Let's make new A10 Warthogs

[Ed Haywood]

Unfortunately, while the A-10 was designed in an era of SA-2, SA-3, SA-6 and SA-8 which were all legacy SAMs, it really came into its career after the Soviets began designing and ultimately a few years later fielding the modern systems we have faced since at least the late 1990s. It would have no business flying amongst modern IADS networks, or even 20 year old FSR SAMs. Low, even really low, isn't protection anymore. Yes there is something to be said for direct terrain masking due to physics, but again, string enough of these systems and other forms of detection into a coherent IADS, and the Fulda Gap scenario becomes very unsurvivable for a Hog, even when you think its hiding behind a hillside.

That assumes BAI as a primary employment scenario. The problem is that land warfare is in an unprecedented period of uncertainty. Nobody really knows what ground operations are going to look like as a result of drones, AI, and autonomous systems. Everyone is trying to draw lessons from Ukraine, but there is little consensus thus far, other than that the next peer to peer war is going to be drastically different than anything seen before.

Two relevant conclusions that I think are supported by recent experience:
1. Massing ground combat forces is a recipe for destruction. Ground forces will be dispersed and hidden.
2. Versatility and adaptability of forces and weapons platforms are essential.

The Fulda Gap type scenario is unlikely for any form of air power. First, tactical air defenses have made it too dangerous. Second, armored columns are going to get raped by drones before air power ever gets in the game.

Right now the dominant force on the battlefield are Russian glide bombs launched from 30 miles behind the FLOT, beyond the range of Ukrainian air defenses. Both sides are widely dispersed and hidden. When the Russians identify a defensive concentration, they hit it with glide bombs to make a hole, then infiltrate their forces into the gap. At that point, combat forces from both sides are interspersed, with the front lines uncertain. The Ukraines have started dealing with this tactic by allowing the Russians to infiltrate into prepared traps, then cutting them off and chopping them up in close infantry combat.

Point being, right now land warfare is a mess, and any air platform that enters that environment better be able to survive that mess. I have great respect for Air Force and Navy pilots, but I have low confidence in their leadership's willingness to risk hundred million dollar platforms like the F35 by mixing it up over a chaotic battlefield.

The A-10 has some qualities that may make it useful in such a mess. First, it can operate from austere forward bases. Second, it is designed to survive heavy ground fire. Since those qualities are unique among current US military fixed wing platforms, I think it is foolish to discard that capability entirely when the operational environment is uncertain.

Maybe modern tech means we won't need mud fighters again. Maybe not.

 

[kyleb]

The A-10 has some qualities that may make it useful in such a mess. First, it can operate from austere forward bases. Second, it is designed to survive heavy ground fire. Since those qualities are unique among current US military fixed wing platforms, I think it is foolish to discard that capability entirely when the operational environment is uncertain.

My belief is that in anything other than a permissive environment, the A-10's will be mission killed (if not brought down) early in the battle. I'm not sure it makes sense to hold onto an asset (pilot training, logistics, support network) for something that is likely to be unusable after the first day of the war. Now, if we're fighting insurgents or the like, I believe the A-10 is a great answer with its loiter time, weaponry, etc. Maybe we keep 50 of 'em in service for that eventuality. I much prefer that solution over an armored 150 knot crop duster supporting ground forces against insurgents. I said it somewhere recently: I'd hate to be the USAF general who has to tell momma that her little boy was sent into battle in a crop duster.

 

[Flocker]

I just read the A-10 Warthog has been extended again. The AIr Force has been looking for a replacement for the A-10 for a long time. They sight aging airframes and other stuff to take them out of service.

Rumor has it is they're looking at a high wing variant. LOL

 

[35 AoA]

That assumes BAI as a primary employment scenario. The problem is that land warfare is in an unprecedented period of uncertainty. Nobody really knows what ground operations are going to look like as a result of drones, AI, and autonomous systems. Everyone is trying to draw lessons from Ukraine, but there is little consensus thus far, other than that the next peer to peer war is going to be drastically different than anything seen before.

Two relevant conclusions that I think are supported by recent experience:
1. Massing ground combat forces is a recipe for destruction. Ground forces will be dispersed and hidden.
2. Versatility and adaptability of forces and weapons platforms are essential.

The Fulda Gap type scenario is unlikely for any form of air power. First, tactical air defenses have made it too dangerous. Second, armored columns are going to get raped by drones before air power ever gets in the game.

Right now the dominant force on the battlefield are Russian glide bombs launched from 30 miles behind the FLOT, beyond the range of Ukrainian air defenses. Both sides are widely dispersed and hidden. When the Russians identify a defensive concentration, they hit it with glide bombs to make a hole, then infiltrate their forces into the gap. At that point, combat forces from both sides are interspersed, with the front lines uncertain. The Ukraines have started dealing with this tactic by allowing the Russians to infiltrate into prepared traps, then cutting them off and chopping them up in close infantry combat.

Point being, right now land warfare is a mess, and any air platform that enters that environment better be able to survive that mess. I have great respect for Air Force and Navy pilots, but I have low confidence in their leadership's willingness to risk hundred million dollar platforms like the F35 by mixing it up over a chaotic battlefield.

The A-10 has some qualities that may make it useful in such a mess. First, it can operate from austere forward bases. Second, it is designed to survive heavy ground fire. Since those qualities are unique among current US military fixed wing platforms, I think it is foolish to discard that capability entirely when the operational environment is uncertain.

Maybe modern tech means we won't need mud fighters again. Maybe not.

The scenario you are talking about is basically just Afghanistan all over again, but with (more/smaller) drones. So I’d agree that an A-10 is survivable there. So is just about any other 4th gen tactical jet. I’m talking about a peer or near-peer fight, with contested airspace, full-up IADS and fighters. The main lesson to be learned from Ukraine IMO is how incompetent the russians turned out to be, and how wholly incapable they were of executing beyond direct radio reception from HQ, both aviation and land assets alike. The cheap militarized drones have been effective, but so could have been just about anything, given the disorganization and overall apparent confusion of russian forces. It does highlight major vulnerabilities to drone warfare, but I’d submit those lessons are better told to CONUS bases and very large formations of forces overseas. There are tactical ways to render the vast majority of those systems inoperative, or at a minimum, out of the fight, when you are anticipating them on the battlefield.

 

[JOhnH]

The "newest" one is 41 years old. Restarting a production line that old is expensive.

"Expensive" is relative. What would it cost to design a new clean-sheet replacement and build a new production line from scratch.

As an aside, I have been looking for a meme I saw recently.
It showed a fighter jet with the caption "My plane has a gun".
Then it showed an A10 that said "My gun has a plane".

 

[William Pete Hodges]

I started this thread because the A10 brings unique capabilities to the battlefield that should be preserved. The USAF should either embrace this mission completely or hand it over to the Army or Marines. This half-a**ed attitude of theirs is NOT helping our troops on the ground.

The AX program officially started in September 1966 issued a detailed request for information March 6, 1967. This was followed by a modified detailed request for proposals in May 1970. The first AX10 prototype first flew May 10, 1972. Republic designed and built the first 2 AX10 prototypes from scratch in two years and met every spec the USAF asked for. Right now we have about 250 A10s in service with all the upgrades and improvements over 50 years of service and we still have the best ever CAS aircraft ever put in service anywhere in the world. We also have a boneyard full of retired A10s that can be used to copy and produce new tooling to build more. The US Government owns the right to produce as many as they want.

Why reinvent the wheel if the best wheel ever is still at our disposal?

All it takes this the stroke of a pen and approval from congress. I'll bet new A10s could be put in service in less than 4 years. Republic built the prototype in two years, and they started with nothing!

I say we should do it. I say the the army should demand it. And if necessary give the A10s to the Marines and make it happen.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Write your congressman and senator, demand they restart production and acquire the funding. Also demand they be given to the marines and the army.

 

[William Pete Hodges]

Adding to that theme the A10 should be modified to allow carrier landings and takeoffs. A tail hook could be easily mounted to the air frame in such a way to arrest a landing. But instead of using the landing gear as the connection point for the catapult use an open tow hook hard mounted to the frame well in front of the center of gravity that can be connected to the catapult with a tether, similar to the type of arrangement used to launch a glider with a tow plane. The open-ended pull hook would automatically release on takeoff. That way the Marines could deploy the A10 quickly anywhere in the world and use carriers as support fleet for the Marines as they approach the beaches

The Marines are our front line of defense. They're the only branch of the US military services that can be deployed on presidential order only in the event of a disaster. Putting the A-10 in there arsenal can only be good for everybody.

 

[William Pete Hodges]

Write your congressman and senator, demand they restart production and acquire the funding. Also demand they be given to the marines and the army.

We all should do that! Our soldiers deserve nothing less.

 

[Bell206]

We all should do that! Our soldiers deserve nothing less.

You'd probably be money ahead to develop a field level kit that allows on-demand 3D printing of small attack drones and let all those soldiers defend themselves as the need requires.....

 

[Doc Holliday]

We all should do that! Our soldiers deserve nothing less.

We?

 

[bbchien]

The question is, would it need to? How many tanks does ISIS have?

The A-10 was designed for one specific threat...massive armor columns pouring across the iron curtain. Sure, it's good otherwise for close air support, but that big ol' honking gun is overkill (literally) for the current-day threats.

Ron Wanttaja

We deployed one yesterday in Syria. Not Obsolete.

 

[Ed Haywood]

The scenario you are talking about is basically just Afghanistan all over again, but with (more/smaller) drones. So I’d agree that an A-10 is survivable there. So is just about any other 4th gen tactical jet. I’m talking about a peer or near-peer fight, with contested airspace, full-up IADS and fighters. The main lesson to be learned from Ukraine IMO is how incompetent the russians turned out to be, and how wholly incapable they were of executing beyond direct radio reception from HQ, both aviation and land assets alike. The cheap militarized drones have been effective, but so could have been just about anything, given the disorganization and overall apparent confusion of russian forces. It does highlight major vulnerabilities to drone warfare, but I’d submit those lessons are better told to CONUS bases and very large formations of forces overseas. There are tactical ways to render the vast majority of those systems inoperative, or at a minimum, out of the fight, when you are anticipating them on the battlefield.

I'm talking about a peer fight also. Ground warfare is changing in unpredictable ways. The way we trained for the heavy fight for the last 75 years is obsolete. There are no magic ray beams to make drones go away.

The media focuses on small FPV attack drones, but the impact on ISR is more important. Both sides now have 24/7 omnipotent observation of the FLOT to a depth of 50km. Anything that moves is seen immediately, and anything seen gets hit with precision munitions within minutes. Operational level maneuver gets shut down before it starts.

The other big issue is long range missiles. China now has thousands of missiles capable of hitting any air base in the Pacific. Dispersion will be necessary for survivability.

IMO it makes sense to keep a platform designed for ground attack, as a hedge against the future. It also makes sense to keep an aircraft capable of operating from austere environments and less than pristine runways.

Annual sustainment cost for 3 squadrons of A10's is 350 million, including modernization. That would buy three F35's.

I love and admire the Air Force. But history proves their leadership occasionally has to be forced to commit resources to support the ground fight.

"You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, and wipe it clean of life - but if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman Legions did - by putting your soldiers in the mud." -- TR Fehrenbach​

 

[wanttaja]

We deployed one yesterday in Syria. Not Obsolete.

Did it destroy a target that no other aircraft in the inventory could have? Did it take damage that no other aircraft in the inventory would have survived?

Did it do *anything* that, say, its namesake (e.g., P-47 Thunderbolt) wouldn't have been able to do? Or should we restart the production line for A-36 Apaches?

Got a buddy that owns a Ford Model T. Just because he can drive it down the street doesn't mean it's not obsolete.....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Ed Haywood]

They're the only branch of the US military services that can be deployed on presidential order only in the event of a disaster.

Love my Marine brothers too. The year I spent at Quantico for CSC was one of the best of my career. But your statement is complete nonsense.

 

[Velocity173]

We all should do that! Our soldiers deserve nothing less.

To be honest, I don’t think the Army cares about the A-10 going bye bye this time around. The first retirement back in 2015, there was talk from senior Army leadership about how detrimental it would be to lose the A-10. Not so much during this retirement.

The Army just laid plans to eliminate their entire rotor wing Reserves. Supposed to have been done by the end of summer but not sure if that deadline was pushed. AD Army just put 6,500 pilots and maintainers on notice that their jobs are being eliminated. Essentially the Army has looked at the use of drones in Ukraine and they think they can do the same.

The Army’s view of the A-10 has really gone from pre Desert Storm of “we want those if the AF is getting rid of them.” In 2015 that changed to “we need that CAS support from the AF and they shouldn’t get rid of them.” And today the Army is like “we can fill our future aviation needs through drones.” I think the Army is putting all their eggs in the drone basket and unfortunately, I think it’ll bite them in the a$$.

 

[Sierra1]

They are using fiber optics for a lot of them. Each drone carries several miles or more of fiber optic line.

I saw a video clip yesterday where Russia claimed to have a spool of 65km fiber they were testing. Absolute craziness.

 

[wanttaja]

The Army’s view of the A-10 has really gone from pre Desert Storm of “we want those if the AF is getting rid of them.” In 2015 that changed to “we need that CAS support from the AF and they shouldn’t get rid of them.” And today the Army is like “we can fill our future aviation needs through drones.” I think the Army is putting all their eggs in the drone basket and unfortunately, I think it’ll bite them in the a$$.

I suspect the war in Ukraine has opened a lot of eyes in the Army. We can argue about how inept the Russians sometimes appear to be, but it really sounds like manned rotary-wing assets have been driven from the battlefield. The crude anti-drone shields erected over Russian tanks should have got the Armor folks to start thinking, too.


It ain't 1944 any more, gang. It's not even 2003.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Ed Haywood]

To be honest, I don’t think the Army cares about the A-10 going bye bye this time around. The first retirement back in 2015, there was talk from senior Army leadership about how detrimental it would be to lose the A-10. Not so much during this retirement.

The Army just laid plans to eliminate their entire rotor wing Reserves. Supposed to have been done by the end of summer but not sure if that deadline was pushed. AD Army just put 6,500 pilots and maintainers on notice that their jobs are being eliminated. Essentially the Army has looked at the use of drones in Ukraine and they think they can do the same.

The Army’s view of the A-10 has really gone from pre Desert Storm of “we want those if the AF is getting rid of them.” In 2015 that changed to “we need that CAS support from the AF and they shouldn’t get rid of them.” And today the Army is like “we can fill our future aviation needs through drones.” I think the Army is putting all their eggs in the drone basket and unfortunately, I think it’ll bite them in the a$$.

It's my understanding that Army force structure changes to RW are mostly focused on cavalry units. I haven't dug into the decision, but I suspect their logic is that traditional Cav maneuver roles of recon and screening are obsolete due to improved ISR capabilities.

Beyond that, I know there are huge concerns about RW survivability due to loitering munitions.

 

[Velocity173]

I suspect the war in Ukraine has opened a lot of eyes in the Army. We can argue about how inept the Russians sometimes appear to be, but it really sounds like manned rotary-wing assets have been driven from the battlefield. The crude anti-drone shields erected over Russian tanks should have got the Armor folks to start thinking, too.
View attachment 148281

It ain't 1944 any more, gang. It's not even 2003.

Ron Wanttaja

But currently, drones are still limited in what they can do. They’re great for kamizake stuff like above but multi mission, not so much.

Back in June the AF survived an onslaught of drones and missiles from Iran. None of those drones were anti-aircraft and the F-15Es had a turkey shoot without a single loss.

There’s a lot of stuff in the works like the S-70 UAS but it’s very basic, canned scenarios. I’d love to see a fly off with manned vs unmanned with multi-mission tasks involved. Right now, I still see manned aircraft with a significant advantage.

 

[bonefishpete]

Renegotiate the Key West agreement and allow the army some autonomy in close air support. If they can have the cobra and Apache, there’s no reason they can’t fly a Warthog.

This

 

[bonefishpete]

But currently, drones are still limited in what they can do. They’re great for kamizake stuff like above but multi mission, not so much.

Back in June the AF survived an onslaught of drones and missiles from Iran. None of those drones were anti-aircraft and the F-15Es had a turkey shoot without a single loss.

There’s a lot of stuff in the works like the S-70 UAS but it’s very basic, canned scenarios. I’d love to see a fly off with manned vs unmanned with multi-mission tasks involved. Right now, I still see manned aircraft with a significant advantage.

I believe Israel went in first and knocked out the AA sites.

 

[X3 Skier]

Back in June the AF survived an onslaught of drones and missiles from Iran. None of those drones were anti-aircraft and the F-15Es had a turkey shoot without a single loss.

Shooting down $5000 drones with $500000 Sidewinders is not a tactic that is sustainable. Not to mention the $30000 / hour F-15.

 

[Velocity173]

Shooting down $5000 drones with $500000 Sidewinders is not a tactic that is sustainable. Not to mention the $30000 / hour F-15.

Well we’ve been using expensive weapons to destroy inexpensive hardware since Vietnam. None of that has changed but it still works.

Point being, the F-15s give flexibility to the battlefield that current drones can’t match. While this engagement was anti-air defense, they still have the ability to dogfight a peer threat with a possible follow on air to ground mission. Not to mention, I’ll take the SA of two humans with sensors providing quasi C2 / ISR over UAS any day.

 

[UngaWunga]

But currently, drones are still limited in what they can do. They’re great for kamizake stuff like above but multi mission, not so much.

Back in June the AF survived an onslaught of drones and missiles from Iran. None of those drones were anti-aircraft and the F-15Es had a turkey shoot without a single loss.

There’s a lot of stuff in the works like the S-70 UAS but it’s very basic, canned scenarios. I’d love to see a fly off with manned vs unmanned with multi-mission tasks involved. Right now, I still see manned aircraft with a significant advantage.

Yes, they had a turkey shoot, but the cost ratio was definitely in Iran's favor. A $250k missile to shoot down $20k long range drones is not sustainable. That's another thing we're learning through Ukraine, as they try to defend their land from weekly mass onslaught of Russian drones. How much are Patriot missiles? Close to 1million a pop?

 

[Velocity173]

Yes, they had a turkey shoot, but the cost ratio was definitely in Iran's favor. A $250k missile to shoot down $20k long range drones is not sustainable. That's another thing we're learning through Ukraine, as they try to defend their land from weekly mass onslaught of Russian drones. How much are Patriot missiles? Close to 1million a pop?

Of course that’s not sustainable. That’s why Iran has a robust ADA system. The F-15Es were supplementing Iron Dome.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Shooting down $5000 drones with $500000 Sidewinders is not a tactic that is sustainable. Not to mention the $30000 / hour F-15.

Also illustrates the inadequacy of using one term to cover multiple different classes of systems.

"Drone" can cover everything from a toy quadcopter dropping a grenade to a 15,000 pound Global Hawk.

An F15 can shoot down a handful of Shaheds. It cannot shoot down thousands of Lancets.

 

[Witmo]

If we end up in another 20+ year low-intensity, non-existent IADS conflict again, sure. Otherwise, they have been tactically irrelevant since the early 1980s.

Yeah, not a lot of Su-25 action going on in Ukraine. Neither side has air supremacy and SHORAD technology is pretty lethal.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Yeah, not a lot of Su-25 action going on in Ukraine.

Not true. Both sides use them extensively for glide bomb delivery.

Ukraine’s Old Su-25 Attack Jets Have Become Standoff Precision Bombers

French Hammer glide bombs help the Sukhois stay beyond range of Russian defenses.

share.google

"The warplanes fly low and fast toward the front line, hugging the terrain to avoid detection by Russian air defense batteries. At the last moment, before releasing their bombs, the planes climb."​

 

[Craig]

On restarting production lines... Been thru some of the planning before. When the F-22 line was shut down, all the tooling was brought up to the latest standards and configurations, all documentation on the build process and all drawings were put into storage. Noise was made about 4 years later, about pulling everything out and restarting the line. The estimates ended up being that it would take about 5 years to get a restart going and need well in excess of 2 billion dollars upfront to just get the line set to make a part. It would take another 2 years to restart and requalify the vendor base and start parts production.

When we moved the F-16 line, it took almost 3 years to get it back going and that was without losing any vendors. Took nearly a year to train and qualify all the new shop floor people and support staff after the move. Even a warm line restart is time consuming and expensive.

 

[TCABM]

… The main lesson to be learned from Ukraine IMO is how incompetent the russians turned out to be...

QFT.

I’m not fully convinced the peer/near peer conflict happens in my lifetime. That only ends one way. That doesn’t rule out naked, uncontested land grabs though, which is how expect Taiwan really plays out.

 

[X3 Skier]

Well we’ve been using expensive weapons to destroy inexpensive hardware since Vietnam. None of that has changed but it still works.

Point being, the F-15s give flexibility to the battlefield that current drones can’t match. While this engagement was anti-air defense, they still have the ability to dogfight a peer threat with a possible follow on air to ground mission. Not to mention, I’ll take the SA of two humans with sensors providing quasi C2 / ISR over UAS any day.

Since I spent a large part of my career on the development of the F-15, I’m a huge fan. My point was the Turkey shoot is true and also true the F-15 is a fantastic weapon system but if it is shooting down drones with Sidewinders, we better have a lot more production of ‘winders and more C-17’s to keep the pipeline full. Not to mention the funding.

 

[Velocity173]

Manned, multi-mission platforms will be relevant for some time.

 

[Ed Haywood]

I’m not fully convinced the peer/near peer conflict happens in my lifetime. That only ends one way. That doesn’t rule out naked, uncontested land grabs though, which is how expect Taiwan really plays out.

The rumblings I've heard indicate the US expects a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2027. It could be they hope to succeed without a fight, but you don't start down that path unless you are prepared to go all the way.

I felt the idea of a Russian attack on NATO was ridiculous, given their inability to take Kiev. However, we cannot rule out Russia and China coordinating their actions.

The main US strategic vulnerability is our inability to fight two near-peers at once. IMO that vulnerability may tempt our adversaries to try us, especially if they perceive a window of opportunity that may close.

 

[TCABM]

The rumblings I've heard indicate the US expects a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2027. It could be they hope to succeed without a fight, but you don't start down that path unless you are prepared to go all the way.

I felt the idea of a Russian attack on NATO was ridiculous, given their inability to take Kiev. However, we cannot rule out Russia and China coordinating their actions.

The main US strategic vulnerability is our inability to fight two near-peers at once. IMO that vulnerability may tempt our adversaries to try us, especially if they perceive a window of opportunity that may close.

While I don’t disagree with any of that, I just don’t see the US having the political appetite to defend Taiwan right now and I don’t sense the force posture changing rapidly enough to be able to do anything about it, if we did.

 

[Half Fast]

When we moved the F-16 line....

Are you with LM Aero?

 

[Craig]

Are you with LM Aero?

They claim me....

 

[Half Fast]

They claim me....

Hey, as long as there's a paycheck....

I retired from LM-MFC. I have a little hardware on the F16 and the F35.

 

[hindsight2020]

I believe Israel went in first and knocked out the AA sites.

No, they're referring to a different pantomime for domestic consumption. The one he's prob referring to was one of the two (or more, frankly I've lost count how many times we got collect calls from +98 area phone number....) pre-announced Iranian counter volley to save face for their own population, from the time our vassal state distraction-bombed them so Netenyahu could stay out of prison. I know a lot of people in my circles don't want to hear this, especially those who got medals for the turkey shoot, but the iranians called and let us know before the cruise missiles took off. I'd hate to extrapolate combat tactics and capes from that kind of initial conditions.

The B-2 dog and pony, now that's the one you're thinking about. And to keep it unclass, yes it's largely understood them (IAF/IDF) and some of our 5th gen assets did most of the pre-game cleanup so our 1990s overpriced party trick didn't get its arse uncovered as also being IADS-obsolete in 2025.

Shooting down $5000 drones with $500000 Sidewinders is not a tactic that is sustainable. Not to mention the $30000 / hour F-15.

The Houthis largely proved that in the Red Sea; they won that skirmish against the USN in my eyes; heck we shot down more Hornets than they did! Sun Tzu would be proud. It also shined a public light into the sorry state of our surface fleet.

One of the tough lessons the USAF learned in AFG is that you don't burn your flagship asset chasing small fry. But the MIC doesn't care, they demand the grift, so we burn the treasure and add to that repetition of history. Nothing new really.

If they can keep the B52 going, they can keep the A10 going.

Different dynamic. The BUFF is wholly contested-space combat obsolete. Nobody disputes that, unless you're a bomber patch; but we don't pay much mind to those walter mitty nerds. The B-1 was more favored, but was such a C-5 dispatch rate equivalent POS, that it makes our de facto B-29 seem viable in present day. Hardly a compliment, but that's essentially why the Buff persists. The boomer Cold War remnant cultural nostalgia for its iconography is just chaff of little import.

The old wagon is slated to get re-engined with form-fitting RollRollies (.mil version BR700s) which will legit extend unrefueled loiter times and combat range to ludicrous levels. The latest inclusion of an AESA radar (mere parity with fighter bois, though the power wattage it can muster will give every occupant in that thing AWACS levels of cancer but be able to see in 4K to the moon) will finally give it entry pass into the toys previously reserved for the fighter bois. So expect that thing to be the sherpa of the heavy standoff and loyal wingman opsec-redacted future stuff. Staying waaaayyyy back there east of Midway island of course, where a Chinese 7-eleven attendant in Wenzhou with enough reynolds wrap and an internet connection courtesy of starlink, can already paint that flying billboard from lol.

the A-10 doesn't and never had a circumstantial alibi to match that, so apples and cantaloupes.

 

[Craig]

Hey, as long as there's a paycheck....

I retired from LM-MFC. I have a little hardware on the F16 and the F35.

I used to have a little problem with some people from MFC sending me stuff that shouldn't come to me....Took a heck of a lot of bitching up their chain of management to get me off the group emails....They get to play with some weird stuff down there at times, as did I during my flight test days..