faster and it wouldn't see the targets.

It unleashed a hailstorm danger close with accuracy.

Response by SPC Robert Mills made Feb 27 at 2015 4:44 PM

SPC Robert Mills — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:44:20 -0500

Back in 90 I do believe the A-10 as a platform was going away until GW- 1st iteration. After that war it was determined to definitely to be a force multiplier. I think it still holds true for today's soldiers and Marines. It's like that old times adage....it takes a licking and keeps on ticking. (I mean burping rounds).....

Response by SPC Jeffrey Evans made Feb 27 at 2015 6:32 PM

SPC Jeffrey Evans — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:32:30 -0500

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Response by SPC Shannon Alaminski made Feb 27 at 2015 7:09 PM

SPC Shannon Alaminski — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:09:28 -0500

Until you SHOW me a better (effective, reliable, rugged) air to ground fixed wing aircraft the A 10 thunderbolt must be kept.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2015 10:11 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 22:11:42 -0500

In my opinion the A-10 is a superb aircraft for CAS when it comes to situations where you need an aircraft to deliver ordenance danger close......in my opinion, i would prefer an A-10 and its gattling gun to a 500lb bomb at such close range......

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Feb 27 at 2015 11:21 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 23:21:41 -0500

91% of the voters indicate the A-10 is the perfect asset for this type of situation.
9% of the voter have (apparently) never called for, and received, a CAS from this very efficient killer.

Response by PFC Tom Comstock made Feb 28 at 2015 12:03 AM

PFC Tom Comstock — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:03:55 -0500

The apache helicopter might have done the job but availability & time. Comes into play also

Response by SrA Thomas Cox made Feb 28 at 2015 8:21 AM

SrA Thomas Cox — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 08:21:13 -0500

I miss controlling the A-10. No other weapon like it.

Response by MAJ Ron Peery made Feb 28 at 2015 8:43 AM

MAJ Ron Peery — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 08:43:38 -0500

The A-10 is the best platform for CAS. AC-130 is an outstanding asset as well, but is too vulnerable to hang around in daylight. Nothing else in the current inventory does the job as well. USAF needs to keep this aircraft until they develop something that does the job as well, or better.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 9:09 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:09:55 -0500

Only thing better than an A-10 are two A-10's.

Response by Capt Dominick B made Feb 28 at 2015 11:43 AM

Capt Dominick B — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:43:37 -0500

I want to see an F-35 engage the target that many times in the same time period. A-10's agility at low-speed/low-altitude is unmatched.

Response by PO1 Joe Macrone made Feb 28 at 2015 2:17 PM

PO1 Joe Macrone — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 14:17:32 -0500

I'm no A-10 expert, but that looked pretty effective to me!

Response by SSgt Charles Mcbride made Feb 28 at 2015 9:08 PM

SSgt Charles Mcbride — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 21:08:06 -0500

I actually loaded this beast during desert storm.

Response by SSgt Charles Mcbride made Feb 28 at 2015 9:10 PM

SSgt Charles Mcbride — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 21:10:45 -0500

My favorite bird to have the pleasure of working on.

Response by SSgt Charles Mcbride made Feb 28 at 2015 9:20 PM

SSgt Charles Mcbride — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 21:20:00 -0500

I got to see it in action in a live fire exercise when I worked on it as the OA-10 (took the place of the OV-10) when I was stationed at Osan AB, Korea in 92.

Response by 2ndLt Matthew Pipoly made Feb 28 at 2015 9:39 PM

2ndLt Matthew Pipoly — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 21:39:38 -0500

The A-10 was a purpose built aircraft, not like this F-35 JSF boondoggle we're stuck with now. That money pit is what happens when you try to take one design and make it work for everything. It can't, but now there's too much invested for the program to be scrapped. The A-10 was designed for CAS and killing tanks. That's what it does, and nothing has been designed to do it better.

Response by Cpl Craig Evans Sr made Feb 28 at 2015 11:15 PM

Cpl Craig Evans Sr — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 23:15:14 -0500

As an infantryman 0331 fro.b1978 to 1986 I know that this is by far still the best asset for the grunt on the ground that operates in close proximity engaging the enemy. Ooohrah Semper Fi

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 2:04 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:04:35 -0500

I have loved the Warthog since I was a young boy, growing up flying those early simulators with the Falcon and Warthog programs being my 2 favorites. But not to the point of sentiment is my vote. I have yet to see a weapon more aptly utilized with full integration and support of ground troops, which whatever your stance, are still vital. If it's purely the age of the fleet and rising maintenance costs, make something better or at least its equal on a new and fiscally better platform. Don't try to nudge it out with anything that can do only pay off its job and not as well, and by the way ridiculously more expensive. Long live our troops. Long live the Warthog!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 3:26 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:26:09 -0400

a10 warhog a soldier's best friend

Response by GySgt Joe Strong made Mar 14 at 2015 3:28 PM

GySgt Joe Strong — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 15:28:33 -0400

The first Female to fly an A-10 in hostile air space weighs in, additional comments include non-replicated CSAR capability and Back door drawdown methods illegality.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 24 at 2015 7:22 AM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:22:16 -0400

Chuck Norris approves the A10

Chuck Norris weighs in on A-10 debate

As the Air Force tries to kill the A-10 Warthog, it may have just run up against a force it cannot defeat: Chuck Norris. Norris, the martial artist,

Response by SSgt Joe V. made Mar 25 at 2015 5:45 PM

SSgt Joe V. — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 17:45:53 -0400

There is no comparison...and Col. Williams - the Air Force Brass, not so much - the Air Force JTACS feel that you should have to pry it from their cold dead hands.