Air Force Says F-35 Glitches Mean the A-10 Will Keep Flying 'Indefinitely' (jalopnik.com)

The A-10 aircraft "is just too effective to get rid of," wrote one defense blogger -- especially in light of ongoing issues with the F-35. schwit1 quotes Jalopnik: Strategists have feared that the jet will be axed in favor of funding the F-35, but the U.S. Air Force recently confirmed that it plans to keep the A-10 flying "indefinitely." While the Air Force is theoretically supposed to be diverting the A-10's operating expenses to feed the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the people in charge are now planning to keep the plane running...

Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski told AviationWeek in a interview, "Our command, anyway, is approaching this as another airplane that we are sustaining indefinitely." While the beancounters and product planners are trying to push the A-10 off the board, Materiel Command is going to keep on keeping the planes in peak condition, which will give the A-10 it's best chance of proving its worth over and over again. And it seems to be working -- the A-10 posted a 5% increase in its availability rate from 2014 to 2015, and the Air Force seems to keep postponing its demise.
In Congress one representative has even suggested an operational testing "fly-off" between the two aircraft -- a jet-vs-jet competition to determine whether any more A-10s get retired.

Comments

Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

And spend the money on something useful instead.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[luvirini]

No. A lot of money has been spent but a lot more will still be spent in future.

On one hand one should not count the sunk cost when thinking of what is the best strategy to go forward, but on the other hand one should remember that in a complex project things often seem very broken just before they are fixed and it is very hard to say from outside how close to being fixed things are.

As example the f-16 was plagued by huge problems with it's fly by wire system early on (they even made a movie about one of the accidents) and there were also claimed to be a failed project, but then the things were fixed and it has been fairly reliable since then and served very well for 40 years or so now.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Tablizer]

As background, here's how to avoid the sunk cost fallacy. In accounting one should evaluate the cost/benefits by weighing both choices going forward. Money spent in the past should be ignored in the calculations because that cannot be changed.

Human nature has a tendency to favor options that one has invested a lot of time or money in. But that's often a mistake, kind of like grading on effort instead of merit.

Thus, the question is, if we scrapped the F-35 now, would we get a better military for the same money than if we kept it. The fact that lots has been invested in the past should be ignored.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Anonymous Coward]

There's really no question that the 35 does some things very well. The problem is it doesn't do everything very well, and they were promising it would replace many things that did several specific things very well. Gains HAVE been made.

The question is one of cost/benefit. Not "is there a benefit" - there is.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[93 Escort Wagon]

Sunk cost is sunk cost. How much you spent on a project in the past is irrelevant at this point in time.

What matters is finding the most advantageous way to proceed, given where you are at now. That may mean following through on a big, bloated sunk expenditure, or it may mean completely scrapping it. But it's got nothing to do with the money which has been spent already.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[amiga3D]

The F-16 is a lawn dart and the F-35 is the new lawn dart. The 16 has a horrible safety record. Look at this year alone! Hell, 5 bit the dust in the month of July! Single engine war planes are idiocy at it's supremacy. When you lose an engine in an F-15 or F-18 you go home. When you lose one in an F-16 or F-35 you grab the ejection handle. With all the complicated software and fly by wire systems software glitches are a killer in a war plane which are inherently dangerous due to extreme performance and it doesn't help that most of the pilots are young and cocky but relying on a single engine insures a high rate of loss. I think it's past time to scrap the F-35 and quit throwing good money after bad. We're to the point now anyway where the pilot is holding the weapon system back. They've got autonomous systems working up now and they are the future. Let's quit wasting money of yesterdays technology especially when it's yesterdays bad technology.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[aliquis]

Uhh, wrong. You should ABSOLUTELY factor in the sunk cost, especially if it reveals the fact that you've spent waaaaay too much and should scrap the project and start over.

That won't give your money back.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[luvirini]

It is the same thing regardless of whose money you spend.

First you define what you want to accomplish and then you select the way to get that that costs least amount of money from now onward.

Of course things like when you want the thing to be ready and such play a role too.

You should never consider what has been spent on something up to this point except as part of the future cost, as often use of existing equipment from spent money means a lower future cost, but not always by any means.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Joce640k]

One A10 is worth five F35s in current operational practice.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[hey!]

I think some of it's already been spent.

There, fixed that for you. If it had all been spent then the program would be history.

IIRC as of the beginning of this year we'd purchased about 171 F35s out of a planned.2443, leaving 2,272 to go. At a hundred million dollars apiece that's a lot of simolians left to shovel into the furnace. Then there's a trillion dollars in operation and maintenance costs coming down the pike too.

So going ahead with the F35 is going to be gawdawfully expensive. But it turns out extricating ourselves would probably be shockingly expensive too -- the F35 program was designed so that cancellation would be a Congressional poison pill. There'd be job losses in a majority of member districts, and the Marines would end up with nine amphibious assault ships with no ground assault jets that can fly off them but their old subsonic Harriers. But if they did choose to swallow that pill, that'd leave us locked in the tender embrace of Boeing.

So cancel or continue, there's a lot more left to pay.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[sphealey]

= = = Sunk costs doesnt mean tou payed the loan off yet. = = =

That's a point that I've seen some otherwise very smart economic/business analysts misunderstand. If you're $2 billion into a project and your analysis determines that the best course of action is to terminate it, then doing so is optimal. But unless you also file for bankruptcy your organization is still on the hook to repay the $2 billion of bonds that you issued to finance the project.

sPh

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[nojayuk]

The A-10 isn't in production, the last airframe came off the production line in 1984, over thirty years ago.

There's a porky programme ongoing for Boeing to re-wing some of them since they're falling apart, having been built cheaply to fly and die over the West German countryside against Soviet armour and air defences in an all-out war. Luckily they've not had to face a real air defence network for the past ten years or so but even against the Iraqis severely degraded systems a bunch of them were lost in 2003.

A-10s are not actually very effective in the CAS role, being a single-seater where the pilot has to fly the plane in rough air close to the ground while also identifying targets and delivering fire. The number of blue-on-blue incidents listed against A-10s reflects this time-management problem. They also have to come within reach of ground-based anti-artillery guns to use their Big Stupid Gun rather than standing off and killing the enemy with ranged weapons. Before anyone points out how rugged they are ("titanium bathtub!") remember that significant damage is a mission kill, they have to get out if they get chewed up and leave the ground-pounders to their own devices.

A-10s are surprisingly slow (slower than some WWII strike/CAS piston-engined aircraft!) which means they have to operate from full-sized air bases close to the front line to provide a quick-response CAS capability which in turn require defence from attacks, supply, logistics etc. Any of the really capable CAS aircraft existing today and the future F-35 have speed and range on their side as well as carrier capability which is less logistically intensive. They aren't also sitting ducks in case they operate against anything more dangerous than Bushmen with spears.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[RickRussellTX]

Your organization is on the hook to pay back the money whether you continue or not.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[ShanghaiBill]

The fact that lots has been invested in the past should be ignored.

Yes, it should be ignored for accounting, but it should not be ignored for accountability. The F-35 program has been a disaster, for mostly predictable, and predicted, reasons. It was a "kitchen sink" boondoggle, designed to be everything for everyone. It is even designed to take off vertically, like a helicopter, which inflated the cost and compromises its ability to do almost everything else. It was designed to fight "yesterday's war", while the future is obviously unmanned drones. But the USAF top brass are pilots, so they simply put on their blinders and ignore the future, so they can get the new toys and wear those snazzy leather flight jackets.

A lot of people should lose their jobs for this fiasco. But more importantly, we need to learn some lessons about project management and strategic planning, so things like this don't continue to recur.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Kjella]

On one hand one should not count the sunk cost when thinking of what is the best strategy to go forward, but on the other hand one should remember that in a complex project things often seem very broken just before they are fixed and it is very hard to say from outside how close to being fixed things are.

The real problem is often that the revised estimate is just as much bullshit as the original estimate. There's a saying that the first 90% of the project take the first 90% of the time, then the last 10% take the other 90% of the time. So you approve a $100M project, $60M is sunk but the revised estimate is now $130M. Well -30 is better than -60 to scrap and write it off. But when you get to 100 million the estimate is 150, when you get to 130 it's 170 and the project finally lands at 180. Guess what you've now been throwing so much good money after bad that you've lost more than if you'd just stopped the project in the first place but the deeper you go the deeper you're committed to keep pouring money into it.

I see that when you write code too, you start with like 0.1 pre-alpha and you breeze through versions until like 0.7-0.8 and then it's like all those little things here and there and documentation and testing and refactoring and UI and config settings and kinda unclear points you skipped because you did the work that obvious how you'd do it and you realize damn there's actually a lot of work even though it was mostly working and so 0.9 and 0.95 and the version just before the big 1.0 is like 0.99d or something. It's extremely rare that version 0.8 is actually 80% done.

Yes, occassionally there is that eureka moment where all the parts of the puzzle suddenly starts working together but more often it's "I'm sure the finish line is just over the next hill, I just know it. I just need a little bit more time to work this out". I really do make an effort to give estimates where I can, but sometimes it really also is so that I don't know what the solution will be until I've found it. Double that when they want estimates on how long it'll take me to find and fix a problem when really I got no idea where it is, what the scope is and how ugly it'd be change and the estimates won't get better by pestering me with them.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[slarabee]

1. Are they cheap or are they old? You point out the last airframes came off the production lines 30 years ago then say they were built cheaply. I do not think still being operational decades later, especially considering their operational tempo over most of this time, is indicative of cheap.

2. Pork wing program or falling apart? If they are 'falling apart' then I do not think a program to remediate that would be considered pork.

3. A bunch were lost in 2003? Please enumerate. I know of only one combat loss of an A-10 in Iraq since 2003.

4. The A-10 has a slightly lower rate of blue-on-blue incidents than other aircraft performing close air support. In any case, the numbers of friendly fire incidents by aircraft of any type are astonishingly low compared to the number of sorties flown. Statistically minimal.

5. What WWII CAS aircraft exceeded the A-10 in speed? The big CAS birds of that war, Junkers 87 and the II-2 were both a couple hundred miles per hour slower. The P-47 was at least in the same ball park as the A-10.

6. How often is a CAS mission called for and time from base is a factor? Fine, in that case send a Strike Eagle. For all the other times, that loitering plane is ready to go no matter if it is sub or supersonic.

7. A-10 was designed to not need full size airbases. Strong gear. High engines. Soft tires. They are made to work from short, damaged and improvised fields.

So what are the really capable CAS aircraft existing today?

Why do grunts and marines commonly differ with you?

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[ColdWetDog]

There are, however, a number of other aircraft that are suitable for close support. If you look at this this table, the venerable B-52 can drop more close support weaponry at lower cost than anything else in the inventory and the F-16 is a close second. Several turboprop planes are also being used.

And of course there are helicopters and perhaps eventually UAVs.

The F35 is really a stupid concept for CAS. Expensive to own and maintain. Not particularly well armored.

The whole premise of 'one plane to rule them all' has shown itself to be poorly thought out and more of a pipe dream than anything else.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Zak3056]

Are you suggesting that Donald Rumsfeld was the architect of a program that was initiated in 1996? I'll grant that his administration chose the X-35 over the X-32, but I don't know why you think the outcome would have been significantly different.

You know, the funny part is that he was widely criticized for killing a multibillion dollar "last war" defense program (the Crusader artillery vehicle).

I'm not the world's biggest fan of Donald Rumsfeld, but the blind hate you're spewing is exactly the reason that we have people lined up behind the worst two candidates for president in recent memory (arguable, in the history of the republic).

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[lgw]

It was designed to fight "yesterday's war", while the future is obviously unmanned drones.

Yes, airframes last a long time, but unmanned drones replacing all armed air roles, even all single-pilot planes, is decades away. We can do some fairly minimal stuff now with drones against low-tech opponents with no EW capability at all, and even then it's not much cheaper.

There are plenty of problems with the F-35, but we certainly need new manned planes, both fighter and bomber, for at least another generation. The inherent disadvantages to a remote-control plane are quite large, and truly autonomous drones - drones that can decide to engage a new target - aren't coming soon.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Hognoxious]

they have reduced the number of unknowns

The F-35 has known unknowns, but a new project will have unknown unknowns.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[HornWumpus]

Optimist.

90% of remaining project will take 90% of budgeted time/money. Learn to live with imperfection.

Re:Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[mspohr]

Maybe they could scrap the variations which don't perform well and just produce those which are effective.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Zak3056]

[citation needed].

You're blaming Rumsfeld for something that began in the 90s. The program was called the Joint Strike Fighter, and the conventional and STOVL requirements were there from day one.

As I noted above, Rumsfeld killed the Crusader, and he also killed Comanche and tried (and failed) to kill the F-22. You can argue that he could have killed it, but laying the blame for this at his feet is, as I said, just partisan hate.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[lgw]

There hasn't been a dogfight in like 50 years. Dude.

You seem confused about the definition of "dogfight". Firing missiles at max range is sort of the opposite of a dogfight. Just so you know.

Do you seriously foresee WWIII breaking out soon?

Large powers haven't fought in a while. But the world isn't stable, and America's military dominance is fading fast. Won't be long before the end of the Pax Americana. We'll see large powers at it again one day, unless human nature magically changes (and heck, if human nature magically changes, maybe communism would work). I could certainly see us fighting Russia or China in a proxy fight in my lifetime, much like Vietnam was. US vs Iran is a joke, but Iran armed with a large gift of Russian equipment? Less funny.

Lots of ways the world can change. Best not to over-optimize on fighting the last war.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[Alumoi]

I could certainly see us fighting Russia or China in a proxy fight in my lifetime, much like Vietnam was

Were you born yesterday? All major powers have been fighting proxy wars since the end of WW2.

Re: Good, then we can scrap that stupid f-35

[luis_a_espinal]

I could certainly see us fighting Russia or China in a proxy fight in my lifetime, much like Vietnam was

Were you born yesterday? All major powers have been fighting proxy wars since the end of WW2.

Nothing of the scale seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union. I grew up in the cold war, right in the middle of one of those proxy wars. There has been nothing approaching any of that shit since 1989.

Let me be the first to say

[Anonymous Coward]

BRRRRRRRT!

Re:Let me be the first to say

[infolation]

A-10 Warthog. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every mother****er in the room, accept no substitute.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[JBMcB]

That's the problem - the F-35 was supposed to do *everything* - air superiority, close air support, attack, amphibious assault - and it wound up doing nothing particularly well. So, yeah, it has a different operational envelope than the A-10, and that's the problem. It isn't as good as an A-10 for ground attack, it isn't as good as an F-16 for air superiority, and it isn't as good as an F/A 18 in STOL situations.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[luvirini]

The thing is, the US airforce has been trying to get rid of the role that Warthog was designed to fill because ground support is not glamorous.

So over the years they have tried to say that a fighter is as good as a dedicated ground attack craft in ground attack and the ground attack craft role should be scrapped and further that no new ground attack aircraft should be designed. Thus they are trying to push the f-35 into that role now as "It is as good as a dedicated aircraft"

This has resulted in the Warthog soldiering on as the fighters have not been able to fill the role...

Cost matters

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Cost of an A-10: ~$18.8 million

Cost of an F-35: ~109 million

Cost of an F-35 not being able to support ground troops adequately: $1,000,000,000,000,000,000

Re:Cost matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Cost of an A-10: ~$18.8 million

Cost of an F-35: ~109 million

Cost of an F-35 not being able to support ground troops adequately: $1,000,000,000,000,000,000

Ah, I see you are a graduate of the RIAA/MPAA school of cost estimation ;-)

Wrong.

[Qbertino]

It was designed to strafe tanks, but modern tanks will survive its shitty popgun, and it's vulnerable to SAM. IOW it can't be used against an enemy with an air force and it can't fly low enough to use its gun.

It's "shitty popgun" as you call it is just about the most powerful fully automatic firearm on the planet and has been ever since. At least as far as airbourne fully-automatics go. It might be that some soviet tank with active armour can survive a first attack run or a fully armoured Leo2 can surfive even a little longer, but thats not the point.

Todays enemies are ISIS troupers in modified Toyota Trucks and Bulldozers, they don't have Leo2s. For that type of enemy the A10 is more than a perfect match. And the most important thing: It's actually finished. We have quite a few of those sitting there and ready to fly and kill stuff. Can't say that of the F35 or the Jaeger90, ... errrrm sorry, "Eurofighter" it's now called.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[smooth wombat]

but modern tanks will survive its shitty popgun,

The A-10 has weapons other than its 30 mm gun. Hellfire and Maverick missiles do wonders against every tank on today's battlefield.

This article from 5 years ago is a long discussion from people who appear to know what they are talking about regarding this subject. The overall consensus: while the A-10 may not be able to destroy a MBT with only its gun, that gun can render a tank inoperable (track hits), sufficiently damage components and cause other havoc which will make any tanker nervous. When combined with its under wing stores, tanks and their supporting vehicles and infantry would be toast.

Further, this article goes into a deeper discussion about penetration capability of the 30 mm gun vs armor, what tank (specifically the T-90) has what armor as well as factual incidents of tanks being hit by such rounds or other tanks.

Again, depending on where you hit a tank, the A-10 can immobilize it, damage it to the point it's essentially useless or, if lucky, can destroy it with only its gun.

The other thing to consider is loiter time. The Warthog can stay over a battle area substantially longer (up to 3 hours) than any other aircraft, especially the F-35. That is great for seeking out targets of opportunity or even acting as a spotter for ground troops/tanks.

IOW it can't be used against an enemy with an air force and it can't fly low enough to use its gun.

A) that is why we achieve air superiority. However, how that is supposed to be done with the F-35 is still unclear since that is the role the F-15 and F-16 are designed and used for. Technically the F-14 as well but its role can vary.

B) the warthog is designed to fly low. Yes, it can dive if necessary but its primary course of attack is at a low, shallow angle. You don't want a slow(er) flying aircraft to be high in the air. You want it to swoop in, lay waste to its target then get out. By flying low you present a very small window of opportunity for opposing troops on the ground to target it as well as make it more difficult for radar to pick it up and track.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[AK Marc]

Nothing has ever proposed to do what the A-10 can do. The F-35 was just supposed to get sufficienlty similar results. Just not doing so flying so low and slow that the pilots can recognize individual targets, ensuring fire solely on the enemy. "Air strikes", as we learned in Vietnam, don't care who they hit, they just hit the target area. So cal in one too close, you are dead. Call in your own coordinates, not the enemy, and you are dead (yes, it's happened). But such errors with an A-10 are often less, as the A-10 pilot is low enough and slow enough to be able to visually verify a target. The tactics of the ground troop have adapted to the A-10. If they know they can call in support, they try to engage the enemy first. Get them into a defensive group. Close and moving. Then the A-10 mows them down. With explosives-based air support from an aircraft outside visual range, you call in coordinates of the enemy, and bomb them from afar. This reduces the kills, includes more civilians, and is generally worse than the tactics used with an A-10 nearby.

A-10 works with corrdinated ground and air attack. Most other air support is mutually exclusive with ground support (except on massive fields of engagement we haven't seen in 50 years).

And

[Ol Olsoc]

The Warthog will continue being the great plane it has always been indefinitely.

The 35 is trying to be too many things at once, which means it won't be good at any of them.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Opportunist]

The A-10 is perfect for the current kind of wars we're fighting for one single reason: It's cheap and cheap to maintain.

Can't be used against modern tanks? No problem, terrorists have obsolete equipment. Vulnerable to SAM fire? No problem, all they have is shoulder mounted and it can deal with this. Can't be used against an enemy with an air force? No problem either, terrorists have no air force.

Yes, this is going to be a problem when facing an enemy of equal size. But for spanking towelheads? Perfect tool.

Most F-35 hit pieces are garbage

[cfalcon]

Most of the F-35 stories are moderately garbage, usually able to be traced back to someone with an axe to grind. See: any of the stuff about dogfighting tests. Then read a bit more and find out what conditions they were held under, how many OTHER tests are left out (4v4, etc), and check out who wrote the original thing, and which pieces they cherry picked.

The A-10 complaints, however, are not like this. The A-10 is beloved by many whose lives depend on it, and seems to have capabilities that the F-35 does not, at least according to the fiery defenders you find on the net (who I don't see reason to doubt). I will not be surprised if some of the A-10 missions are rightfully replaced by F-35s. I would be surprised if they ALL were, however. The original desire for scrapping the A-10 came from excellent F-35 performance on some air force tests (and a desire to save money long term), but that seems unlikely to apply to every A-10 mission.

When you have a bunch of infantry bitching about something, it is probably worth listening to the bitching. And they seem to love the A-10. I mean, that seems pretty compelling.

Re:Most F-35 hit pieces are garbage

[Solandri]

The problem is the people bitching (the infantry on the ground - Army and Marine Corps) are not the ones deciding (Air Force brass). During WWII, warplanes were run by the U.S. Army Air Corps. Shortly after, a decision was made to separate it out into its own branch - the U.S. Air Force. Unfortunately, that separation removed a crucial feedback element from ground troops to close air support requirements. (The Army eventually got a concession to be allowed to fly its own aircraft for close air support, but only rotary wing craft. They're only allowed to fly fixed-wing aircraft for recon. That's why they have all those helicopter batallions.)

That's the reason the A-10 has been on the chopping block for nearly 20 years now. The USAF brass has been trying to kill it. They want shiny fighter planes, even though their job - their duty - in support of ground troops calls for scrappy brawlers like the A-10. They've been trying to get rid of it so when ground forces call for close air support, they can throw up their hands and say, "Sorry, not our problem, we don't have any assets that can do that." That would free them up to spend all their budget on planes they want to fly, not planes that they need to fly.

If they don't want the A-10, we should just give the A-10 squadrons to the Army. Bypass this whole stupid inter-services turf war.

Re:The F-35 might end up being a great fighter...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I think the Army and Marines should figure out how to operate Super Tucanos and turboprop drones out of convenient nearby dirt airstrip. Then they can ignore the Air Force for all the simpler ground support missions.

Re:Maybe both have their place.

[Loki_1929]

The F-22 clears the skies of everything that flies. There isn't another jet even on the drawing board that competes with it in the air, but it also costs a fortune to fly it and since we screwed ourselves out of production (it'd take years to restart production on them), you don't want to risk them any longer than you have to. So against most adversaries with marginally effective air forces, you send F-15s all day. Against China or Russia, you send F-22s, force them to ground everything they care about keeping, and then fill the skies with F-15s to clear out everything they don't care as much about. After that, you just need effective ground attack and/or close-in air support options (depending on your decision to send ground troops).

This obsession with the F-35 is remarkably foolish. Remarkable for the fact that nobody with a decision capacity seems to comprehend the simple premise of using a mixture of high-end and low-end, role-specific equipment to do all the jobs that need doing as effectively as possible. Nothing beats the A-10 at doing what the A-10 does and it's cheap as Hell. Nothing beats the F-22 at doing what the F-22 does, but it's expensive as Hell. Once the expensive stuff has made operations reasonably safe by clearing the greatest threats, you pull it and start pumping the cheap-but-hugely-effective alternatives into the field. The only gap I see in the US Air Force's existing lineup is a long range, high-stealth, high speed ground strike aircraft capable of flying right into downtown Moscow and dropping a JDAM down Putin's chimney (or more likely, into hardened C&C centers).

Put that in development and start churning out more A-10s, F-15s, and other similarly effective tools. Nobody will be able to match the top-end tech and nobody will be able to overwhelm it with sheer numbers (e.g. WWII).

The A-10 is a pickup truck

[Brentyl]

It ain't pretty. It ain't fast. It ain't a lot of things. What it *is*, though, is a mechanically-simple, easy-to-maintain aircraft that does exactly what it means to do, does it well, and is not inconvenienced in the slightest.

It can absorb a ridiculous amount of abuse from bad guys, it can loiter on-scene longer than any comparable aircraft, it can get low enough and slow enough to see exactly who to kill (not the good guys, not the civilians), and it does all this with lower operational costs than most other aircraft out there.

I drive a pickup truck. An Audi R8 is much sexier, but for daily operation, not worrying if I get dinged in the parking lot, and getting ish done, I'll stick with the truck.

Re:Canada, out

[NotAPK]

Respect. Australia is still getting shafted...

As an Army Vet

[s.petry]

The F35 does not, nor will it, top the A-10. Fast movers are fine for hit and run jobs, but close air support requires lingering time. The A-10 has plenty of linger and scares the F*$^ out of enemies. If you are ever in combat you want 2 things on the battlefield with you. A-10s and Apaches.

Re:A-10 is an overhyped obsolete POS

[Scot Seese]

There's no reason for people to think so digitally about this. Systems degradation can be important.

They: Cover tank in reactive armor to defeat or diminish missiles.

You: 1 second hose tank with 30mm DU, the wingman 5 seconds behind you takes the missile shot. Your burst rips all the crap off the outside of their tank, the missile penetrates and destroys it. A few thousand dollars worth of ballistic ammo defeats or diminishes their half million dollar deterrence system, allowing your $70,000 Hellfire missile to killshot the tank.

This is a no-brainer

[Lord Kano]

The A-10 still works and works wonderfully for its intended use. The pilots love it. The mechanics love it. The ground troops love it.

Keep them flying.

LK

The A-10 needs to be retired.

[PortHaven]

The thing is nearly half a century old....it needs to be retired.

But we need a replacement. And we need to do it the same as the first one. A good solid design, without enormous costs.

Frankly though, I think the replacement should feature the following.

a) be built around the same cannon round.

b) maintain protective armor

c) incorporate vectored thrust/limited VTOL or slow flight options (akin to the quinjets) to enable the craft to focus it's cannon for prolonged engagement)

d) have a small storage compartment for supply drops. Not large, but it should allow the A-10 replacement to drop supplies to units on the ground ranging from medical supplies, ammo, ordinance weapons, etc.

A-10 supported indefinately

[trybywrench]

If the B-52 is still in use surely the A-10 can be kept around too. Both planes are very good at what they do and seem to be pretty easy to keep in the air and ready to fight. It's still amazing to me when I go to air shows and there's an old, but upgraded, B-52 sitting there right next to the shiny F-35 and F-22's. I think the B-52 predates color TV.