That's false. The Air Force is very much endeared to the A-10 on an emotional level. The A-10 motto "Low. Slow. Kill Everything Below" is quite popular. However, it is increasingly ancient history and they know it. The Air Force likes the A-10 the way it likes the P-51. A person we know well in the AF was on the primary base for A-10s training and maintenance. Really likes the A-10, but also know their era is in the past. The Air Force is NOT run by fighter jocks. Increasingly, it is run by a combination of technology geeks, combat missions units, and uniformed pencil pusher bureaucrats - increasingly at odds with each other. This is likely true for all branches of service.
That same argument can be applied to Apaches which have been shot down multiple times by small arms. That being said drones are the future and it won't be long before they figure out how to put a 30mm gatling on a large stealthy drone and use that as a tank killer.
They're not comparable at all assuming the absence of external systems, certainly comparable in more realistic scenarios. There's no doubt that the Russians are able to outfight us dollar for dollar. Good thing we have a lot more dollars.
Correct, which is why the F-22 is superior to the Typhoon and Su-57, no matter how much faster they can turn. To use one of these planes in some kind of latter-day dogfight would be beyond foolish. But the fact of the matter is that supplemental radar systems on the ground can neutralize part of the advantage held by the F-22. I'm a huge proponent of the plane, but I'm not an unrealistic man. The fact of the matter is that if we wish to be capable of standing against Russia in Eastern Europe, we have to outspend them significantly. This is partly geography and partly economic, the Russians can access well-educated people far far cheaper than the Americans can. One mustn't forget that the USSR was among the most technologically advanced nations in the world, and that didn't disappear because the Berlin Wall fell. Russia is a remarkable country, always capable of punching above it's weight... and it's pretty heavy as-is.
I'm sorry, I just woke up out of a PF coma. Did someone seriously suggest the F-22 was designed to replace the A-10?
Just before the first Gulf War (Desert Storm) the A-10 was headed too the bone yard at Davis Monthon AFB with no replacement. The A-10 was a ground air interdiction attack aircraft designed for destroying Soviet tanks in Europe. The A-10 was never considered being used as a close air support aircraft because the U.S. Air Force never wanted to be in the CAS business and said that CAS was Marine Corps business not Air Force business. The U.S. Air Force only wanted to get into dog fights shooting down Mig's and dropping bombs from high altitudes from big bombers. But during Desert Storm it was discovered that the A-10 was the best CAS aircraft since the Douglas A-1 Skyraider.
I am a little biased and will say the Mudhen is a solid CAS aircraft, but I'm not stupid so I agree the A-10 is the best we have to offer. They always threaten to replace the Hog but they never do, and the only idea they have right now that may be the final nail in the coffin is the idea of light attack aircraft. I still don't foresee the A-10 taking up permanent residence at DM any time soon.
The F22 is not good for the role. Speed is not what you want down low. Top speed of an A10 is about 400mph. An F22 is like 1400 mph. Not exactly much time to strafe tanks at 1000+ mph.
Sure, it can drop bombs. F18's can do that too. Not as well as a 300mph A10 flying at 100 feet visually engaging ground targets with that cannon o' death though. That's why we still have them.
The only air-to-ground munitions the F-22 carries are JDAM’s and SDB’s, both of which are functionally useless for CAS with any unit that doesn’t have a JTAC.
It is unfortunate that the Army and Marines never thought of using helicopters for CAS. The fact is that the Air Force offered the Army and Marines to have all their remaining A-10s for free to lose the costs of them. The Army and Marines turned it down. They want helicopters, not 400 mph aircraft that only can do fly-by straffing and require runaways and an extensive base for operation. For CAS, helicopters are vastly more versatile and other have numerous other abilities from surveillance to seek-and-destroy to policing an area, none of which A-10s can do. An A-10 can only do its thing on a straffing run and then it's gone. Helicopters can stick around, land anywhere, operation from anywhere. A-10s need bases with runways - meaning far from the action. The enemies we are actually fighting on the ground NOW do NOT have tanks, although helicopters, precision bombing and now even some drones can kill tanks - should ISIS or the Taliban somehow get a bunch of tanks. Some people credit the A-10 for causing H Bush to abruptly end the first Gulf War after the outright slaughter on the "Highway of Death." The same massive level of destruction could have been done by carpet bombing, precision bombing and attack helicopters. However, the indiscriminate killing nature of the A-10 made it a PR disaster of terrible consequences by making the USA appear totally merciless against a defenseless fleeing military along with civilians. The A-10 is not a precision attack method - while helicopters can pick off single targets. The applicable usage of A-10s for the actual conflicts we are in is next to nothing. We are fighting small groups and even individual insurgents, ISIS, etc - for which the A-10 is essentially worthless. Precision Hellfire from helicopters is ideal, while a 30mm straffing run is generally not even an option given we at least try not to kill too many civilians when taking out a specific target. It does not take all the support, base and costs of A-10s nor 30mm cannons to take out Toyotas with 20mms in the truck bed. Helicopters and drones can eliminate those just fine - and can hang over an area searching for such crude vehicles. Many people seem to think since we already have A-10s they are therefore free. They are anything but free due to all the personnel, training, updating, servicing, base costs and support etc. This is why the Air Force wants to get rid of them.
For that matter, the primary killers along the Highway of Death weren’t A-10’s. They were F-111’s and F-16’s loaded with cluster bombs.
Nope. It is an air-superiority fighter, that has some limited air to mud capability. The closest new aircraft is the F-35, which is a multirole fighter. The reason the Army does not have attack aircraft goes all the way back to the Key West Agreement. In that, the AF got control of all attack aircraft. There was some fighting in the 1960's over the Cobra and other attack helicopters between the two services. But ultimately it was decided that armed helicopters in the Army do not conflict with the role of the Air Force. But Key West also mandates that the Air Force supply the Army with all Close Air Support requirements. And every time a dedicated CAS aircraft is proposed to be cancelled (A-1 Skyraider, A-10 Thunderbolt II), there rises the issue that the Army could take that as their ignoring the agreement. Which would then allow the Army to create the "Army Air Corps II". Would the Army care if the AF dropped the A-10? Well, there are a lot in the Army that wish they would. That would then allow them to declare that the Air Force is no longer keeping up their end of the bargain, and to start to develop it's own attack aircraft. And if that was ever to happen, I can not see the Army looking to the A-10. More than likely they would go with the Brazilian made EMB-314 Super Tucano. A 2 person prop driven aircraft, specifically designed for CAS and COIN missions, that is the one I hear most commonly mentioned if that was ever to happen. Much cheaper, easier to train pilots, and easier to handle logistically than taking over the aging A-10 fleet. But I do not doubt that many in the Army are actually hoping that the A-10 is dropped.