Maybe this Air Force analysis would be more sensible if any of the planes proposed to replace the A-10 for CAS actually carried enough cannon rounds to do the job. And they bring up the B-52, which is actually much older than the A-10. Why don't we retire all the BUFFs. They're older than most Vietnam Veterans. The Air Force doesn't want to do real CAS. It wants to zoom by at high speed and drop bombs. Real CAS requires a cannon and some loiter time.

What a totally disheartening article. It seems impossible to impart teachable lessons to the USAF any more. Are they serious? Maybe replace the A-10 with the ...OMG...Textron Scorpion? Which is tantamount to an armed basic jet trainer. And the argument the A-10 is not survivable in the future? How laughable. The A-10 was designed to fight in the most horrific anti-aircraft battlefield ever. The Fulda Gap. Where it's tough construction, nimble turning ability and long ranging 30mm cannon all make the A-10 one tough to destroy aircraft. Where as the equally old tech F-35 will fold up like a box of matches if hit. And is facing a whole international craze of new stealth defeating technologies. How about we keep the A-10's for now and do something totally American. Build and design a new follow on to the A-10 fully built to combine the toughness of the A-10 and new technology. Which could be done for 1/3 the cost of a single F-35.

The USAF should rethink the over priced, over hyped, underpowered F -35. They should look to replace it with a solid platform that has proven itself rugged and dependable. Perhaps one designed around a powerful weapon system, for example a devastating 30 mm rapid firing, Gatling cannon. Maybe it should have built in system redundancy like powerful twin engines and such. Heck, it could even be designed it so the pilot was surrounded with some effective armor for protection! Yessiree, a plane that could bring pilots home time and again with large chunks of wing missing, and some vital systems shot all to heck, all the while instilling the fear of the everliving God upon its foes on the battle field, that should be the hope. Where ever could we find such a beast?

In the interim, awaiting the arrival of such a wonderful ground support aircraft, I think the Air Force should consider using the A-10 to fill the role.

Given the statements made in this article by Air Force leaders, without any facts to back up their positions, I have lost faith in their ability to execute their mission, and call for their resignations.
We need true leaders that speak the truth, not obfuscate or deflect.

Why the A-10 must stay until a new CAS Aircraft is built.  I served with 101st Airmobile Division in the I Corp, my assignment was flight operations CH-47 Chinook Helicopter Battalion the back bone of the division units out on firebases.  Interesting that once again in Afghanistan firebases or forward operation bases are required to control hostile territory! Ask how do you support remote local's, by air or ground resupply, correct? Since IED's, ground resupply is very costly to our troops, so air resupply is the best option.

My experience and presently is that a CH-47's is the only alternative for rapid deployment and resupply of those firebases. The Air Force decided to claim dominion over all fixed wing assets and eliminated one of the few short landing and takeoff fixed wings capable of resupply of those bases the de Havilland Caribou.

Forward bases must have resupply of 105mm, 155mm howitzers, 120mm, 81mm, 60mm mortar batteries to control their perimeters, along with other very heavy loads to supply. Air Force C-130's cannot do the job to all these remote locations.  In Vietnam, defending those forward bases was made more formidable by use of two weapons of fame in Vietnam the Quad Four 50 Caliber Machine Guns and the Marine M50 Ontos Tank with 6 106mm Recoilless Rifles firing Beehive rounds, one of the few weapons that could penetrate the dense jungles surrounding bases, the enemy feared them.  Both of those systems are no longer available to the ground units on these bases, but only one of the few things that sends terror into the enemy, a gun run by an A-10 Warthog 30mm GAU-8 Gatling Cannon.

Many of you have forgotten that a CH-47 leaves an escort behind of Apache AH-64 Helicopters, CH-47's can easily fly at 196 mph (and can function at higher altitudes), we had to schedule Cobra Gunships to be at a point to go into a firebase or location in advance, some rendezvous were missed, while the A-10 can easily escort the CH-47's the whole round trip.

CAS is a function that must flow into all mission planning, how can a maneuver happen without use of suppression fires or threat of it?  The last 10 to 20 miles of support/resupply must happen from the Air, that is only done by Helicopter, only aircraft that can help are slow movers AC-130's, A-10's, and Apache AH-64's.  Conversely no resupply means we lose the fight, the battle, the war?

The "eyes" on of a A-10 pilot going low and slow, massive firepower can be delivered with the right Airframe.  It will take years of testing, and analysis of any new Aircraft to perform CAS, even more complex if done by fast movers using computer control, eliminating the 'Eyes" on of the pilot. Yes, develop a new CAS Aircraft, make it more armored, but with two seats, the second seat will have the Air Forces wish for defending in contested airspace, and could be given a second gun system to suppress ground fire. If not turn over CAS to the Army, or Marines in support of the Army, note Marine pilots live and fight with ground troops before the can earn their Wings!

I think its time for a reverse of Air Force Doctrine, all Air Force Officers should train with Marine and Army units in CAS, before they can attain rank, the idea that we win wars from the Flying 30,000 feet above is wrong, has been wrong, and will remain so...

Congress should give all of the A-10 aircraft and the personnel slots and budget to the US Army.  If the USAF doesn't want the A-10, the 1948 deal that gave all fixed wing aircraft to the USAF should be revised.  The Army should be allowed to procure and operate dedicated CAS fixed wing aircraft.  I think the A-10 retirement decision is proof that the USAF is not serious about CAS.  I say this as a Vietnam Era USAF veteran.  Conservative Ruckus Blogspot

Nothing in the Key West Agreement (which became law) forbids the Army from having any aircraft it wants.  It is, rather, the follow on "agreements".  The army could procure any aircraft it wants provided congress votes for it.  The army chooses to not do so (see also C-27J).  The A-10 was designed to fight the Warsaw Pact and its fleets of T62s.  Let it go.  There are several airframes that are better for the purpose.  The best part of the A-10 are the pilots dedicated to the mission.  In more effective aircraft (which the F35 is NOT) they would be that much better. 

The USAF and the DOD need to re-evaluate this mission area.  CAS is owned by the ground commander; its the ordnance that's important, not the delivery system.  If there is no threat to flying, any aircraft can provide CAS because of precision weapons as the USAF has demonstrated.   If there is a high threat to flying, ground launched precision weapons should be used.  We need to focus on the results/effects of the mission area not the delivery means.

@Ted Danson The A-10 aircraft have an advantage that alternatives do not.  They are already in the inventory.  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.  If there were plans to procure a successor airplane, then it would be prudent to phase them out while phasing the replacement aircraft in.  Regardless of what they were designed to do, A-10s are flexible enough that they do CAS better than any other airplane in the inventory right now. 

Since almost all of the major conflicts since WWII have included some phase of CAS in a permissive environment, why would we want to put all of our money in expensive F-35 airplanes to the exclusion of dedicated CAS airplanes?  Even against near peer adversaries, we would take out their air defense assets and then go to work on their ground forces.  This is what we did against Saddam in both Gulf Wars.  In the more likely anti-insurgency roles, we would be fools to put the wear and tear on expensive F-35 type airplanes when we could use cheaper dedicated CAS airplanes instead.

Out of curiosity, if you were Secretary of Defense for a day, what would you recommend as a replacement for the A-10?

I know the A-10 is so Old and worn out!  I mean how old are the ch47, B52, kc-135? 

Funny, I don't see anyone in the US Army or USAF referring to Burt Rutan's "Mudfighter" ARES.  That requirement came out in 1981 (yes, 1981!) and the prototype was tested in the 1990s.  So...the US Army and USAF could have had an A-10 supplement plane in the 1990s with a 25mm gatling gun and (granted) one jet engine.  The ARES kind of looks like the Textron Scorpion.

It's as if the whole cycle of CAS A-10 replacement is repeating itself again, but ARES came first almost 20 years ago.  Was the US Army or USAF serious about CAS then?

I second the ARES Mudfighter as the most competent short term supplement to the A-10. It is far from an A-10, but it has a flight profile and weapons portfolio more attuned to CAS and other closely aligned battlefield missions. Not to mention it's weapons capability already matches that of the Armies existing weapons too. It could help chug along until a dedicated A-10 was designed and built. Further disheartening news was found when it was noted the USAF was looking to the Super Toucano and Texan II as an A-10 possible replacement. It looks as if USAF does not want to handle these necessary missions any more and the A-10's probably should be handed straight to the Army Aviation operations.

I know these comments are going no where, but I need to vent about these stupid, ignorant  and non-caring generals who think they know all combat information about the A-10: which they are not truthful about the A-10...First, ask the people who receive close air support the Army see if they wish to keep the A-10 or let the F-15 or the F-35 do the CAS. F--stands for fighter, A--stands for CAS..History lesson for some people the A-37 is the grand father to the A-10, ask the boys of Vietnam if they liked the A-37 for CAS or the F-4 or the F-100, the truth will come out of their mouths. Finally, the cost to run the A-10 is so much cheaper than either of the fighter aircraft.  Jack Beam 3/13/2015  15:25pm

We now know from the latest DOT&E Report on the F-35 Jan 2015 - link below) that maintenance problems were determined to be so severe that the F-35 is only able to fly twice a week; and that the Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability statistics. We are also in the disgraceful position whereby testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved. This might explain Chris Bogdan's claim that the A-10 engineers are all needed now to look after the badly performing and poorly designed F-35.

Worse than cooking the books is the aircrafts inability to better the A-10 in the CAS mission. The F-35's vulnerability to catastrophic fire from both combat and weather hazards is so high as to be unprecedented. Un-commanded wing drops when maneuvering hard at high subsonic and transonic speeds could result in crashes and an inability to out-maneuver attacking planes or missiles in combat. The report notes that all three variants need “modifications of the control laws to control the effects of transonic flight [wing drop] and buffet maneuvering”; unfortunately, the needed control law modifications will reduce the maneuverability of the F-35, only exacerbating the plane’s already poor performance problems in this area.

Ongoing problems with the F-35’s helmet-mounted display system mean that the pilot cannot rely on the helmet to provide adequate situational awareness in combat; the pilot is unable to see below or behind him if his helmet fails.

There is more, but read this analysis of the DOT & E report:
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/not-ready-for-prime-time.html