Yes.

That’s exactly the problem.

I’m sorry are you trying to say that being able to identify a target from 40 nautical miles away is a hindrance?

Have you seen the footage from the F-35's EOTS sensor? Clear imaging from 40 nautical miles away.

Contradictory claims? Like what? Nothing that the General said was wrong.

Calm down. Nobody is comparing to A-10 to excrement. It was a very effective plane during its time, for its particular niche. But that doesn’t mean it needs to stay in service forever.

If we’re talking about conflict against an actual military (not terrorists) then the F-35 is going to be the best option there. The argument that I always hear against using the F-35 for CAS is that the operating costs are too high for just bombing old Toyota trucks. But if we’re talking about fighting an actual…

And that absolutely makes sense. If you want to create more wiggle room the budget, then retiring the A-10 is an easy way to do that without jeopardizing any capability. There is no mission that can be done by the A-10 that cannot be done by another asset already in service.

Maybe (and this is a wild conspiracy theory) he understands that the A-10 is nearly 50 years old now? Maybe he understands that the A-10 is only one of many planes that run CAS missions so it isn’t a crisis if it gets retired?

Why? Because he says that an aircraft nearing 50 years old is a suitable candidate for retirement? I promise you that the US existed before the A-10 and it will exist after it has been retired.

Defense contractors still make money from producing spare parts for the aircraft and producing upgrade kits for it.

For most of the missions that the A-10 is called on to perform, the Apache’s payload would be quite sufficient. The M230 can ruin somebody’s day in a hurry.

Is that why an A-10 shredded a bunch of Marines in AAV’s during the Iraq War?

Why is the A-10 so important when we have the B-1B, F-15E, and F-16C? (And eventually the F-35) What crisis would the retirement of the A-10 create?

I don’t see Russia having a hard time killing those A-10's if they wanted to. They have Flanker-E’s on station that would be able to kill the A-10 in a second. Plus, long-range SAM’s like the S-400.

The question is whether it is really worth it to have a separate airframe just for mopping up stragglers.

Incendiaries aren’t illegal. However, certain uses for incendiaries are illegal. For example, you cannot use incendiaries against civilian structures unless the enemy is using them for cover.

The best countermeasure to small arms fire is to simply fly high enough that it can’t reach you.

McCain isn’t a coward but he is old. He hasn’t flown anything in years. And unlike Welsh, he has never actually flown the A-10.

I think we can all agree that statement applies to McCain far more than it applies to Welsh. Remember the time that the McCain posed for a picture with those “Syrian Rebels” who turned out to be known kidnappers?