actually the debate on the A-10--and its ultimate replacement is far from over...Congress approved another extension to keep them flying, but for how long is still unknown...not to mention the AF is all over the map on the Hog's ultimate replacement...

now that we will soon have an adult in the Pentagon in the form of Mad Dog that actually gives a damn about the troops/Marines on the ground hopefully we will see a little more clarity on the issues...

as an aside--I think the Hog debate in our virtual hangar has been spirited and informative and this is actually a pretty good forum for this discussion based on the vast amount of experiences and interest in aviaition and defense issues our members have....of course if you have any specifics to counter those that want to keep the Hog flying pls feel free to chime in

It's dangerous. Twice the chance of an engine failure, and no 'chute.

...for those interested I've posted a link below of "Save the A-10" Facebook Site which is excellent in particular providing updates of the work of our outstanding representatives in Congress that are providing leadership on the Hog retention in their fight over the AF uniformed/civilian bureaucrats who are trying to dump it without an adequate replacement...the site will keep u informed and is particularly useful for any discussions u may have with ur own reps

...you'll note for example a video of Rep Martha McSally (former A-10 pilot herself) fighting in Congress for the Hog for the FY 2017 budget...interestingly, she is also still calling for the A-10 - F35 CAS flyoff as a prerequisite before making a decision on formally retiring the Warthog...of course, AF leadership has fought any such fly off...

...also some great background on the A-10 to include some cool videos of Pierre Sprey (one of the original designers)...

_______________________________
https://www.facebook.com/savethea10

I do remember being past 90 degrees of bank in a pop up, wondering if my titanium bathtub was really a titanium catcher's mitt. The idea of a high energy piece of metal ricocheting around in there with me always flitted through my head.

...I remember studying the Hog back in the 80s at WMU when all the ROTC cadets would take Prof Sherwood Cordier's History Classes...fascinating, his expertise included the current Soviet/NATO Conventional Force Balance of Power in Europe...back then he was already discussing the AF's reluctance to field the Hog as they favored the "sexy" as he would say fast movers and so on...recall his lectures included that Vietnam had again confirmed the fast movers vulnerability to small arms fire and the Hogs pilots were much more protected, and so ond...his books are classic...he opined that the A-10 would have been a big factor against the WP--primarily their second echelon forces...

...on the titanium, amazing how much it has proven it can take...interesting stats below and article referenced below...

...basically saying the Hog can withstand hits from a 50cal...incredible--imagine what a 50cal would do to a fast mover like say the F35

"The cockpit and parts of the flight-control system are protected by 1,200 lb (540 kg) of titanium aircraft armor, referred to as a "bathtub".  The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds.  It is made up of titanium plates with thicknesses from 0.5 to 1.5 inches (13 to 38 mm) determined by a study of likely trajectories and deflection angles. The armor makes up almost 6 percent of the aircraft's empty weight. Any interior surface of the tub directly exposed to the pilot is covered by a multi-layer nylon spall shield to protect against shell fragmentation.  The front windscreen and canopy are resistant to small arms fire.

A first-hand account of the effectiveness of the bathtub against 57 mm rounds in a combat environment can be found here: Cradle of Aviation Museum (emphasis added):
Then we started inspecting the airplane. Later, they counted 378 holes in it. According to the frag lodged in the plane, we deduced that all four shells from a four-round clip of 57mm hit me. Two exploded and hit just behind the plane that got the tail feathers and the right engine, which had forty-five holes in it, it wasn't developing full power but was still running when I landed. The third round exploded underneath the right wing, which sustained the major part of the damage and cooked off the AIM-9. The fourth round probably exploded right in front up by the nose."

__________________________
https://www.quora.com/Military-Aviation ... cing-round

Reprieve:
https://apnews.com/8b7b2b98d844485989b2 ... e-lives-on

"In the Pentagon budget plan sent to Congress this week, the Air Force proposes to keep all 283 A-10s flying for the foreseeable future."

Awesome! Good to hear we plan to keep them flying. Just departed Seoul Incheon the other day and during climb out ATC called out A-10 traffic. Copilot asked if I would climb slow so we could see it. Afterwords I though of this thread.

...yea, was monitoring that also...good post, and good article...biggest takeaway--Congress saved the day when the AF kept trying again and again to dump the Warthog...

and, the AF brass remains totally disingenuous, from the article:
“The world has changed,” said Maj. Gen. James F. Martin Jr., the Air Force budget deputy, in explaining decisions to keep aircraft once deemed expendable".

that's nonsense, the necessity for a capable CAS aircraft for our troops on the ground has and will be a constant for the forseeable future...the above quote is an attempt for the AF brass to save face after our Congressional leadership said no go on their ill-conceived designs to can the Hog in favor of their fighters and supersonic bombers

...incredible history of the Hog, but for Congressional leadership they wouldn't be in the active inventory today...go figure

I don't like the idea of having Comgress telling the Air Force what aircraft they need to have, it sounds political. It is a great airplane but an old one too. I totally disagree with the notion that we should continue to fly and maintain 4th generation aircraft as the Air Force's long term strategy. All military branches need to modernize equipment over time and all airplanes fly into the history books.

I don't like the idea of having Congress telling the Air Force what aircraft they need to have, it sounds political. It is a great airplane but an old one too. I totally disagree with the notion that we should continue to fly and maintain 4th generation aircraft as the Air Force's long term strategy. All military branches need to modernize equipment over time and all airplanes fly into the history books.

who's to say that a much less expensive turboprop wouldn't be just as effective? Certainly that decision won't come from congress

The DoD has a checkered history of ordering anything and your 90% claim is way off. Ask an Army Commander and see if they'd rather have an A-10 on station or a Reaper orbiting overhead hours on end. The A-10 will have to link up with the tanker every hour.

edit: The Air Force has deployed 90% of munitions deployed on ISIS per a comment made by Secretary Wilson. There are other aircraft in the fight besides the A-10. The A-10 was designed as a close air support aircraft to combat Soviet tanks in Europe, not shoot at guys on donkeys. In 2015, B-1 bombers deployed 35% of all munitions dropped over a 6 month deployment on ISIS. So I'm not sure where you're getting your "facts" from.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /83617858/

who's to say that a much less expensive turboprop wouldn't be just as effective? Certainly that decision won't come from congress

The picture showed a turbine. Where are the piston aircraft mentioned?
The number of bombs dropped may have nothing to do with the effectiveness of that ordinance delivery. Targeting has always been the issue. We can deliver devastating ordinance on anything we can target. I was only supportive of the A-10 because there wasn't a reasonable CAS alternative now. If one is being developed or considered, that's great. Your article actually points out why it's not effective to use other platforms for this mission.

The picture showed a turbine. Where are the piston aircraft mentioned?
The number of bombs dropped may have nothing to do with the effectiveness of that ordinance delivery. Targeting has always been the issue. We can deliver devastating ordinance on anything we can target. I was only supportive of the A-10 because there wasn't a reasonable CAS alternative now. If one is being developed or considered, that's great. Your article actually points out why it's not effective to use other platforms for this mission.