A-10 Thunderbolt II Replacement

[Goose489]

I don't understand how the F-35 is going to replace the A-10.

Edited January 23 by Goose489

[Raisuli]

That's only because you think the mission of the A-10 is something it isn't.

The F-35 Mafia needs money, the A-10 costs money.  Money spent on the A-10 will get spent on the F-35, therefore the money continues to be spent and the F-35 replaces the A-10.

Q.E.D.

The people who depend on the A-10 are not the flag-level officers on permanent Pentagon duty prior to post-retirement executive vice president roles in the defense companies raking in billions in F-35 contracts, therefore the mission of the A-10 is not important.

That's an over-simplified explanation, but it gets the point across.  Actually there's a whole thing about CAS role assignments and huge star-wearing egos in the E-ring deciding that's not sexy enough until someone threatened to give the Army money, etc.  The two key points are 'ego' and 'money'.

[ricktoberfest]

The jet can do most of what it needs for CAS, the problem is the movers and shakers aren’t training the pilots for it. There’s a great article on “the war zone” a few weeks back about this. The US is in serious jeopardy of losing its skilled CAS pilots by not transitioning them to the new planes, and not training new pilots how to do it. It’s a perishable skill and if all the old pilots retire soon and new ones don’t take up the skill then it will have to be relearned the next conflict. Kinda like the Russians with their “carrier” squadrons. No carrier for years means no trained pilots to continue the skills and teach to the next generation of pilots.  

[Goose489]

23 hours ago, Raisuli said:

That's only because you think the mission of the A-10 is something it isn't.

The F-35 Mafia needs money, the A-10 costs money.  Money spent on the A-10 will get spent on the F-35, therefore the money continues to be spent and the F-35 replaces the A-10.

Q.E.D.

The people who depend on the A-10 are not the flag-level officers on permanent Pentagon duty prior to post-retirement executive vice president roles in the defense companies raking in billions in F-35 contracts, therefore the mission of the A-10 is not important.

That's an over-simplified explanation, but it gets the point across.  Actually there's a whole thing about CAS role assignments and huge star-wearing egos in the E-ring deciding that's not sexy enough until someone threatened to give the Army money, etc.  The two key points are 'ego' and 'money'.

The F-35 is unable to carry what the A-10 can carry and it is also unable to take the damage like the A-10. Building off your point of money, Lockheed would much rather the Air Force spend trillions of dollars on F-35s than the cheap 10.1 million on the A-10. The F-35 will not be able to stay up in the air long enough for the troops on the ground.

[Mars Exulte]

On 12/6/2023 at 12:14 PM, Goose489 said:

I don't understand how the F-35 is going to replace the A-10.

 The only thing the A-10 has over anything else is the gun, a weapon which it would never live long enough to use in an actual contested airspace. Everything else it can do, everything else can do as well or better.

 CAS? You can do CAS from a B-52 dropping small precision smart bombs from 35,000ft as far as that goes. Most CAS missions in the last thirty years were NOT provided by A-10s.

 ''It's cheaper!'' Not if the plane gets shot down. A F-35 can roam freely over contested airspace. An A-10 cannot, period.

 The A-10 is a 50+ year old airframe designed to an outdated concept, and expected to operate in an environment where it would be exceptionally vulnerable. That is why it's being phased out, along with all the other airframes designed in the 1970s, although many of them can still operate effectively due to the nature of the roles they fill.

[Mars Exulte]

3 hours ago, Goose489 said:

The F-35 is unable to carry what the A-10 can carry and it is also unable to take the damage like the A-10.

 It will not get shot nearly as frequently as an A-10 either, which is kind of the point.

3 hours ago, Goose489 said:

The F-35 will not be able to stay up in the air long enough for the troops on the ground.

You're not going to be loitering in a major contested airspace anyway, so the importance of that specifically is debatable. As above, B-1s provided more close support than just about anything else. A-10s are slow, which also is a factor to consider. If it's not in the immediate area, it's going to be a wait.

 There is no sense in arguing in favor of an antiquated, obsolete platform that cannot realistically be expected to operate in a modern theater.

 For low intensity stuff like Afghanistan, you do not need a ''massive payload'' and you don't need a high tech fighter jet in the first place. That's why they have been looking at stuff like the T-6 and Super Tucano as low cost, high loiter time alternatives for low intensity operations.

[Goose489]

2 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

 It will not get shot nearly as frequently as an A-10 either, which is kind of the point.

You're not going to be loitering in a major contested airspace anyway, so the importance of that specifically is debatable. As above, B-1s provided more close support than just about anything else. A-10s are slow, which also is a factor to consider. If it's not in the immediate area, it's going to be a wait.

 There is no sense in arguing in favor of an antiquated, obsolete platform that cannot realistically be expected to operate in a modern theater.

 For low intensity stuff like Afghanistan, you do not need a ''massive payload'' and you don't need a high tech fighter jet in the first place. That's why they have been looking at stuff like the T-6 and Super Tucano as low cost, high loiter time alternatives for low intensity operations.

Troops aren't just going to need someone to drop 2 LGB and be on with their day. The enemy will move and advance on them and there will be reinforcements and trucks moving in and an F-35 will not have the payload to accomplish that. Also, with the stealth the A-10 can operate under the radar, and if there are sams it will just blow them up. The USAF did a test between the F-35 and the A-10 and there was a dogfight in the test. the A-10 put its reticle on the F-35 almost every time.

[Eugel]

3 hours ago, Goose489 said:

Also, with the stealth the A-10 can operate under the radar, and if there are sams it will just blow them up. The USAF did a test between the F-35 and the A-10 and there was a dogfight in the test. the A-10 put its reticle on the F-35 almost every time.

What stealth ? And you can´t be serious about the A-10 hunting Sams ?! With what ? About all of the sam systems will outrange and outspot the A-10
Also dogfights ? Realistically, the A-10 will be blown out of the sky with missiles before any dogfights might begin. How many dogfights do you think an A-10 would find itself in in a real life scenario ?

Hey, I love the A-10, it´s my favorite and most flown aircraft in DCS, but realistically, the battlefields it was built for don´t really exist anymore.
Though one can´t deny the impact on morale of the ground troops a gun run of an A-10 has. But the efficiency is questionable.

[Goose489]

9 hours ago, Eugel said:

What stealth ? And you can´t be serious about the A-10 hunting Sams ?! With what ? About all of the sam systems will outrange and outspot the A-10
Also dogfights ? Realistically, the A-10 will be blown out of the sky with missiles before any dogfights might begin. How many dogfights do you think an A-10 would find itself in in a real life scenario ?

Hey, I love the A-10, it´s my favorite and most flown aircraft in DCS, but realistically, the battlefields it was built for don´t really exist anymore.
Though one can´t deny the impact on morale of the ground troops a gun run of an A-10 has. But the efficiency is questionable.

1. I did not say it had stealth, I was referring to the fact that radar cannot detect something below 500 ft because it would be obscured by objects on the ground. 

2. The A-10 carries maverick missiles that have an effective range of 13 nautical miles which means they can easily climb fire dive.

3. The A-10 is outfitted with plenty of flares/chaff and sensors to easily defeat a missile/sam.

I do see where I accidentally said stealth my bad.

[Goose489]

17 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

 The only thing the A-10 has over anything else is the gun, a weapon which it would never live long enough to use in an actual contested airspace. Everything else it can do, everything else can do as well or better.

 CAS? You can do CAS from a B-52 dropping small precision smart bombs from 35,000ft as far as that goes. Most CAS missions in the last thirty years were NOT provided by A-10s.

 ''It's cheaper!'' Not if the plane gets shot down. A F-35 can roam freely over contested airspace. An A-10 cannot, period.

 The A-10 is a 50+ year old airframe designed to an outdated concept, and expected to operate in an environment where it would be exceptionally vulnerable. That is why it's being phased out, along with all the other airframes designed in the 1970s, although many of them can still operate effectively due to the nature of the roles they fill.

If you're talking about the A-10 getting shot down by Sam's how do you think a B-52 is going to survive at 35,000 ft where the Sam's can easily reach?

[Eugel]

31 minutes ago, Goose489 said:

2. The A-10 carries maverick missiles that have an effective range of 13 nautical miles which means they can easily climb fire dive.

3. The A-10 is outfitted with plenty of flares/chaff and sensors to easily defeat a missile/sam.

How would the A-10 find and get a targeting lock on an enemy sam site from 13 nm without being shot at first ? Mavericks are not a good choice against sam sites.

No one in their right mind would send an A-10 into an area defended by sams, trusting that chaffs/flares will protect the aircraft.
That´s what HARMs are for.

[ricktoberfest]

The idea of  an A10 operating over enemy territory was never feasible if you are not willing to lose many aircraft. I remember hearing back in the day that the life expectancy of an A10 against the USSR in Europe would be less than 10 minutes in contested airspace. (That’s low altitude tank busting). An Igla hitting even an A10 has a pretty good chance of taking it down, just look at the Su-25 in Ukraine. 
 

We’ve changed the way we think since the 80’s. Losing 100 A10s to slow down a tank advance is just not on the table anymore. Western aircraft are now built to keep their expensive, well trained pilots, safe. This means unless you’re fighting a 3rd world country, there’s very little place for an CAS only aircraft, and that place can be done with small cheap turboprops. Even in Afghanistan A10s weren’t carrying full loads of bombs and missiles and coming back empty, nor were they operating alone. 
 

2 A-29s can carry more than enough bombs to provide CAS in such a situation, and F16s, F/A-18s and F35s can be on station faster and take care of whatever needs the ground guys have just as efficiently from 20000’ up now that guided bombs are a regular thing.  It’s all about the training and interoperability. 

Edited December 8, 2023 by ricktoberfest

[PawlaczGMD]

1 hour ago, Goose489 said:

1. I did not say it had stealth, I was referring to the fact that radar cannot detect something below 500 ft because it would be obscured by objects on the ground. 

2. The A-10 carries maverick missiles that have an effective range of 13 nautical miles which means they can easily climb fire dive.

3. The A-10 is outfitted with plenty of flares/chaff and sensors to easily defeat a missile/sam.

I do see where I accidentally said stealth my bad.

You are stuck in the 1980s, the timeframe when DCS conflicts (could) happen. Modern SAMs can shoot down planes at 500 ft. Also if you fly that low, there will be plenty of MANPADs that you will never spot. 13 nm range of the Mav is nothing compared to modern SAMs. Moderns SAMs are much more resistant to chaff/flare than what you experience in DCS. The A-10 has no stealth, and would be easily shot down by enemy aircraft at dozens of km. The A-10 is severely outdated for modern warfare, and while it would still work well against a low-tech opponent with no air or SAM assets, this is not a high bar to pass. The amount of weapons it can carry is irrelevant if it will be killed easily. 

[Dragon1-1]

Quite the contrary, the A-10 is a perfect aircraft for modern warfare. You don't need an F-35 to drop bombs on ISIS and other irregulars, you need a cheap, sturdy aircraft capable of loitering for a long time, armed with a large number of precise weapons. The vast majority of conflicts today involve a massive disparity in tech level between forces, something that the A-10 is perfectly suited to. Its gun, in particular, is a very precise weapon with low blast radius, if you fire it on an insurgent on the roof of a civilian building, you likely won't bring the whole thing down, but the insurgent would be reduced to a red smear on the rooftop. 

To some extent, drones can fulfill the same role, but a manned aircraft has its own advantages, most notably immunity to jamming or hacking. Either way, COIN ops will be a fixture of warfare for years to come, and the F-35 isn't suited to that role particularly well, mostly due to its short loiter time and low payload. Stealth doesn't really matter when your opponent is shooting at you with ZU-23s, but armor might just save you in such a scenario. The A-10 has the ability to fight a technologically inferior, irregular force in a cost effective manner. Its competition isn't the F-35, but drones and lighter turboprops like the A-29.

[Mr_sukebe]

No, it’s really not.

In an environment with low levels of enemy radar, you still can’t fly on the deck due to manpads.  Go have a read about how Gulf war one showed that.

As already stated, it’s now virtually impossible to get into effective range for the GAU without exposing an A10 to the danger of the manpads.

A standoff weapon such as an APKWS on a cheap turbo prop is MUCH more cost effective 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 12/7/2023 at 2:08 PM, Goose489 said:

The F-35 is unable to carry what the A-10 can carry and it is also unable to take the damage like the A-10.

A supersonic telephone pole will end the day of any F-35 or A-10 it encounters. The difference is that the F-35 possesses a much better capability to avoid that when compared to an A-10, owing both to its maneuverability and superior ECM. It can also more effectively fight the site that hurled said supersonic telephone pole when utilizing its sensors and datalink.

The F-35 is not truly replacing the A-10. The A-10 is just not survivable in a modern peer or near-peer conflict. Even in its heyday, conducting the mission it was expected to perform in the Fulda Gap, it was expected that Soviet SPAAGs and other air defenses would claim many, many, many A-10s. The worst case scenarios that I know of predicted about 50% total fleet loss to all causes in this situation. This is a predicted loss rate that's even worse than the F-105 loss rate over Vietnam. Most of those F-105s lost? Lost to SAMs. F-105s are also, obviously, much faster than an A-10. Basically, the A-10 would provide SAM operators with a very large NEZ when compared to something like a Viper or the F-35. Also, the whole climb, dive, fire thing doesn't really work when your airframe's rate of climb can be charitably described as "lazy."

In that same situation, in which a Maverick strike is to be employed against a target while under the net of a SAM site (which is a horrendously bad idea to begin with, if your commander is hurling you at that target in anything short of a stealth aircraft, you should pour any drink you have out on your avionics and act none the wiser when you return for repairs), the F-35's stealth would allow the pilot to more readily find target, launch, and then it can utilize it's superior ECM to ensure its egress is easier.

Also, the on the B-52 comparison? It actually is still more survivable than the A-10 owing to its greater stand off capability. The A-10 can't let loose a volley of cruise missiles and turn for home before it even enters hostile airspace.

The A-10's use in recent years has been against irregular combatants in a COIN capacity. In that regard, the OA-1K is what will be supplanting the A-10 in its counter-insurgency role. As @Mr_sukebe stated, an A-10 cannot beat a turboprop in terms of cost effectiveness. And the adoption of the OA-1K isn't at all radical or strange as the concept of the turbine prop COIN aircraft has been pretty solidly proven in various theatres across the planet. It was proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, by the Super Tucano.

The A-10's time has come. It's time to start winding down its operation, lest it become the American Stuka. Even its operational and upkeep costs are growing at a substantial rate. The production of new wings has easily eclipse the $1b mark. This is to be expected of any military air frame of that age, though. It gets more and more expensive to operate given the wear and tear these aircraft get. Crew chiefs aren't wizard and they're asked to maintain decades old airframes to the best of their abilities, but for the A-10? The Rubicon approaches.

Durability doesn't count for much when you catch an SA-2, the F-16, F/A-18, and F-35 are much better suited for dealing with that.
That durability also doesn't mean a thing when used incorrectly, a testament to the 6 lost over Iraq in '91, making the A-10 one of the worst in terms of losses of that conflict and almost half of the total losses the USAF suffered.
The loiter time is impressive, but a drone is better suited for very long loitering over a target.
The gun can't pen anything past a T-62. It also has an enormous spread.
Turboprops can carry the same weapons the A-10 can, save for the big gun, and have it beat for efficiency.

The one last realm where the A-10 finds relevance would be in the ability to bring a lot of bombs to bear in an environment void of SAMs. You can find it cool, there's no denying that it is. But, at some point, war will leave all tech developed for it in the past. After all, how many armies line up as hoplites in a phalanx, now? Legionaries in a Testudo? Impis in the horns of the bull? The US Navy could still be flying my beloved A-6, it'd still be a function attack platform and (arguably) still more relevant in a modern battle space than the A-10. But, time catches up with a fleet and superiors arise as it did with the F/A-18C/D and F/A-18E/F.

At best, the A-10 is an auxiliary, plugging holes to free up better airframes for more dangerous work. At worst? Long past expiration date.

Edited December 19, 2023 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Dragon1-1]

13 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

A standoff weapon such as an APKWS on a cheap turbo prop is MUCH more cost effective 

The A-10 can carry more APKWS, more bombs, more everything, while being otherwise similar to what turboprops can do. The question is how important that extra capacity is, compared to increased operating cost. The gun might not be terribly useful against armor, but against infantry, its spread is actually an asset, too. That said, APKWS is probably better for precision work, especially if you can use an inert warhead for zero collateral damage. Nothing stops you from making a twin engine turboprop that'd carry GAU-8, BTW (or even a single engine one if you use a big enough pusher prop). 

3 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

At best, the A-10 is an auxiliary, plugging holes to free up better airframes for more dangerous work. 

Plugging holes in a quite important job, though, and the A-10 is good at what it does. Yes, a new airframe is a good idea, especially since the A-10 was designed using old manufacturing techniques, we could now make a similarly capable aircraft that'd be cheaper. However, the role doesn't disappear just because the tech is advancing. Militaries will often pull out old kit that was supposedly left behind by technological progress. See the Iowa-class battleships, or the A-1 Skyrider and A-26 in Vietnam. So I'd be careful when declaring a way of fighting to be obsolete. MANPADS are a concern for this type of ops, but maybe the A-10's successor could have DIRCM capable of negating them, for instance? It can happen that new technology brings an old tactic back into vogue.

BTW, as a matter of fact, phalanxes are still in use. Just look at any police line at a riot. They work just as well as they did in ancient world, as long as nobody shows up with weapons that can punch through a ballistic shield. It's all about using the right weapons and tactics for the fight you're fighting.

[Mr_sukebe]

A single A10 can carry more than a single Tucano. 
However, a single A10 will also probably cost more to operate than 10  Tucanos.

 

 

Take your pick, one “better” aircraft supporting boots on the ground during its loiter time, or a pair constantly overhead and others cycling through replacing the ones overhead when Bingo fuel or Winchester?

Edited December 10, 2023 by Mr_sukebe

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

19 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

BTW, as a matter of fact, phalanxes are still in use. Just look at any police line at a riot. They work just as well as they did in ancient world, as long as nobody shows up with weapons that can punch through a ballistic shield. It's all about using the right weapons and tactics for the fight you're fighting.

Pedant mode activated:

That's more of testudo than a phalanx.

[Dragon1-1]

Testudo is also used, particularly if they're pelted with projectiles, but I've seen phalanxes more often. Testudo involves shields being put overhead, while a phalanx puts everyone in front, forming a shield wall. They'll use wedges and other ancient formations, too, as the situation demands.

[Goose489]

On 12/10/2023 at 6:07 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

The A-10 can carry more APKWS, more bombs, more everything, while being otherwise similar to what turboprops can do. The question is how important that extra capacity is, compared to increased operating cost. The gun might not be terribly useful against armor, but against infantry, its spread is actually an asset, too. That said, APKWS is probably better for precision work, especially if you can use an inert warhead for zero collateral damage. Nothing stops you from making a twin engine turboprop that'd carry GAU-8, BTW (or even a single engine one if you use a big enough pusher prop). 

Plugging holes in a quite important job, though, and the A-10 is good at what it does. Yes, a new airframe is a good idea, especially since the A-10 was designed using old manufacturing techniques, we could now make a similarly capable aircraft that'd be cheaper. However, the role doesn't disappear just because the tech is advancing. Militaries will often pull out old kit that was supposedly left behind by technological progress. See the Iowa-class battleships, or the A-1 Skyrider and A-26 in Vietnam. So I'd be careful when declaring a way of fighting to be obsolete. MANPADS are a concern for this type of ops, but maybe the A-10's successor could have DIRCM capable of negating them, for instance? It can happen that new technology brings an old tactic back into vogue.

BTW, as a matter of fact, phalanxes are still in use. Just look at any police line at a riot. They work just as well as they did in ancient world, as long as nobody shows up with weapons that can punch through a ballistic shield. It's all about using the right weapons and tactics for the fight you're fighting.

 

On 12/10/2023 at 2:05 AM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

A supersonic telephone pole will end the day of any F-35 or A-10 it encounters. The difference is that the F-35 possesses a much better capability to avoid that when compared to an A-10, owing both to its maneuverability and superior ECM. It can also more effectively fight the site that hurled said supersonic telephone pole when utilizing its sensors and datalink.

The F-35 is not truly replacing the A-10. The A-10 is just not survivable in a modern peer or near-peer conflict. Even in its heyday, conducting the mission it was expected to perform in the Fulda Gap, it was expected that Soviet SPAAGs and other air defenses would claim many, many, many A-10s. The worst case scenarios that I know of predicted about 50% total fleet loss to all causes in this situation. This is a predicted loss rate that's even worse than the F-105 loss rate over Vietnam. Most of those F-105s lost? Lost to SAMs. F-105s are also, obviously, much faster than an A-10. Basically, the A-10 would provide SAM operators with a very large NEZ when compared to something like a Viper or the F-35. Also, the whole climb, dive, fire thing doesn't really work when your airframe's rate of climb can be charitably described as "lazy."

In that same situation, in which a Maverick strike is to be employed against a target while under the net of a SAM site (which is a horrendously bad idea to begin with, if your commander is hurling you at that target in anything short of a stealth aircraft, you should pour any drink you have out on your avionics and act none the wiser when you return for repairs), the F-35's stealth would allow the pilot to more readily find target, launch, and then it can utilize it's superior ECM to ensure its egress is easier.

Also, the on the B-52 comparison? It actually is still more survivable than the A-10 owing to its greater stand off capability. The A-10 can't let loose a volley of cruise missiles and turn for him before it even enters hostile airspace.

The A-10's use in recent years has been against irregular combatants in a COIN capacity. In that regard, the OA-1K is what will be supplanting the A-10 in its counter-insurgency role. As @Mr_sukebe stated, an A-10 cannot beat a turboprop in terms of cost effectiveness. And the adoption of the OA-1K isn't at all radical or strange as the concept of the turbine prop COIN aircraft has been pretty solidly proven in various theatres across the planet. It was proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, by the Super Tucano.

The A-10's time has come. It's time to start winding down its operation, lest it become the American Stuka. Even its operational and upkeep costs are growing at a substantial rate. The production of new wings has easily eclipse the $1b mark. This is to be expected of any military air frame of that age, though. It gets more and more expensive to operate given the wear and tear these aircraft get. Crew chiefs aren't wizard and they're asked to maintain decades old airframes to the best of their abilities, but for the A-10? The Rubicon approaches.

Durability doesn't count for much when you catch an SA-2, the F-16, F/A-18, and F-35 are much better suited for dealing with that.
That durability also doesn't mean a thing when used incorrectly, a testament to the 6 lost over Iraq in '91, making the A-10 one of the worst in terms of losses of that conflict and almost half of the total losses the USAF suffered.
The loiter time is impressive, but a drone is better suited for very long loitering over a target.
The gun can't pen anything past a T-62. It also has an enormous spread.
Turboprops can carry the same weapons the A-10 can, save for the big gun, and have it beat for efficiency.

The one last realm where the A-10 finds relevance would be in the ability to bring a lot of bombs to bear in an environment void of SAMs. You can find it cool, there's no denying that it is. But, at some point, war will leave all tech developed for it in the past. After all, how many armies line up as hoplites in a phalanx, now? Legionaries in a Testudo? Impis in the horns of the bull? The US Navy could still be flying my beloved A-6, it'd still be a function attack platform and (arguably) still more relevant in a modern battle space than the A-10. But, time catches up with a fleet and superiors arise as it did with the F/A-18C/D and F/A-18E/F.

At best, the A-10 is an auxiliary, plugging holes to free up better airframes for more dangerous work. At worst? Long past expiration date.

 

 

On 12/10/2023 at 2:05 AM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

A supersonic telephone pole will end the day of any F-35 or A-10 it encounters. The difference is that the F-35 possesses a much better capability to avoid that when compared to an A-10, owing both to its maneuverability and superior ECM. It can also more effectively fight the site that hurled said supersonic telephone pole when utilizing its sensors and datalink.

The F-35 is not truly replacing the A-10. The A-10 is just not survivable in a modern peer or near-peer conflict. Even in its heyday, conducting the mission it was expected to perform in the Fulda Gap, it was expected that Soviet SPAAGs and other air defenses would claim many, many, many A-10s. The worst case scenarios that I know of predicted about 50% total fleet loss to all causes in this situation. This is a predicted loss rate that's even worse than the F-105 loss rate over Vietnam. Most of those F-105s lost? Lost to SAMs. F-105s are also, obviously, much faster than an A-10. Basically, the A-10 would provide SAM operators with a very large NEZ when compared to something like a Viper or the F-35. Also, the whole climb, dive, fire thing doesn't really work when your airframe's rate of climb can be charitably described as "lazy."

In that same situation, in which a Maverick strike is to be employed against a target while under the net of a SAM site (which is a horrendously bad idea to begin with, if your commander is hurling you at that target in anything short of a stealth aircraft, you should pour any drink you have out on your avionics and act none the wiser when you return for repairs), the F-35's stealth would allow the pilot to more readily find target, launch, and then it can utilize it's superior ECM to ensure its egress is easier.

Also, the on the B-52 comparison? It actually is still more survivable than the A-10 owing to its greater stand off capability. The A-10 can't let loose a volley of cruise missiles and turn for him before it even enters hostile airspace.

The A-10's use in recent years has been against irregular combatants in a COIN capacity. In that regard, the OA-1K is what will be supplanting the A-10 in its counter-insurgency role. As @Mr_sukebe stated, an A-10 cannot beat a turboprop in terms of cost effectiveness. And the adoption of the OA-1K isn't at all radical or strange as the concept of the turbine prop COIN aircraft has been pretty solidly proven in various theatres across the planet. It was proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, by the Super Tucano.

The A-10's time has come. It's time to start winding down its operation, lest it become the American Stuka. Even its operational and upkeep costs are growing at a substantial rate. The production of new wings has easily eclipse the $1b mark. This is to be expected of any military air frame of that age, though. It gets more and more expensive to operate given the wear and tear these aircraft get. Crew chiefs aren't wizard and they're asked to maintain decades old airframes to the best of their abilities, but for the A-10? The Rubicon approaches.

Durability doesn't count for much when you catch an SA-2, the F-16, F/A-18, and F-35 are much better suited for dealing with that.
That durability also doesn't mean a thing when used incorrectly, a testament to the 6 lost over Iraq in '91, making the A-10 one of the worst in terms of losses of that conflict and almost half of the total losses the USAF suffered.
The loiter time is impressive, but a drone is better suited for very long loitering over a target.
The gun can't pen anything past a T-62. It also has an enormous spread.
Turboprops can carry the same weapons the A-10 can, save for the big gun, and have it beat for efficiency.

The one last realm where the A-10 finds relevance would be in the ability to bring a lot of bombs to bear in an environment void of SAMs. You can find it cool, there's no denying that it is. But, at some point, war will leave all tech developed for it in the past. After all, how many armies line up as hoplites in a phalanx, now? Legionaries in a Testudo? Impis in the horns of the bull? The US Navy could still be flying my beloved A-6, it'd still be a function attack platform and (arguably) still more relevant in a modern battle space than the A-10. But, time catches up with a fleet and superiors arise as it did with the F/A-18C/D and F/A-18E/F.

At best, the A-10 is an auxiliary, plugging holes to free up better airframes for more dangerous work. At worst? Long past expiration date.

 

Why do you guys keep saying it has a terrible spread? It has amazing groupings. it has 40 ft groupings from 4,000 ft.

[ricktoberfest]

If we’re really talking about an aircraft that can perform the current A10’s job then really we already have the ac-130. More payload, more loiter time, bigger gun. If that’s all that we think the A10 is then we already have it. 

[Goose489]

18 minutes ago, ricktoberfest said:

If we’re really talking about an aircraft that can perform the current A10’s job then really we already have the ac-130. More payload, more loiter time, bigger gun. If that’s all that we think the A10 is then we already have it. 

But does it have missiles?

[Dragon1-1]

Sure it does: 

That's the latest AC-130J Ghostrider, and it does have a pair of Hellfire racks. It's indeed a good option for the A-10's role, though I'm not sure how it compares cost-wise, given that it's a much larger plane with multiple crewmembers, as opposed to a single seat, twin engine A-10. 

1 hour ago, Goose489 said:

Why do you guys keep saying it has a terrible spread? It has amazing groupings. it has 40 ft groupings from 4,000 ft.

That's still more than APKWS. That said, spread can be an advantage attacking infantry groups. Phantom drivers actually complained about how low it was on the internal gun, they had to waggle the rudder back and forth to get the pattern they wanted.

[ricktoberfest]

8 hours ago, Goose489 said:

But does it have missiles?

Yes. And bombs. And a big ass artillery gun. And a smaller one too. And when it orbits it doesn’t need to extend and re-engage. It’s guns are always pointed at the target.