# What's going to replace the A-10 Warthog tank buster? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 18, 2008, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843 "2008-04-18T04:13:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/21 "2008-04-19T14:45:42Z")
[QUOTE=smiling bandit] I as thinking combat planes. In terms of actually blowing stuff up real good, it’s probably the best ever. Not a fighter jet, maybe, but you can’t have anything. [/QUOTE] You really think the A-10 has done more damage than the B-29, or the Lancaster, or the B-52? The A-10 is very good at its particular role; close air support. There’s lots of things involving blowing stuff up on the ground for which it clearly is NOT suited, such as precision bombing of large targets, or area denial bombing, or various other things. As to whether or not the US Armed Forces, at a strategic level, is interested in dealing with reality, study the horrfying example of the [Millennium Challenge Exercise.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge) Not that many countries’ armed forces are any better. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/22 "2008-04-19T15:01:44Z")
The Air Force and Navy are stuck in the cold war, and we won’t be out of that malaise for the next 25 years. However, in that time we’ll see much less relevance in fancy fighters and Aircraft carriers. These multi-billion dollar projects will be slowly phased out for a military based on more nimble projects to fight assymetrical enemies. The giant armies facing off across the desert fantasy is a bit anachronistic at this point. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/23 "2008-04-19T15:02:35Z")
I actually do think the A-10 should be Army. Anything long-range base-oriented should be Air Force. Troop support should be Army or Marines. ---
**Author:** ![bouv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc8723/32.png) [@bouv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bouv)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/24 "2008-04-19T15:13:44Z")
[QUOTE=smiling bandit] I actually do think the A-10 should be Army. Anything long-range base-oriented should be Air Force. Troop support should be Army or Marines. [/QUOTE] I seem to remember an anecdote that when the Air Force was first considering retiring the A-10, either the Army or Marines said that if they did, they might buy the A-10’s and start training pilots for them themselves. No idea how true that may or may not be, though. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/25 "2008-04-19T15:27:02Z")
[QUOTE=bouv] I seem to remember an anecdote that when the Air Force was first considering retiring the A-10, either the Army or Marines said that if they did, they might buy the A-10’s and start training pilots for them themselves. [/QUOTE] Perhaps the Marines. The Army is prohibited by law from mounting a weapon on a fixed wing aircraft. (I exaggerate by only the tiniest amount.) That was part of the deal the USAAF got when they talked Congress into creating the USAF. That is also why the Army invested so heavily in (relatively more) vulnerable attack choppers rather than putting weapons on the OV-1 Mohawk or buying the OV-10 Bronco, themselves. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/26 "2008-04-19T15:32:44Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] The Air Force and Navy are stuck in the cold war, and we won’t be out of that malaise for the next 25 years. However, in that time we’ll see **much less relevance in fancy fighters and Aircraft carriers**. These multi-billion dollar projects will be slowly phased out for a military based on more nimble projects to fight assymetrical enemies. The giant armies facing off across the desert fantasy is a bit anachronistic at this point. [/QUOTE] Fancy fighters maybe, but I think carriers will always be around. They are a very powerful tool, and we have the best of them. Mobile airbases will always be useful as long as there are seas and oceans with countries that border them. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/27 "2008-04-19T15:35:45Z")
[QUOTE=smiling bandit] I actually do think the A-10 should be Army. Anything long-range base-oriented should be Air Force. Troop support should be Army or Marines. [/QUOTE] I have always thought so too, given it’s role and constant proximity to and communication with Army or Marine ground forces. And add me to the list of people that think that flying steel bathtub is fucking kick-ass. I always loved seeing/hearing them. That gatling gun sounds like a giant belching. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/28 "2008-04-19T15:37:08Z")
[QUOTE=Spartydog] The question has to be asked: Is our military hell bent on developing weapons for an enemy that doesn’t exist? [/QUOTE] Too late, as is witnessed by the wildy expensive (and wildy expensive to maintain) F-22. Fun to watch, but at $1 million for an LO paint job every time it gets dinged, is it really worth it? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/29 "2008-04-19T15:46:42Z")
[QUOTE=Chefguy] Too late, as is witnessed by the wildy expensive (and wildy expensive to maintain) F-22. Fun to watch, but at $1 million for an LO paint job every time it gets dinged, is it really worth it? [/QUOTE] The F-22 isn’t exactly a weapon without a purpose. Excercises against reasonably trained OPFOR in SU-27s have resulted in an unfavorable (around .7:1 IIRC) kill ratio for the F-15s. The F-22 dramatically improves the situation, bringing it up to 15:1 or greater. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/30 "2008-04-19T16:09:48Z")
[QUOTE=Chefguy] Too late, as is witnessed by the wildy expensive (and wildy expensive to maintain) F-22. Fun to watch, but at $1 million for an LO paint job every time it gets dinged, is it really worth it? [/QUOTE] It’s hard to say. I guess as long as China and Russia exist with their large militaries and airforce we need to technologically keep ahead of them. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/31 "2008-04-19T17:40:17Z")
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil] It’s hard to say. I guess as long as China and Russia exist with their large militaries and airforce we need to technologically keep ahead of them. [/QUOTE] Or we could, you know, negotiate a de-escalation/non-escalation pact, if we ever again have an un-hawkish regime in this country. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/32 "2008-04-19T21:56:47Z")
[QUOTE=Chefguy] Or we could, you know, negotiate a de-escalation/non-escalation pact, if we ever again have an un-hawkish regime in this country. [/QUOTE] Wont happen , neither party would trust that other party was complying. You would probably see a repeat of the treaty of london, better what we have now and everyone stays wary. Declan ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/33 "2008-04-19T22:12:22Z")
[QUOTE=Chefguy] Or we could, you know, negotiate a de-escalation/non-escalation pact, if we ever again have an un-hawkish regime in this country. [/QUOTE] Well, I would agree in principle except there’s that sticky wicket of trust and verification. Countries like China and Russia have enough mountains and rugged terrain to hide treaty-violating weapons programs from spy satellites. But then again, so do we, I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/34 "2008-04-19T23:19:28Z")
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil] Well, I would agree in principle except there’s that sticky wicket of trust and verification. Countries like China and Russia have enough mountains and rugged terrain to hide treaty-violating weapons programs from spy satellites. But then again, so do we, I suppose. [/QUOTE] Unfortunately, you are depressingly correct. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/35 "2008-04-19T23:34:04Z")
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil] Well, I would agree in principle except there’s that sticky wicket of trust and verification. Countries like China and Russia have enough mountains and rugged terrain to hide treaty-violating weapons programs from spy satellites. But then again, so do we, I suppose. [/QUOTE] We cannot afford a mountain and rough terrain gap! ---
**Author:** ![trupa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aeb1de/32.png) [@trupa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trupa)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/36 "2008-04-19T23:41:01Z")
[QUOTE=Chefguy] Or we could, you know, negotiate a de-escalation/non-escalation pact, if we ever again have an un-hawkish regime in this country. [/QUOTE] Oh…right… just like the [non aggression treaty between Hitler and Stalin.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact) . Of course. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2008, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/37 "2008-04-19T23:47:00Z")
[QUOTE=Chefguy] Unfortunately, you are depressingly correct. [/QUOTE] Hmm…guys named **FoieGrasIsEvil** and **ChefGuy** are talking about the merits of a military aircraft…all is indeed well within the Universe! Are you actually a chef…in Alaska? ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2008, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/38 "2008-04-20T01:52:33Z")
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil] Hmm…guys named **FoieGrasIsEvil** and **ChefGuy** are talking about the merits of a military aircraft…all is indeed well within the Universe! Are you actually a chef…in Alaska? [/QUOTE] No. As it turns out, it was probably a poor choice of username. While I’m a pretty accomplished cook, I’m not now nor ever have been a chef. I picked the name because of some vague notion of stirring the pot on a variety of topics. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2008, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/39 "2008-04-20T01:54:08Z")
[QUOTE=smiling bandit] . The fact that the A-10 is probably the single most successful airplane of all time and has probably caused more damage doesn’t seem to register with them. Then again, I might just be totally wrong. [/QUOTE] I agree its up there but theres also the DeHaviland Mosquito,the C130,the Dak and some say the Phantom f4e. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2008, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843/40 "2008-04-20T02:17:26Z")
[QUOTE=Lust4Life] I agree its up there but theres also the DeHaviland Mosquito,the C130,the Dak and some say the Phantom f4e. [/QUOTE] I suppose you could argue that the Wright Brothers aircraft was the most successful of all time… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-going-to-replace-the-a-10-warthog-tank-buster/445843.md?page=3)