Why the Air Force is Screaming to Retire the A-10 Warthog

We also must remember that the A-10 was designed as a Soviet tank killer, not the CAS mission it inherited when the Soviet Union collapsed. I really don't see the F-35 filling that mission but realistically the A-10 is coming up on 50 years old and was much used, as opposed to the older B-52 that spent much of its life sitting alert, not in the air.

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen

It's all about money because now these planes are up to par, and they're keeping the B-52 until 2060.

We're going to have infantry men. Both marine and army die because of politics by generals that hate closer support.

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen War with Iran, Russia and China is possible, and we may have limited nukes and Russian doctrine attacks again.

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel LTC Eugene Chu
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter Lt Col Charlie Brown Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen CPT Jack Durish LTC Stephen F. CSM Charles Hayden 1SG Russell Scott 1SG Patrick Burke SFC Dr. Jesus Garcia-Arce, Psy.D SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SFC John Davis LTC Trent Klug CDR Andrew McMenamin, PhD Col (Join to see) 1st Lt Padre Dave Poedel CPT (Join to see)
https://youtu.be/LENv3L_zbjg?si=Vee3mkPtN558gjkz

Also in Vietnam the A1E Sky Raider's, a late WWII Vintage prop driven fighter was taken out of mothballs and used by the Air Force. The fast movers couldn't give the close air support the A1E could or even remain in the target area any length of time with the huge fuel use just even getting there . Granted fast mover have their place but NOT on those type of missions, The A10 was an excellent replacement for the A1E Shy Raider, often called a Sandy as they got downlow right down in the sand between or low over treetops which the fast movers couldn't do. Taking the A10 out or even producing more is a stupid move in my opinion and a lesson htat should have been learned from the armchair commandos The A10 Pilots and the ground troops sure know the value of that aircraft. The earlier A1E Sky Raider, "Sandy" I had seen Myself in action right on our own perimeter and knew first hand how effective it was.

SMSgt Lawrence McCarter Yes, I totally agree that fast movers really can't handle the CAS mission effectively or efficiently. Problem is there really is no slow mover in the pipeline. The A-10 got the CAS mission because suddenly there were no Soviet tanks pouring through the Fulda Gap. But we haven't built aircraft like that since A-10 production ended. I'd certainly support some type of service life extension program for the A-10, but don't see that in the cards while funding for F-35 and B-21 is top priority.

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - It sure does appear that way although the Soviets are still using and losing a large number tanks in their current war but I guess a lot or remote control aircraft account for much of that. The other type of aircraft You mention certainly have their mission but can't effectively do what the A10 had already proved it could do. (and the A1E before it to fill the gap prior to the A10) The need certainly still exist but its not cheap moneywise or in other areas is the money being spent wisely either. Some lessons it seems are never learned by some so called leaders from past experience.

Speaking for myself, I'm old but am still able to accomplish the mission at hand ;-) The military industrial complex doesn't make money off of old aircraft. All of the current proposals seem (IMO) to be attempts to force an aircraft (F-35?) into a niche where it cannot perform as well as the A-10 can.
I am sure that at some point in the future someone will design a ground attack aircraft that will exceed the capabilities of the A-10 while providing even more protection to the pilot. This hasn't happened yet.