License renewed? Air Force says it needs A-10 a bit longer, thanks

a cold bucket splash of realism has come upon the generals of the air force, and I join the chorus of "i told you so". It seems we will be contending with folks in the deserts for a while longer, and this is the perfect weapon in those sands and climates. The education component of the air farce academy would have been in need of examination if the A10 retirement had come to pass, for the reasoning for that would have come from men in blue without good reasoning and analysis, as well as a lack of historical references.

We could have save a whole lot of money dumping the policy making suits and sending the Air Force a subscription to Flight Aware.

Wow... who would have guessed the A-10 would be an tremendously effective ground support aircraft! *sarcasm*

It defies my common sense to think the F-35 will fill the A-10's role effectively.

No kidding? the air force has been trying to get ride of the A-10 since the late 1980s. Apparently the brass never learns, because the A-10 is always called for when ever the balloon goes up. NOTHING does the close support job better.

This could adversely affect some generals' plans to retire int Lockheed jobs.
And the problem is.....?

Don't have any figures in front of me, but I wonder how many A-10's could be restored for the cost of a single F-35? And they want to RIF A-10 personel to save mony to train F-35 ground crews? Outrageous!!!

Once a president is elected who knows about military issues, I would hope to see more knowledgeable leaders in the military. For the last 6 years the "commander in chief" has just had yes generals running the military his way.

...as long as there are boots on the ground in any theatre in the world, the A-10 and the Apache are 'THE' go-to close support platforms....IS IT REALLY THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND?....

Thank G*D someone in the Pentagon has brains. The A10 is/was/has been the best close support fighter they've had since the Sandys!

General's don't fly planes. How would they be able to make any sort of sensible judgement, they can't!

Its about time the Air Force used good sense,,,,keep the A-10 operational!

I figured they would come around on this one... A good solid plane that protects the pilot.

The A-10 will live as long as the B-82. Mark these words.

The Brass hats have wasted more $$ in the last few years than it took to fight WW-II. The A-10 was properly designed for its role, the F-35 is not. The idiots that thought one plane could fill the roles for all the services are proved wrong once again, they never learn. If they want a new fighter, they should build improved F-22's, or better reprise the YF-23. A new ground-attack plane, build more A-10's. In such a role, stealth buys you nothing and costs a fortune.

I was initial cadre into the A-10 from the F-4. The F-4 was a multi-role fighter as the F35 aspires to be. Neither the F-4 or the R-35 have the appropriate speed envelop to be successful in the CAS role. The F-16 could not do it either. The Russians built the Frog Foot, SU35 now the SU39 (copy of the A-9 which failed to make the cut). The Russian military doesn't like the Frog Foot any better than the Air Force likes the A-10 and for the same reasons...........not high tech enough! But, the Russians have realized that no other aircraft in the inventory can do the job as well thus they have continued to upgrade the aircraft and build more. The A-10 is not appreciated by the Air Force brass but, to troops putting their lives on the line, it is an answer to their prayers. Their is no aircraft on the drawing boards to replace the A-10. The Army would love to have sole responsibility for this role. The Air Force would gladly give it to them but, they don't want to lose the money this role represents and there you have it. Money is needed for flash and not for effectiveness. You might talk to your congressman but, they are more interested in how to get more money for pet projects and reelections as we all know.

You can fly a B-52 for 60 plus years but not an A-10 ????

They need to take the cost of one F-35 and rebuild the assembly line for the A-10.

Plus, from most things I've read, the A-10 pilots LOVE the aircraft. And the guys on the ground certainly LOVE to see them coming to their aid. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind.

The A-10 has proven over and over that it is the best close support aircraft the Air Force has! If we are going to be fighting ISIS and other small groups in the desert it the best plane to do it with. Someone in Washington needs to put on their thinking cap!!

I think we are looking at warfare in somebody's desert for the next 30 years. If the air force planners ever come to that realization then another a-10 run of 300 new aircraft is called for. I do not know if the existing airframes can be re-manufactured to create a zero-time condition cheaper than simply constructing a new generation of what we all know is the premier shit-kicker ground support aircraft ever built, at least one flying as an American aircraft. The Russians have build formidable ground support aircraft, but warthog is fearless, flawless, and we don't have enough of them,.

Amen to all the backers of the A-10. I have been raising hell with my Congressman for at least a year to keep this bird in the air. They finally honed it down to do what it was designed to do after many modifications. I was livid when I heard they were retiring this plane. It ain't pretty but it's a butt kicker from the word go. Thanks to the genius for saving the a/c that answers the call when called upon. I guess someone finally realized that the F-22 and F-35 are not designed for close in support.

With all the negative stories about the F-35 regarding the cost, glitches and other issues, it leads me to envision one of those back room meetings with executives from Lockheed/martin and military brass . They are sitting around a conference table not to listen to the LM guys explain how the F-35 is THE aircraft, but how to jerk Congress' chain in just the right fashion in order to get them to release the funding.
And how could maintaining A-10's be more costly than buying aircraft that cost over $200 million per unit? Mystery

They look ugly, they sound ugly, they smell ugly...and if you an enemy on the ground, there is nothing more ugly....keep them flying as long as possible cause there isn"t much that can beat down ugly.

Hi:

As one involved in AVIATION SINCE 1971 AND building the 700+ A-10s at FAIRCHILD, I believe it has been a very valuable resource for the U.S. Military and with its simple design, should be affordable to operate and maintain. Recommend rather than spending $$$$ to replace this workhorse, the AF invest in a new round of manufacturing more A-10s. They are relatively inexpensive and durable + save many of our fighters, especially in the middle east battlegrounds. Do not replace something that is inexpensive, proven to do the job, well designed and has previous production.America needs to start thinking smartly about how we spend our money, especially when nearing 20 trillion national debt. Please listen and think seriously before acting. Thanks

There are, I am sure, many politico / military career builders that are looking for a place to hide their weasel pelts. The A10, is un-sexy but oh so practical and was designed with durability and flexibility in mind (reminds me of the B-52). BUT the boys that want new toys and are stroked by the lobbyists have been exposed. Gotcha you wee dinks.

Mmmm, new spars, new engines, referb hydraulics & update flight controls, update avionics, a few gussits and an acre of sheet metal, I'd guess you could referb all the A-10s they have for the price of a couple 35s. Who would complain about a missing 35 or two?

When I used to see those Warthogs screaming through the skies out of Bentwaters,they were awesome,can't understand why it has taken so long to realise that this thing would scare those ISIS fanatics to death!!

Put the Hawg back in mass production now - and donate a few dozen to France. With enough depleted uranium slugs, hopefully Crapistan will sink back to the depths of Hell where it belongs.

I had a chance to examine an A-10 up hands-on at an airshow. Standing directly in front
of the gun was incredible, especially when I noticed the front wheel gear is off to the side like an after thought.

Air Force was never that enthusiastic about down-in-the-dirt close air support. Staying above 3000 AGL kills people on both sides. Better solution might be to give them, and the mission, to the Army or Marines.

Somewhat related, have any of you seen Col. Ralph Peters express his opinion of the Air Force brass, specifically the Fighter jocks club?

We see stories an A-10 story like this posted every few months....what? Choppers can't replace the A-10?....what? the F-35 is a white elephant?.....shhh....very quietly.....extend the life of the Warthog.

The A10 is second to none, is the CAS role, provided we continue to maintain air superiority in it's Theatre of Operation. If we ever lose that, they wouldn't last a week. It would be like shooting ducks in a barrel! While we do have control of the skies, we should continue to use the A-10 to it's full effect.