Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

[isayyo2]

Exciting!

But Vague… How many aircraft are being retained each year? What units will remain flying the Hog until 2030? What budgets get redirected to keep the A-10 flying for another ~4 years?

Hopefully this will keep the Guard and AF Reserve somewhat pleased - the whole “divest to invest” scheme has not been kind to them.

 

[aim9xray]

The U.S. Air Force has announced plans to extend the operational service life of the A-10 Thunderbolt II until 2030.
Source (X fka twitter) :

https://twitter.com/x/status/2046277241613758733

View: https://x.com/i/status/2046277241613758733

Probably the time limit that the airframes will last with the Depot at Hill now deactivating/deactivated. Follow-on support/sustainment will be ... interesting. Not to mention who the remaining TF34 Depot/queen bee is and what their sunset plan is.

 

[Air Superior]

This perfectly encapsulates the pure idiocy that is this administration's DOD.

You end depot-level MX on an airplane that has been slated for retirement for the past 15 years just to delay said retirement with absolutely zero reason or cause. This thing will siphon even more dollars that could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This perfectly encapsulates the pure idiocy that is this administration's DOD.

You end depot-level MX on an airplane that has been slated for retirement for the past 15 years just to delay said retirement with absolutely zero reason or cause. This thing will siphon even more dollars that could be better spent elsewhere.

This isn't DOD.

It's Congress telling DOD that despite stopping depot-level MX, DOD will continue to operate A-10s until at least 2030.

 

[yeetmahboi]

I mean isn't the decision to NOT retire the A-10... what every previous administration chose as well? So I see no reason to attach the blame on this one.

 

[Ozair]

This isn't DOD.

It's Congress telling DOD that despite stopping depot-level MX, DOD will continue to operate A-10s until at least 2030.

Where is Congress in this decision? I know Congress have been resisting A-10 retirement for a long time but this is the USAF getting approval from Sec War to keep the aircraft in service a couple more years at most.

 

[Forest Green]

Air Force Delays A-10 Retirement Until 2030​

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-delays-a-10-retirement-until-2030/

 

[FighterJock]

That is surprising Forest Green and news that I was not expecting, looks like I can relax now. Obviously the A-10s action in the Iran war has had an effect on the Generals like it did after Desert Storm when they were also trying to retire the A-10.

 

[lmaoxd]

That is surprising Forest Green and news that I was not expecting, looks like I can relax now. Obviously the A-10s action in the Iran war has had an effect on the Generals like it did after Desert Storm when they were also trying to retire the A-10.

How long have they been planning to retire the A10 lol?

 

[FighterJock]

What seams like forever lmaoxd.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

How many of them got their wings refurbished/rebuilt by that program a few years ago? I have to assume those ones still have some life left in them, any of the others are probably overdue for retirement.

 

[TomcatViP]

AI:

• Success of Program: In 2024, the 533rd Combat Maintenance Maintenance Squadron completed the overhaul of over 190 wing sets, a critical milestone in keeping the fleet active.
  
  
  Air Force Materiel Command (.mil)

+10k flying hours for the rewinged airframe.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Where is Congress in this decision? I know Congress have been resisting A-10 retirement for a long time but this is the USAF getting approval from Sec War to keep the aircraft in service a couple more years at most.

One Big Ugly Bill.

How long have they been planning to retire the A10 lol?

Since 1978 or so.

 

[Ozair]

One Big Ugly Bill.

The only stipulation, other than preventing complete divestment of the fleet in 2026, is the following,

SEC. 147. MODIFICATION TO MINIMUM INVENTORY REQUIREMENT FOR A–10 AIRCRAFT.(a) In General.—Section 134(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 130 Stat. 2038) is amended by striking “96 A–10 aircraft designated as primary mission aircraft inventory until a period of 90 days has elapsed following the date on which the Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees the report under subsection (e)(2)” and inserting “93 A–10 aircraft designated as primary mission aircraft inventory until October 1, 2026”.(b) Prohibition on Retirement.—(1) In general.—During the period beginning on October 1, 2025 and ending on September 30, 2026, the Secretary of the Air Force may not—(A) reduce funding for unit personnel or weapon system sustainment activities for A–10 aircraft in a manner that presumes future congressional authority to divest such aircraft;(B) keep an A–10 aircraft in a status considered excess to the requirements of the possessing command and awaiting disposition instructions (commonly referred to as “XJ” status); or(C) decrease the total aircraft inventory of A–10 aircraft below 103 aircraft.(2) Exception.—The prohibition under paragraph (1) shall not apply to individual A–10 aircraft that the Secretary of the Air Force determines, on a case-by-case basis, to be no longer mission capable and uneconomical to repair because of aircraft accidents, mishaps, or excessive material degradation and non-airworthiness status of certain aircraft.(c) Briefing Required.—Not later than March 31, 2026, the Secretary of the Air Force shall provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a briefing on the status of A–10 aircraft inventory and the proposed plan for divesting all A–10 aircraft prior to fiscal year 2029. The briefing shall cover, at a minimum, the following1) The number of A–10 Total Aircraft Inventory aircraft disaggregated by Combat Coded Aircraft, Primary Mission Aircraft Inventory, Backup Aircraft Assigned, Attrition Reserve, tail number, and location.(2) The planned divestment date of each such aircraft.(3) The detailed plan for how and when the Secretary proposes to proceed with divestment of aircraft for each A–10 unit prior to fiscal year 2029.(4) The aircraft transition plan for replacing A–10 aircraft with new or existing replacement aircraft in each unit that is divesting of the A–10 aircraft, which shall include an explanation of—(A) how the Secretary plans to minimize adverse personnel impacts within such units, including adverse impacts with respect to retention, currency, proficiency, qualifications, certifications, and training; and(B) how the Secretary plans to minimize or eliminate any scheduling gap that may occur with respect to a unit divesting from the A–10 aircraft and transitioning to a new or existing replacement aircraft.(5) The information and content format that was provided in the briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by the Headquarters Air Force, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs (HAF/A8), on February 13, 2023, titled “A–10 Divestment Placemats”.(6) Any other information the Secretary determines relevant.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119s1071enr/uslm/BILLS-119s1071enr.xml#d8924e198396
I don't see the above being linked to what the USAF has done in extending the fleet out at least another year.

 

[Ainen]

That is surprising Forest Green and news that I was not expecting, looks like I can relax now. Obviously the A-10s action in the Iran war has had an effect on the Generals like it did after Desert Storm when they were also trying to retire the A-10.

Somewhat poetic that A-10 on saving over and over members of community considering them most outdated.
No replacement for half a century, no thorough update for decades, but still the same result even in the second half of the 2020s.

 

[yeetmahboi]

I'll maintain that the USAF had a very good option to supplant the A-10 with the Textron Scorpion.

 

[Desertfox]

US already has the A-1K to replace the A-10. The Ares would have made a nice replacement as well, and there's always the AT-6

 

[Scott Kenny]

US already has the A-1K to replace the A-10. The Ares would have made a nice replacement as well, and there's always the AT-6

No, the OA-1K is not a good replacement for the A-10. Not for the CSAR role.

It was never intended to be a replacement for the A-10, it is intended to be a replacement for something like an AC-47 or AC-130. Something to fly armed overwatch over SOCOM missions.

The USAF could use a replacement for the CSAR escort role the A-10 fills.

 

[yeetmahboi]

I think people are forgetting about the pilot retention stuff. With the A-10 you have a relevant slot for people who failed the T-7/38 class but still wants another shot. Else they are bleeding over to the airlines and atp it's GG. Which is why you kinda need a turbofan powered platform.

Does anyone have the latest CPFH figures for the A-10?

 

[Ainen]

I'll maintain that the USAF had a very good option to supplant the A-10 with the Textron Scorpion.

Scorpion over Iran would've been a sad joke. Nothing personal to Scorpion, it's a nice, but different aircraft.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Scorpion over Iran would've been a sad joke. Nothing personal to Scorpion, it's a nice, but different aircraft.

Except that had it been inducted a decade before the variant flying over Iran would be significantly different and better. Textron is building world class composite armour you don't think they can fit a few on the bird instead of the wrought iron the A-10 had?

 

[Ainen]

Except that had it been inducted a decade before the variant flying over Iran would be significantly different and better. Textron is building world class composite armour you don't think they can fit a few on the bird instead of the wrought iron the A-10 had?

Sorry, my brainworms failed me. I thought about A-1K...

 

[yeetmahboi]

Sorry, my brainworms failed me. I thought about A-1K...

OA-1K is Harris, get some meds...

 

[NMaude]

Sandboxx put out a lengthy video about why the A-10 needs to be retired but isn't being allowed to:

The A-10 Thunderbolt II, better known as the Warthog, has been an American airpower staple for nearly a half-century now, and in a real way, so has the effort to retire it. Now, the Pentagon has decided to keep these jets in service through at least 2030... But it isn't for the reasons you might think.

Watch our previous video on the Stealth A-10 Concept:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKJ-D9HY-Do
• Could we make a stealth A-10 Warthog for t... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKJ-D9HY-Do

Watch our previous video about the Fighter Mafia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbiNmKDqQBU
• FIGHTER MAFIA: Dogfight Visionaries or Air...

 

[jsport]

This perfectly encapsulates the pure idiocy that is this administration's DOD.

You end depot-level MX on an airplane that has been slated for retirement for the past 15 years just to delay said retirement with absolutely zero reason or cause. This thing will siphon even more dollars that could be better spent elsewhere.

Couldn't be expressed any better by a genuine F-35 advocate. Bravo, hand clapping.
Until there is a proper new Close Air Support/BAI/UAS mothership'gunship (something to support ground troops) aircraft developed w serious AF intent leave the damn A-10 the f..alone. ..have posted too many arguments justifying the A-10 over the years on this forum to hear anymore F-35 BS.

 

[RAP]

A 1972 Fairchild document on the A-10 listed on Ebay at a price out of my range. Interesting though is the drawing of the A-10 with what looks to be a fixed refueling probe.

 

[fightingirish]

A-10 Warthog Being Tested With Aerial Refueling Probe Bolted Onto Its Nose
[...]

On May 19, 2026, a U.S. Air Force HC-130J Combat King II from the 71st Rescue Squadron carried out probe-and-drogue refueling with A-10C Thunderbolt IIs from the 74th Fighter Squadron, both based at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia.
Please note that the probe now has the same paint as the aircraft.
I’m curious whether the probe, which was borrowed from the A-6, is stiff or flexible during air-to-air refueling, and if it also moves out of the pilot’s line of sight during landing approach and ground strafing runs.
Source (X fka twitter):

https://twitter.com/x/status/2057170829289652719

View: https://x.com/GuyPlopsky/status/2057170829289652719

 

[isayyo2]

This is the future of the A-10 and I am all for it! Laser JDAMs, Angry Kitten ECM pod, Lightening TGP, and the new "snout" probe refueling receptacle in CENTCOM. Warthogs forever!

https://www.twz.com/air/a-10-wartho...g-probe-is-now-operational-in-the-middle-east
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/a-10-revamped-middle-east-new-refueling-probe-ew-pod/

 

[fightingirish]

Thank you @isayyo2 , now I see, that the probe is either positioned on or moves slightly over to the starboard side when not refueling, so it's outside the pilot's line of sight.

 

[Air Superior]

Couldn't be expressed any better by a genuine F-35 advocate. Bravo, hand clapping.
Until there is a proper new Close Air Support/BAI/UAS mothership'gunship (something to support ground troops) aircraft developed w serious AF intent leave the damn A-10 the f..alone. ..have posted too many arguments justifying the A-10 over the years on this forum to hear anymore F-35 BS.

The F-35 is the premier BAI aircraft in the entire world. Its sensor fusion capabilities are unmatched. The A-10 cannot do what the F-35 can in numerous fields.

Close Air Support doesn't require the aircraft to be close to ground troops. Any aircraft capable of dropping munitions within a specified CEP near ground troops which are engaging enemy forces is a CAS aircraft. This is stated very clearly in both JP 3-09.3 and JP 3-60 (or AFDP 3-60).

There is ONE singular mission the A-10 does that it excells at over the F-35 and it is the Sandy role. However, the declassified assessment clarified that the reasons at which the A-10 can outpace the F-35 in this role is due solely to the ability of the aircraft to remain combat effective at low speeds and altitude.

 

[Ainen]

The F-35 is the premier BAI aircraft in the entire world. Its sensor fusion capabilities are unmatched. The A-10 cannot do what the F-35 can in numerous fields.

It had a damn big war to prove it.

But no, unpremier space race era airframe, outdated since 1970s and starved for upgrades (much less replacement) does it, not the F-35. Though, ironically one key upgrade it did get - the new targeting pod, - f-35 struggles to get, even with all the money uncle Sam can throw at it.

Overall, F-35 is evidently too premier, too cas is a mission. And, frankly speaking, much less the a-10, it isn't immediately obvious it can displace even 4th gen multirole fighter types in a decade to come.
Old types adapt on the fly; with F-35 there isn't even a conversation about it, everything is stuck till mid 2030s.

 

[quellish]

Close Air Support doesn't require the aircraft to be close to ground troops.

Ummm… what? That’s literally what CAS is. Employment of force in close proximity to friendly forces. To do this from the air requires the aerial platform to be very situationally aware of the positions of both enemy and friendly forces.

 

[jsport]

The F-35 is the premier BAI aircraft in the entire world. Its sensor fusion capabilities are unmatched. The A-10 cannot do what the F-35 can in numerous fields.

Close Air Support doesn't require the aircraft to be close to ground troops. Any aircraft capable of dropping munitions within a specified CEP near ground troops which are engaging enemy forces is a CAS aircraft. This is stated very clearly in both JP 3-09.3 and JP 3-60 (or AFDP 3-60).

There is ONE singular mission the A-10 does that it excells at over the F-35 and it is the Sandy role. However, the declassified assessment clarified that the reasons at which the A-10 can outpace the F-35 in this role is due solely to the ability of the aircraft to remain combat effective at low speeds and altitude.

..would never question the F-35s capabilities. Even B-1s can provide great CAS. CAS can well be accomplished by anything flying w stores racks, sure. F-35s et al will be dedicated to BAI etc. and not CAS. Therefore one needs a dedicated CAS craft. As I have posted, argued numerous times before, some aircraft designing students for an A10 replacement competition propose a medium size jet w a gun to replace both the A-10 & the AC-130. IMHO a good start. F-35, & other craft will always be dedicated to other missions leaving ground troops in the lurch.
The Sandy mission might be filled by the OA-1k but the F-35 has to nearly fall out the sky ie lose lift just to achieve the precision requirement for some CAS missions. This is not classified, but is also unacceptable.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Close Air Support doesn't require the aircraft to be close to ground troops. Any aircraft capable of dropping munitions within a specified CEP near ground troops which are engaging enemy forces is a CAS aircraft. This is stated very clearly in both JP 3-09.3 and JP 3-60 (or AFDP 3-60).

The fact that you're dropping weapons within danger close of friendlies means that you need exceptional situational awareness of what's going on.

The options are either 1) a high-magnification EOTS and release weapons from altitude or 2) getting the plane down in the weeds to do it with the Mk1 eyeball.

There is ONE singular mission the A-10 does that it excells at over the F-35 and it is the Sandy role. However, the declassified assessment clarified that the reasons at which the A-10 can outpace the F-35 in this role is due solely to the ability of the aircraft to remain combat effective at low speeds and altitude.

Which I guess brings us to the next question, which isn't technically on-topic in this thread: Is it worth designing a whole new manned airframe for the Sandy role, or do we just make it a CCA?

 

[Air Superior]

Ummm… what? That’s literally what CAS is. Employment of force in close proximity to friendly forces. To do this from the air requires the aerial platform to be very situationally aware of the positions of both enemy and friendly forces.

The “force” verbiage is referring to the munition employment being within close proximity, not the aircraft.

 

[Air Superior]

The fact that you're dropping weapons within danger close of friendlies means that you need exceptional situational awareness of what's going on.

The options are either 1) a high-magnification EOTS and release weapons from altitude or 2) getting the plane down in the weeds to do it with the Mk1 eyeball.

Why is it so hard to believe we have the sensor capability to match this need? We've been doing it since 2001. B-52s provided CAS to ground forces from 30,000 feet. This is not a new capability. Since 2010, off-board sensor capability has only significantly improved. SA capabilities are provided by datalink and third-party data donors that saturate the airspace.

Which I guess brings us to the next question, which isn't technically on-topic in this thread: Is it worth designing a whole new manned airframe for the Sandy role, or do we just make it a CCA?

The modern threat environment demands a survivable aircraft serve the Sandy role. I don't know how a CCA could do it other than carrying the AN/PRQ-7 CSEL and maybe an on-board EO/IR sensor. A cheaper alternative would be just putting that system on the F-35. I'm interested in seeing how the DAF figures out this problem which absolutely requires an urgent solution.

 

[GTX]

Ummm… what? That’s literally what CAS is. Employment of force in close proximity to friendly forces. To do this from the air requires the aerial platform to be very situationally aware of the positions of both enemy and friendly forces.

Err...the Close in CAS refers to the attacking forces (that are being targeted) being close to the troops one is trying to support. It doesn't mean that the aircraft providing said support has to be close. Yes, that is how it was traditionally done but today with precision weapons and sensors and appropriate comms providing better capability it can be done differently. In Afghanistan there were cases of B-1s providing CAS.

 

[jsport]

A cheaper alternative would be just putting that system on the F-35.
there is nothing cheap associated w/F-35. F-35 does not get close enough, w the correct amount or for the required period, period.

Yes, a gunship is expensive but world urbanization renders thee F-35 a limited mission platform especially in light of the death of stealth. More reason to relook at new build updated F-16s for multi-mission.

 

[Ainen]

Why is it so hard to believe we have the sensor capability to match this need? We've been doing it since 2001.

Point of CAS aircraft (rather than mission; as opposed to strike aircraft) is exactly when you need a specialist aircraft to do the job, in conditions where it can't be done otherwise.
It was this way since 1918 - other than WW2 eastern front (which was stupidity), most CAS never was delivered by specialist aircraft in the first place.

The question is CAS when it is exactly not optimal.
Say, where opponent has world level integrated air defenses.
'What we've been doing since 2001' just won't come. It didn't came 'even' against Iran. A-10s did.

A cheaper alternative would be just putting that system on the F-35.
there is nothing cheap associated w/F-35. F-35 does not get close enough, w the correct amount or for the required period, period.

F-35 isn't expensive. But it is unsuitable, and probably won't be for a decade, even without more mission-specific optimizations. Insufficient weapon package, insufficient self-defense apparatus, single seat, too fast, insufficient loiter... that's a long list.

An A-10 replacement in all likelihood won't come cheaper(more expensive is in fact more likely), but it's possible to have it click all the boxes, and have it as a better close in command node going forwards.

The question is more along the lines, do you need a fixed wing jet for it, or V-75 will do?

 

[jsport]

The fact that you're dropping weapons within danger close of friendlies means that you need exceptional situational awareness of what's going on.

The options are either 1) a high-magnification EOTS and release weapons from altitude or 2) getting the plane down in the weeds to do it with the Mk1 eyeball.

Close Air Support in cluttered complex terrain defines the next battlefield requirement. The current front. although often open terrain, includes highly enmeshed red/blue ground units. Urban environments magnify the problem.

A ground force dedicated craft w/ drone mothership capabilities augmenting precision direct fire capabilities is needed more than ever.