Posted on Oct 13, 2023
If the A-10 Warthogs are so useless to the USAF inventory, why are they being sent to Israel as an immediate action airplane?
40.4K
593
120
155
155
0
Are they being sent to Israel to assist or as a means of removing them from the USAF inventory?
Airplanes
A-10
A-10 Pilot
Israel
Close Air Support (CAS)
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 50
The A-10s aren't "useless" to the USAF inventory - they are being replaced primarily because they are viewed as a single-role airframe (CAS) and would likely not survive if facing an adversary with modern air defense capabilities and if we didn't have at least a favorable air situation at the time of their employment.
Yes, we (the Army) love them. They became the darlings of the Gulf War, racking up thousands of vehicle kills to include about 1/3 of all tank kills during the conflict. Anyone that has been on the ground when they come in can attest to how close they can deliver accurate CAS to engaged forces - they are basically a slow-flying ordnance factory that we view as being able to chew up whatever is on the ground with the 30mm cannon or by delivering from one of the 11 hard-points carrying the heavy duty stuff if the 30mm doesn't do the job.
On the other side of the argument is that they ARE great - as long as there is no serious threat to them. They are durable, but unlike the popular myth we ground-pounders have about them, they are not invincible. We lost four of them during the Gulf war to 1980s era air defense systems and MANPADS and some others (3?) were taken out of operation because they were too damaged to be airworthy. Even when they were first put into operations (~45 years ago), planners expected to lose every A-10 in the inventory (>700) within a few weeks of combat with the Soviets if they invaded.
However, getting back to the specific question you posed about "why are they being sent to Israel as an immediate action airplane?". It still remains the pre-eminent precision CAS platform we have in our inventory ... as long as there isn't a serious anti-aircraft threat. The anti-aircraft capabilities that are present in Gaza have been very limited so far based on what's been used against the Israeli aircraft. To date the only threat has come from old SA-7s MANPADS although they claim to have more advanced MANPADS such as the SA-18 and SA-24 (again, no evidence of that and only SA-7s have been used against Israeli F-16s).
Note - this isn't new to the region as a squadron of A-10s were deployed earlier this year* at AFCENT's request due to increased tensions from Iranian-backed forces in Syria.
-----------------------------
* https://www.airandspaceforces.com/a-10s-centcom-bolster-air-force-presence/
Yes, we (the Army) love them. They became the darlings of the Gulf War, racking up thousands of vehicle kills to include about 1/3 of all tank kills during the conflict. Anyone that has been on the ground when they come in can attest to how close they can deliver accurate CAS to engaged forces - they are basically a slow-flying ordnance factory that we view as being able to chew up whatever is on the ground with the 30mm cannon or by delivering from one of the 11 hard-points carrying the heavy duty stuff if the 30mm doesn't do the job.
On the other side of the argument is that they ARE great - as long as there is no serious threat to them. They are durable, but unlike the popular myth we ground-pounders have about them, they are not invincible. We lost four of them during the Gulf war to 1980s era air defense systems and MANPADS and some others (3?) were taken out of operation because they were too damaged to be airworthy. Even when they were first put into operations (~45 years ago), planners expected to lose every A-10 in the inventory (>700) within a few weeks of combat with the Soviets if they invaded.
However, getting back to the specific question you posed about "why are they being sent to Israel as an immediate action airplane?". It still remains the pre-eminent precision CAS platform we have in our inventory ... as long as there isn't a serious anti-aircraft threat. The anti-aircraft capabilities that are present in Gaza have been very limited so far based on what's been used against the Israeli aircraft. To date the only threat has come from old SA-7s MANPADS although they claim to have more advanced MANPADS such as the SA-18 and SA-24 (again, no evidence of that and only SA-7s have been used against Israeli F-16s).
Note - this isn't new to the region as a squadron of A-10s were deployed earlier this year* at AFCENT's request due to increased tensions from Iranian-backed forces in Syria.
-----------------------------
* https://www.airandspaceforces.com/a-10s-centcom-bolster-air-force-presence/
A-10s Headed to CENTCOM To Bolster Air Force Presence
As the Air Force's focus shifts to the Pacific and Europe, aging A-10s will deploy to the Middle East to support CENTCOM.
(64)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Begging your pardon , Colonel, but I just couldn't resist with this one....
Suspended Profile
SPC Cory Thomson
I’ve still not seen a single thing that no matter how much money or how sophisticated it is, can defend against a 30mm bullet of tungsten and or depleted uranium that is the size of a fist traveling faster than the speed of sound. Anyone who doubts the a10 has never been in the shit with them. They are a force of nature. Doubt them at your peril.
(5)
(0)
CPT Patrick Butler
Sgt Michael Clifford - What's gong on there exactly? Have our perceptions been controlled by the 1984 crowd? Many of us realize only part of the money gets there and a whole crew is getting wealth showered on their laps.
(2)
(0)
30
30
0
Its unfortunate that AF brass always looked down their noses at the A10. And if you ask any grunt from the marines or Army they have always LOVED
(30)
(0)
Suspended Profile
So did I colonel..and I'm ADA...as in "If it flies, it dies, God kin worry about sortin' em out later." Zoomies are prey.
1SG John Cullen
Roger that sir! I love the sound f the A-10 crossing terrain! Impressive fire power especially against tanks during Desert Storm!
(2)
(0)
(2)
(0)
SP5 Robert Applegate
I think that perception started with Obama. I won't offer why "I" think he was against it and the F-22s. Old Vietnam here but I don't care what this shit costs if it keeps our guys safe. I want a Specter Gunship over every platoon in the shit and A10s just blowing shit up as needed. We piss away Trillions every year so the cost is very minimal compared to the cost of flying Angle Flights. As General Patton said. "Let the other Bastard die for his country". I want you all to be old vets some day.
(1)
(0)
23
23
0
SSG Raymond Minze
CSM Walter Phillips - It's not so much that the Air Force won't allow the Army to fly the A-10. It's Congress and DoD or both that won't allow it. When it comes to fixed wing aircraft, Army pilots are only allowed to pilot rotary aircraft. All senior Army personnel that are fly in jet aircraft are flown by Air Force Pilots.
(1)
(0)
CW4 William Kessinger
CSM Phillips: No quite true. The Army has many pilots qualified in the C-20 (Gulfstream G-1159) and Citations jets. After retiring from my civilian job, I was a check airman and ground school and sim instructor in the G-II/III at an (unnamed) simulator training facility. we had many Army Aviators go through recurrent training with us in the Gulfstream.
(1)
(0)
Bethina Lee
CSM Charles Hayden Passed 7/29/2025 that is an even more feasible point & convenient excuse that looks good in writing
(2)
(0)
CW3 Walter Goerner
Without getting into the military history of that fight between the newly (1949 version) of the mission of the newly separated branch of the Air Force, Army and Navy pilots...before my time (which branch would fly what type of aircraft) (Yes, we had a fight between services because there were Army owned and operated fixed wing aircraft during the 70's and still do, multi-engine and not limited to staff (flag) transport jet. The Air Force agreed to allow this modification to the "new" service agreement. Not all Army pilots are helicopter pilots, and not all Army pilots are Warrant Officers, we have RLOs piloting helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. I have a childhood friend that was aircrew on one of these Army owned and operated multi-engined large turbopropped signal intelligence aircraft that was operated out of Thailand and a retired CWO pilot that flew that fixed wing aircraft when we were stationed in the ROK and at Ft. Lewis, WA. I was around when the Air Force considered getting rid of the A-10 after the Gulf War, supposedly because those in control calling the shots were ex-fighter pilots and the A-10 was not a fighter. We're probably all in agreement that the A-10 is a VERY good ground attack aircraft. Now saying that, the A-10's survivability over the forward battle area is phenomenal. It is used as a platform and is able to provide heavy (bomb) ordnance for close ground support and has that close ground support anti-armor capability to shred literally any armor enemy asset with that 30mm chain gun. It's faster and can fly higher than any rotary wing attack helicopter and very manueverable to avoid manpack missiles. Why doesn't the Air Force transfer the A-10 assets to Army control? I believe it's mission creep over to the Army, but where is the need without the political nonsense?
(0)
(0)
18
18
0
Having seen them in action, the word “worthless” will NEVER come out of my mouth.
(18)
(0)
17
17
0
USAF has always disliked them because close air is not as bold as dog-fighting. We in the Army absolutely love them ask any airborne grunt when facing mech/armor.
(17)
(0)
14
14
0
12
12
0
the USAF (or the mistake of '47 as I call it) doen't care about CAS and anything that happens bellow 10,000'. The A-10 is an Army aircraft, companion to the Apache. The reason it has not gone away is that many of us, but most important, members of Congress know the value of this Infrantry support and unique tank killer. Whoever has them will own the battlefield at the tactial level
(12)
(0)
10
10
0
10
10
0
I've advocated for the A-10 for decades for the Army to be added to their inventory. Watching them maneuver on targets in Graf. Then in Desert Storm and again in Afghanistan. I professionally know how effective they are when ground units are in a TIC. I have listened to the chatter of the ground commander talking with the A10 pilot. The pilot with eyes on the enemy but gets no permission to engage the enemy for the JTAG who is sitting at Bagram. Too many times this has happened over there. Talk about getting a case of the glow butt.
There needs to be a JTAG trained Soldiers in the Army units with that unit giving the A10 pilots permission not some AF officer miles away from the TIC in their comfortable office. So the Army needs the A10 in its inventory. And to piggy back off that, the Army needs to have operation control of cargo planes.
There needs to be a JTAG trained Soldiers in the Army units with that unit giving the A10 pilots permission not some AF officer miles away from the TIC in their comfortable office. So the Army needs the A10 in its inventory. And to piggy back off that, the Army needs to have operation control of cargo planes.
(10)
(0)
8
8
0
The same thinking that said the F4 Phantom didn't need guns or why did they use WW2 planes in Veitham.
(8)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
SPC Clifford Deal - For sure the AC47 called "Puff the Magic Dragon" in some units. Where I was at Da Nang, Vietnam they were called "Spooky" and You can see the ghost image on the pilots section of the aircraft fuselage. Notice the guns sticking out of the back windows of the aircraft. I was 1st hand after a week and a half on nightly rocket attacks a mass attack of 350 Viet Cong on the perimeter area i was working post. I never had to fire a single shot and the gunship inside 10 minutes killed ALL 350 VC and I had a front row seat with bullets from the aircraft hitting within 150 feet of My post location. We had APCs, 50 calibers , M60s and 81 mm mortars and even Claymore Mines on our perimeter but none of the got to cross it thanks to "Spooky"
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Had an in law there, Marine truck driver. Read up on these all I could as a kid. DC-3 / C-47's did some work EVERYWHERE it seems.
Suspended Profile
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter - NEVER a good idea to put all your faith in one basket...We mixed Long and short range missiles with 20 Mil guns in the old 5-52 and 2-61 ADA.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google