The A-10 is gonna get its crap pushed in. Sorry for those of you that are fans of the airframe, but it's the truth.
(Can't remember where I saw this info below, but I'm passing it along)

CAS isn't done low and slow anymore and hasn't been done like that in awhile. The only reason it was done that way in the first place was because the pilot had no other way to ID and hit targets because they lacked the sensors, lacked the communications infrastructure, and lacked the precision weapons needed to accurately hit targets. Low-and-slow is terrible for loiter time. If you want loiter time, call an AC-130 or B-1B. The A-10's reputation for loiter time comes from having engines that don't have afterburners, but the TF34 has always been underpowered. That means the A-10 has to always fly at full power whenever it's carrying any weapons. That limits its combat payload, that means it loses energy very quickly (which is NOT a place you want to be if you get a warning of a missile launch, or someone on the ground that you didn't see starts shooting at you as you're coming off a target) and most importantly, it slows down the entire package and puts other aircraft at risk.

A-10s had the highest loss rates in the Gulf War. All A-10 losses were from SAMs. Yes, A-10s had the highest loss rate, whereas the F-16 flew more missions and against much heavier defenses (daylight raids over downtown Baghdad). Who had the most tank kills? It wasn't the A10. A-10s got yanked from the low-level interdiction mission when a bunch got shot up by the Republican Guard and two shot down in one day. The ones that got shot up had to be repaired - meaning time and manpower had to be diverted from turning around the good jets and keeping them in the fight. Even if an A-10 makes it home, you still lose overall combat effectiveness.

Also, the USMC is responsible for writing CAS CONOPS for the F-35. If they're happy with the F-35 providing CAS for them, than why isn't everyone else? When I mean "everyone else" I mean people who have an A-10 fetish.

Survivability isn't about getting shot up, limping home, spending days/weeks being repaired. It's not getting shot in the first place. If you're getting shot up, you're doing it wrong.

I nominate John McCain for the first drop test!

I think that Trump will have a very positive impact on defense programs

True. We sold the farm for the F35... DoDs too big to fail project.

That would have applied to almost all aircraft over that battlefield.

I'm sure you've read Red Storm Rising, that was a recurring topic in that book.

It's widely accepted that the A-10 is less survivable in contested airspace.  Of course, you may disagree, as is your right.

That picture is absolutely not AAA. That is a missile near-miss.

Seriously? I thought it was funny.

Long haul convoy escort. Most dangerous mission in Iraq (*cough* at the time... *cough*)

Aww, no smileys for use with phone apparently.

This

The F35 Program is another poster child in the "completely fucked up and BAD" acquisition category.

The GAO slammed the hell out of that program, and rightly so.

We are providing welfare to some of the weapon manufacturers.  That is a no go.

CAS the A10 wins hands down.  Just upgrade them.

The F35 should have been cancelled a couple of years ago and I hope Trump and Co. cancels that POS.

Same for the Cav in the Fulda Gap.  Not breaking news.  We planed on the Troop, Squadron and Regimental TOCs to go in the first bang.  Life expectancy of milliseconds.

I was airborne cav, they planned to do last rites as we got on the plane.

I guess I should have said the aircraft had an operational life expectancy measured in minutes.  Because my post was about the plane not the pilot.  Because that's what this thread is about: aircraft operational effectiveness.  And a dead pilot in a single seat aircraft pretty much equates to a non-operational aircraft, sooner or later.  Most likely sooner, particularly in contested airspace.

Bring in the drones!

Also, we fly CAS missions with the BUFF from FL300.

What if you never took the damage because the SDB was dropped out of range of enemy capabilities?

Assuming they are still capable of launching nukes if a war goes hot...

Peace in our time.

I'm not seeing how their jobs overlap much. Maybe someone else can explain the context

They could skew the test towards the A10 if they see which place can commit more blue on blue kills.

Big Air Force hates slow ugly planes and does everything they can to get rid of them in favor of shiny new jets, regardless if they can do the job. A big reason we still have the A-10 is that the Army makes noises that they'd be willing to take them. And the only thing the Air Force hates more then ugly slow planes is the thought of the Army having them.

Any congress critters who is calling for this should have to volunteer to stand in a target zone and anyone who survives an
A-10 gun run can vote.

Will this include flying through a SAM belt and then immediately rearming with missiles to take on MiG-29s?  
If yes the A-10 loses.
See, anyone can play this game.

The Army wants them less than you believe the Air Force wants them.

The A-10 is too little plane for a near peer shooting war and too much plane for COIN work.

Sounds like a good reality show.

if you are going to use the f-35 for CAS you might as well use b-2 spirits they will do the job the same way; very high and with satellite assistance

Congress?!  I'm comfortable having important decisions made by the likes of Shelia Jackson Lee and Maxine Waters; both top gun clowns. 

The real reason that the A-10 is still viable is that the F-35 isn't available or reliable in sufficient numbers. You can talk about capability all you want, but if it can't get off the ground, what good is it?

I'm going to laugh just a little bit when the F35 bursts into flame during testing due to the "resolved" engine issues. 

I don't think the Army wants them at all. I think they're just bluffing to force the Air Force to keep them.

Forget about it, youll never explain it to these guys. Flew CAS in OIF and OEF in the 15e. We have had 15s and 16s flying from 40k all the way down to treetop level for a decade with hardly a hole in them but they would rather have the jet that takes twice as long to get there and cant even go into areas with surface to air threats. Lowest threat environment the AF has ever done CAS in and they sent them home, or moved them to afghanistan to fight against guys with AKs. It is what it is.

Every one of these threads is the same. You can point out that that a 2 ship of 15E have killed 16 tanks in one mission while also having air defense capability, or that they can carry more ordnance further and faster, etc etc it doesnt matter.

The main problem with CAS is not even about the airframes but about roe and the reluctance by ground command and the CAOC to even use what we have effectively so in the end this whole discussion becomes like the threads where two guys are arguing on the internet from their mom's basement about which scope is most effective when in truth she wont even let him shoot it.

Which "gun issues" are you speaking of?

Of course they don't.  And neither do the Marines.  They just want the Air Force to keep flying them but not have the money to do so.

Not all of the A-10s got repaired.  A couple were written off as well.

This is the truth. If the AF doesn't want the A-10, then ditch it. We need cheap/low/slow CAS AC for the army.

so, 2x as long as a tankers life expectancy? We expected 100% casualty rates in 72 hours for everyone. The soviets expected over 85%. They never thought that the remaining 15% of their forces could take over Europe before relief came from the United States.

We want AH-64Ds too

Somewhere John McCain is furiously wacking off with a cleanup wad of taxpayer money in anticipation of this test.

The Air Force should have bought into the LAAR concept for low intensity conflicts.  So should the Marines for that matter.  If they would have started operating them it would have, IMHO, shamed the AF into doing the same.  But the USMC is just as willing to use jets as much as everyone else.

There was no active SEAD going on when O'Grady was shot down, he was flying at like 20,000 feet on his way to his target. O'Grady was a product of an ambush enabled by a lazy ATO,process.

and there you have it.

Yes folks, this is how stupid the people who represent us are.

They are dumber than you could ever possibly imagine.

Asked and answered, but I will repeat myself:

OX-10X FTMFW!

Everyone wants to play pretend, and prepare for fighting fantasy wars, instead of the war we are actually in. The Marines seem to be the most practical, but have their own expeditionary derpers, who try to convince people that the Marines is something other than a smaller, leaner Army.

The Air Force fantasy war is just absurd. We should prepare for war with nuclear powers, by building really expensive tactical aircraft, and not updating the nuc force. All services have plenty of derp, but that shit takes the cake.

The A-10's day is long past.  However, you have to admit that COIN and killing goat fuckers has been 100% of our wars since vietnam.   We need to procure a fleet of planes for the wars we actually fight.  The A-10 is the closest thing we have to that right now.

What we need is a fleet of cheap bomb trucks that are optimized for goat-fucker killing.

The Air Force is working on the B-3 bomber and a MMIII replacement as we speak.

The Army would still fight you for those.

Didn't they just retire their 58's though?  You can still kick wholesale ass with those, and I'm betting their way cheaper to operate.  

I was working Rivet Joint out of the UK when it happened. You don't know what you're talking about, but I'm not going into detail just to prove you wrong.

We bought some A-29s....for the Afghans.