'Obsolete' Warthogs head to Iraq

What a bunch of fools there are in the Pentagon.They have tried ,tried and tried to scrap the A-10s for years to only find out no other plane can do what it does.
Smart bombs can replace this plane no way shape or form.Point being this,look back to Vietnam.The Skyraider did exactly what the A-10 does today.
Why in God's name dont these people talk to the guys on the ground their thoughts.Bet they would tell them something they Dont want to hear.
Yea I know,budgets,Balogna,how can they justify even one soldiers loss of life because they think the A-10 is to costly.Our men and women deserve all the support that can be given to their safety if only a little.Wake up.

Even in Vietnam the old A1 Skyraider was way more effective for close support than the F4s and the other jets.

Ugly to some, large looking engines, armour plated hull and a devastating cannon in a jet that can fly at helicopter speed when necessary ad operate from small airfields, what better aircraft can be utilized for anti terrorism engagements?

Any chance we can find the tooling and open up the production line again? New updated ones would be perfect, and it will be one of the only airplanes fighter pilots will still get to fly. I never met an A-10 pilot who didn't love the airplane and its' mission. One Guard pilot even bemoaned having to transition into the F-16.

They would be absolutely stupid to scrap this plane at this time. The Warthog is exactly what is needed to fight ISIS who simply change their tactics to avoid detection from high altitude bombing. This plane has plenty of armor and can take a lot of damage while delivering devastating damage to our enemies. this plane is at minimum, a 30 cal mini gun with a plane strapped to it.

They can run from a Warthog but they'll only die tired !

The USAF has never wanted the CAS role. Not even when they were the Army Air Corps. Who got the glory over Europe in WW2? The 8th AF flying "strategic bombing missions" with their Memphis Belles and Bond drives(thank you Billy Mitchell). Who did the CAS, that you've never heard of? The 9th AF with their P-47s and A-20's. Thank God the Marines know how to do it correctly with their MAGTF fully integrated Air/Ground commands.

Like the boots on the ground, there is nothing better at winning a battle than an aircraft that has a little dirt on the undercarriage. The government 'think-tank' idiots who think that high flying supersonic aircraft, unmanned drones, and satellites will win any war have their heads in the wrong place, between their legs. Has anyone of these 'experts' reviewed the footage from Iraq or interviewed the ground troops involved with A10 sorites? Likely not, since they would clearly demonstrate the need to keep the A10 around and likely build some more. The fact that the enemy, any one of them, will drop their weapons and run for their ratholes any time an A10 is in the area or no mobile armor and artillery stands any chance against this aircraft are reason enough to use it every time some country or faction gets too big for their breeches. Considering the amount of damage this aircraft can inflict in an in-your-face knife fight and keep fighting even when wounded is a testimate to the designers of this 'tank with wings'.

The USAF wants to keep their shiny metal as far away from the "dirt" as possible; witness the B-52 in Viet Nam.
They had to grab the A-1s from the navy to get the job done. I don't think the USAF ever though of buying a plane for close air support until they were forced by "needs" and reluctantly accepted the (so undignified and ugly ) A-10.
I think it must be " beauty-in motion" to the "grunt.

Remember, the "Queen-of-the-battle" is the infantry, everybody else is a supporting force.

I would jump at the chance to fly the A-10s for its mission.

The only fear the A10 should have is from the morons running our Air Force!

There doesn't seem to be anything else in the arsenal that will provide effective CAS except the A10. They just need to fly it until they can come up with something as effective. Once it's turned loose, ISIS will come to hate it as the Iraqi's did.

At one time in our not so distance past, military leaders thought we didn't need a gun system on fighter aircraft such as the F-4 because all dog fights would be with air to air missiles. Look how well that worked.

Ever since the warthog was developed it seems ot me the Air Force has tried to get rid of it in spite of the fact it is the ideal aircraft for ground attack. Is it because the plane is not fast and glamorous?

Good to see Spads mentioned and, as a guy humping a ruck in those days, Wallace is right on the mark. The A-10 is a worthy successor and scrapping it would degrade CAS capability significantly. If the AF doesn't want the airframe, take the spaces, faces and budget and give it to the Army - and then open the production line and retool the airframe...it'll last as long as there are close fights on the battlefield.

Perhaps the USAF and DoD brass need to figure out that just because an aircraft type is old, doesn't means it's worthless. For proof, just look at the B-52 and KC-135 - some of those birds have been flying for over 50 years. The A-10 was built for a specific mission, it has proven it does it well, and if it really needs to be replaced, it shouldn't be replaced with a one-size-fits-all approach. I guess they forgot about the Bradley Fighting Vehicle debacle, as well?

The USAF has wasted more money while producing less results than any government agency in all history. Of course they don't want the GS role: their entire rationale for their existence as a separate branch of the military is that they can win wars from the air...which they can't. Never have, never will.

At the same time they have insisted on and had codified into federal law a monopoly on land-based fixed-wing aircraft, which is why the Army got stuck with dangerous, vulnerable deathtrap helicopters instead of something brilliant like the A-10.

If I could be dictator for a day, one of the first things I'd do is reconstitute the ARMY Air Corps.

Real Easy - Transfer the Warthogs to Army Aviation. Army Aviation has more pilots than the Air Force anyway.

Good to hear... Excellent planes, should be utilized more.

If the Air force wants out of close air support, Give the A-10 to the Army.

"cleared in hot!"

This magnificent warplane should never be withdrawn from service. The Air Force wants it gone because it doesn't fit the hotshot, fighter pilot image. In the Air Force pecking order the A-10 ranks just above barrage balloons and those who fly them are looked down on as a form of Untermensch.

I have long held that the A-10s and those who fly and maintain them should be transferred, lock, stock, and barrel to Army Aviation where they belong as an integral part of close air support for Army ground operations.

The A-10 was being pushed out of the inventory thanks to behind the schenes maneuvering of Lockeed as they want all the Pentagon money that they can grab, it does not matter that the F-22 and F-35 turned out to be awfully expensive sub-performance fighters.

It does the job it was designed to do in a theater that is perfect for the assigned mission. For once congress got it right.

I worked with the A-10 community at Langley starting in 2002. We were planning to put an advanced digital radio system on the Hog. Of course the rest of Air Combat Command HQ considered that a waste, since the aircraft was being phased out. So much for that thinking.

I think the A-10 is one of the greatest air support platforms ever built and
if nothing else, just its presence instills quite a 'fear factor' to any ground force.
Long live the Warthog!