Just give me a new current gen Ring of Red already!

I don’t believe I’ve posted that 3 times, I thought that was my first time posting it...?

lol

Oh yeah, it will need to be replaced some day, no question about that. And I do have concerns about its survivability in a peer-state conflict. But for the current type of conflicts we are involved in, where its mostly smaller, less well-equipped enemies, the A-10 is a very good CAS platform, and with its recent…

I was really only using the Mavericks because that’s what the other guy was harping on about. The APKWS will be nice, but will also likely be easier to integrate onto the A-10 since its already able to carry the dumb-fire version right now. AFAIK the A-10 and O/V-10 Bronco are the only fixed wing planes in USAF…

One the best responses I have read.

You are right. Since we’ve built the A10, we have invented GPS systems, drones, highly accurate guided missiles, laser designation pods and a host of other technical capabilities that technically change the potential for providing CAS.

I would have thought avoiding the beating is a better option. And I point out, the A10 fleet sustained 61% of the ground fire battle damage incidents in the Persian Gulf War, until the “low and slow” thing was realized to be “shot and limping home”.

The Air Force and Congress are both using the A-10 to promote their own agendas. The Air Force has been using it as a sacrificial pawn to push congress for more funding for the F-35, I don’t believe they actually want to kill the A-10 but it’s the maneuver they’ve chosen. Congress (McCain) is trying to look hawkish…

The real issue is that A-10s are reaching the end of their service lives, and the budget to replace them or build the new ones does not exist or has been allocated to some dumb and irrelevant projects (and by that, I don’t mean F-35).

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

An F-35 with a bunch of Brimstones or Mavericks can do the same damage an A-10 with Brimstones or Mavericks can do. The cannon on the A-10 is rarely used. And when it is used, it usually kills a column of British IFVs.

Which is where drones, attack helos, and the like come in.

The Maverick anti tank missile was built. ATGMs can be used by F-16s and drones and F-35s alike—And the majority of the time the A-10 kills a target, it’s done by a Maverick. And in Desert Storm, the F-16 used Mavericks to greater effect than the A-10 did.

It isn’t political theater IMHO. Political theater is when you create an argument that doesn’t actually exist to either promote and sell a goal, or to highlight some thing that you want action on.

Except it cannot survive on a modern battlefield. It has absolutely no chance against an SU-35 or an SA-400. It is dangerous to make future projections based on what we have faced over the last two decades. It is even more dangerous to assume that all our future conflicts will involve an opponent whose top anti-air…

Helicopters will be forward based at unimproved airfields, so they don’t need as much of a loiter time, because time on station will be so much shorter.

I love the A-10 as much as the next guy, but I wonder if a fast attack helicopter like the S-97 Raider might not fill much of the same requirement, and offer a lot more flexibility in terms of deployment parameters and mission. Nostalgia for the A-10 shouldn’t get in the way of developing something that we might have…

They don’t need one platform to do this. They have multiple that can perform these missions already. Attack helicopters and F-16s/F-35s are fine.

This is a miserable graphic to use to illustrate a point. No one is comparing the F-15C to the A-10 except you. This whole article is not only too long, but ignorant of the realities that smart bombs, UAVs, and other aircraft can perform CAS in a more survivable manner than the A-10.