[JSteff]

Not to mention that the air force has wanted to be completely rid of the A-10 since it came out. A-10 drivers were looked down on by the rest of the air force. They quickly made the A-10 primarily a reservist plane. Congress several times (if I recall correctly) forced the Air Force to buy more of them.

Yet it has consistently and verifiably been one of the most effective in support of our guys on the ground. During Iraq I they had something like 2100 confirmed kills... kills where the ground troops could walk up and stick their arms in the holes of the armor.

The US ignores the ground support roles, and the navy at our own peril. We need to remember, the Soviets were more immediately scared operationally of Reagans Navy than star wars despite what the techie types in the pentagon would like us to remember.

[Pukin Dog]

While I love the A-10, I think it is only fair to present the other side of the argument that causes the Air Force to want to be rid of it.

As a ground-pounding CAS aircraft, there is none better. That effectiveness comes at a very high price, because when you see the A-10 swooping down in the mud with impunity, it is because me or someone else in a fighter was sitting above it at 20K feet watching it's back. A Mig-29 could turn an A-10 into aluminum foil in about 30 seconds if left alone with it. So, instead of one aircraft performing the CAS mission, you have 2 or 3 in a high/low combination. That is expensive. Effective yes, but expensive.

So, the Air Force says: "We can do almost as good a job with a stand-off CAS aircraft role for the F-16, and we dont need escort for it either". One F-16 can carry 6 Maverick tank-busters or CBUs in addition to a couple of AIM-120s and a couple 'winders.

So, they have an argument against the A-10. Not a great one, but a cheap one, which Air Force brass loves to hear about, if it gets them a few more -16s in the inventory. The A-10 lives on as it should, but the Air Force made a case against it that some could consider plausible.