# The A-10 Thunderbolt/Warthog: Air Force: "We don't want it" Army: We'll take it **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 24, 2014, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483 "2014-03-24T23:01:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/221 "2016-02-06T18:36:10Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The cost of the plane 30 years ago included the development cost. that cost no longer exists. It’s now a pure production cost. > > As for the avionics that really is a separate cost shared among other aircraft. If the plane were purchased today the development costs of avionics would no longer exist. . > > Yes production costs go up over time but buying an existing plane does come with design savings. It’s literally a case of not paying to invent the wheel all over again. Look, this is a factual forum, and you don’t know what you’re talking about. The $18 million figure was the flyaway cost, not PAUC. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/222 "2016-02-06T19:14:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Look, this is a factual forum, and you don’t know what you’re talking about. The $18 million figure was the flyaway cost, not PAUC. Great, I never said that. The plane will always be cheaper than that nightmare that’s suppose to multi-role in it’s place. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/223 "2016-02-06T19:17:35Z")
You made several factually wrong assertions in your previous post. Those deserve to be corrected, as I did. Changing the subject doesn’t relate to your errors. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/224 "2016-02-06T19:33:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You made several factually wrong assertions in your previous post. Those deserve to be corrected, as I did. Changing the subject doesn’t relate to your errors. No, you’ve made assumptions that are just stupid. I never said it would cost the same as the original cost. I said it would make sense to buy it because the developmental costs have already been sunk as are the cost of the new avionics. You on the other hand thought such a project would mean using the original avionics and that for some fuck stupid reason nobody else on the planet understands inflation. By default it has to be cheaper to bring the plane back (in today’s dollars for those too dense to grasp the obvious) than to substitute it with a more expensive plane that lacks the functionality. You can’t use an F-35 for close support. It’s not designed for it. It’s a fucking hanger queen in search of a hanger. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/225 "2016-02-06T19:39:04Z")
**Moderator Note** This is GQ, so let’s tone down the rhetoric and focus on the facts. If you want to have an argument, GD and the Pit are both great places for those. ---
**Author:** ![swampspruce](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/swampspruce/32/261_2.png) [@swampspruce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/swampspruce)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/226 "2016-02-08T15:36:50Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > You didn’t really address my issue. low and slow is no longer a viable strategy for CAS since the proliferation of shoulder mounted SAM’s. Also the A-10 is no longer viable for its primary design task as a tank killer since it can’t penetrate the front armour of a modern Russian tank. > > CAS is better done by a combination of high flier bombers with laser guided munitions and human operated drones with vulcans and JDAMs. CAS in the low and slow role is too dangerous for a manned plane nowadays. The A-10 has not been used much in the fight against ISIS because of the risk of shoulder mounted SAM’s. If a drone gets shot down it doesn’t require a dangerous and potentially political disaster of a search and rescue mission using special forces. > > To be fair I think the CAS drones should be Army not air force, let the Army cover their own forces. Have you read the rest of this thread? I ask because those issues were referred to already. CAS has always been dangerous and [MANPADs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-portable_air-defense_system) have been around long before the inception of the A-10. As to your assertion that the A-10 isn’t being used much, well you are flat out [wrong](http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/01/19/a10-strikes-isis-11-percent/21875911/http://). ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/227 "2016-02-08T15:54:49Z")
Depleted uranium cannot penetrate Russian tank armor? Surely it can penetrate the stuff that ISIS is using. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2016, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/228 "2016-02-21T04:22:22Z")
What’s this then?— the-u-s-air-force-still-plans-to-prematurely-retire-the-a-10 from [http://warisboring.com/articles/the-u-s-air-force-still-plans-to-prematurely-retire-the-a-10/](http://warisboring.com/articles/the-u-s-air-force-still-plans-to-prematurely-retire-the-a-10/) …But a planning document the Air Force published in mid-February reveals that 2022 is the flying branch’s deadline for the last A-10 retirement, not the first. In fact, according to the document, the first A-10s — those currently with the Air National Guard in Indiana and the Air Force Reserve in Kansas — will bow out as early as 2017. Active-duty Warthogs in South Korea and Arizona would cease flying as early as 2018, followed by their Guard counterparts in Maryland in 2019. The last A-10s — in Idaho, Michigan, Arizona and Georgia — would retire in 2020 and 2021. The author riffs on this AF “Force Structure FY17” Map: > **[FY17\_POM\_Force\_Structure\_Map\_v15\_for\_Distro.pdf](https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/FY17_POM_Force_Structure_Map_v15_for_Distro.pdf)** > > 100.06 KB ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/229 "2016-03-11T21:55:11Z")
I have not read this, but propose to, in parts. I hope others in this thread dive in. At 361 pages, the PDF is obviously a save to disk proposition: > **[jp3\_09\_3.pdf](https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf)** > > 8.85 MB 25 November 2015 Joint Chiefs of Staff Doctrine Publication Close Air Support ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/230 "2016-03-12T00:07:56Z")
> [@Ranchoth](#): > > Heh. All this kinda reminds me of another Air Force procurement plan that’s underway, but not getting as much attention—several aircraft for the Light Air Support role, the A-29B. > > Better known as the [Super Tucano.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano#United_States) 😃 Just wanted to say I think it’s awesome someone is still making turboprop military ground attack planes. As for the A-10, I’ve always been surprised there’s talk of getting rid of them - they strike me as an excellent plane and something very useful to have available. Not thrilled with the F-35, though. Australia is looking to acquire them (because you guys won’t sell us any F-22s) but the whole thing is beset by problems, delays, technical issues and all kinds of similar embarrassments with it all. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/231 "2016-03-12T05:35:42Z")
The new Trudeau Government in Canada has decided not to buy the F-35: [Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Canadian_procurement#2015) ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/232 "2016-03-12T09:49:04Z")
I heard about that, which makes Australia’s plans to continue with the purchase seem (IMHO) less prudent than before. I’m actually not really sure what’s wrong with our F/A-18s, to be honest. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/233 "2016-03-12T10:11:01Z")
I’m reminded of Australia’s purchase of the early models of the F-111. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/234 "2016-03-12T10:52:23Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > I’m actually not really sure what’s wrong with our F/A-18s, to be honest. I understand that Australia’s interest in stealth has to do with what would happen if there were a war with China. F-18s are very capable airplanes, but each year that goes by, they are simply less and less capable of going up against a country with sophisticated air defenses and modernized fighters. The US Navy has been investing more in the electronic attack version, the Growler, which would accompany the Super Hornet on strikes. The claim is that F-35s (or F-22s) would need significantly less in terms of EW support to conduct the same mission. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/235 "2016-03-12T13:34:09Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I understand that Australia’s interest in stealth has to do with what would happen if there were a war with China. F-18s are very capable airplanes, but each year that goes by, they are simply less and less capable of going up against a country with sophisticated air defenses and modernized fighters. > > The US Navy has been investing more in the electronic attack version, the Growler, which would accompany the Super Hornet on strikes. The claim is that F-35s (or F-22s) would need significantly less in terms of EW support to conduct the same mission. Admittedly I’m not involved with the Defence department in any way beyond having an interest in military equipment, but I would have thought upgrading the F/A-18 would be a better option than spending squillions of dollars (which could be better distributed elsewhere, even with the defence forces) on an aeroplane which, according to some of the reports I’ve read, has some glaring and very serious issues. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/236 "2016-03-12T13:50:29Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Admittedly I’m not involved with the Defence department in any way beyond having an interest in military equipment, but I would have thought upgrading the F/A-18 would be a better option than spending squillions of dollars (which could be better distributed elsewhere, even with the defence forces) on an aeroplane which, according to some of the reports I’ve read, has some glaring and very serious issues. There’s really nothing you can do to significantly upgrade a fourth generation fighter that you’ve already bought to address the modern air defense threats. The F-35 is stealthy, the F-18 is not, and nothing can change that. Some troubles with the F-35 will, over time, surely be overcome. For example, the engine is likely to be surpassed in the next decade or so with one that would provide about 20% more range. There isn’t going to be a totally new engine for the F-18, ever. It bears repeating that while some countries are cool to the F-35, like Canada, others that are in higher threat regions are warming to it. Israel, South Korea, and Japan have each bought into the F-35 program in the last few years. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/237 "2016-03-12T14:42:19Z")
Yes, but being in “Stealthy mode” (for want of a better term) means internal carriage, no.supersonic no external tanks. … in other words a major performance penalty. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/238 "2016-03-12T15:00:02Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > F-18s are very capable airplanes, but each year that goes by, they are simply less and less capable of going up against a country with sophisticated air defenses and modernized fighters. > [@Ravenman](#): > > There’s really nothing you can do to significantly upgrade a fourth generation fighter that you’ve already bought to address the modern air defense threats. Aside from greater range/speed/agility, not being fooled by dumb noise jamming and being able to combine sensors/data links, what makes the sophisticated and modernized air defenses and fighters increasingly capable against 4th generation fighters? > [@Ravenman](#): > > The US Navy has been investing more in the electronic attack version, the Growler, which would accompany the Super Hornet on strikes. The claim is that F-35s (or F-22s) would need significantly less in terms of EW support to conduct the same mission. Would an electronic attack version of the F-35 make sense, either used singly or in a trio? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/239 "2016-03-12T16:54:41Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Also the A-10 is no longer viable for its primary design task as a tank killer since it can’t penetrate the front armour of a modern Russian tank. Totally irrelevant considering that unless the A-10 was _sitting on the ground_, it would be attacking from an angle that would impact the _top of the tank_, where the armor is the weakest. Your comments on laser-guided weapons is mistaken as well. On a mobile battlefield, spotters would be next to useless. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/240 "2016-03-12T19:21:59Z")
I often wonder if th3 F35 and other whizbang weapons will end up being like the Dreadnaughts; technical marvels, which in practice were so expensive that their owners were reluctant to use them…its telling that the QE and Revenge class warships saw much more action in the Second World War when they were old, expendable units than in their prime in WW1 (Jutland and thats it). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483.md?page=13)