Then they should know about the Super Tucano.

You’re right. Because the fast mover can get on station from a prepared airbase farther away in equal or less time than the A-10 can from an unprepared base closer to the front.

I don’t know what “this” is because Kinja doesn’t nest posts anymore. To what are you referring?

Not bad.

That’s also false.

Right. Which means that this “requirement” is absolutely bonkers. It’s a political farce—not an actual military need.

You are finally the first person to mention the Super Tuke as a true follow on to the A-10. Thank you for that.

No, it’s not that at all. You’re horribly misrepresenting my argument.

Well, that’s why the bill was written—to fake a political requirement for a group of missions that can be carried out by multiple platforms to justify keeping an old, obsolete tank buster in service.

Desert Storm says otherwise.

>F-35

Since when has cost mattered to the US military?

Combat experience dictates that the cannon isn’t the primary weapon for the A-10. This is a political requirement more than anything.

That’s the same thing I am saying.

The gun isn’t the A-10's main weapon. It is the Maverick. Just like it would be in an F-16 and an F-35.

Predators and Reapers will, and so will Apaches and Cobras.

The A-10 is equipped to avoid friendly fire down low, you say?

This guy gets it.

This is a political “requirement,” not a military one. The mission requirements outlined in this bill are purely political. They involve military missions, but the platforms we have can perform the missions. They don’t need to be lumped into one platform.

Drones are used for CAS constantly. Political backlash is based on assassination missions. Not CAS missions.