I’ve never understood the Air Force’s “need” to retire the A-10 without having a replacement. Too cheap, too low tech? Not interested in providing ground support. Like the C-130 and B52, the A10 fills a unique niche that no other airframe can.
When I was assigned to a Tactical Control Squadron in the 80’s, Warthogs out of Spanghdalem Air Base would regularly fly under our radar and suddenly appear above the treeline at our station. Their combination of low and slow flight along with relatively quiet engines when cruising at low speed made them the most stealthy aircraft at the time.
By the time A-10’s show up on the battlefield with ground troops, air superiority has been established it is no longer a contested environment. Only 7 Warthogs have been lost in combat
While the Warthog’s cannon is ineffective against modern armor it carries plenty of ordinance that is and when it comes to ground support, heavy armor is rarely the primary target.
The reason the USAF says the F-35 can do CAS is that they redefined CAS to be preventing personnel and material to the battle area. That is Air Interdiction, NOT CAS.
I agree with or can sympathize with most of what is said here. But I also know that most of us can’t have a useful opinion on this because we don’t know enough about the critical issues and their relative importance. And that is no disrespect to those here with direct experience. Even they are mostly just a bright spot in a huge, dark cave.
The only thing I suspect we can all agree on with confidence is that military acquisitions have become progressively less efficient and more suspect over time. We’re getting less and less for more and more.
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. You don’t fly A10 missions where the bigger AA guns and SAMs are being used, the armor is an emergency insurance policy, not a license to fly in an environment where it is necessary. The A10 is only for use in areas where SEAD is complete, this is not debatable and the A10’s record bears it out. SEAD is done by the F16, for what it’s worth. The assertion that the A10 is useless in contested airspace is true, it cannot be debated, it is still useful for environments where the ground is contested and the air is not though. I fail to see how it is worth doing away with the A10 just because it’s not useful in contested airspace. If airspace is contested an M1 tank is just a big hapless target as well, but nobody is suggesting we get rid of tanks. Not all weapons are going to be useful all the time.
The thing I don’t understand is why the leadership thinks it is necessary to do away with the A10 just because it is excessively vulnerable in contested airspace. Sure, the A10 cannot be used effectively if enemy fighters are present, or if the enemy still has functioning SAM or heavy AA installations, or even decent MANPADS. You know what else is excessively vulnerable in contested airspace? Helicopters, none of them can be relied on to survive AA fire or evade MANPAD or SAM. Tanks too, if you haven’t established air dominance they’re basically the easiest target on the battlefield for enemy air to ground munitions. They aren’t saying we should get rid of those just because each one is no more than a hapless target if air dominance hasn’t been established and SEAD complete, so what gives? Not every weapon is going to be useful 100% of the time. I will note that the MANPAD threat to our A10s is only going to get worse with our supplying of them to Ukraine. Ukraine isn’t the paragon of eastern europe that it is being painted as and it is a good entry point to the black market for our weapons. I wouldn’t be surprised if we find some of the weapons we’ve been providing to Ukraine in enemy hands in our next proxy war or invasion of a low quality adversary.
Weight and balance has to be checked after removal of armament, and drop method.
(Some aircraft like 10Tanker use slipper tanks tucked up to the belly, others use cutouts in fuselage, some use chutes. USFS has a process to verify drop pattern, the belly-dump Mars passed it, I don’t know if the side-door Mars did.
Some technology is being used - Coulson has night vision, datalink, navigation accuracy, … in service today.
The real problem is the F 35. The USAF can’t afford the F35 without divesting other platforms. CAS has always been the lowest priority for the USAF so it is not surprising the only USAF platform that is dedicated to the CAS role is going to be on the chopping block
Unfortunately if the A10 was retired it won’t get replaced by an equivalent number of other aircraft. History has shown that it is always better to have more tools in the war fighters toolbox.