Comments by "MM2" (@MM22966) on "Congress Tells USAF to Leave the A-10 Alone – But Should it be Retired?" video.

  1. No, when they designed it, it was expressly designed for a conventional, WW3-style fight in Europe, a modern-day Sturmovik. That is why they built it with a 30mm tank-opener. What would have happened when it was forced to fight in the VERY heavy AAA/SAM environment the Soviets had built is another story. It IS a brilliant asymmetric/counter-insurgency attack aircraft, or if it operates in a benign air defense environment (which has been all of them for the last forty years for the USA). If we have to tangle with the Russians or Chinese, they better have all the ADA beaten down before they try using the 'Hog, just as Nash said. An aircraft you can't use because it is likely to be shot down is not very useful. Same goes for the Specters/Reapers/Predators. That's why the AF wants to dump it for more F35. On the other hand, it is a BRILLIANT low-level CAS for low-level wars, which is the more likely fight. Which is why Congress wants to hang on to it. And because it is awesome.
    13
  2.  @Stubbino  Yeah, it's always been the debate. USAF even had a experimental squadron at one point of Super-Tucanos for that reason...the problem is that, the A29 is great at CAS, but useless for other roles, just as you named. I think the AF dumped them on the Afghani air force before the collapse. Same reason most the B-26's and Skyraiders they used in Vietnam were handed over to the South Vietnam air force when we left there. Beware: Whomsoever we donate any A10s to, they shall fall!! It is the used CAS airframe generosity curse!!!!
    1
  3. CAS is a primary AF role... But AF hates doing CAS. This was why the Army basically had to blackmail the AF into buying the Warthog in the first place.
    1