# 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:** 14
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2016, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/261 "2016-03-14T01:13:32Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > **Magiver** , don’t make me read that CAS doctrine book. It’s a waste in my mind, but not in yours and your excellent interlocutors… I’ll just wait for the movie. ---
**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 24, 2016, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/262 "2016-03-24T03:36:06Z")
“Remembering the father of the A-10 Warthog” By Zachary Cohen, CNN Updated 1803 GMT (0203 HKT) March 22, 2016 (CNN)The unmistakable roar of the A-10’s powerful engines echoed throughout Arlington National Cemetery this month as four aircraft saluted retired Col. Avery Kay for the last time with a rare flyover of the historic burial site. Kay, 96, died on October 29 and was buried with full military honors… > **[Remembering the father of the A-10 Warthog | CNN Politics](https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/a-10-avery-kay-funeral-flyby/index.html)** > > Retired Col. Avery Kay, who died in October, is credited with launching the concept of the A-10 Thunderbolt, better known as the Warthog. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2016, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/263 "2016-04-02T04:13:30Z")
Not sure if it’s been posted yet, but here’s a short _Washington Post_ article on the A-10’s reprieve, and a nice video of prepping and flying them. > **[The A-10 gets a lease on life—at least through 2017](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/14/the-a-10-gets-a-lease-on-life-at-least-through-2017/)** > > With the news of the aircraft's expanded lifespan, lawmakers and service members alike rejoiced. ---
**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:** [April 4, 2016, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/264 "2016-04-04T08:48:49Z")
Anyone know how an A-10 might fare against a missile with a continuous rod warhead? Do continuous rod warheads tend to be usable in increasingly small warhead or is there a pretty hard limit to how small it can get? Could it be used in 23mm or 30mm shells? ---
**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:** [April 5, 2016, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/265 "2016-04-05T14:51:16Z")
I’m not an Armaments expert but I suspect that spherical or shaped fragmentary effects are more important by the time you get down to cannon shells. The radius of a CR would be relatively small and you would get better bang for the buck with smaller high velocity projectiles rather than a slower “buzzsaw”. The Sidewinder uses something [like](http://science.howstuffworks.com/sidewinder8.htm) a CR warhead and it sits around 25 lbs. It is the smallest class of missile I know of that does this and it is pretty effective. Would it bring down an A-10? Depends on where you hit it. I suspect in a typical scenario where the A-10 has time and terrain, that a rear aspect shot would probably damage it pretty severely but it would be able to limp home on one engine and half an empannage. It’s done it before. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2016, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/266 "2016-04-05T23:06:52Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Anyone know how an A-10 might fare against a missile with a continuous rod warhead? > Do continuous rod warheads tend to be usable in increasingly small warhead or is there a pretty hard limit to how small it can get? Could it be used in 23mm or 30mm shells? It’s a really old weapon designed for large, slow moving bombers. ---
**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:** [April 9, 2016, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/267 "2016-04-09T20:23:47Z")
Here’s CNN on the Air Force’s plans to eventually replace the A-10. The video includes a short interview with a Congresswoman who is a former A-10 pilot and squadron commander, and strong backer of keeping the plane for now: [http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politics/a-10-warthog-replacement/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politics/a-10-warthog-replacement/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2016, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/268 "2016-04-09T20:26:19Z")
Given the issue of metal fatigue, how long is the maximum lifespan of the A-10? Could it be maxed out to, say, the year 2030? I’m baffled how the B-52 can last 60 years when most airliners max out at 30 years; is it that airliners are flown daily? ---
**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:** [April 10, 2016, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/269 "2016-04-10T22:27:15Z")
A lot of pre CAD/CAM military aircraft are “overbuilt” relative to today’s planes which is one reason why they keep flying. Keep throwing parts at it and you could pretty much fly one indefinitely. T-33s have an essentially un-lifed airframe as long as you keep up scheduled maintenance. Additionally, the maintenance carried out on military aircraft tends to be more in-depth and there are things that a civilian company would find either cost prohibitive, or simply not worth the effort like re-engining and glass cockpitting a DC-8, for example. It can be done but the money you’ll spend would buy you a spanking new 737-700 with the same passenger capacity and lower operating costs. The other thing to keep in mind is that modification and maintenance tend to come from different pots of money as opposed to capital acquisitions for a lot of air forces. Buying new planes would require Federal/Congressional approval where a new capability or mod to an existing airframe doesn’t. That’s one reason why Canada is still flying F-18 A/B airframes, even though capability wise they are pretty much equivalent to C/D models. Landings are a major factor in airframe fatigue, which is why fighters tend to fatigue much faster than transports/bombers. The fact they are in different flight regimes is also a factor. ---
**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:** [April 10, 2016, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/270 "2016-04-10T23:11:28Z")
> [@swampspruce](#): > > A lot of pre CAD/CAM military aircraft are “overbuilt” relative to today’s planes How so? ---
**Author:** ![smithsb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smithsb/32/12107_2.png) [@smithsb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smithsb)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/271 "2016-04-11T00:18:56Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Given the issue of metal fatigue, how long is the maximum lifespan of the A-10? Could it be maxed out to, say, the year 2030? > > I’m baffled how the B-52 can last 60 years when most airliners max out at 30 years; is it that airliners are flown daily? As you suspect, it’s the take-off and landing cycles that kill the plane. A B-52 may fly long range missions so have a lot of air time but just one cycle to/from the runway. That Southwest 737 might have a dozen or more cycles each day. Deploying through Dover AFB a few times, I’d see C-5A’s shooting takeoff/landings for what I’m guessing is proficiency purposes except they wouldn’t actually land. They would come in on final (absurdly slow flying), get to within a few feet of touchdown and the tower would tell them, “close enough”, and they would go around for another pass. Saved wear and tear on the plane as well as not smoking the tires into oblivion. That B-52 wing is strong but flexes a huge distance over it’s long width. The A-10 wing is a short stubby thing, very robust to take damage from close air support, and take a much larger number of cycles. The flex of the B-52 is one of the reason’s for the unusual landing gear. Unusual in that the all the gear angles down the runway so the plane angles into cross-winds, the wings stay level/don’t have to bank.The plane may be facing left but the gear is pointed down the runway. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/272 "2016-04-11T00:47:28Z")
$10 says the Air [del]Farce[/del] Force paints a fighter green, & calls it a ground attack plane. ---
**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:** [April 11, 2016, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/273 "2016-04-11T13:56:18Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > How so? Aircraft designers in the 50s, 60s, and 70s didn’t have access to the modelling software, powerful computers and materials that came about in force in the 80s and onward. As a result of that they had to rely on making the airframes more robust to compensate. That does not mean that all airframes built in the period are eternal by any stretch. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2016, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/274 "2016-04-13T01:47:21Z")
> [@swampspruce](#): > > A lot of pre CAD/CAM military aircraft are “overbuilt” relative to today’s planes which is one reason why they keep flying. Keep throwing parts at it and you could pretty much fly one indefinitely. T-33s have an essentially un-lifed airframe as long as you keep up scheduled maintenance… A similar comment, and subsequent hijacked thread, was started a long time ago about a warship. [Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus) Also, the Allman Brothers Band. ---
**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:** [April 13, 2016, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/275 "2016-04-13T14:06:06Z")
That; made me smile! ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/276 "2016-04-14T00:55:05Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Okay, you’re asking, so why don’t we just have pilots fly those missions? Why not have a remotely piloted drone replace the A-10? Because remotely piloted vehicles depend on radio signals, typically from satellites, to command them. It is trivial to jam these signals. Every significant military has enough electronic warfare capability to put out signals strong enough to create real problems in satellite communications near the battlefield. For example, the idea of Predator-like UAVs operating anywhere near, say, hostile Russian forces today or in the near future is just a joke. Those Predators would be mincemeat. This answers a question I’d been wondering forever; why the US didn’t just phase out all manned aircraft and fly an entire fleet of UAVs from control rooms in Nevada. It seemed that that would 1) avoid putting human lives at risk; 2) allow for extreme G-maneuvers since there’s no human pilot to suffer the effects of high G, and 3) avoid the “will an autonomous drone kill innocents due to programming” worry issue since there’d be human controllers flying it. This answer makes perfect sense, thanks! ---
**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:** [April 14, 2016, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/277 "2016-04-14T12:39:52Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > This answers a question I’d been wondering forever; why the US didn’t just phase out all manned aircraft and fly an entire fleet of UAVs from control rooms in Nevada. There is a time delay of a couple of seconds. That would make a dog fight rather difficult. I believe control is usually relatively close radio communication without satellites. ---
**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:** [April 15, 2016, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/278 "2016-04-15T00:55:53Z")
Well, I killed that. This forum requires that you wait 60 seconds between posts. Please try again in 4 seconds. ---
**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:** [April 27, 2016, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/279 "2016-04-27T20:01:57Z")
For the true A-10 fan (graphics on both front and back): [http://www.historicaviation.com/A-10-Warthog-Its-Gonna-Get-Ugly-T-Shirt/productinfo/0065657/](http://www.historicaviation.com/A-10-Warthog-Its-Gonna-Get-Ugly-T-Shirt/productinfo/0065657/) ---
**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:** [April 28, 2016, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-a-10-thunderbolt-warthog-air-force-we-dont-want-it-army-well-take-it/684483/280 "2016-04-28T13:37:32Z")
The Pentagon is going to pit the A-10 and the F-35 against each other in tests: [http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/air-force-f-35-vs-a-10-showdown/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/air-force-f-35-vs-a-10-showdown/index.html) [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=13) [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=15)