Why the A-10 Warthog’s new maritime role could extend the life of a great aircraft — and give America badly needed littoral strike power at exactly the right moment.
From what I have read (Could Be Wrong) from day 1 the AF brass hated, loathed, despised this plane. It doesn't fly High, it doesn't fly Fast, it doesn't shoot own other planes, They Hate it. All it does is support the other branches. Grunts Love it and just as important Joe/Jane Sixpack Love It,
Tankers also worship at the shrine of the Flying Pig and offer sacrifices of first pogey bait fruits regularly in appreciation of the Warthog's welcoming Screech of Freedom (if you hear the BRRRT, it wasn't meant for you).
The A-10’s success is very much in line with the design parameters of the AK-47. The US DoD has had an almost fatal obsession with sophisticated vs effective. To the vast enrichment of US contractors and retired flag officers guiding procurements. Trump and Hegseth seem, for the first in my lifetime, to be disrupting the sophistication hollowing out of our force projection capabilities. Excelsior!
The US Navy destroyed 120 Iranian warships — and Hormuz is still closed. Two carrier strike groups, eight Aegis destroyers, and $40 billion in naval firepower couldn't reopen a six-mile shipping lane clogged with 1,500 fast boats. The answer wasn't a newer ship or a bigger missile. It was a 50-year-old Air Force jet the Pentagon wanted to throw away.
The A-10 Warthog was never designed for naval warfare. It was built to kill Soviet tanks on the plains of Europe. But its GAU-8 cannon, low-speed maneuverability, and titanium-armored cockpit turned out to be the exact engineering solution for a problem the Navy's blue-water arsenal was never built to handle — cheap, fast, swarming targets in a confined corridor. This is the equation behind the most counterintuitive combined-arms operation in modern military history.
The A-10 Thunderbolt II is old, loud, not stealthy, and somehow still here. In this video we take a look at why the Air Force keeps trying to retire it, why Congress keeps saying no, and why it continues to show up in active combat anyway. Between the GAU-8 Avenger turning things into scrap metal and the fact that shooting a gun is a lot cheaper than launching a missile, the Warthog keeps finding ways to stay relevant even as everything around it gets more expensive and more complicated. Yes, there are BRRT jokes. No, they are not stopping anytime soon.
At the same time, modern warfare is moving in a direction that does not exactly favor a single purpose aircraft designed in the 1970s. Multirole fighters, drones, and long range strike priorities are slowly pushing the A-10 out of the spotlight, even if it is still very good at what it does. So if it is cheap, effective, and popular, why does the Air Force keep trying to get rid of it, and what will actually finish the job? This is a breakdown of the strategy, politics, and reality behind the aircraft that has been “about to retire” for the last two decades.
Instead of killing off the A-10, Congress needs to take back the billions they shovel at Marxist controlled universities every year that indoctrinate simpleminded high school kids to hate America and spend that money buying another 10,000 A-10 jets.
What could be better for close air support, owning coastal waters, killing enemy boats, tanks, vehicle convoys and saving our boots on the ground lives than a flying 30mm gatling cannon that fires 65 one inch diameter depleted uranium projectiles PER SECOND?
This is the best (and most intelligent) writing in defense of the A-10 I've ever read. Boneyarding them so the F-35 can replace it is just eff'g stupid.
Great story I used to see these planes from time to time roaring over my house they were the craziest looking planes and loud.
Glad to hear they’re still out there. Pilots I knew that flew them loved them especially in the war games in training and exercises what we called “up range”
People in our country may not realize it but in many ways much of our country is a warrior class or at least loves, reveres, respects and supports the warrior class.
love to hear about their successes and stories and share in their moments. Grateful of the fact that currently we have a commander and chief who has their back and treasures their talents skills and sacrifice enough that he will put all our military might and skills on the line to bring back the one.
Some say we are in the worst of times yet if a person will be honest and look they also can see it is the best of times in many ways.
Even better: A-29 Super Tucano, AT-6 Wolverine, Scorpion, Sky Raider ll, etc.
The Air Force should embrace a ‘high/low mix’ of fighter aircraft. Very expensive fifth-generation technology is not needed in every scenario. . . These aircraft could conduct counterterrorism operations, perform close air support and other missions in permissive environments . . .
Aggressively procuring and deploying a low-end light air support aircraft should not be just another backdoor way to justify retiring the A-10, it should be supplement to it. The two aircraft would be able to work together in synergistic ways and it is possible that the two communities could be blended as one. Additionally, the A-10 can fight in medium threat environments where say a Super Tucano could not.
“The Air Force has wanted to retire the aircraft because the A-10 does not fit the institution’s preferred self-conception. It’s not sleek. It’s not prestigious. ”
Translation: it’s not sexy enough for them. Truth is the A-10 was developed & designed to be a jet powered version of the German JU-87 STUKA (an acronym for “STurmKAmpffleugzeug” or literally “Storm Fighting Aircraft”). Famous as a dive bomber it was also utilized to great extent as a tank buster on the Eastern Front during World War II. Fitted with 2x37mm guns in sponsons it would fly around @ tree top level shooting up Soviet tanks. The most highly decorated Stuka pilot of the war - Lt. Hans-Ulrich Rudel - knocked out over 500 Soviet tanks in this manner.
The A-10 was designed to do the very same in the event of war with the Soviet Union. The Soviets were famous for quantity over quality so any countering any Soviet offensive into Western Europe would desperately need anti-tank support. The A-10 is heavily armored & the aircraft itself was designed around the gun, not the other way around.
If my eyes had been good enough to fly in the military (they never were) I would have wanted to fly an A-10 more than an F-15/16/18. There’s more action! Fighter vs fighter combat is exceedingly rare anymore & the massed air battles of WWII are a relic of the past. If you’re in the cockpit of the latter, ok maybe you go to Top Gun. Okay, then what? Drop bombs? From my understanding of fighter jocks they hate doing this.
173 of the A-10's have been re-winged, extending their probable life expectancy to the late 2030's. So they have 10 to 12 years of life left in them and they have enough aircraft for at least 10 squadrons.
I have not heard about how effective the LITENING and Sniper targeting pods are for longer range missile use, nor anything of the new SAR (Dragons Eye) pod that has been tested on some of them. But it seems like there are ongoing efforts to make the A-10 even more effective.
If I remember right, the A-10 is designed (in addition to everything else it's designed for) to operate on short, rough fields. Is it even remotely possible that it could fly off of carriers? Or would adding an arrestor hook be too complicate/difficult/expensive (if the egos of the AF/Navy would allow for such a thing anyway)?
Rod — the asset-life-extension argument is the right frame for this moment. With 27 Navy vessels now concentrated in CENTCOM and the Abraham Lincoln CSG under Operation Epic Fury, the Pacific is structurally under-resourced at exactly the moment China's two-front pressure against Taiwan and Hormuz is compounding. A Sea-Hog variant flying from LCS or amphibious platforms directly fills that littoral strike gap — sustained close air support with minimal logistics tail, exactly when sustained is what we cannot buy fast. To Lewes's question above about carrier operability — short, rough-field capability is the feature, not the bug. Sea-Hogs do not need carriers. They need amphibious ships, forward expeditionary airfields, and austere operating locations — which is precisely what makes them survivable against PLA anti-access/area denial architecture. A wing that does not depend on supercarrier infrastructure cannot be sunk with the supercarrier. Sharp read. Respectfully — Elias
I would love to see an A-10EX, especially one that's carrier-launched. But (1) there will probably never be a new A-10, and (b) the Navy can utilize it in this role from regular airfields. Think not just Hormuz but Taiwan.
From what I have read (Could Be Wrong) from day 1 the AF brass hated, loathed, despised this plane. It doesn't fly High, it doesn't fly Fast, it doesn't shoot own other planes, They Hate it. All it does is support the other branches. Grunts Love it and just as important Joe/Jane Sixpack Love It,
Tankers also worship at the shrine of the Flying Pig and offer sacrifices of first pogey bait fruits regularly in appreciation of the Warthog's welcoming Screech of Freedom (if you hear the BRRRT, it wasn't meant for you).
The A-10’s success is very much in line with the design parameters of the AK-47. The US DoD has had an almost fatal obsession with sophisticated vs effective. To the vast enrichment of US contractors and retired flag officers guiding procurements. Trump and Hegseth seem, for the first in my lifetime, to be disrupting the sophistication hollowing out of our force projection capabilities. Excelsior!
Why the A-10 Warthog Solved What the US Navy Couldn't at Hormuz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEAS7wYPFoM
Mar 26, 2026 #USNavy #A10Warthog #StraitOfHormuz
The US Navy destroyed 120 Iranian warships — and Hormuz is still closed. Two carrier strike groups, eight Aegis destroyers, and $40 billion in naval firepower couldn't reopen a six-mile shipping lane clogged with 1,500 fast boats. The answer wasn't a newer ship or a bigger missile. It was a 50-year-old Air Force jet the Pentagon wanted to throw away.
The A-10 Warthog was never designed for naval warfare. It was built to kill Soviet tanks on the plains of Europe. But its GAU-8 cannon, low-speed maneuverability, and titanium-armored cockpit turned out to be the exact engineering solution for a problem the Navy's blue-water arsenal was never built to handle — cheap, fast, swarming targets in a confined corridor. This is the equation behind the most counterintuitive combined-arms operation in modern military history.
(Snip)
They put out great stuff.
The Alternative
Did Iran End the A-10’s Career?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHDWAeAxAYE
Apr 5, 2026 #airforce #military #war
The A-10 Thunderbolt II is old, loud, not stealthy, and somehow still here. In this video we take a look at why the Air Force keeps trying to retire it, why Congress keeps saying no, and why it continues to show up in active combat anyway. Between the GAU-8 Avenger turning things into scrap metal and the fact that shooting a gun is a lot cheaper than launching a missile, the Warthog keeps finding ways to stay relevant even as everything around it gets more expensive and more complicated. Yes, there are BRRT jokes. No, they are not stopping anytime soon.
At the same time, modern warfare is moving in a direction that does not exactly favor a single purpose aircraft designed in the 1970s. Multirole fighters, drones, and long range strike priorities are slowly pushing the A-10 out of the spotlight, even if it is still very good at what it does. So if it is cheap, effective, and popular, why does the Air Force keep trying to get rid of it, and what will actually finish the job? This is a breakdown of the strategy, politics, and reality behind the aircraft that has been “about to retire” for the last two decades.
I feel like the USAF sent the A-10s to Iran hoping they'd be destroyed, irreparably damaged, or lost in accidents.
And the things amaze again!
Instead of killing off the A-10, Congress needs to take back the billions they shovel at Marxist controlled universities every year that indoctrinate simpleminded high school kids to hate America and spend that money buying another 10,000 A-10 jets.
What could be better for close air support, owning coastal waters, killing enemy boats, tanks, vehicle convoys and saving our boots on the ground lives than a flying 30mm gatling cannon that fires 65 one inch diameter depleted uranium projectiles PER SECOND?
A-10s forever, but also
hundreds and hundreds of AH-6s and MH-6s, swarms of all three !
This is the best (and most intelligent) writing in defense of the A-10 I've ever read. Boneyarding them so the F-35 can replace it is just eff'g stupid.
Wow! Thank you!
Great story I used to see these planes from time to time roaring over my house they were the craziest looking planes and loud.
Glad to hear they’re still out there. Pilots I knew that flew them loved them especially in the war games in training and exercises what we called “up range”
People in our country may not realize it but in many ways much of our country is a warrior class or at least loves, reveres, respects and supports the warrior class.
love to hear about their successes and stories and share in their moments. Grateful of the fact that currently we have a commander and chief who has their back and treasures their talents skills and sacrifice enough that he will put all our military might and skills on the line to bring back the one.
Some say we are in the worst of times yet if a person will be honest and look they also can see it is the best of times in many ways.
Jack of Spades
Amen and amen.
Even better: A-29 Super Tucano, AT-6 Wolverine, Scorpion, Sky Raider ll, etc.
The Air Force should embrace a ‘high/low mix’ of fighter aircraft. Very expensive fifth-generation technology is not needed in every scenario. . . These aircraft could conduct counterterrorism operations, perform close air support and other missions in permissive environments . . .
Aggressively procuring and deploying a low-end light air support aircraft should not be just another backdoor way to justify retiring the A-10, it should be supplement to it. The two aircraft would be able to work together in synergistic ways and it is possible that the two communities could be blended as one. Additionally, the A-10 can fight in medium threat environments where say a Super Tucano could not.
https://www.twz.com/7335/is-the-usaf-finally-serious-about-fielding-a-light-air-support-aircraft
You're right. And I do love the A-29.
“The Air Force has wanted to retire the aircraft because the A-10 does not fit the institution’s preferred self-conception. It’s not sleek. It’s not prestigious. ”
Translation: it’s not sexy enough for them. Truth is the A-10 was developed & designed to be a jet powered version of the German JU-87 STUKA (an acronym for “STurmKAmpffleugzeug” or literally “Storm Fighting Aircraft”). Famous as a dive bomber it was also utilized to great extent as a tank buster on the Eastern Front during World War II. Fitted with 2x37mm guns in sponsons it would fly around @ tree top level shooting up Soviet tanks. The most highly decorated Stuka pilot of the war - Lt. Hans-Ulrich Rudel - knocked out over 500 Soviet tanks in this manner.
The A-10 was designed to do the very same in the event of war with the Soviet Union. The Soviets were famous for quantity over quality so any countering any Soviet offensive into Western Europe would desperately need anti-tank support. The A-10 is heavily armored & the aircraft itself was designed around the gun, not the other way around.
The Stuka was an amazing plane too.
If my eyes had been good enough to fly in the military (they never were) I would have wanted to fly an A-10 more than an F-15/16/18. There’s more action! Fighter vs fighter combat is exceedingly rare anymore & the massed air battles of WWII are a relic of the past. If you’re in the cockpit of the latter, ok maybe you go to Top Gun. Okay, then what? Drop bombs? From my understanding of fighter jocks they hate doing this.
Take an A-10 any day!
173 of the A-10's have been re-winged, extending their probable life expectancy to the late 2030's. So they have 10 to 12 years of life left in them and they have enough aircraft for at least 10 squadrons.
I have not heard about how effective the LITENING and Sniper targeting pods are for longer range missile use, nor anything of the new SAR (Dragons Eye) pod that has been tested on some of them. But it seems like there are ongoing efforts to make the A-10 even more effective.
Awesome. That is great news. We had the right tool for the right time.
I don't get the "warthog" moniker although I enjoy it. The plane is beautiful. Like a B-17 or B-52, it's purpose built and looks it.
If I remember right, the A-10 is designed (in addition to everything else it's designed for) to operate on short, rough fields. Is it even remotely possible that it could fly off of carriers? Or would adding an arrestor hook be too complicate/difficult/expensive (if the egos of the AF/Navy would allow for such a thing anyway)?
It would be pretty tough, but not impossible.
Rod — the asset-life-extension argument is the right frame for this moment. With 27 Navy vessels now concentrated in CENTCOM and the Abraham Lincoln CSG under Operation Epic Fury, the Pacific is structurally under-resourced at exactly the moment China's two-front pressure against Taiwan and Hormuz is compounding. A Sea-Hog variant flying from LCS or amphibious platforms directly fills that littoral strike gap — sustained close air support with minimal logistics tail, exactly when sustained is what we cannot buy fast. To Lewes's question above about carrier operability — short, rough-field capability is the feature, not the bug. Sea-Hogs do not need carriers. They need amphibious ships, forward expeditionary airfields, and austere operating locations — which is precisely what makes them survivable against PLA anti-access/area denial architecture. A wing that does not depend on supercarrier infrastructure cannot be sunk with the supercarrier. Sharp read. Respectfully — Elias
How is the navy going to launch and retrieve? Vertically, like the Marines’ F-35, or with tail hook? Either way, there is a bit of work to be done.
I would love to see an A-10EX, especially one that's carrier-launched. But (1) there will probably never be a new A-10, and (b) the Navy can utilize it in this role from regular airfields. Think not just Hormuz but Taiwan.