[ImJustAnotherOkie]

It's like painting a mustache on the face of Grace Kelly

[central_va]

What's wrong with the A-1?

[NFHale]

But...it IS sorta compelling...

...in a weird, compelling sorta way... compellingly....

The plane... NOT the mustache on the Lady Grace, that is...

[Jacquerie]

The epitome of a propeller driven flying tank:

[wbill]

There's no doubt that the A-10 is a great plane, and the military would be foolish to terminate it without a comparable replacement.

I've often wondered, though, if a P-51, or the old A-1 Skyraiders, might be more suited to some of the brushfire wars that we're fighting in the Middle East. The rough field capability, in particular, would be handy, I'd think.

Would love to have FReepers more learned than I, comment.

[Bringbackthedraft]

They tried to push this plane for use in low intensity conflicts in the 3rd world countries. We had the A1, so who needed this? The key was low maintenance, but I would still prefer the A1 over it.

[the OlLine Rebel]

“The practically all-new aircraft married the Mustang’s basic shape to a powerful turboprop engine. The plane had a variety of other improvements...”

Then why so much dissing possibly the greatest fighter of all time?

[Red Badger]

’ the ungainly A-10’?..............

[TheThirdRuffian]

Something based on a P-38 lighting would have been a far better choice for a low-cost ground attack plane. You could put a big ass gun in the front and the pilot could actually see the target.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

That’s a big propeller !

[Little Ray]

We're not trying to "replace" the A-10. We're trying to find a COIN aircraft so that we can saturate the combat zone with air support. Personally, I'd go with a armored, militarized crop duster like the Air Tractor AT-802U: Replace the hotshot fighter jocks with NCO pilots, saturate the skies with cheap COIN aircraft and kill the jihadis where ever we find them.

[central_va]

Face it the A-10 is practically irreplaceable.

[central_va]

Face it the A-10 is practically irreplaceable.

[Portcall24]

As I recall Chuck Spinney and other reformists were behind this. The later Moody Sutter spent many a Wednesday evening at the Ft Myer lounge discussing their misguided beliefs about warfare.

[GBA]

At least it doesn't have the very vulnerable radiator and coolant lines that made the P-51 a fragile ground attacker.

The P-47, with its big P&W radial and 8 50 cal machine guns, was the better beast for that job.

[Ancesthntr]

All this talk about replacing the A-10 with a light attack aircraft to “saturate” the battlefield is fine and well as a theoretical discussion. Ask pilots if they’d rather go up in an A-10 or a modernized P-51 or P-38, or an armored crop-duster, and I suspect that you’ll get a different answer.

The A-10 is simply the best ground support aircraft ever designed and fielded. It is, by today’s standards, an incredibly cheap aircraft, and it is feared by our enemies. It can and has taken huge hits, or in some cases literally hundreds of hits, and brought its crew home safely to fly, bomb and strafe another day. From my perspective, we should be building MORE of them, with suitable replacement ceramic and/or Kevlar-type armor where it would increase survivablility, range, payload, etc. New engines might increase both range and payload - it has been nearly 40 years since it was designed, after all.

Those other planes were legendary - in their time. We no longer live in the 1940s, and we owe our aircrews better technology and a better chance of dying as old men in bed than a 1940s-designed plane, however much we like the way it looks or however much nostalgia we have for it. Armored crop-dusters are a great design exercise for college or grad students, but they have no place on a battlefield in which even cave-dwelling savages have Stingers or multi-barrelled AA guns.

[GregoTX]

Where is the 30mm gun?

[DaxtonBrown]

I was just discussing this plane last night. A knowledgeable source tells me the F35 is a dog.

[equaviator]

[Billthedrill]

Well, it kinda-sorta had the appearance of the F-51 and maybe a few compatible parts, but a Mustang it is not. Nor should it be. That platform's strength was air superiority, not ground attack.

Ground attack is all about ordnance on target. The A-10 has it. It's about range and loiter as well. The A-10 has them. We needn't even bring up survivability. If all it comes down to is "cheaper" I'm not onboard because despite what I keep telling my Air Force friends I really do want their pilots to come home in one piece. ;-)

[Sergio]

Aviation bookmark.