Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "A-10 Warthog Retired By 2029" video.

Ukraine doesn't want them. They need planes that will win, not die. "Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov has asked the United States and international partners for Western combat jets and the training to fly them. U.S. officials have weighed in, but they may not be suggesting the right aircraft, a Ukrainian defense official told Air Force Magazine. To target Russian positions in Ukrainian territory, Ukraine needs “fast and versatile” combat aircraft such as the F-16—not slow-moving ground defense platforms such as the retiring fleet of U.S. A-10s, a proposition Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall entertained in comments July 20."
11
"they will need a dedicated CAS aircraft" No, they will not. If you think that you need to catch up to the reality of CAS in the 21st century.
11
It's way past time to retire this outdated airplane. Keeping it is a drain on readiness. BTW, Ukraine has stated they don't want the A-10, they need faster multirole aircraft like the F-16.
9
If they built another dedicated CAS from the ground up it would look just like the A-10. The problem is not the aircraft, it is the outdated CAS tactic of low and slow strafing and dropping dumb munitions. The A-10 has already been replaced. It's called the F-16/F-15E/B-1/B-52. If they run out of those, they will have a more serious problem than needing the F-35 do CAS.
8
Good points that are all true. Plus, Ukraine has already said they don't want the A-10, they need something faster and more versatile like the F-16.
7
That does not solve the problem, which you are ignoring, because the aircraft would be no more survivable if flown by the Army. The Army is not stupid. It is not the Army that cares about the A-10, it is politicians. “The only thing I care about is the effect on the target, I don’t give a rat’s ass what platform brings it in,” Army chief of staff Gen. Mark Milley told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., on June 23. “I could care less if it’s a B-52, if it’s a B-1 bomber, if it’s an F-16, an F-15, an A-10. I don’t care if the thing was delivered by carrier pigeon. I want the enemy taken care of.”
6
Other aircraft have already taken over the role. The have already done more CAS than the A-10 over Afghanistan. They can do everything the A-10 can do except shoot 30mm, and that tactic is not survivable on a modern battlefield. These other aircraft can also do lots of other things the A-10 cannot do. The A-10 has to be retired to make room for more versatile and effective aircraft.
5
@thelandofnod123 Not just the F-35, but the F-16/18/15E/B-1 and B-52. People talk about replacing the A-10 with the F-35 but that is misnomer. The A-10 has already been replaced on the modern battlefield. It needs to be retired to make room in the budget for more F-35s and other more useful aircraft.
4
Ukraine does not want them. They need effctive planes, not relics. "Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov has asked the United States and international partners for Western combat jets and the training to fly them. U.S. officials have weighed in, but they may not be suggesting the right aircraft, a Ukrainian defense official told Air Force Magazine. To target Russian positions in Ukrainian territory, Ukraine needs “fast and versatile” combat aircraft such as the F-16—not slow-moving ground defense platforms such as the retiring fleet of U.S. A-10s, a proposition Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall entertained in comments July 20."
4
@Knight6831 This shows how uninformed you are about CAS. Apparently, you don’t really know what it is and how it is done now. The B-1 has been doing CAS for years. The B-52 can do it with JDAMS but is getting the targeting pod so it can do take over that role from the B-1 as it is retired.
3
How would it be different from the A-10? How would it solve the problem that low and slow CAS is no longer survivable? The A-10 is not being retired because the airframe is old, it is being retired because those tactics are obsolete.
3
@grizwoldphantasia5005 Three more repeats of your previous comments after I said I was done. Just stop because I am done arguing with you. Goodbye.
3
Ukraine rightly doesn't want them. "Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov has asked the United States and international partners for Western combat jets and the training to fly them. U.S. officials have weighed in, but they may not be suggesting the right aircraft, a Ukrainian defense official told Air Force Magazine. To target Russian positions in Ukrainian territory, Ukraine needs “fast and versatile” combat aircraft such as the F-16—not slow-moving ground defense platforms such as the retiring fleet of U.S. A-10s, a proposition Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall entertained in comments July 20."
3
@grizwoldphantasia5005 So I’m the ignorant one for quoting the generals in charge of the actual policy, while you are the genius for ignoring them and making up you own facts. [insert sardonic laughter] Fact: most of what USAF does is ground support, be it close or distant. USAF was the only US service to develop and procure a dedicated close air support airplane. USMC also does air to ground support, and in fact that is the very reason Marine Air even exists. They have been doing CAS with A-4s, F-4s, and then F-18s, and you say they are renowned for it. So ask yourself, if they are so renowned for CAS why have they never asked for the A-10? They could even have had a navalized version, so that is no excuse. No, I don’t want an answer because I know you will just make up some more BS, but try to think it out in your own mind and you might learn something.
3
Very parochial and ignorant of reality. Most of what USAF does is "ground support". Giving the A-10 to the Army would not solve the problem that it is not viable over a modern battlefield. The Army knows this as well as anyone: “The only thing I care about is the effect on the target, I don’t give a rat’s ass what platform brings it in,” Army chief of staff Gen. Mark Milley told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., on June 23. “I could care less if it’s a B-52, if it’s a B-1 bomber, if it’s an F-16, an F-15, an A-10. I don’t care if the thing was delivered by carrier pigeon. I want the enemy taken care of.”.
3
Forget the F-35, that is a red herring. The A-10 has already been replaced by the F-16/18/15E/ and B-1 and B-52. Look at which platforms already delivered most of the CAS over Afghanistan. The future of CAS is not low and slow, because that is not survivable.
3
@kirkmooneyham Not relevant. I flew jets in the Air Force, did you? Not relevant. This is a question of the history of the A-10, not my personal history or yours. Grow up and read some history.
3
Myth.
3
@ronin47-ThorstenFrank Your typically idiotic retort in no way addresses your premise that "they will need a dedicated CAS aircraft". No, they will not. They have plenty of aircraft for CAS and do not need a dedicated one. But I can see you think you know better than USAF or the US Army: “The only thing I care about is the effect on the target, I don’t give a rat’s ass what platform brings it in,” Army chief of staff Gen. Mark Milley told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., on June 23. “I could care less if it’s a B-52, if it’s a B-1 bomber, if it’s an F-16, an F-15, an A-10. I don’t care if the thing was delivered by carrier pigeon. I want the enemy taken care of.”
2
@Rampant16 Yes, like the long-range missiles that will overlap the deep attack role of USAF. Interesting times.
2
Maybe to be used as targets for US Army live-fire air defense training.
2
@grizwoldphantasia5005 No, I don't have the question backwards and you are just trying to dodge it. Your blind hostility to USAF is transparent and pathetic because it keeps you from thinking rationally. I just wanted to call out your ignorant comment for the benefit of others, and I don't have any more time for your ignorant BS. Bye.
2
@grizwoldphantasia5005 I have responded to your dumb comments, you just refuse to accept the facts. You: “The Air Force hates the ground support role; they want to be fighter jocks at 30,000 feet, or transcontinental bomber jocks, or even transport jocks who can build up a resume for the airlines. The Air Force hates spending money on a plane they hate.” This is ignorant BS. USAF has done more CAS than all the other services combined, and by a wide margin. That because it is the air force, stupid. USAF is the only U.S. service to have ever procured a dedicated CAS aircraft. Show me the USMC version of the A-10. You can’t. You: “You still haven't rebutted my claim that the Air Force wanted to control all air assets when split from the Army in 1947/48 BTW” Of course the air force wanted control of all fixed wing aircraft. They are the air force, stupid. I guess the army shouldn't have all the tanks or the navy have all the submarines either. Let the U.S. Army decide if the A-10 is useful? Giving the A-10 to the Army is a dumb idea because it will still be obsolete. Besides, the Army position on the A-10 is already clear, but you refuse to accept it because I came from the Army chief of staff. Apparently, you’d rather hear official Army policy from some private in the motor pool [Insert sardonic laughter]. “The only thing I care about is the effect on the target, I don’t give a rat’s ass what platform brings it in,” Army chief of staff Gen. Mark Milley https://www.csis.org/events/priorities-our-nations-army-general-mark-milley in Washington, D.C., on June 23. “I could care less if it’s a B-52, if it’s a B-1 bomber, if it’s an F-16, an F-15, an A-10. I don’t care if the thing was delivered by carrier pigeon. I want the enemy taken care of.” The usefulness of the A-10 is known. Low and slow over a modern battlefield is not useful. No other air force is building an A-10 equivalent, and the closest thing to it, the SU-25 has suffered over Ukraine. You don't listen to U.S. Army generals, so you probably don't listen to the Ukrainian minister of defense who, has said he doesn't want the A-10. “We have been requesting combat aircraft from our partners for a long time now,” Yuriy Sak, adviser to Ukraine’s minister of defense, told Air Force Magazine by phone from Kyiv on July 21. “We need Western-standard fighter jets. We need Western-standard combat aircraft. … To target Russian positions in Ukrainian territory, Ukraine needs “fast and versatile” combat aircraft such as the F-16—not slow-moving ground defense platforms such as the retiring fleet of U.S. A-10s, a proposition Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall entertained in comments” You have been spewing BS that has no basis in reality, and I’m done responding to it. I’ve done all I can here to help other readers see your BS for what it is.
2
@grizwoldphantasia5005 No, I'm saying the Army and the Air Force know better than you do. How do I know? I read what they say. You should learn to read too. You are a moron who can't even follow what someone is saying. Just go away.
2
Yes, they would all too quickly be dying for their country.
2
It has already been replaced. Every other tactical combat aircraft does close air support, as well as the B-52 and the soon to be retired B-1. The difference is these other aircraft are more survivable, and they also do other even more more critical missions before they swing to the CAS role.
2
The problem is not that the airplane is "clapped out", the problem is that it is unsuitable in modern warfare. Suitable replacements are already in service and have been providing CAS. F-16/F-18/F-15E/B-1/B-52 . . .
2
@Knight6831 You are hilarious! You mind is made up and you will not be confused by the facts. I have given you the facts about the way things actually are, and you are clinging to history and assumptions from the last century. Wake up and do a little reading on the subject.
1
@Tate2HungryGators Kind of expensive for that, but I think they would make good fire bombers for fighting forest fires.
1
@ronin47-ThorstenFrank Typical ad hominem attack from someone who cannot support his position with facts or logic. More anecdotal evidence in support of the study claiming that IQs have been dropping over the last three decades.
1
@Chuck_Hooks No it was Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov. Look it up. Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov has asked the United States and international partners for Western combat jets and the training to fly them. U.S. officials have weighed in, but they may not be suggesting the right aircraft, a Ukrainian defense official told Air Force Magazine. To target Russian positions in Ukrainian territory, Ukraine needs “fast and versatile” combat aircraft such as the F-16—not slow-moving ground defense platforms such as the retiring fleet of U.S. A-10s, a proposition Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall entertained in comments July 20.
1
@Chuck_Hooks Because its a silly idea.
1
@grizwoldphantasia5005 I thought you said bye. Now you're back still grinding the axe on your dumb idea. Bye.
1
@Rampant16 Oh, I read it as you thought they were making a mistake. You are absolutely right they cannot afford a new CAS jet, and they cannot even afford to keep the A-10s they already have. They need to shift those funds to more capable and versatile aircraft.
1
@Rampant16 Your fundamental premise is in error. They don't need a dedicated CAS aircraft. Other aircraft can do it as well as the A-10 can over a modern battlefield, with more survivability. The A-10 is now a waste of criticial resources and as such degrades readiness.
1
@Rampant16 Yes, the F-111 killed more tanks than the A-10 ever did, but that was not actually CAS, which is the role I thought was at issue here. But it does illustrate the point that the A-10s mythical prowess is more myth than prowess. It would have been great if we'd had in South Vietnam, which is the war it was designed to fight, but it is no good for CAS over a battlefield populated with numerous GBAD systems.
1