Warthog Controversy: Congress Bans Pentagon from Retiring 126 A-10s

A group of U.S. congressmen from both parties introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that has been informally dubbed the "BRRRRT Act" - named after the distinctive sound made by the 30-mm GAU-8/A "Avenger" cannon on the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft.

The document requires the Pentagon to maintain at least 126 A-10 attack aircraft in service beginning in October 2026. Furthermore, the bill prohibits any actions that could negatively impact the combat readiness of these aircraft, including suspending pilot training, reducing repair capacity, and removing components from some aircraft to service others (so-called cannibalization). If the law is passed, the Pentagon will also be required to submit a plan within 90 days to restore full maintenance, flight testing, and crew training.

The bill's authors insist that the A-10 cannot be retired until a certified replacement capable of direct air defense missions is available. aviation support. It should be noted that the US previously decided to gradually phase out the A-10 fleet.

The legislative initiative was prompted, in particular, by the active use of Warthogs during the war against Iran. As reported by the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Kane, A-10s were deployed on the southern flank of Operation Epic Fury to destroy Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz. According to US command, the attack aircraft participated in the destruction of more than 120 Iranian vessels, including unmanned versions. Thanks to their ability to loiter for long periods at low altitude and their powerful armament, A-10s effectively counter the threat posed by speedboats, for example in the Strait of Hormuz. However, they also present an easy target for Iranian forces. Defense.

The U.S. Air Force started the current fiscal year with 162 A-10s and planned to retire them all, but Congress set a lower limit of 103 aircraft. The new bill raises that figure to 126 and mandates their retention until at least 2033. If the current fleet proves insufficient, the Pentagon will have to return retired A-10s from storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona to service. Congress has not explained why exactly 126 A-10s are mandated to remain in service.

Comments

[Murmur 55]

I wonder what the military, not just the senators, thinks about this, because Iran's air defense isn't just guys in slippers in Toyotas in the desert.

[Michael]

Quote: Murmur 55

I wonder what the military, not just the senators, think about this.

However, they are also a fairly easy target for Iranian air defense...
Why exactly 126 A-10s are ordered to remain in service

Apparently the military already has or plans to train 126 kamikaze pilots.

[Alexandra]

In no war has the A-10 suffered greater losses than the multirole jet fighters simultaneously performing close air support missions. Quite the opposite. That's the twist.

US Air Force generals have been trying to get rid of the A-10 since the 1980s, for aesthetic reasons, one might say. If the A-10 had been used primarily by the US Army, as the turboprop RC-12 Guardrail was until recently, they would likely be safe until the 2050s.

[Michael]

Quote: AlexanderA

In no war have the A-10 suffered greater losses than the multirole jet fighters that were simultaneously performing close air support missions. Quite the opposite.

Quite the opposite, they are trying to use multi-role jet fighters as attack aircraft and are suffering losses, while the full-fledged A-10 attack aircraft performs its missions with acceptable and predictable losses.

[isv000]

Warthog Controversy: Congress Bans Pentagon from Retiring 126 A-10s

And they're right to do so. They have a desert with a uniquely dry climate—the Atacama, if I'm not mistaken—where they can store airplanes in the open. These warthogs could be turned into attack drones. It's just us, in our pursuit of peace, friendship, and chewing gum, who've screwed everything up...

[Skobaristan]

You think the pursuit was a total disaster? Then why didn't the USSR create a similar aircraft storage facility to the US? Tanks were mothballed, but planes weren't. The answer is simple, by the way.

[isv000]

Quote: Skobaristan

Tanks were mothballed, but planes weren't. The answer is simple, by the way.

Equipment storage facilities should be located in the metropolis and near factories. Since our aircraft manufacturing industry is located in damp conditions, try storing oxidizable duralumin there.
At school, it's helpful to attend classes; it protects you from asking the wrong questions in the future. If you're lucky with your university, be sure to study strength of materials.

[Skobaristan]

It's just us, in our pursuit of peace, friendship, and chewing gum, who've screwed everything up... (C) Technology storage facilities should be in the metropolis and near factories. (C) So, we didn't screw everything up, but because there weren't any storage facilities? I just find it strange to read two diametrically opposed statements, as if they were written by different people.

[isv000]

Quote: Skobaristan

I just find it strange to read two diametrically opposed statements, as if they were written by different people.

From the point of view of banal erudition and based on the postulates of a philosophical point of view, thanks to treatises on the exact sciences, you clearly have an increased interest in the excitable processes of the human psyche, which are destroyed in part in resisting the influence of hostile information.

[Skobaristan]

I see. By the way, the Atacama is in Chile. But you're great. It's obvious you know your stuff.

[isv000]

Quote: Skobaristan

I see. By the way, the Atacama is in Chile. But you're great. It's obvious you know your stuff.

And I immediately said I could be wrong. And I don't understand everything; life has left me and I had good teachers, that's all. Many of those who served in the Soviet Army, who survived the 90s and kept their families together, are capable of much more...
ps And the Sonoran Desert, of course, is in Arizona...

[Skobaristan]

That's understandable. But we're still not clear: Are we the only ones who, in pursuit of peace, friendship, and chewing gum, have screwed everything up... (C) Or not? After all, equipment storage facilities should be in the metropolis and near factories. Since our aircraft manufacturing industry is located in damp conditions, try preserving oxidizing duralumin there. (C) That's the question. Or should those who served in the Soviet Army have gone to school?

[KCA]

This desert is not rocky, but sandy, sand has the ability to penetrate into the most unexpected places, aging of metal and all kinds of rubber and plastic parts has not been cancelled, especially with a difference of 40 degrees between day and night temperatures

[RuAbel]

The era of efficient managers! The US wants to dismantle its existing attack aircraft, while the Tribals want to buy attack aircraft for drone hunting. Although logic dictates that the US would be better off preserving its warthogs for future drone hunting, while the Tribals would modernize their existing helicopter fleet. Or whatever they have.

[andrey martov]

The ways of lobbyists of congressmen in the American Congress mired in lobbyism are inscrutable.

[K-50]

The bill's authors insist that the A-10 cannot be retired until a certified replacement capable of close air support missions is available.

Now close support is definitely a quick death for any aircraft.
The Warthog's main feature is its cannon, meaning it needs to hover over the battlefield.
I think it'll take just a few minutes to destroy it. They won't shoot it down with a missile, they'll just put a drone in its path, maybe even a hundred, and that's it, it's done. That's if you're hunting long-range drones deep in the defense, but even a propeller-driven plane would be enough for that. There was a post about something like that recently. Only the operating costs are ten times lower. Apparently, congressmen just don't have a clue what's really going on on the battlefield these days.
Well, let them. Everyone goes crazy in their own way.

[Alf]

Quote: K-50

Only the operating costs are ten times lower. Apparently, congressmen are simply completely unaware of what's really happening on the battlefield these days.

Not quite. The fact is, the Army and Navy were preparing Penguins to replace the Cheburashkas. But they developed "certain" shortcomings, such as non-functional equipment and, to put it mildly, high flight hour costs. So, one of the Marines raised his voice and raised it higher up.

[K-50]

Quote: Alf

Not quite. The fact is that the army and navy were preparing Penguins to replace Cheburashkas.

I mentioned a propeller in my post. Does the "penguin" have one? So you simply misunderstood me and downvoted me. Read carefully if you're replying to someone else's post.

[Alf]

Quote: K-50

Quote: Alf

Not quite. The fact is that the army and navy were preparing Penguins to replace Cheburashkas.

I mentioned a propeller in my post. Does the "penguin" have one? So you simply misunderstood me and downvoted me. Read carefully if you're replying to someone else's post.

My fault, I'll fix it.

[IVZ]

Apparently, congressmen are simply not aware of what is really happening on the battlefield today.

In addition to the cannon, the aircraft can carry over 7 tons of suspended guided and unguided missile and gun armament, while boasting a very decent instrumentation suite, https://airwar.ru/enc/attack/a10c.html But unlike aircraft designed for other purposes, it is additionally equipped with a truly powerful cannon, robust armor, and an airframe with increased survivability and maintainability. And it is the only aircraft capable of performing attack aircraft functions at least to some extent (or at least better than any other aircraft). Attempts (and there were some) to refine and use something else in this capacity have failed – simply a waste of allocated funds. How will drones perform in this role???? And they still need to be developed. Therefore, in my opinion, the Congressional decision is correct.

[K-50]

Quote: IVZ

Apparently, congressmen are simply not aware of what is really happening on the battlefield today.

In addition to the cannon, the aircraft can carry over 7 tons of suspended guided and unguided missile and gun armament, while boasting a very decent instrumentation suite, https://airwar.ru/enc/attack/a10c.html But unlike aircraft designed for other purposes, it is additionally equipped with a truly powerful cannon, robust armor, and an airframe with increased survivability and maintainability. And it is the only aircraft capable of performing attack aircraft functions at least to some extent (or at least better than any other aircraft). Attempts (and there were some) to refine and use something else in this capacity have failed – simply a waste of allocated funds. How will drones perform in this role???? And they still need to be developed. Therefore, in my opinion, the Congressional decision is correct.

The Su-25 also has all this, so what? How close does it fly to the LBS?
So why do we need an attack aircraft if another aircraft can perform the same operations without entering the opponent's control and response zone?

[IVZ]

You see, the situation and conditions of combat operations can change depending on the conditions of a specific theater of combat. You can't rely on the very specific conditions of the current moment. With the advent of new weapons, sooner or later, countermeasures and countermeasures emerge, and new challenges arise, such as countering BKs. Powerful guns with a large ammunition complement, high maneuverability, and good survivability (BKs carry a hefty explosive charge) came in handy here. Perhaps other challenges will emerge. Anyone eventually runs out of anti-aircraft missiles, especially if they're wasted on fighting drones.

[Konnick]

Quote: K-50

I think it will take a few minutes to destroy it; they won't shoot it down with a missile; they'll put a drone in its path, or even a hundred, and that's it, it'll fly off.

You can think about it, but the facts are as follows

According to the US command, the attack aircraft were involved in the destruction of more than 120 Iranian vessels, including unmanned versions.

And for some reason there were no losses.

[K-50]

Quote: Konnick

According to the US command, the attack aircraft were involved in the destruction of more than 120 Iranian vessels, including unmanned versions.
And for some reason there were no losses.

Are you serious about this? They attacked 120 ships, without any losses, civilians with no defense other than obscenities? Of course they would have suffered losses.

[solar]

That's what they're designed for—to fight an enemy with low-tech air defenses. They do this much more cheaply than the F-35, which would be used for the same mission. And no one's planning on sending them against an enemy with serious air defenses.

[Konnick]

Quote: K-50

civilians without any protection

It says "including unmanned versions", what civilian ones?

[K-50]

Quote: Konnick

It says "including unmanned versions", what civilian ones?

INCLUDING

[glock-17]

Politicians probably understand military matters better than the military themselves. It's unclear why military schools and academies even exist.

[snow mountain]

Quote: Michael

The full-fledged A-10 attack aircraft performs missions with acceptable and predictable losses.

In today's conditions, he is unlikely to accomplish anything.

[Essex62]

It operates in certain theaters of military operations. The platform of the global money machine can afford to invest in any weapons, even those with limited use.