# A-10 Warthog Longevity **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 25, 2002, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-10-warthog-longevity/138658 "2002-11-25T14:17:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-10-warthog-longevity/138658/21 "2002-11-26T04:45:07Z")
One thing that the A-10 has going for it is the gatling gun mounted in the nose. Not only can that thing chew up armor, but damn near anything else. The recoil from the gun is so powerful that it stops the plane in mid-air and there’s a delay installed to interrupt the gun so the plane doesn’t fall from the sky! While a modern fighter/bomber can deliver a powerful enough payload to take out a tank, an A-10 can do that, and hang around. That has got to have a devistating psychological impact on the opposing ground forces. Burt Rutan was working on a replacement design, but I’ve not heard anything about it in a number of years. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-10-warthog-longevity/138658/22 "2002-11-26T06:00:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by XPav \* > The problem with the A-10 is that its slow and therefore horribly vulnerable to shoulder fired missiles and triple A. Sure, the armor can keep it flying, but going into combat planning to get hit isn’t a winning strategy. > > If the balloon had gone up, A-10s making strafing runs into the teeth of mobile Soviet AA defenses would have suffered horrendous casualties. > > As for those claiming that no other aircraft can do what the A-10 can do, well, bull. F-111s in the gulf would load up with a 12 500lb laser guided bombs and do a one-hit, one-kill. Nowadays, B-52s can fly at 40,000 feet and drop a bomb which is guided by lasers or other means to hit pinpoint targets. > > Face it – its not a good idea to go attacking at relatively low speed into the teeth of the enemy air defenses, whether they be top-flight Soviet SAMs or low-tech Guys With Rifles Shooting Into The Air. Well, it might pay to read up on the purpose of the A-10 … “The A/OA-10 Thunderbolt II is the first Air Force aircraft specially designed for _close air support of ground forces_. They are simple, effective and survivable twin-engine jet aircraft that can be used against all ground targets, including tanks and other armored vehicles.” (Emphasis Mine) Source: [http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/A\_10\_OA\_10\_Thunderbolt\_II.html](http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/A_10_OA_10_Thunderbolt_II.html) I don’t think F111s and B52s are designed for _close air support of ground forces_. ---
**Author:** ![I\_am\_Sparticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@I\_am\_Sparticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_Sparticus)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-10-warthog-longevity/138658/23 "2002-11-26T06:28:14Z")
I think that the retirement scenario 10 years ago was because it would have poor survivability against an evenly matched opponent. But with US air supremacy in any conceivable battle being able to take out sophisticated SAM sites and sweep opponents fighter craft from the skies, there is no point in retiring it yet, as it provides good protection for its pilot and very serious close ground support that the army and marines want. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-10-warthog-longevity/138658/24 "2002-11-26T06:47:57Z")
[Dated 08 Dec 2000](http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html) ---
**Author:** ![\_xiao\_wenti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/b782af/32.png) [@\_xiao\_wenti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_xiao_wenti)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-10-warthog-longevity/138658/25 "2002-11-26T12:45:22Z")
One of my understandings re the 'hog was that the avionics had no ability to link up to any satellite network (which with the current battle environment increases the risk of friendly fire). I also understand that the 'hog had no GPS capability and during the war handhelds were used to augment the dead recogning navigation. On another note – There are BUFs (B-52s) in service that are older than I am! I agree that the AF is not stupid and will keep hardware as long as it is usable – however, it looks like the AF is not looking for a replacement for close air support. ---
**Author:** ![XPav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/b77776/32.png) [@XPav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XPav)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2002, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-10-warthog-longevity/138658/26 "2002-11-26T21:55:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duckster \* > \*\* > > I don’t think F111s and B52s are designed for _close air support of ground forces_. \*\* They weren’t designed to do it. But they are doing it. See posts by BUFDRVR on rec.aviation.military, who was flying B-52 in Afghanistan, and was doing CAS by dropping bombs from high alt that were guided by troops on the ground. Just because you’re not screaming in at low altitude guns blazing, flares popping left and right with AAA fire knocking off vital bits of aircraft doesn’t mean that you’re not doing CAS. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-10-warthog-longevity/138658.md?page=1)