Why the Air Force is Screaming to Retire the A-10 Warthog

The US Air Force is charging ahead with plans to retire the A-10 Warthog attack jet within the next five years, but with no dedicated close air support platform to replace it with, pilots are worried that troops on the ground won’t get the air support they need in the next conflict. In the 2023 version of the National Defense Authorization Act, Congress approved the Air Force’s request to begin divestment of the current A-10 fleet, citing the aircraft as too old, too slow, and too expensive to maintain.

Written by: Chris Cappy & Diego Aceituno
Video Edited by: Maksym

This isn’t the first time the USAF has tried to retire the platform, but previous attempts have been delayed after pilots and troops protested the idea. But according to a June 26th Air Force memo, the service seems to be getting its way this time with a set timetable to replace the 54 A-10s from Moody Air Force Base with F-35As by 2028, and plans to retire the rest of the fleet soon to come. The A-10 is a much beloved airplane and pilots say that, while old, no other US aircraft can match its close air support capabilities or survivability.

So why is the Air Force so keen to replace such a unique platform? Can other aircraft truly replace it or will US troops be left high and dry when the shooting starts? And is the famous 30mm cannon on the nose of the A-10 truly effective or just a lot of smoke and thunder? Get ready to strap in and fly low as we make a strafing run on all the facts of the A-10 Warthog and how the US will be fundamentally changing how it approaches close air support missions.

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Task & Purpose is a military news and culture oriented channel. We want to foster discussion about the defense industry.

[jeffstevens]

When I lived in Indiana A10’s flew up my valley to be hidden until they popped up and nailed targets. They were from Camp Atterbury. I was out raking leaves while an A10 flew over me at a ninety degree angle. I waved at Him ( I always did because the A10 is awesome) As they have a great view, this pilot waved back! It made my day! Hell, it made my month! Any pilots from Camp Atterbury, know that I was watching and appreciated You!

[k_tech]

As a former A-10 crew chief, I am sad to see this platform retired. However, command is correct on this one. Without 100% air dominance ahead of it, its survivability on the modern battlefield is risky on a good day. I am quite grateful to have supported the A-10 and its pilots to cover our troops on the ground.

[Cheesedream]

The A-10 was one of the most memorable airshow planes. Low, slow and high maneuverability make for a great display.

[Lightning]

My favorite A-10 pilot report was from Desert Storm: “saw suspicious pike of rocks, engaged, one enemy tank destroyed.” (paraphrased, it’s been 32 years . . . .).

[freeze]

Back in high school I designed a close air support replacement for the A-10 for my CAD class project. Sort of conceptually similar to a hybrid of an A-10 and an Osprey. It had 4 General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofans for propulsion. A wingspan of 70ft with 2 rotatable engines on the outer tips of the wings and the other two in the usual A10 location. It could carry 3, 000 rounds of 30mm for its double GAU-8/A Avenger rotary cannons. One cannon faced forwards and the other one faced rearward at a downward angle. The idea was that using computer assistance the pilot could fire forward during his downward run and the computer would map the target during this firing phase and then calculate the path to take upwards so it could fire a second burst at the same target if the pilot decided to press the rearward fire trigger. Not only would a rearward firing cannon allow for double taps on hostile targets, but a rearward firing cannon combined with 4 GE turbofans would allow my creation to get the hell out of the danger zone very quickly.

I mailed my designs to the pentagon and DoD in 2007. Still no word yet on when I will be under contract to build it. day now.

[harosokman]

I've spent my life in the military, moving from Infantry to Air Force Controller, and I'd like to praise this video. It's is not overly technical, and doesn't get into the weeds of modern 5th Gen Air Power Theory, but rather hits all the big points really well. It's very hard to convince those who aren't employed in the Air component to the current flaws of an aircraft like the A-10, but this video does it very well. Bravo.

[mymomsaysimcool]

Desert Storm vet here. All I know is that the EPWs we had at our MASH unit were scared to death of the A-10. We had to request the AF NOT do practice runs on our giant Red Cross on our main ward tent. The EPWs told us A10s were the most effective weapon against their emplacements. We saw first hand A10 work on the Road of Death.

[munkeyman]

Been a weapons troop for over 20 years, 8 of those on the A-10. Best, most maintenance friendly aircraft I have had the pleasure to work on. And the most fun gun load imho.

[davidwestfall]

A good, down-to-earth explanation why it's necessary. All weapons become obsolete at some point. I hear the B-52 may even become so a few decades from now.

[GianSurla]

Modern jets: it's about stealth, precision, and lethality
A10 : It's about sending a message.

[cainabel]

Why not create a drone version of it? It is slow and flies low and can dump a lot of munitions to protect troops. I also imagine since it wouldn’t need life support it could be made slightly smaller too.

[Ulfcytel]

As a teenage cadet I saw A10s on a bombing range. The maneuverability was the thing which really stuck with me.

[MrDubyadee]

I’m from the late 70’s era Army. I was part of the 3ID (Mech) in Germany. I remember the first time I saw an A10 being demonstrated for us. Everyone was thrilled. You see there were a few suppositions we had 1) the Air Force doesn’t want to do CAS at all and are always looking for an excuse not to do it (“we’re busy dogfighting the Russkies”); 2) The Army does not have enough artillery and at the time our ranges were no better than what the Soviets had. We didn’t even have an MRLS at that time. So the love of the A10 was largely a result of our mistrust of the AF.
The Ukraine war has demonstrated to me that the Army needs more of its excellent artillery (with more ammo than current planning calls for) and we need lots of drones as spotters. Drones plus artillery can perform a lot of CAS missions more cheaply and more safely. We need aircraft to keep enemy aircraft - including copters - away and to hit rear areas and logistics. We also need cheap defenses against drones. The Gepards are very effective but were prematurely considered obsolete. Don’t make me fire a $50k missile at a $5000 drone.

[jasontram]

One compelling observation (as early as WW2) that greatly supported the “bathtub” concept was the fact that when you looked at all of the severely war damaged aircraft that managed to limp home in spite of huge holes in their wings and/or fuselage … not one of them had a hole in the cockpit area thus truly putting the fate of that bird entirely in the pilots hands.

[ohishwaddup]

I really have to give you props for the disclaimer at 14:02. Lot of channels would've tried to put a spin on that number(with either condemnation or dismissal) but you pointed out the reality and moved on.

[doubleplusgoodthinker]

30 years ago when I lived in Norfolk (England) I would be driving down one of the long country roads and I would be repeatedly buzzed by A.10s in pairs. First one, then the other. They would fly over me quite low, circle round and do it again. I think they were using me as a practice target. Their base was nearby.

[steviemason]

I know everything eventually goes, but the A-10 exiting the scene makes me sad.

[johnnycaps]

50 years is a longevity that any military aircraft would be proud of. The A-10 might still have one more trick up it's big gun, but even if it doesn't it will long be remembered - at least for another 50 years. This was a great analysis of a complex situation.

[markymark]

The 987 tanks claimed destroyed by A10 during the Gulf War is actually highly disputed. According to later post-war assessments, the actual number may have been 3 times lower. The issue was that it was hard to confirm kills and/or vehicle type during the war due to lack of good optics. (They were literally using binoculars like Cappy said.) It also didn't help that a lot of A-10 pilots routinely made false claims about kill counts that were forwarded to command who then exaggerated them even further. Although to be fair, a lot of Air Force pilots in different platforms were also doing it during the war.

[paullegler]

The pilots who flew and fly the platform notwithstanding, my experience as an Army Fire Support Coordinator was that the Air Force, just didn’t like the CAS role. It put their aircraft and pilots at too great a risk (Desert Storm notwithstanding).

The apocryphal story is told of two Soviet tank division commanders meeting in Paris, following the defeat of NATO. As they enter a restaurant for dinner, one turns to the other and asks, “Do you know who won the air war?”

The point being that victory ultimately goes to him who occupies the ground.

Air superiority is certainly a critical effort, but only facilitates the ground effort. CAS is PART of the ground control effort.

I have the greatest respect for A-10 pilots, because they understand the importance of the direct support they provide to ground troops, and that they accept the same level of risk those kids down on the ground do. It ain’t sexy, but it’s such a critical mission, and has saved a lot more lives than it has cost.

There are valid reasons for retiring the A-10 fleet. But having a dedicated platform in that role, pretty much assured that the CAS mission maintained a pretty high priority on the battlefield.

My concern is that without a dedicated platform, CAS will be relegated to an “we’ll get to it if we have time” mission.