I worked with a JTAC who said his proudest moment was when they were retaking Mosul from ISIS and he Winchestered a B-52 full of JDAMs.
"Dude, we collapsed a 10-story building!"
Air Force to Retire A-10's in FY26
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
I worked with a JTAC who said his proudest moment was when they were retaking Mosul from ISIS and he Winchestered a B-52 full of JDAMs.
"Dude, we collapsed a 10-story building!"
Go big or go home.
If the resource is there, why not pull the chain.
That's what comm is there for. I had no qualms calling up fixed-wing CAS to quiet down the AO if we kept getting shot at. Even if it were 3 or 4 well-hidden individuals.
If the resource is there, why not pull the chain.
That's what comm is there for. I had no qualms calling up fixed-wing CAS to quiet down the AO if we kept getting shot at. Even if it were 3 or 4 well-hidden individuals.
Last edited:
The advantage the A-10 has over all other fighter/attack aircraft isn't the 30MM cannon, it's the 1100+ rounds of ammo; gun run after gun run after gun run. F-35 will give one, maybe two strafe runs.
Plus tough airframe, redundant systems, armored cockpit etc...
Kraut783
SOF Support
...long loiter time...
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,569
I’d rather have a bomb.
It is the same as an A-10 on an F-35. Around 90 mins. The F-35 has an enormous fuel capacity in all models except the B. The C has 9000 lbs more than an a-10.
In a future “neer peer” environment the A 10 is not a sustainable airframe. It cannot rapidly traverse great distances, would die immediately in a SAM environment, and it brings no other capability to the fight.
I love the A-10, but it isn’t going to be gun running advancing Chinese troops on Taiwans beaches. It simply would not get there, or survive in that environment.
Last edited:
Always. And Willy Pete is one of my faves.
That's the argument the AF used as justification.
Kraut783
SOF Support
True, the A-10 was perfect for the GWOT...not great against current country threats....it's time has come.
A-10 could be useful in the CentCom AO, but budget and manning limits are forcing us to let it go.
FWIW the A-10 can fire the laser guided rockets that are being used as a counter drone asset.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,959
That's one (possibly overlooked, possibly not) role where I think the OA-1K could excel, as the airspeed would be much closer to that of UAS systems and the closing speed relatively slow.
If the A10 is so great, why wouldn’t Ukraine be asking for them? They aren’t and that should be telling.
A little anecdote and worth what you paid for I suppose.
I remember talking to some JTACs about their favorite platform to work with and why. Of course, the A-10 was hands down the favorite, no surprise there. The Strike Eagle was next and then it kind of petered out with a shrug. F-16, heavy bomber, whatever. Huh? I thought the "why" was interesting.
The A-10, flying slower and with a pilot trained for CAS and only CAS is an obvious choice. Personally, I think the reputation of BRRRRTTTTT and the 7YO in all of us makes it an obvious choice, but you can't ignore the practical reasons. The F-15E was because it has a crew of 2, their theory being having one to fly the plane and one to work radios and weapons was the reason. Of course, Afghanistan had a dedicated squadron based at Bagram (I think they were at Kandahar for a bit too), so they would work with them a bunch, numbers COULD support this.
But there was also an F-16 squadron in country, sometimes two, so the Viper would be as prevalent as the others, if not more and yet some preferred a B-52 or B-1. Playtime, amount of ordnance (pretty much everything at this point is a JDAM, strafing, of show of force/ presence), and...another person to work the radio were cited.
Their theory, and my take away, is the F-16 has so many tasks to remain current one and with a single pilot, that task saturation is a thing. Not that the F-16 is bad at CAS or they would turn them down, but they said working CAS with a -16 took a little longer to set up, a little more coordination, a little more effort.
Yeah, the A-10 has BRRRTTTT, but it flies slower and the pilot is dedicated to CAS. That's basically it minus CSAR which has alot of overlap with CAS. A -35 won't have even the F-16's payload unless it uses underwing pylons negating its reason for survivability in a modern fight. To be fair the future of CAS will probably be SDB heavy and I don't know how many of those are carried from one airframe to the next.
End of the day, if all you're using is one or more PGMs, the platform doesn't matter in that regard. But, there's something to be said for less speed and a pilot trained for CAS. Not CAS, air-to-air, strikes, SEAD, anti-shipping, reconnaissance, etc. In the never ending A-10 vs xxxx debate, some of those points are lost in the "but the A-10 was designed for CAS" argument. It was, but so was the pilot.
ETA: the reality of future CAS is it will involve lobbing a SDB from 20 miles behind the FLOT and if that's the business model, the -35 will probably make a better platform because of its sensor suite. As long as it flies, which with its dog shit unreliable and maintenance heavy engines right now...
I remember talking to some JTACs about their favorite platform to work with and why. Of course, the A-10 was hands down the favorite, no surprise there. The Strike Eagle was next and then it kind of petered out with a shrug. F-16, heavy bomber, whatever. Huh? I thought the "why" was interesting.
The A-10, flying slower and with a pilot trained for CAS and only CAS is an obvious choice. Personally, I think the reputation of BRRRRTTTTT and the 7YO in all of us makes it an obvious choice, but you can't ignore the practical reasons. The F-15E was because it has a crew of 2, their theory being having one to fly the plane and one to work radios and weapons was the reason. Of course, Afghanistan had a dedicated squadron based at Bagram (I think they were at Kandahar for a bit too), so they would work with them a bunch, numbers COULD support this.
But there was also an F-16 squadron in country, sometimes two, so the Viper would be as prevalent as the others, if not more and yet some preferred a B-52 or B-1. Playtime, amount of ordnance (pretty much everything at this point is a JDAM, strafing, of show of force/ presence), and...another person to work the radio were cited.
Their theory, and my take away, is the F-16 has so many tasks to remain current one and with a single pilot, that task saturation is a thing. Not that the F-16 is bad at CAS or they would turn them down, but they said working CAS with a -16 took a little longer to set up, a little more coordination, a little more effort.
Yeah, the A-10 has BRRRTTTT, but it flies slower and the pilot is dedicated to CAS. That's basically it minus CSAR which has alot of overlap with CAS. A -35 won't have even the F-16's payload unless it uses underwing pylons negating its reason for survivability in a modern fight. To be fair the future of CAS will probably be SDB heavy and I don't know how many of those are carried from one airframe to the next.
End of the day, if all you're using is one or more PGMs, the platform doesn't matter in that regard. But, there's something to be said for less speed and a pilot trained for CAS. Not CAS, air-to-air, strikes, SEAD, anti-shipping, reconnaissance, etc. In the never ending A-10 vs xxxx debate, some of those points are lost in the "but the A-10 was designed for CAS" argument. It was, but so was the pilot.
ETA: the reality of future CAS is it will involve lobbing a SDB from 20 miles behind the FLOT and if that's the business model, the -35 will probably make a better platform because of its sensor suite. As long as it flies, which with its dog shit unreliable and maintenance heavy engines right now...
Last edited:
Devildoc
Verified Military
You make compelling arguments, and I won't disagree. I think the ideal CAS aircraft can go slow, loiter for a long time, and carry a lot of ammo. Look at the common thread of the successful aircraft during Vietnam and you see the theme.
I have never been a fan of the f-35 jack of all trades. Master of none kind of thing, and I think this is trying to beat a square peg into that round hole. It doesn't mean I don't understand why they're doing it.
I talked with a CCT who was in the early days of Afghanistan who also mentioned the f-14 being a favorite because of the Rio in the back.
Better hope the sensor suite is good because sometimes your enemy's FLOT is asshole to elbow with your own FLOT... and if you're up shit alley you may need that BRRRTTT or SDBs or whatever to hit the ground close enough to curl your nose hairs.
The Small Diameter Bomb has a 250-lb warhead and we used a ton of them in the latter stages of the GWOT.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,569
The F-14 was also the most competitive airframe, meaning, the best pilots, also the navy, which has better pilots. I have heard from multiple JTACs that any Marine in any cockpit is the best CAS platform.
That's because the Marines have spent 80 years perfecting the teamwork between ground and air elements. Marine aviators used to have to spend a certain amount of time with ground units.
Carrier-based Marine squadrons might have other tasks, but essentially Marine Air exists only to support Marine elements on the ground.
SpongeBob*24
Verified Military
For some reason Hannibal from Carthage just came to mind. He could have built bigger and better ships then what Rome had and defeated their Navy. Instead he realized the Roman Navy was unbeatable so he went on ground over the Alps with Elephants. This doesn't mean boats suck...that just means my Man Hannibal had a plan but the Alps punched him in the junk.
The lil man in a track suit isn't asking for CAS platforms because he's still searching for air to air and surface to air solutions because he thinks that's how he wins. Perhaps if he did ask for A-10's the war would be over in one day because that's how AWESOME the A-10's are!!!!!
Similar threads
