There are many pics of the thousands of propeller-driven planes stacked up to be recycled for pennies on the pound. As a child I had visited relatives in the country and there is an event often in association with a rodeo called a "Tractor Pull".
The highlight of the event was a so-called 'tractor' that had an Allison V-12 instead of the 4-cylinder diesel. This was in the early 1960's and I was told the engine had been purchased for the cost of it's scrap-weight.
In one of the military mistakes of history, I remember reading that the US was flying F-86 Sabre's over Korea in the 1950's [which was good], but when the Marines needed close ground support, the P-47 was the one airplane from WWII that was still perfect for the role. It could take abuse, protect the pilot, spray six 50-cals, and it had mounts for ground-attack rockets.
I even read that the A-10 development engineers used characteristics of the P-47 during the design phase.
It's overkill for Shaheds, really. Even a Vulcan will shred em. Heck, there are Ukranians sitting back-seat in YAK-52 trainers shooting them with infantry rifles and shotguns.
Ukrainians have also hacked APKWS pods on to f16s to shoot down Shaheds which give some more range and are pretty low cost you don't actually want to get that close to Shaheds when shooting them down
Question from the uninformed: Why does the air force even bother with the consideration of retiring the warthog?
Given that every debate goes "yeah, it's slow and behind on technology, but it's literally still the best thing for its job and there's nothing that does its job better for the same price or cheaper."
Basically, maintenance is really high and it is really old, and it's a single-role plane. There's also the "it's too slow" argument, which is dumb because it's not a dogfight plane
Maintenance is actually far lower than modern systems in terms of cost. Any uptick in maintenance expense is a self manufactured issue by the Air Force because they keep saying it’s closing and that shuts down part production pipelines. Also it doesn’t have all the LO issues that maintenance has to deal with. It is old but so are the F-15 and F-16s.
It’s also not single role. It’s the primary CSAR aircraft as well as CAS, SCAR, counter FAC/FIAC helo/C-130 escort.
The the too slow is dumb like you said. It’s designed to be slow because being fast hurts its abilities to do those roles. Also SAMS fly at like Mach 6 these days so being 200 knots faster doesn’t actually buy you that much to keep you safe from surface fire
NCDers seriously think that the gun sound factor,the fact this aircraft is durable against firearms and that it can carry a lot of ordnance means it is timeless
Dawg we live in an era where a 15y old can literally use a MANPADS and where 1000$ drones that can reach 300+ kph can be used easily by someone that can't even walk. In this environment the A-10 is only good at dealing with 4th world countries,and going to war for them is despicable to say the least.
The A-10 had its great run in Afghanistan and Iraq (2003,not 1991),just retire it.
Totally omitting the fact that the A-10C is the only aircraft within the US inventory that sports MAWS and an actual usable countermeasure load to make those MAWS usable.
I love how people think MANPADS hard counter the A-10C when it's outright built to track and defeat them unlike any other plane in service with the USAF.
Fun fact as well, the MAWS can even track gunfire from the ground and direct the pilot to those firing at them with guns.
The F-35 is the only other plane within any form of MAWS in the USAF inventory, however, its not designed for ground support at all, as it's payload for such is minuscule by comparison along with a very low loiter time.
that the A-10C is the only aircraft within the US inventory that sports MAWS
The only combat aircraft in the US inventory that sports that and has lots of countermeasures*,MAWS are used on bigger aircraft as well as into the F-22 and F-35. And moreover,whose fault is this? The A-10C is the only one needing MAWS because:
1) the Air Force really is allergic to new technologies (the F-16CM could have MAWS but it doesn't really have it and the F-15EX does not have it despite the QA having it),leaving the technology to a subsonic attack platform,an air superiority stealth fighter and an air superiority/multirole stealth fighter.
2) the A-10 has not so great rear visibility (due to the period where it was conceived) and is a magnet for bullets,so it's logical to give a massive help for the pilot.
The F-15E can literally do the same job as the A-10C but without the need for MAWS and way,way more faster.
Fun fact as well, the MAWS can even track gunfire from the ground and direct the pilot to those firing at them with guns.
This is honestly trivial: in a complex scenario where everyone is shooting at the sky with guns and missiles,the MAWS can literally make the pilot insane if it needs to alert the latter for even the slightest of threats.
The F-15E is doing the A-10'a job so well that the A-10Cs had to come in and pull a sadly flight to get out their pilots from Iran, we can also chalk up the F/A-18Es almost getting hit by MANPADS as nothing relevant as well.
Aside, as I've responded to another commenter about this, the F-22 does not have it's MAWS yet, it is getting such in it's most recent upgrade package.
And if you want the people who have been trying to keep MAWS off US aircraft look no further than the fighter mafia and people like you who keep saying that "the planes are stealthy enough and fast enough and high flying enough to never worry about ground fire". It's the same rational that got the MAWS removed from the F-15EX and CM, it was deemed unneeded due to the above statement.
No the USAF is totally fine with adopting new technology's the AN/AAR-47 on the A-10C happens to be one of the first aircraft that fielded it in the US inventory and the A-10C also happens to be the first US aircraft to use the scorpion HMD. The USAF seems to have no issues putting these systems on their slow ground attack plane or almost all their transport planes, heck, it took years to just get any HMD into USAF fighters. Why? Because the fighter mafia thought BVR was the only thing that still existed, why would you ever need a HMD for IR missiles, you should never merge to begin with.
You are in a situation where you need a 50 years old aircraft to do the job any other aircraft can do because the USAF literally does not know what they want. The A-10C is more than a decade old,and yet the systems it has and that are deemed "revokutionary" inside the USAF were already a thing in Europe (with the Rafale,the Eurofighter and the Gripen) and in Israel (that truth be told, they're damn good at making use of what they have). And yet,you don't see Israel or Europeusing slow moving aircraft to hit stuff,i wonder why
Pretty sure an A-10 was just shot down a few weeks ago ... with what most people assume was a MANPAD. It made it to the border before it ejected, but that's still a shoot down as far as I'm concerned. And that's with a ragtag bunch of who knows what in a country that supposedly had no anti-air assets left.
Against a near peer opponent? Well, just look at Ukraine. Those Su-25s didn't last long. And the only thing they did that allowed them to survive was loft unguided rockets into the distance like an aerial MLRS, with none of the accuracy.
That was the Sandy flight A-10 I spoke about. It flew the most dangerous mission profile in the USAF playbook and not only somehow exited Iran, but made it to the strait before ditching.
Sandy flights would commonly result in 2 to 3 aircraft losses or sometimes even more if you include lost helicopters, the fact that only 1 A-10 was lost is incredibly impressive.
And a F-35 would with 1/8th the countermeasure and a vastly hotter engine?
Also quite funny too that you bring up precision munitions when the A-10C can mount everything short of JSOWs when it comes to precision weapons and the A-10C still mounts systems that are only just now finally being added to the rest of the USAF fleet, like the F-22 with the scorpion HMD being installed this year in a upgrade package.
The F-35 is the only other plane within any form of MAWS in the USAF inventory
This is not true the f-22 has the an/aar-56 maw. The airforce has also bought the PIDS maw for the f16. The f15ex and f15e have been seen with maw(not in service yet)
I think you mean the F-22 is to have the AN/AAR-56, the system is currently in the process of being added with the most recent upgrade package, they currently do not have the system.
Well the A-10 isn’t something you’d fly in contested airspace. Dominate the sky’s then bring it on for air to ground support. I think you know that too.
The a10 is hardly outmatched. It’s literally perfect for its mission, when used properly is very effective. It lives for the close air support mission and in that role it is supreme. You don’t do air to air combat with an a10. It’s not meant for that. The rest of the air force is there to handle air to air. It’s because it’s so good that it keeps getting extended. It’s much cheaper to upgrade an existing aircraft to modern digital standards, than it is to go design a whole new one. As a taxpayer I am glad to see the government doing something smart for once.
Not realy. The A-10 suffers as soon as it enters any kind of contested area.
Even during the GWOT the A-10 was never the first choice https://i.redd.it/by5s43wzq4r81.jpg
Grandpa is just a massive flying weapon's pylon at this point. He's good at what he does and doesn't need much improvement. It's like an 18-wheeler. What can you really change to make it better? More efficient engines? A redesign would cost shit loads and end up with something so similar that it isn't worth it.
The A-10, not so much the same. The future of aviation is either stealth, drones, or both. It's funny, because both the B-52 and A-10 essentially fly in similar circumstances - complete air dominance. The only difference is the 52 only has to deal with larger and longer range anti-air, while the A-10 has to deal with those and MANPADs, and technicals, and maybe some small arms if someone is crazy enough to try that. But it's much easier to deal with the long range anti-air assets. They're big, loud, and obvious. MANPADs can be anywhere, and the only time you know they're there is one is fired at you.
When was the last time we lost a 52 do to enemy fire? Because we just lost an A-10 to enemy fire last month. To a country that supposedly has no anti-air capabilities left. A country that was "obliterated" militarily.
If you want to see what happens to an A-10 in a contested arena, just look at Ukraine. Su-25s from both sides were getting taken out like crazy. There were so many Frogfeet being killed they could make enough soup to last a decade.
Just build a new A-10. The F-35 was supposed to replace this beast a long time ago and it won't its impossible. They need to create an A-10 with similar specification that is built around anti-personel, anti-armor, and anti-drone capabilities.
I remember reading years ago that the US Army has made it clear that if the Air Force is ever going to retire the A-10 they basically want them. However the Air Force will do everything possible to make sure the Army only gets civilian and cargo transport for fixed wing aircraft.
However true that is I am unsure, but being former Air Force, it sounds about right. 😂
Less a vote of confidence for this thing and more a tacit admission USAF fleet rejuvenation is not going well. If you need to keep the A-10 around, a plane that’s outmatched on a modern battlefield, to maintain combat effectiveness then there’s a problem.
True Story, AF ROTC meeting 1973:
“ I want to be an A10 pilot. That’ a cool jet”.
Response: “No future for that plane. It’s for supporting ground grunts and the AF will get rid of it as soon as it can”
Dude wasn't even wrong--the AF will get rid of it as soon as it can. That time simply hasn't arrived yet, and no one can see far enough into the future to see it either.
In good faith, would you happen to have a source for that claim?
Cause it seems to make sense that the A-10 is involved in blue-on-blue more often than other platforms, to me as a former JTAC at least it is. Since they are the platform with a long loiter time and is used a lot more than other platforms for (DC) CAS missions, with guns being more prone to errors than other assets and thus could lead to more blue-on-blue incidents.
But the A-10 in itself being the cause of those incidents makes no sense to me. Controlling a A-10 was usually way easier than controlling lets say the Viper, since due to their characteristic a confirm of the target and thus a cleared hot was easier to achieve than with a fast-mover.
Oh okay, yeah can't relate to that since hearing things is only a distant memory due to hearing loss and tinnitus (not service related acc to the VA...).
Please provide a source by replying to the message that was sent to you. Failure to respond to that message will result in the automatic removal of this post. Please feel free to reach out to the mod team through modmail if you have any questions or concerns.
r/Aviation is trialing new measures to prevent karma farming. Please feel free to provide feedback through modmail. Thank you for participating in the community!
montjoy@reddit
Not a big surprise since 4 out of 5 bases for them are in states that also have members on congressional armed services committees.
Glum_Photograph_7133@reddit
Air Force: we should retire the warthog Pilot: brrrrrrrrrrrrrrt Air Force: I see your point
abfgern_@reddit
Does the brrrrt actually get any use? Isnt it just a bomb truck these days?
series-hybrid@reddit
They have proven to be a very affordable way to shoot down Shahed drones.
skunimatrix@reddit
First deployed them against Ukraine I always thought “hey a P-47 would be perfect this with modern night vision.”
series-hybrid@reddit
There are many pics of the thousands of propeller-driven planes stacked up to be recycled for pennies on the pound. As a child I had visited relatives in the country and there is an event often in association with a rodeo called a "Tractor Pull".
The highlight of the event was a so-called 'tractor' that had an Allison V-12 instead of the 4-cylinder diesel. This was in the early 1960's and I was told the engine had been purchased for the cost of it's scrap-weight.
In one of the military mistakes of history, I remember reading that the US was flying F-86 Sabre's over Korea in the 1950's [which was good], but when the Marines needed close ground support, the P-47 was the one airplane from WWII that was still perfect for the role. It could take abuse, protect the pilot, spray six 50-cals, and it had mounts for ground-attack rockets.
I even read that the A-10 development engineers used characteristics of the P-47 during the design phase.
I_Roll_Chicago@reddit
Sorry no tracking numbers
fumar@reddit
Id imagine it's pretty good at shooting down shaheds
Liko81@reddit
It's overkill for Shaheds, really. Even a Vulcan will shred em. Heck, there are Ukranians sitting back-seat in YAK-52 trainers shooting them with infantry rifles and shotguns.
frozented@reddit
Ukrainians have also hacked APKWS pods on to f16s to shoot down Shaheds which give some more range and are pretty low cost you don't actually want to get that close to Shaheds when shooting them down
PaulVla@reddit
Last few weeks they’ve been brrrrt’ing it up in Iraq.
diodorus1@reddit
Iran? Or we at war in Iraq still/also?
mrshulgin@reddit
Iraq. There are many Iran-aligned militias in Iraq
JustBeinOptimistic@reddit
Nostalgic brrrrts
Glum_Photograph_7133@reddit
Pretty sure. Why else would they extend the lifespan?
AdultContemporaneous@reddit
Check out r/combatfootage
TLDR: yes
mythrilcrafter@reddit
Question from the uninformed: Why does the air force even bother with the consideration of retiring the warthog?
Given that every debate goes "yeah, it's slow and behind on technology, but it's literally still the best thing for its job and there's nothing that does its job better for the same price or cheaper."
Glum_Photograph_7133@reddit
Basically, maintenance is really high and it is really old, and it's a single-role plane. There's also the "it's too slow" argument, which is dumb because it's not a dogfight plane
Haunting_Bug6472@reddit
Maintenance is actually far lower than modern systems in terms of cost. Any uptick in maintenance expense is a self manufactured issue by the Air Force because they keep saying it’s closing and that shuts down part production pipelines. Also it doesn’t have all the LO issues that maintenance has to deal with. It is old but so are the F-15 and F-16s.
It’s also not single role. It’s the primary CSAR aircraft as well as CAS, SCAR, counter FAC/FIAC helo/C-130 escort.
The the too slow is dumb like you said. It’s designed to be slow because being fast hurts its abilities to do those roles. Also SAMS fly at like Mach 6 these days so being 200 knots faster doesn’t actually buy you that much to keep you safe from surface fire
abn1304@reddit
Because there are people in the USAF (and elsewhere) who insist on one of a few things:
Whether any of that is true is a great question, but the answer appears to be that 1 and 2 aren’t accurate and 3 isn’t important.
DeadFacesInMyPocket@reddit
The A-10 is just too goddamn cool to ever be retired. You simply can't do it.
ReturnOfTheSaint14@reddit
NCDers seriously think that the gun sound factor,the fact this aircraft is durable against firearms and that it can carry a lot of ordnance means it is timeless
Dawg we live in an era where a 15y old can literally use a MANPADS and where 1000$ drones that can reach 300+ kph can be used easily by someone that can't even walk. In this environment the A-10 is only good at dealing with 4th world countries,and going to war for them is despicable to say the least.
The A-10 had its great run in Afghanistan and Iraq (2003,not 1991),just retire it.
MarshallKrivatach@reddit
Totally omitting the fact that the A-10C is the only aircraft within the US inventory that sports MAWS and an actual usable countermeasure load to make those MAWS usable.
I love how people think MANPADS hard counter the A-10C when it's outright built to track and defeat them unlike any other plane in service with the USAF.
Fun fact as well, the MAWS can even track gunfire from the ground and direct the pilot to those firing at them with guns.
The F-35 is the only other plane within any form of MAWS in the USAF inventory, however, its not designed for ground support at all, as it's payload for such is minuscule by comparison along with a very low loiter time.
Techhead7890@reddit
Congratulations, your administrator login for the War Thunder forums will be private messaged to you later today.
ReturnOfTheSaint14@reddit
The only combat aircraft in the US inventory that sports that and has lots of countermeasures*,MAWS are used on bigger aircraft as well as into the F-22 and F-35. And moreover,whose fault is this? The A-10C is the only one needing MAWS because:
1) the Air Force really is allergic to new technologies (the F-16CM could have MAWS but it doesn't really have it and the F-15EX does not have it despite the QA having it),leaving the technology to a subsonic attack platform,an air superiority stealth fighter and an air superiority/multirole stealth fighter.
2) the A-10 has not so great rear visibility (due to the period where it was conceived) and is a magnet for bullets,so it's logical to give a massive help for the pilot.
The F-15E can literally do the same job as the A-10C but without the need for MAWS and way,way more faster.
This is honestly trivial: in a complex scenario where everyone is shooting at the sky with guns and missiles,the MAWS can literally make the pilot insane if it needs to alert the latter for even the slightest of threats.
MarshallKrivatach@reddit
The F-15E is doing the A-10'a job so well that the A-10Cs had to come in and pull a sadly flight to get out their pilots from Iran, we can also chalk up the F/A-18Es almost getting hit by MANPADS as nothing relevant as well.
Aside, as I've responded to another commenter about this, the F-22 does not have it's MAWS yet, it is getting such in it's most recent upgrade package.
And if you want the people who have been trying to keep MAWS off US aircraft look no further than the fighter mafia and people like you who keep saying that "the planes are stealthy enough and fast enough and high flying enough to never worry about ground fire". It's the same rational that got the MAWS removed from the F-15EX and CM, it was deemed unneeded due to the above statement.
No the USAF is totally fine with adopting new technology's the AN/AAR-47 on the A-10C happens to be one of the first aircraft that fielded it in the US inventory and the A-10C also happens to be the first US aircraft to use the scorpion HMD. The USAF seems to have no issues putting these systems on their slow ground attack plane or almost all their transport planes, heck, it took years to just get any HMD into USAF fighters. Why? Because the fighter mafia thought BVR was the only thing that still existed, why would you ever need a HMD for IR missiles, you should never merge to begin with.
Now look at where we are.
ReturnOfTheSaint14@reddit
You are in a situation where you need a 50 years old aircraft to do the job any other aircraft can do because the USAF literally does not know what they want. The A-10C is more than a decade old,and yet the systems it has and that are deemed "revokutionary" inside the USAF were already a thing in Europe (with the Rafale,the Eurofighter and the Gripen) and in Israel (that truth be told, they're damn good at making use of what they have). And yet,you don't see Israel or Europeusing slow moving aircraft to hit stuff,i wonder why
Derp800@reddit
Pretty sure an A-10 was just shot down a few weeks ago ... with what most people assume was a MANPAD. It made it to the border before it ejected, but that's still a shoot down as far as I'm concerned. And that's with a ragtag bunch of who knows what in a country that supposedly had no anti-air assets left.
Against a near peer opponent? Well, just look at Ukraine. Those Su-25s didn't last long. And the only thing they did that allowed them to survive was loft unguided rockets into the distance like an aerial MLRS, with none of the accuracy.
MarshallKrivatach@reddit
That was the Sandy flight A-10 I spoke about. It flew the most dangerous mission profile in the USAF playbook and not only somehow exited Iran, but made it to the strait before ditching.
Sandy flights would commonly result in 2 to 3 aircraft losses or sometimes even more if you include lost helicopters, the fact that only 1 A-10 was lost is incredibly impressive.
Full_of_Vices@reddit
The F-35 isn’t going to kill you as often because it has precision munitions and modern systems.
And you think the A-10 is going to defeat a theatre saturated with manpads? Fucking laughable.
MarshallKrivatach@reddit
And a F-35 would with 1/8th the countermeasure and a vastly hotter engine?
Also quite funny too that you bring up precision munitions when the A-10C can mount everything short of JSOWs when it comes to precision weapons and the A-10C still mounts systems that are only just now finally being added to the rest of the USAF fleet, like the F-22 with the scorpion HMD being installed this year in a upgrade package.
jumpiestbox@reddit
This is not true the f-22 has the an/aar-56 maw. The airforce has also bought the PIDS maw for the f16. The f15ex and f15e have been seen with maw(not in service yet)
MarshallKrivatach@reddit
I think you mean the F-22 is to have the AN/AAR-56, the system is currently in the process of being added with the most recent upgrade package, they currently do not have the system.
series-hybrid@reddit
They need a rear-facing shotgun with shells the size of my leg.
scout614@reddit
Nah is NCDers hate it cause Vark
Belfastscum@reddit
Vark vark vark vark
keptpounding@reddit
Well the A-10 isn’t something you’d fly in contested airspace. Dominate the sky’s then bring it on for air to ground support. I think you know that too.
madmax7774@reddit
The a10 is hardly outmatched. It’s literally perfect for its mission, when used properly is very effective. It lives for the close air support mission and in that role it is supreme. You don’t do air to air combat with an a10. It’s not meant for that. The rest of the air force is there to handle air to air. It’s because it’s so good that it keeps getting extended. It’s much cheaper to upgrade an existing aircraft to modern digital standards, than it is to go design a whole new one. As a taxpayer I am glad to see the government doing something smart for once.
The_M15@reddit
Not realy. The A-10 suffers as soon as it enters any kind of contested area.
Even during the GWOT the A-10 was never the first choice
https://i.redd.it/by5s43wzq4r81.jpg
japes1232@reddit
So who do we think outlives who the Warthog or Grandpa Buff?
masteroffdesaster@reddit
I doubt the A-10 will fly until 2070-something, while the B-52 almost certainly will see 2050-something
Derp800@reddit
Grandpa is just a massive flying weapon's pylon at this point. He's good at what he does and doesn't need much improvement. It's like an 18-wheeler. What can you really change to make it better? More efficient engines? A redesign would cost shit loads and end up with something so similar that it isn't worth it.
The A-10, not so much the same. The future of aviation is either stealth, drones, or both. It's funny, because both the B-52 and A-10 essentially fly in similar circumstances - complete air dominance. The only difference is the 52 only has to deal with larger and longer range anti-air, while the A-10 has to deal with those and MANPADs, and technicals, and maybe some small arms if someone is crazy enough to try that. But it's much easier to deal with the long range anti-air assets. They're big, loud, and obvious. MANPADs can be anywhere, and the only time you know they're there is one is fired at you.
When was the last time we lost a 52 do to enemy fire? Because we just lost an A-10 to enemy fire last month. To a country that supposedly has no anti-air capabilities left. A country that was "obliterated" militarily.
If you want to see what happens to an A-10 in a contested arena, just look at Ukraine. Su-25s from both sides were getting taken out like crazy. There were so many Frogfeet being killed they could make enough soup to last a decade.
Drenlin@reddit
What's fascinating in the current situation is how much of what is ostensibly the A-10's job has been done by MQ-9s instead.
kss1089@reddit
Grandpa Buff will never die. The last pilot of the BUFF hasn't been born yet.
Drenlin@reddit
If I remember correctly they have shut down the training pipeline for A-10s. This really does look to be the end for it this time.
masteroffdesaster@reddit
of course they did. the Warthog doesn't die
Texas_Kimchi@reddit
Just build a new A-10. The F-35 was supposed to replace this beast a long time ago and it won't its impossible. They need to create an A-10 with similar specification that is built around anti-personel, anti-armor, and anti-drone capabilities.
Without_Portfolio@reddit
See them here in Arizona all the time. My favorite plane.
Somhlth@reddit
If I had a dollar for every time...
LouKrazy@reddit
You could pay for… 10 more years of A-10!
Porkyrogue@reddit
Great game btw.
LigerSixOne@reddit
Probably my favorite of all time
LouKrazy@reddit
Literally my first flight sim, with a Gravis Thunderbird and some ancient Mac PowerPC
atomatoflame@reddit
Any good places to download it?
LigerSixOne@reddit
I have no idea, I still have the Cuba disk but I’m not sure if modern Mac architectures will even run it.
Aerocat08@reddit
Haha. Many of the guys in the SPO have already found new gigs. Their expertise is gone. And there’s no prime anymore.
olderlifter99@reddit
I remember as a 14 year old A-10s doing mock straffing runs near our village in Lincolnshire, UK. I am now 60.
BarleyWineIsTheBest@reddit
The more things change the more they stay the same.
history-boi109@reddit
Practicing on the Brits since Day 1 it seems
jimbojsb@reddit
Aka there is no reason to replace this plane for its mission until its mission no longer exists.
AbeFromanEast@reddit
The only aircraft that can replace the A-10 is another A-10.
keptpounding@reddit
Build a bigger and better Gatling gun, throw some wings on it and call it a day
skunimatrix@reddit
Tell GE to get to work on that 40MM Gatling gun….
woodbanger04@reddit
Allow me to put on my surprise face. 🥱
I remember reading years ago that the US Army has made it clear that if the Air Force is ever going to retire the A-10 they basically want them. However the Air Force will do everything possible to make sure the Army only gets civilian and cargo transport for fixed wing aircraft.
However true that is I am unsure, but being former Air Force, it sounds about right. 😂
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
Less a vote of confidence for this thing and more a tacit admission USAF fleet rejuvenation is not going well. If you need to keep the A-10 around, a plane that’s outmatched on a modern battlefield, to maintain combat effectiveness then there’s a problem.
USArmyAirborne@reddit
I think it has to do a lot about cost to shoot down drones. The rounds from an A-10 are much more economical than SAM’s, patriots, etc.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
But they’re not using the GAU in that role, the APKWS has been the primary anti-drone weapon (including on the A-10.)
Immediate-Spite-5905@reddit
utterly moronic
Myusername468@reddit
SNIP SNAP SNIP SNAP SNIP SNAP
MomentSpecialist2020@reddit
Didn’t the AF procure the Super Tucán for ground support?
Blue_Etalon@reddit
True Story, AF ROTC meeting 1973: “ I want to be an A10 pilot. That’ a cool jet”. Response: “No future for that plane. It’s for supporting ground grunts and the AF will get rid of it as soon as it can”
CowboyLaw@reddit
Dude wasn't even wrong--the AF will get rid of it as soon as it can. That time simply hasn't arrived yet, and no one can see far enough into the future to see it either.
perark05@reddit
brrrrrrrts in happiness
Ok-Helicopter525@reddit
Stop. Just stop.
Tel_Janen@reddit
Iraqi.militias are having nightmares because of this plane.
Air force should seriously consider the next gen a10 and b1 lancers already
djsnoopmike@reddit
The mighty BRRRT will not be stopped!!
kennedyswise@reddit
🎉🎊🍾🥳
bonzoboy2000@reddit
I thought they had eliminated them? Guess I was wrong.
Goshawk5@reddit
I've heard the A-10 is one of the leading causes of friendly fire incidents.
Infinite-Emu1326@reddit
In good faith, would you happen to have a source for that claim?
Cause it seems to make sense that the A-10 is involved in blue-on-blue more often than other platforms, to me as a former JTAC at least it is. Since they are the platform with a long loiter time and is used a lot more than other platforms for (DC) CAS missions, with guns being more prone to errors than other assets and thus could lead to more blue-on-blue incidents.
But the A-10 in itself being the cause of those incidents makes no sense to me. Controlling a A-10 was usually way easier than controlling lets say the Viper, since due to their characteristic a confirm of the target and thus a cleared hot was easier to achieve than with a fast-mover.
So I would love to read more on this topic!
Goshawk5@reddit
Came from this video since I have only heard it from him Is the reason I did not claim it as fact.
Infinite-Emu1326@reddit
Thanks for sharing!
lildeek12@reddit
My source is that I heard it somewhere once.
Infinite-Emu1326@reddit
Oh okay, yeah can't relate to that since hearing things is only a distant memory due to hearing loss and tinnitus (not service related acc to the VA...).
lildeek12@reddit
As a fellow bad hearing haver: earbuds and max volume. Hearing is for the birds.
Kaffe-Mumriken@reddit
Pilots are the leading cause of friendly fire
Ok_Reception_5262@reddit
the B-52 has found his opponent
rob189@reddit
It already had that in the C130
scout614@reddit
And the P-3
abfgern_@reddit
And Ukraine's Yak-52s
ToeSniffer245@reddit
Hype moments and aura plane continues to be carried by hype moments and aura
MarshallKrivatach@reddit
Given the A-10 also successfully flew a Sandy flight, it's got a lot of credit riding on it just like it's forefather the A-1 now.
Kaffe-Mumriken@reddit
Glorious. Now the F-14
wastingvaluelesstime@reddit
Why not feed its budget to the drone vendors?
Mackesanz@reddit
I thought it was already phased out. Nice surprise.
OttoVonWong@reddit
Brrrrrrrrrrrrt news, everyone.
Cruel2BEkind12@reddit
Probably realized they have all this ammunition and should probably use it lol. Those A10s in Iraq last month were doing some lonnnng strafes.
post-explainer@reddit
Please provide a source by replying to the message that was sent to you. Failure to respond to that message will result in the automatic removal of this post. Please feel free to reach out to the mod team through modmail if you have any questions or concerns.
r/Aviation is trialing new measures to prevent karma farming. Please feel free to provide feedback through modmail. Thank you for participating in the community!