this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
107 points (100.0% liked)

World News

55306 readers
1703 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Army wants to keep them. F-35s can’t do the A-10’s job properly, and the A-10 has a reputation. However, they are old with no replacement even in the works because the Air Force only wants bombers or fighters.

Which job is that? Killing hiluxes and insurgents with no air defense capabilities? Because against everybody else the A-10 throws stand-off munitions from medium altitude, when it's not banned from entering hostile airspace.

It's no coincidence nobody wants to operate it. Not any foreign air force, not USAF that is stuck with it and not the US army that was offered it(they are fine with USAF paying for it).

F-16s can do anything useful the A-10 can and much more.

[–] crimsonpoodle@pawb.social 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well it all depends on what you’re doing. The A-10s can carry more ordinance, longer loiter times, more heavily armored than something like the f35.once you establish air superiority you need trucks to dump munitions as fast and cheaply as possible.

[–] freeman@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's not the F-35's role, that's the F-16's role for the USAF (and most western air forces) and carries as much ordinance, has better range since it's not hampered by armor.

It also actually has performed low-level attacks against AAA, something the A-10 was banned from doing in Desert Storm, despite having armor for that specific task.

Which is the issue, the A-10's core concept is flawed. Armor does not provide suitability to aircraft, not even against AAA, never mind SAMs. Compromising performance (speed, range), forgoing capabilities (A2A radar) makes the plane practically useless.