Any article by POGO is digital toilet paper, nothing else.

New???? Almost 20 years and still can't get the myriad of problems fixed. Garbage!!!!

The A10's cannon is good for mud huts. Sometimes. Do they have binoculars in the F35 like A10?

@@talpiotATprotonmailDOTcom F-35 HMDS has a monocular NVD integrated into the Helmet so you don't need to remove a HMCS to don NODs like in legacy fighters. If you need to look closely at something, the EOTS FLIR is zoomable, and fused with Radar Ground Mapping from the AESA. Nothing else really like it. Strike Eagle is close with the rear seat WSO driving all those systems, but they don't have a HMCS and NODs-compatible Helmet. USMC Hornet pilots now flying the F-35B said they like the set-up they have with JHMCS and ATFLIR in the Hornet, and are improving the F-35 to have air-to-ground expanded Helmet-based TGT acquisition features based on all their lessons from the Hornet.

@@LRRPFco52 Amen. I was making a joke. A10's with binoculars are dead. Dead as can be. No matter the useless 30mm cannon hype.

Depends I suppose on the plane. I saw something stating that the oldest KC-135 (based off of the 707) still flying is 57-1419 with the Kansas Air National Guard. The 57 means it came off the assembly line in 1957. Not sure what altitude most tankers fly at, although I thought it would typically be lower than for a passenger jet. However, it's also used for flying cargo, where I'd think high altitude might be better for range.

It's essentially a Harrier but actually good.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD It is good, but still not going to have a dedicated parking spot in the hearts of Marines. I was never in the Corps, but life has given me a lot of opportunies to talk with jarheads -- cannot count the number of times they have expressed sentiment along the lines of, "The only thing I want more in my skies than a Cobra is a Hog." I swear their eyes genuinely glow when a conversation swings to the A-10.

I enjoyed working with the F35s for CAS. The majority of the gripes were the limited approved weapons. When we were working controls the Bs were not permitted to point their noses at the deck so we were unable to do sim gun runs with them but most of the Marine pilots were AV-8B dudes so they knew their CAS. As long as they show up on time with gas its good, can't do much with a Harrier that shows up with 15 mins playtime and a bent pod or an F18 down due to maintance.

So the F-35B shows up and drops its 4 bombs then goes home

@@pogo1140 Till they get all the hardpoints mounted

Transfer them to the Army and let 20 year old Warrant Officers fly them.

@@christophergagliano2051 It was not designed to take hits other than the titanium bathtub, and that only helps with small arms fire. The rest of the airframe is a conventional aluminum alloy.

It does have one potential use in a future peer conflict. The a-10 can be able to use decoy munitions and deploy them outside of the danger zone. This decision can easily be more economical than using a b-52 to do it.

​@@christophergagliano2051The rules of war constantly change and evolve. We have to adapt to new tactics and new technology. Cope more my friend.

@@christophergagliano2051Not how that works in real life. The A-10 is not some invincible aircraft, it will be shot down the same as any other aircraft.

@frontiereagle2764 I mean, if you're launching decoys couldn't you just do it off a ground-based rack on the back of a truck like they're doing with those Iranian drones? Why do you need a plane?

The problem is that this is sandbox mentality. The Russians are welding naval AA turrets to MT-LBs. There's no point where you'll ever get rid of AA threat. Even the Serbs didn't have their AA destroyed, just suppressed. When you have SEAD, they shut down radars. When you show up with A-10s they'll light them the F up. That's why even after giving Ukraine the AGM-88 HARM they can't use the Su-25 in direct fire. EW isn't a silver bullet. Electro-optical tracking and laser beamriders ignore your EW. You can't jam a missile that isn't dependent on radar returns. Standoff weapons? The entire point of the A-10 becomes moot. If you're just punching in coordinates and dropping bombs a dozen miles away from the fight, you're doing the same exact mission as a fast mover.

''They will show up after the defense system of the enemy have been neutralized or very degraded'' From what I understand, the issue is that the Air Force is struggling with massive costs keeping these decades old airframes in service, the constant drain of resources is eating away at the budget for new aircraft development. In essence, the Air Force has one core objective: Secure air superiority anywhere around the world, if the A-10 does not help attain that goal, then it's of a lower priority. If there's not enough money to develop aircraft that can attain that goal, then fleets of specific aircraft are going to have to be cut down in size or retired entirely. Unfortunately, it seems that a conflict with either China or Russia with the US' direct involvement within the next 25 years or so is very likely, and A-10's aren't even close to the most important asset in such a conflict.

​@@JamesVDBosch Not sure where you got your information, after I retired from the Air Guard I was working as a contractor on the A10C for a mod, the C models all got new wings which are easier to install and take of, they also did a bunch of wiring mods to make it easier to repair. The A10C can carry the almost (I didn't look it up) the same types of standoff and Lazer, GPS and other type weapons as the F16s. The A10C can also has a maritime mission that it can perform, they are brushing up on that mission now. I agree with the guys that it is a good mission for the guard because we have certain missions that are not used all the time but are still needed and having them in the Air Guard is cost savings an effective.

That works well against insurgents using AK's and the occasional RPG for air defense but against a near peer adversary their infantry would have MANPADS even after SEAD/DEAD has been accomplished, and the A-10 can't survive those

@@yomama629 Not sure if you get your info from DCS, but you don't understand how the A-10C is employed in a wartime scenario.

More blue on blue incidents from the a10 than any other aircraft in the inventory.

@@ShortArmOfGod maybe cause its the aircraft doing more CAS than any other in the inventory?

@@ShortArmOfGodcomms and sensors are greatly improved.

@@sparrowltalso most of the blue on blue action came before the A-10s were upgrade and had sensors added (A-10A -> A10C)

The B-1 performed the most CAS missions in Iraq/Afghan followed by the F-16. The A-10 comes in at 3rd or 4th.@@sparrowlt

This alone is a big argument _against_ the F-35 simps. Attack helicopters are far more vulnerable to everything that the A-10 is and more. Simple ATGMs can usually easily hit a helicopter but not a Hawg or Frogfoot. I will concede that the A-10 most likely needs a replacement, but the F-35 isn’t it. It’s a great aircraft but was never designed to do a CAS or CSAR mission.

You make a good point, I think fuel and loitering time would be a factor on top of payload, ah64 can't midair refuel.

The weakness of the Apache is the base has to be probably within 50 miles from the situation to be effective. That's still about 30 minutes from contact and within enemy artillery range. Other than that, it's the weapon delivery system of choice. The A-10 uses one or two sensor pods with one sensor pod being IR and the other sensor pod being a radar, but neither are as good as the sensors on the Apache.

@@soonerfrac4611 I've seen what has been happening to the KA-50's and -52's in Ukraine, and I figured the AH-64, despite being a more competent platform, might have the same issues with being vulnerable. However, the SU-24's and -25's have been right behind the KA's in total losses so low and slow seems to just be dangerous no matter what you are flying. I do agree that, while we need something to do the A-10's mission, the F-35 isn't the answer, and isn't likely to ever become the answer. I was mostly asking about the AH-64 since it is already in the arsenal and does train for some very similar missions to what the A-10 does, if not exactly identical. I looked into it a little more myself after asking here, and some of the things I found were that the range, payload, and and loiter time are significantly lower, and the Hellfire only has half the range of the Maverick at best, and in reality it is probably more like one third. The AH-64 is apparently certified to carry the Maverick, but it can't carry nearly as many at once as the A-10 can, and it can't employ laser-guided bombs or JDAMs at all...although it looks like it could designate a target for something else carrying a laser-guided bomb. Also, while it does have a similar maximum ammunition load and a 30mm cannon, it fires much lower velocity and smaller projectiles than the 30mm in the A-10, so it generally has less penetration and explosive payload for each bullet. The bottom line seems to be that the Apache can do similar jobs, but it has to get closer than the A-10 to do them, and it can't fly around waiting for as long or fly as far away as the A-10. The OTHER thing I noticed while reading up on the CAS question is that Drones are probably the actual replacement for the A-10, and maybe even the Apache. They aren't as survivable, but we care a lot less about losing one because the pilot isn't physically in it. The situational awarness isn't as good either, but the range and loiter time are comparatively fantastic, and the sensors that would need to be used anyway to stay out of SHORAD range are just as good. The payload isn't as good, but so much of their job seems to be flying around and waiting for someone to need them that pilot fatigue and fuel are more of a problem than running out of ordnance when determining how long they can stay on a mission, and drones have good answers for both of those problems. Basically, it seems like we know we would have a hard time keeping CAS pilots safe if we were fighting someone with credible anti-air defenses, so the preferred direction is to take the pilots out of harms way entirely so we only lose the hardware when the inevitable shoot down happens.

​@@soonerfrac4611JSF series were never designed to provide CAS or CSAR...the way the A-10A was for Vietnam. MQ-9s and MQ-1Cs are designed to provide CAS in ways the A-10C can't, namely in endurance and not sacrificing a pilot to surface to air threats. A-10C has already moved to a stand-off profile with its FLIR, HMCS, and PGMs. Not even the A-10C is doing CAS the way the A-10A was meant to, and the A-10C is still vulnerable to "low threat" Surface-to-Air systems.

It's crazy that we're still flying a combat jet that hasn't been in production in over 40 years, and the prime contractor went out of business 20 years ago.

When did they go back to 16’s? Just saw them flying over the lake last year.

@@av8rgrip The 122nd Fighter Wing has been officially approved for conversion to the F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft in accordance with the fiscal year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, the Fort Wayne-based Indiana Air National Guard unit announced on Jan. 12. The act was passed by U.S. Congress and then signed into law on Dec. 23, by President Joe Biden, setting events in motion to replace the 122nd FW’s 21 A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft with the F-16. The 122nd isn’t certain when the first F-16s will arrive, MSgt. William Hopper, spokesman, said. “We hope to see at least the beginning stages of conversion in the spring or summer timeframe.”

@@av8rgripthey’re going through the transition now. Think they’ve received two inital F-16’s

The concept of FAC-A is to have someone already on-station providing SA via radio to the incoming CAS aircraft so they will get better terrain and orientation cues to set up properly on the enemy and not friendlies. With the 7 IR sensors, AESA, FLIR, and multiple RF antennae all fused together in F-35s, piped into the HMDS and large panel panoramic display, they can see from 50nm better than a legacy FAC-A can with eyeballs. They don't need a FAC-A. Troops In Contact have their positions marked 2-4 different ways that show up on the F-35 net. F-35 pilot looks out in that space, slaves the EOTS to the target area, simultaneously getting an IR spectrum zoom overlay on AESA Radar Ground Mapping mode, with moving target indicator that can detect and track individual people from certain distances. This is with his head up, with references on the PCD he can glance at. The need for FAC-A has been replaced with dramatically-superior SA.

@@LRRPFco52 When all the systems work. We are still sending a portion of F-35s into the air with inop systems (MC rates now recorded as everything working or some systems complete inop.) I would partial cheerlead for the F-35 if the sustainment plan was not unsat.

@@EricPalmerBlog A CBO or DoD listed NMC F-35 is more capable than any fighter in the world. The non-deployable training squadron F-35s at Luke AFB would hog-rape anything out there, dekiver PGMs inside the MEZ, provide ISR, AW&C, etc. We (the US) tend naval-gaze ourselves into the weeds without seeing the forest.

There is no way it could be that cheap. A Super Tucano is about $10 million each. The contract for the Sky Warden was $3 billion to deliver 75 aircraft. I can't imagine a new one (especially with the cost of building a new production line) costing less than $50 million each. The A-10 was cheap because it was mostly built in the 1970s.

@@ypw510 Yes it can. Economics of scale. The more you produce, the cheaper they are to produce. Military history has proven that in the grand picture, quantity always wins over quality.

@@NavySturmGewehr Um, what military history are you looking at?

@@NavySturmGewehr Huh? Boeing's contract price to just replace the wings on the A-10 was about $9-10 million per aircraft. The closest equivalent to those engines are the General Electric CF-34, which is about $15 million a pair. That doesn't even include the fuselage, stabilizers, nacelles, landing gear, avionics, etc. What fantasy world are you living in where they could make a new A-10 replacement for $4-9 million? Then throw in that the USAF simply doesn't want a replacement.

@@ypw510 For one, you're missing the point of the question. Two, a wing replacement, custom run is a totally different situation that going into full series production of a complete aircraft. Especially if you intend to buy it at a scale large enough to drive the per unit price into the ground.

EXACTLY! The US Army has been concentrating on fielding 'quick reaction' smart/accurate weapons since the 1990s. CAS aircraft response takes too long and is too costly. See Excalibur and PGK for the 155mm howitzer, and GMLRS, ATACMS, GLSDB, Storm Shadow missiles for targets further out. The F35 will be useful for 'closer in' interdiction of targets that the above weapons aren't suitable for.

Drones that are deployed by ground forces are quite vulnerable to small arms fire, though. They're good at front-line reconnaissance and attack, but even then, they're very limited in that role compared to what bigger drones and manned aircraft can accomplish.

Never, us law prohibits private ownership unless you are a PMC, a dod contractor

@pogo1140 I'm talking years down the road, after it's no longer used by the military. Hueys, Blackhawks and many more aircraft are available to the public. From Classic Jet Aircraft Association Q: Do individuals actually own and fly ex-military jet aircraft? A: Yes. In the United States, there are approximately one thousand of privately owned vintage/classic jets, and there are many others others elsewhere in the world. And the numbers are growing!"

@theshawnmccown yeah I know what you mean. The only way you can buy an A-10 is if you are a military contractor like Aces or Draken or if the A-10 was purchased by a foreign government without the use of US military assistance funds or it was built by said country. Ex are the CF-5's built by the Canadians.

There are DC-3s still flying. I suppose it depends on the particular aircraft. USAF is still flying 707 variants made in the 60s and 70s like E-3s. But I doubt they're stressed like an A-10 is. Didn't Shanghai say something about 2000 hours on an A-10 being considered a pretty good life once upon a time.

It's measured in flight hours and depends on the aircraft.

Fighters/Attack historically average 27-36yrs last time I did the math. A-10 doesn't pull a lot of Gs, but it should have been axed in the 1980s really. It was obsolete for its intended mission before the production run even started. USAF airframes were either built for 6,000-8,000hrs when the A-10 was in production. F-35A exceeded 27,400hrs in the bender last I heard, without structure failures. F-15E is a tough airframe. A lot of foreign nations barely meet 5000hr specs, like the French and Russians. A lot of the MiGs were lucky to go for 4000 before falling apart.

What does Ukraine use for CAS? UAVs! That is probably the only working future option.

Drone, son. Drones.

Not kidding. But that’s what the sky warden is.

You mean, an F-35? Seriously, an aircraft designed after 2010, specifically for CAS. would look like the F-35. Because modern CAS requires precision munitions and good sensors, not low and slow airframes. Low and slow airframes cannot survive in a modern air defense environment. (Barring helicopters, which due to the ability to hover can hide behind terrain in the way ground vehicles can)

So what hapens when low altitude cloud block line of sight? Sorry boys need to call in the A-10's oh wait they were retired, sorry guys your on your own

@@pogo1140 Even A-10s were mostly used to lob precision guided munitions from higher altitudes. The sensors are supposed to be really good, and likely will help with determining who's a friendly. There's been a lot of criticism about A-10s being the #1 source of friendly fire.

@@pogo1140 They have these mystical thermal thingies these days.

@CruelestChris they can't see through clouds, smoke, dust or dense foliage, thermal camo, mylar blankets, or a wet blanket 🤔.

It also doesn't carry a lot of weapons even in beast mode.

​@@orlock20It has 11 hard points and more payload capacity than the A-10. Even in stealth/VLO, it carries 8 Small Diameter Bombs and 2 AIM-120s internally. The new primary weapons carried by the A-10 are also SDBs. There are 4 internal hardponts and 7 external on F-35s, growing to 2 more internal with Block 4.

You got it backwards. Nobody will ever buy a CAS bird. The Europeans aren't making one. The Russians aren't making one. The Chinese aren't. It's a dead end design, it's a dodo. The animal kingdom has moved on. If you depend on a platform that was outdated in the 1980s when Tunguskas were introduced, you're already doing something wrong and need to think how to get out of that dependency.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Maybe the lightweight ones like the Super Tucano or Sky Warden. But that’s a completely different category. A clean sheet A-10 replacement would not be cheap like those are. We’re never going to get back to the lower costs of the 70s.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD In the UK we did an awful lot of showing of force in Afghanistan & a little bit of Counterinsurgency CAS with Harriers, Tornado GR4 & Typhoons. None of those platforms was good at it & all burned up valuable airframe hours from their primary roles that a dedicated CAS platform would have been much happier to spend. But unlike the US, we don't have a force structure that supports an Air National Guard that can fly a specialist situational aircraft like the A10 & maintain that break glass capability...

​@@ChucksSEADnDEAD The SEAD/DEAD missions take care mid-long range SAM threats as part of establishing air superiority. Warthogs (and probably things like the Tucano as well) can also get up much closer to threats like that with good survivability because small turn radius and low altitude performance of non-swept wings. It's low altitude SAMs, typically under IR guidance, that are the real threats to them and that is part of the design of the A-10. It's not an air superiority platform, never was, and is designed to be covered by them. It can absolutely deal with S2A threats on it's own up to the weapon package capabilities (e.g. AGM-65s). This is why the pilots mentioned they would love to have the F35 flying over the A-10s while they perform CAS. I like @fat_biker 's explanation on other nations inability to field something similar (Su-25 being the only exception) so I have nothing to add on that front.

​@TheMuricanMerc If you have that much control of the sky you can just call in an AC-130, the A-10 has a vanishingly small role. With loiter munitions it probably just outright doesn't have one.

Wait, really? I know F-35 is relatively cheap (cheaper than F-15 or F-18) but I thought the F-16 was still in the 60-something million vs F-35 in the high 70s.

@@rare_kumiko Depends on the customer. I heard the latest contract selling F-16s to Taiwan had a unit cost over $100 million, but that was including a lot of parts and services included.

F-35A current lot: $77.9 unit flyaway, going up to $83.4m with Block 4. Unit program depends on weapons and support, but typically in the $100-$125m if you go all-out on weapons. F-16E/F: $200 million unit program cost 15 years ago. F-16V: Not sure what unit flyaway is but unit program cost is over $200m per the bid to Taiwan. F-15EX is $106m flyaway with its EW system separate in Select Acquisition Reports.

​@@ypw510I looked up the Taiwan FMS on DSCA and F-16 Block 70/72 unit program cost was over $200 million, including a laundry list weapons suite.

MQ-9, MQ-1C...done, done. What's next?

Why?

No.

@@CWLemoine I knew that, it was just wishful thinking… but I appreciate the reply. How about rebuild…

Only on a technical level since the machinery has to be remade.

Not at all. There's also the F-16, Strike Eagle, and Super Hornet. The Marines still have legacy Hornets and practice CAS with them.

MQ-9, MQ-1C, F-16CM, F-15E, F-35A, F-22A, B-1B can all provide CAS, and have done so real-world. Where is the A-10 necessary in that force mix? US Army has 801 AH-64D/E Apache gunships as well.

Our opposition will run out of assets before we run out of PGMs. The ground launched SDB and guided 70mm hydras are spammable.

It's being retied in 2050 and they were made from up until 1962 with the first one flying in 1954. He was probably joking about the age, but some could be collecting Social Security.

You would have to do a substantial redesign of the airframe to achieve any of that, and it would serve absolutely no purpose for a CAS aircraft which engages its targets within visual range. Covering the A-10 in RAM coatings wouldn't make it that stealthy because of its shape, replacing its engines wouldn't make it a good air-to-air platform because its wing and tail shapes are not suitable for supersonic flight or aerial combat maneuvers. This would cost a tremendous amount of money and no one in the DoD would even consider such a bad idea

100%, there is no reason to risk pilots in the CAS role in the future. Plus they can carry more weapons if they don't have a pilot and manual controls.

It was built to survive in the 1980's cold war era where fulda gap would be flooded with soviet armor its only been able to stay effective with its current upgrades in not heavily contested areas.

@@christophergagliano2051 I doubt anyone would say the f-35 or just about any other fighter can do close air support as good as the A-10. However, the Air Force has said they can't afford to keep them flying as they are getting very old and there is no other aircraft in production similar to the A-10. So what do you do?

@@christophergagliano2051 The F35 is not replacing the A10, its replacing the A10, F18C, F18D, F18E, F18F, EA18G, F16, and AV8B. Neither failed and yes the F35 needs improvement to make it more lethal for CAS specific roles.

@@thh4584 The A-10 wasn't built to survive. It was built to be expendable. In the 80s they fully expected heavy losses for the A-10 in a battle against Soviet-bloc tanks. They just hoped that it would take out enough tanks to justify the losses. They ended up using it in low-threat environments where it could operate with impunity and where its lack of speed and air combat maneuverability wasn't an issue.

The Air Force doesn't want that. They simply don't. The only reason it's still in the USAF inventory was legislative support. The USAF has been asking to retire them for decades.

@@ypw510 But unlike in a bombing campaign or air superiority, the customer in close air support is ground troops. Shouldn't ground commanders and forward air controllers determine what the support they get looks like?

@@petrairene Customers are always dealing with companies phasing out products/services because they're impractical to keep producing and/or maintaining. And in this case the USAF isn't interested in spending $60-80 million on a new version of the A-10. However, Mover and Shanghai addressed that CAS is often a state of mind where it's about pilot training. The Marines train for it because their mission to support their ground troops.

@@ypw510 the mindset of the pilot doesn't compensate for the longer loiter time, lower speed and better armour of a dedicated CAS jet. I suspect that in the case of the USAF and the F35 over-reliance is caused by a ton of lobby work of the manufacturer. Interestingly they recently decided to buy a new F15 model. They went so far as to buying that militarized armed crop duster for insurgency suppression. So why not a new A10 model too? Even in an updated version, they should be cheaper than the same number of F35 after all, they are not stealth, they can use an existing design, they use civilian off the shelf engines and they don't need quite the amount of electronic gimmicks as the F35.

@@petrairene The armor in an A-10 is overrated. All it has is the titanium bathtub around the cockpit to protect against small arms fire. The rest of the airframe is conventional aluminum alloy. Its survivability is not better than an F-16 flown at low altitude. I don't get the concern for loiter time. In any kind of uncontested environment that the A-10 can be successful, there will be tankers flying. And in any case the F-35 has a reasonably long loiter time for a fighter. I mentioned to someone else that a new version of the A-10 would likely cost at least $60 million each. The closest civilian engine would be the GE CF34 and those cost about $12-15 million a pair. And the biggest problem is that the manufacturer is gone, the production line gone, and the workers retired. Who would make it or even want to bid on it? Nobody would want to do it.

There have been plans to update and modernize the A-10 costing billions of dollars. Inevitably it gets argued that the money would be better spent on drones or cheaper ground attack aircraft like the Super Tucano or whatever comes out of the T-X program. Restarting production lines to build new A-10s is prohibitively expensive. Doubly so when you factor in the aforementioned upgrades. Personally, I think that the proliferation of drones has rendered the A-10 obsolete.

You can't upgrade legacy airframes forever. By that logic everyone would still be tooling around in SOPMOD Camels.

How? The production line ended in 1983 and the company that made it no longer exists. That was the last aircraft that Fairchild Aircraft made, and they eventually moved to making aircraft components before being sold off. When it came time to get an A-10 re-winging contract, Boeing bid on it.

@@CruelestChris It depends on the aircraft. The B-52 was mentioned here and they've had numerous upgrades over the years including avionics and engines. But it's my understanding that the airframes can take that kind of use indefinitely, which is what the hosts noted here. They fly the B-52 like a commercial cargo or passenger jet.

@ypw510 I believe the B-52s have a real Ship of Theseus thing going on these days, and would be largely irrelevant against any kind of peer threat because they're too slow, too easy to detect, and don't have anything even resembling the kind of countermeasures they'd need in a serious threat environment rather than a bunch of people shouting and firing Oerlikons in their general direction.

You make it sound like the F-35 is only capable of identifying targets for other aircraft. Not only can it do that, but it can engage these targets itself. It can even command a fleet of unmanned systems to do the same

F-35s are a football team who wear Predator suits and play the game at night. They all have visors in their helmets and everyone can throw better than the best quarterbacks. A-10C is waterboy in a funny costume who just got an older ear piece from 3 seasons ago.

@@yomama629 I don’t think you understand what either aircraft are built to do or what CAS is. But rest assured. The F35 has its place. But as a dedicated CAS is not one of those places.

The S-300 is a truck sized missile that has a warhead filled with hundreds of pounds of explosives that goes Mach 3. No aircraft is going to survive being hit by one of those things.

It's not that big a concern. Look at the F-16 with a single engine. In any case, the A-10 is not really the mythical beast that can shrug off battle damage like it's nothing. It's got an aluminum skin that can take being shot full of small arms fire no better or worse than the skin of an F-16 or a Hornet.

@@ypw510triple-redundant hydraulics, titanium bathtub for the pilot, twin engines optimally placed for survivability. Nothing else compares.

@@CorePathway I dunno. How about quadruple redundant fly by wire with batteries and speed, like with an F-16? The position of the engines is probably more useful for avoiding FOD than anything else.

@@ypw510 I’ve been a fan of the A-10 since I saw one flying BELOW my vantage point on a terrain walk in the FRG (look it up if you don’t know where that is). The A-10 was made with input from the most famous CAS pilot ever, Hans Ulrich Rudel. The military loves them a Swiss Army Knife. I prefer purpose-built tools. All this is ignoring the fact that the future belongs to drones tho. 🤷🏼‍♂️

It's called the Apache and whatever will replace the Apache. There was talk about over watch drones at the squad level. Based on the problems with CAS in Afghanistan (The Taliban would vanish before the aircraft got there resulting in billions of dollars in fuel burnt and maintenance parts without striking the enemy), this could be the cheaper option.

Not USAF. Congress. USAF and all 11 other F-35 operators have been ordering spares from the start. Congress refused to allow multi-year orders in FRP because of some retard expectation for F-35s to fly in a real/simulated total threat environment that also needed to be manifested. This means limited production from sub contractors, so most of those parts go into new airframes, which are also in high demand. 975 F-35s have already been delivered. Congress just finally authorized it to go into FRP. The enemy is within, not overseas.

Specific example?

@@Typexviiib the F-35....

@@Leo___________ You kinda shot yourself in the foot, considering the USAF hasn't fought an actual war since the 90s...

@capt5656 that was the point... If you want historical examples, there are plenty of 'universal' solutions that quickly turned out not to be sufficient.

​@@Leo___________ Your point doesn't make sense, the F35 hasn't been put to the test in a near-pear conflict? You know what has been recently? The Russian equivalent to the A10, which has been absolutely slaughtered in Ukraine. Best part is, the F35 would probably outdo any aircraft in the world in performing CAS in Ukraine right now. The best CAS aircraft in the world don't mean shit if it can't survive

Drone technology has come a long way so drone over watch could be a thing at the squad or platoon level.

@@orlock20 I can't imagine a drone doing CAS like an A-10 does. It would be too dangerous for friendly troops.

@@butchshadwell3613 The drone would be 10's of thousands of feet above the troops from the start. The Reaper has a 6 hour loiter time.

@@orlock20 so what can a reaper do at 10,000 ft for CAS? That is the opposite of CAS.

@@butchshadwell3613 Between 2010 and 2014, there were about 122,000 CAS missions with 7% of them involved an aircraft using a weapon. This is according to the U.S. Air Force. That's at least about $3.4 billion worth of fuel, at $30,000 per hour, and no actual CAS. That's because the enemy was running away before the aircraft would arrive. With an armed drone overhead, CAS could happen immediately. There might be times where the drone operator spots the enemy first. Also MANPAD use might eventually go down because troops would have a change at engaging those operators because they would already be on scene.

A-10's can't withstand modern MANPADS, and they certainly can't withstand a surface-to-air missile. The only threat to them in Afghanistan was small arms fire and the occasional RPG, sure they can tank a lot of that but against any adversary with a decently equipped military they would not be survivable in the slightest

The US Army doesn't want it and the Key West Agreement doesn't allow them to have armed fixed-wing aircraft. They also lack the air bases needed. Existing Army airfields tend to be small for the light planes they use.

@@ypw510 The Key West agreement is a relic of the cold war holding us back. We're past that. Lack of airbases is a temporary problem. Joint bases are a thing. If the Army doesn't care about CAS, then I don't care that the Air Force wants to drop it. No reason the air arm shouldn't be organic like the Marines.

@@mecampbell30 The Marines do CAS with Hornets. They plan on doing CAS with the F-35B. To my knowledge they haven't asked to take on the A-10, which the USAF brass has been more loud about wanting to retire. The Army has flat out said that they're not interested in taking on the A-10 mission even with a rethinking of the Key West Agreement.

@@ypw510 CAS can be done with drones and helicopters even if the army doesn't call CAS "CAS."

So basically make new A-10s. It's gonna cost more than a F-35 because of economies of scale. Replacing the gun would be neat, but you'd have to replace it with ballast. The airplane center if gravity can't be shifted back.

Considering the R&D costs for new avionics, engines, loyal wingman, integration, isn't not a modernization programme, it's a brand new aircraft program with a brand new aircraft proce tag.

@@Rob_F8F I'm envisioning the loyal wingman drones themselves being a stand alone project that is going to have to happen for the rest of the air force & navy. And appropriate magic retrofit avionics boxes that will allow you to operate loyal wingman drones from existing 4th gen jets [and early 5th gens that didn't get the memo in time] seems mandatory as well. That just leaves the specifics of fitting the new kit into an A10 airframe. But yes, it kind of is a whole new airplane, but with a _lot_ of shortcuts. You don't have to design a new airframe, engine replacement would be like for like, on thr same basis as the B52 engine replacement program, all the A10 specific bits like manual reversion & the titanium bathtub would remain, etc etc.

@@fat_biker NGAD seems to think they're going to need two guys, one to drive and one playing Drone Whisperer in the back. I wouldn't like to see the workload of herding drones on a single guy. So if there's any modern plane for this role it'd be a two-seater.

What's the point of doing that for the A-10 when the F-35 can already do that?

Ukraine has been using armed drones with some success.

How? The company and factory are long, long gone with all the tooling gone. That was 40 years ago.

@@ypw510 no 💩. Doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Same thing has been said about the B757. Boeing made a mistake destroying the jigs. Nothing so far has been able to replace it either. Most of the cost is in development.

@@av8rgrip They'd need to start all over again and it doesn't really make much sense. Besides - who would really want to set up this thing? I can't see anyone doing it.

The cannon is generally pretty useless unless it's used against pickup trucks and other light duty vehicles.

The cannon has been largely irrelevant as an anti-tank weapon for about 40 years. You can _barely_ kill a T-80 with it if it lets you do a low-speed pass from the rear.

A10 hasnt ever been the most effective choice in the us arsenal for anything.

@@CruelestChris last year the Air Force ran tests on the A10 engaging a modern day tank up armored with explosive reactive armor, the A10 cannon killed it.

@Christian-fg3we No they didn't. You seriously think a 30mm can kill anything modern? They tested it on M48 Pattons back in the day and some of _them_ were fine, and they concluded if the test had been on M60s almost all of them would have been in fighting condition.

Who is “us” exactly?

@@CWLemoine umm, just re-read through my post, I don't think I said "us" anywhere? Oh I see it. "many of us..." ok. That'd be people at Northrup, McD-D, or anyone intimately knowledgeable about the ATF program & the associated tech & program structure ...who know the 23 got screwed. I think I can say that without the taint of any unrealistic bias. I have tremendous respect for the engineers over at Lockheed. They won the JSF program handily, because the 35 is a great design, and the 32 wasn't. But on the ATF... the fix was definitely in. Not that the 22 "sucks". It just wasn't the 'winner' really.

You speak as if you’re qualified. Just curious what your qualifications are that’s all.

@@CWLemoine McD-D/Boeing. Mainly, in the post cold war budgeting, the play was to divide up the defense contracts to keep as many companies afloat as possible. Northrup got the B-2, Lockheed got the ATF, etc. In a world where China wasn't a threat, and Russia was in shambles, the focus wasn't on the best hardware. But as we know, that lull didn't really last. __ Anyway, if I may defend the competition though: the F-35 in that comparison was an A model, block 1. Which with Lockheed's "build while designing" approach, wasn't really up to snuff (and admittedly, it's a terrible manufacturing model, full of cost-saving vaporware which saves nothing). I don't think it had working network capacity yet, among many other systems which were not ready for full scale production. The extent of the 35's targeting there would have been rather 4th gen, which isn't really the design goal. It's grown into being an extraordinarily capable aircraft since then though. But perhaps more importantly: try running the ground attack testing against targets with MPADS (which you can't really remove from hostile ground forces with SEAD, they're passive, and fit in a large suitcase). Arguably an A-10 might be able to tank a hit from an MPAD. But I think it would rapidly become obvious which plane would make more than a couple sorties before needing search and rescue itself. A-10 hasn't been near-peer capable for decades now. Great plane when it was new. And personally I think the coast guard could still make use of them. And there are still tents in the world with no MPADS stashed under the bed. But it's a long-dead horse in it's intended role. I know it. DoD knows it. USAF knows it. Good luck getting congress up to speed though.

@@kathrynck As far as spreading around contracts goes, it always sounded to me like General Electric got the short end of the stick since DoD wanted to keep Pratt & Whitney viable. Engine options for the F-16 and F-15 have made the engines better. How good could the F-22 be if the F120 went into production? Or the F136 for the F-35?

It will be out of the USAF by 2030.

@@ypw510 I hope not, but you’re probably right.

@@dueydrew7172 I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of the A-10. My understanding is that the mission for it ended less than a decade after the last one was made. But they found some missions for it. But it's getting old and what's it really going to do in the future? It probably should have been retired 2 decades ago.

Upgraded A-10s cost barely less than F-35s and have sky-high maintenance because the airframes are as old as the pilot's father.

The F-35A is not the most expensive fighter and maybe $10 million more than upgraded U.S. gen 4.5 fighters. The most expensive fighter is the Eurofighter which is tied with one of the F-35 variants.

​@@orlock20None of the F-35 variants come close to Eurifighter unit flyaway or unit program costs. EF is €165m flyaway, over €200m unit program. F-35B and C are $90-$100m flyaway, maybe $125-$135m with an extensive weapons package. Rafale F4 to India was $208m unit program. Even Gripen E is more than F-35A when you look at the Brazilian deal, not including the bribery to the outgoing president.

​@@orlock20CCIP and PoBIT F-16CM+ have way more sunk unit cost into them than an F-35A.

Stealth is also necessary to contend with modern SAMs, it’s not just for air superiority. I used to be skeptical of the F-35, but I recommend watching hypohystericalhistory’s video on it. It’s a bit long, but quite informative.

MANPADS wouldn't be a threat to an F-35 because the F-35 doesn't need to fly low and slow to engage its targets, it would engage them well out of MANPADS range. Same idea for any kind of autocannon fire (which is even more limited in range anyway)

@@yomama629so you are saying the F35 gun is unusable for air to ground. I agree. The F35 high speed, large angle of attack even when flying straight and level, and difficulty in pulling out of a dive into the ground in time makes it unusable. While closing fast, the pilot would have to aim, line up, fire and then pull up. To pull up, the pilot would go full military power and hit 30 degree angle of attack. But while his nose is above the horizon, he would still be dropping 100s of feet per second. It’s a sluggish unforgiving pig (like the pilot realized when below the glide slope and nosed up but still crashed on the carrier).

No one who matters is talking about the morale boosting (or destroying) effect of an A-10 circling overhead and breathing fire on a tree line.

That's not what's going to happen. There are other aircraft that contribute to the CAS mission including helicopters and fast jets.

And in real world use the A-10 suffered excess losses against the Iraq Republican Guard so the USAF pulled them back and sent F-16s instead.

F-16s were doing more CAS missions than A-10s for absolutely ages because the A-10A couldn't deploy JDAMs or operate effectively at night.

​@@ChucksSEADnDEAD DS A-10's flew 8,000 sorties and lost 5. Where the F-16 carried 2 bombs, the A-10 carried 4-6.

​@@CruelestChris no F-16 ever destroyed 4 tanks and other armor in one flight and 1 was with their gun, RTB, flew a 2nd mission killed another 4, RTB went out a 3rd time and killed another 4 before calling it a day.

@pogo1140 And the F-16 also didn't kill more friendlies and civilians than all other American aircraft combined. It's almost like having sensors lets you drop bombs on the right things. And are these self-reported kills or properly assessed? CAS planes are notorious for overreporting of kills. Also worth noting that despite fewer aircraft flying fewer sorties, the coalition plane that killed the most tanks in DS was the F-111. Because it had laser-guided bombs.