Warbird Information Exchange

The U.S. Air Force is planning to retire all 350 of its A-10 attack planes, blaming budget cuts and the slow-flying jet's trouble surviving against the most sophisticated enemy air defenses.

L2Driver,
I was under the same impression. I thought that was a big deal for them to extend the service life.

We are in the process of requesting one for the museum as several have popped up on the surplus markets. The Connecticut Air Guard flies the A-10.

In August 2013, Congress and a National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force were still looking at the proposal to cut A-10 numbers down to 246 aircraft, as well as others. The Air Force has been trying to replace the A-10 with a multi-role fighter that can cover more area and have a wider mission set for some time. The F-35, and even the MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle, are seen as having the multi-role ability and modern sensors to fill the Warthog's missions of destroying vehicles and providing close-air support. A-10 pilots have been vocal about the aircraft's superiority in its field and its frequent request, sometimes by name, by ground commanders. One lesser-known function of the A-10 is escorting helicopters on combat search and rescue missions. Some believe that an A-10 that can perform this low-altitude, long-loiter time task and take ground fire is superior to an F-35 performing that job. The Thunderbolt II is armored and can take hits, while the F-35 is not protected enough and cannot afford to be replaced if shot down. If the F-35 must do combat search and rescue, it will have a 360 degree distributed aperture infrared system that the A-10 does not. Furthermore, the two planes have different primary armaments. The F-35 relies on deploying guided bombs and missiles, which can be vulnerable to jamming, while the A-10's 30 mm cannon is immune to electronic warfare. The A-10 can destroy 14 targets per mission, while the F-35 cannot. Air Force officials have stated publicly that the F-35 will not duplicate the A-10's missions, but they do need a multi-role aircraft and it has a longer range. Air Combat Command has said it should not be about which newer weapon systems must replicate the exact capabilities of older systems, but how many new systems will be needed to address future capabilities. The Air Force has not ruled out replacing the A-10 with another light attack aircraft to maintain numbers and mass firepower with the advantage of being able to integrate next-generation sensors.[89]

As part of the U.S. Air Force's FY 2015 budget, the service is considering retiring the entire A-10 Thunderbolt II fleet and other single-mission aircraft to prioritize multi-mission aircraft and keep future procurements on track. While the service has previously considered cutting squadrons, cutting an entire fleet with its infrastructure support is seen as the only way to gain major savings. The Pentagon and active Air Force have tried to retire the single-mission platform for years. While Congressional resistance has previously saved the A-10, budget realities may finally defeat the aircraft. Members of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve argue that moving A-10s from the active Air Force use to their control completely would achieve savings while still keeping them in the Air Force inventory. Half of the fleet is already under National Guard control. The U.S. Army has expressed their dissatisfaction with the process of replacing the aircraft they call on for close-air support. The Army has shown interest in obtaining A-10 jets themselves if the Air Force retires them

They are talking about retiring the entire fleet! Then the low cost Hog fleets duties will be replaced by what? Fighters? The dodo bird billion dollar baby F-turdy-five?

Politicians=dumb.

Cherrybomber the CT ANG has not flown the A-10 since 2008.

One of the realities of today's fighting environments is that we station Attack Aircraft in an orbit with a tanker and as requests for support come is the distance to be traveled came be hundreds of miles. The A-10 can't travel at the speeds the Fighters can, whether it's FA-18, F-16 or F-15. This leaves the troops with a greater exposure in a hostile situation while waiting for the support.
a-10 would require multiple staging areas with multiple support tankers across a combat theatre while the fighters can be staged at a central point or fewer staging areas are needed with the fighters.
They can't replace the close support capabilities of the A-10 but changes in the combat arena and support of Combat dictate changes in the tactics and equipment.
I wish they would mothball them instead of retire. That way if the near future requires their use they are at least available. We throw away technology and equipment with no regard for what comes next year or 5 years down the road.

Idk I read a few other studies about how (even being slow) the A-10 is right for the job 95% of the time. Currently, it's not one aircraft or the other. We need someone in fast, then they are sent. We need someone to provide support for more then a few minutes then A-10s it is. There isn't exposure. If we went fighter only the exposure would happen soon after they leave to tanker up. Also then we are killing our aging fleet of fighter bombers with close air support wear and tear.

This is why they are even entertaining turboprop attack close air support to supplement the fast movers and Hogs.

Hopefully this gets squashed by common sense.