>As predicted by Air Combat Command commander Gen. Hawk Carlisle in November, the Air Force is indefinitely freezing all plans to retire the A-10 Warthog, a warplane many officials, airmen and congressional members have rallied behind since the announcement of its withdrawal from the battlefield. Service officials next month will lay out their new request when the Pentagon submits its fiscal 2017 budget request to Congress, DefenseOne reports. The Air Force in a statement told Air Force Times Wednesday they could not discuss the budget request until it is presented to Congress.
>“It appears the administration is finally coming to its senses and recognizing the importance of A-10s to our troops’ lives and national security," Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., said in a statement Wednesday in response to the news reports. McSally is a retired colonel who served 26 years in the Air Force and was the first female pilot to fly in combat. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., another A-10 advocate, echoed McSally's sentiments. "With growing global chaos and turmoil on the rise, we simply cannot afford to prematurely retire the best close air support weapon in our arsenal without fielding a proper replacement," he said in a statement.
>While the decision ultimately lies with Pentagon leadership, Carlisle said that he believes the retirement of the A-10 could be delayed by a few years to make sure the Air Force has the number of planes it needs — especially since top brass is re-evaluating the number of F-35’s (planes intended to replace the A-10) that the U.S. will purchase. “If I have them, I’m going to use them because they’re a fantastic airplane, and I’m going to take advantage of them,” Carlisle said. “The pilots are incredibly well-trained and they do incredible work in support of the joint war fight.”
>Because nothing else can do it's job yet.
F-15E, F-16, F-18, AC-130, B1
>confusing high altitude CAS with low altitude CAS
>even mentioning the special snowflake AC-130
>low and slow is a myth
I assume you think tanks and carriers are obsolete as well.
>Implying low-altitude cas is still a thing that the USAF wants
Dropping PGMs from high altitude is safer for both friendly ground troops and the aircraft that must deliver the munitions.
>low and slow
>implying stealth does shit against an IR MANPADS or AAA fire.
look, the A-10 is a great aircraft. But it's getting old. It will continue to be used to it's full capacity until it gets retired. Then they will sell them to some 3rd world shithole or scrap them.
The F-35 is an amazing aircraft. No, it can't do exactly the same thing as an A-10. But it doesn't need to. Most CAS missions consist of a plane dropping a bomb on something using laser or GPS guidance, often from ground forces. The whole idea of this majestic beast cruising around low and spraying taliban with 30mm shells while surviving heavy AA fire is retarded. Anything the A-10's gun can do, a small diameter bomb from the F-35 can do, but from 20k feet up.
CAS missions will be just fine without the A-10. It was a wonderful aircraft, and it's served a great purpose.
Also, the F-35 is an aircraft that makes other aircraft better. It's command and control abilities, stealth, communications, sensors, internal fuel loadout, etc. allow it to act as a force multiplier. Pair an F-35 orbiting at 25k feet using it's advanced electro-optical sensors and radar to scope out ground targets and air targets and create a map of the battlefield, and send that data to Apache's, F-16's, F-15's, etc. It's scary good. Any nation flying F-35's will be able to totally dominate the airspace.
Flying high is safer for the aircraft.
But it is not safer for the troops on the ground (inb4 blue on blue numbers while ignoring danger close rates) and has a precedent of being less effective.
It was structured this way in order to keep the minorities and white trash down.
I enjoy healthcare of a higher quality than any public health care of any country.
I will also get an education that is of higher quality than most other countries.
Suck it, nerd.
Eurofighter sucks btw.
no partisan idiocy here. Just facts. Like I said, the A-10 is a great aircraft. But it won't be operational forever, and that's ok. The F-35 and other aircraft will adequately fill the gaps.
Notice how it is easy to pick out a dashed line while driving on the highway when you look really far ahead, but then it is much harder to do so when you look closer to the front of the car?
Well, aircraft go really high, and can see really far, so even though they are going 500+ mph, they can see things on the ground well.
IR cameras with high levels of zoom mean they can see individual people on the ground many miles away, from very high alt.
An F-22 or F-35 can see a hadji on the ground as well or better than an A-10 can see him at 3000ft using his eyeballs. But the A-10 CANT go high or fast. The A-10 is very, very slow. If it gets caught down near the deck by a shilka or SAM or something it will get SHREDDED, since it has no smash ( aka airspeed and ability to gtfo back to altitude).
I love the A-10 just like I loved the F-4, but its time to head out to pasture.
because the A-10 has its gun, and its a very big auotcannnon, and its a very agile subsonic aircraft that is really versatile as CAS. It can fly low and get very good battlefield awareness, and can clear treelines, kill tanks, blow out buildings, destroy a veichle convoy, all with the same gun. So it's very nice to have over the battlefied because 30 seconds after at pilot sees anything, it can do thigt maneuvers, get an angle and destroy the enemy.
It's a very practical frontline aircraft, awar winner, not a hangar queen.
>But it is not safer for the troops on the ground (inb4 blue on blue numbers while ignoring danger close rates) and has a precedent of being less effective.
I'm gonna need a source on that buddy.
>precedent of being less effective
Yeah, just like BVR missiles, amiright?
Just because something didnt work it the past, doesnt mean it wont work in the future. Technology changes.
Modern BVR missile have high PK.
Modern FLIR and smart weapons have outstanding accuracy for ground attack and CAS purposes.
I'm not a Marine, but I'm hoping to be in 4 years.
I hope by that time this bullshit has been smoothed out. Won't stop me from trying to get my commission, but I won't be as happy about it.
>because 30 seconds after at pilot sees anything
And that's how you get squads of dead marines.
A-10 pilots don't actually do this btw, they get talked in to their targets because the dots on the ground that are Taliban look very similar to the dots on the ground that are US soldiers.
>Notice how it is easy to pick out a dashed line while driving on the highway when you look really far ahead, but then it is much harder to do so when you look closer to the front of the car?
This is extremely misleading in the context of altitudes being discussed. Perhaps if low altitude CAS meant flying at treetop level.
Well I thought I did, with:
>Modern FLIR and smart weapons have outstanding accuracy for ground attack and CAS purposes.
Smart bombs and missiles are more effective than cannon fire, and they can be employed from great range, with the same precision, and they do more damage to target.
A mudhen can fly at 35k ft, ID what kind of hat an enemy soldier is wearing from 10nm slant range, and proceed to drop a guided bomb or missile within 20ft of the target. This will kill the enemy very dead, very quickly, and will leave the aircraft very safe.
>I don't understand how things work in reality but if I say its common sense I can hide it
Blue on blue is primarily caused by misidentification or danger close.
>mfw B-1's blew up some of our soldiers because they flew too high to see the soldiers IR strobe
Slant range is slant range. 5 miles away and 10 miles high is the same as 10 miles away and 5 miles high.
Modern aircraft can see very far with high resolution. Thus at high speed they can see things clearly at great range and alt.
There is no need to be close to the target before firing, nor be at low altitude because of this.
>mfw an A-10 kills British soldiers
>A mudhen can fly at 35k ft, ID what kind of hat an enemy soldier is wearing from 10nm slant range, and proceed to drop a guided bomb or missile within 20ft of the target. This will kill the enemy very dead, very quickly, and will leave the aircraft very safe.
So can an A-10, the difference is it has the option of doing other methods of CAS.
>mfw B-1's blew up some of our soldiers because they flew too high to see the soldiers IR strobe
That sounds like a mistake in tactics. They CAN fly high enough to remain invulnerable to AAA, yet still positively ID friendlies, but its sounds like they didnt for whatever reason.
And dont act like a low and slow aircraft has never fragged friendlies. Its war, it happens unfortunately.
>the difference is it has the option of doing other methods of CAS.
Such as? "Muh gun" doesn't count.
And it would appear the A-10 is just as vulnerable to those issues as other aircraft, if not more:
>Not supporting either of these claims in any way
There seems to be a misunderstanding in this thread. CAS does not refer to the plane's proximity to the ground. CAS refers to the proximity of the ordinance being dropped from the plane in relation to blue forces. That's why it's called close air support. If there were no friendlies nearby, it would be an airstrike.
We all know that the A-10 is being kept purely for political "feel good" points. But what about the AC-130? The Air Force has ordered a new version with completely updated weapons and systems. They must want to keep it around for real. The question is: why?
Also, "close" is subjectively defined in actual distance - CAS can be dropping a 2000lb JDAM on a hill a couple of km away because some guys with dakkas were taking pot shots at our guys.
F-35's EOTS (internalized Sniper XR pod) looking at a hotel 49.1NM away.
Not him, and as i just said its a stupid feel good measure that will cost pilots their lives. The plane does not do well in non/semi permissive enviroments, and in permissive environments other platforms are objectively far superior, like the reaper.
If, god forbid, a pilot gets downed over syria and killed by ISIS, the blood will be on congressmen like McCain and that other bitch from Arizona
Gau-8 has pretty tight groupings, and it goes exactly where you point it when you go in for a dive, the pilot is always seeing the situation in front of him. It's as precise as any PGM, maybe more because there are no satellites or beams involved, and the angle and speed of the drop isn't a factor to allow mistakes.
>We all know that the A-10 is being kept purely for political "feel good" points.
We all know that the A-10 is being kept because both the US Army and USAF think close range CAS is more effective than simply dropping PGMs.
>Fast-movers can slow down every bit as well as the A-10 can
Actually they can't, do you want to crash an expensive strike fighter because you had it stall trying to get precious seconds of loiter over the area?
The F-35 just won't come, what else are are we going to use, all the things we are ALREADY USING along with the A-10 to fully cover the demand? You retire it now, you have less ready planes, it's not a complex formula.
>congress making decisions on tactical weapon systems
Where did it all go so wrong?
>GAU-8/A: 12m CEP @ 1.2 km slant range
>AGM-114 Hellfire: 4m CEP at several times that range
The higher you are, the proportionately longer you get to look at a target. Twice the altitude, double the speed? Same amount of time looking at a target. Quadruple the altitude and twice the speed, twice as long looking at a target.
Also, the A-10's stall speed is about 120kts. Stall speed for the F-35 and F/A-18 is only about 10kts higher.
>this level of micromanagement is new.
Not really. From Congress, yes. But ineffectual micromanagement from necktie-wearing politicians is nothing new.
The only thing the army needs this thing for is blowing up goat herders and toyota trucks. So if it's being deployed almost exclusively in counter-insurgency work these days, why aren't we just taking an existing platform, and building a purpose built plane for pounding hajis out in the middle East and North Africa? Using existing technology, off the shelf-components for almost everything, and with such a clear mission parameter, it seems like it would be a quick and simple fix. A main gun that's not as expensive or overkill to fire, reduced maintenance and operating costs, easier to repair, cheaper to replace, etc.
They have fuzes that can be adjusted in flight; if you were that pedantic over blast effects, you could just set it to penetrate and detonate underground.
Nope; do the geometry; if they're in a ditch and you can only see them from 45 degrees above the horizon, you still get the same amount of eyes on target from twice the altitude at twice the speed.
>why aren't we just taking an existing platform, and building a purpose built plane for pounding hajis out in the middle East and North Africa?
You don't need a specialized aircraft for those kind of jobs.
>You just described the reaper drone.
Not really, but you're right at least that the Reaper is objectively a better fit for COIN than the A-10 is.
I personally think the A-10 isn't entirely useless, but it's in a niche that doesn't necessarily need to exist. It costs as much as any fast-mover to operate, yet it's not as good as a true fast-mover in the type of situation you would want one. And for situations where you would want anything less, an A-10 is overkill (and somewhat sensor-deficient) and an Apache or UAV would be much more reasonable.
>They have fuzes that can be adjusted in flight; if you were that pedantic over blast effects, you could just set it to penetrate and detonate underground.
You mean on impact or at a preset altitude.
The issue is speed.
At lower speed those big ole wings makes the hog turn on a dime, but its slow as shit.
At altitude, you dont have to really turn all that hard due to your FOV being much wider.
Whao nigga. Slow down.
The plane can litterally turn on a dime and it still would get hit by any missle.
The missle is traveling much faster, and once your in the NEZ, its all ogre.
Can someone remind me why we're not using Apaches for all this shit?
>20000 ft service ceiling
>620 mile combat range
>can make far better use of cannons than any plane due to the ability to hover
>well out of range of MANPADs
>carries more missiles than a drone
I mean, I know we use them, but can't we use them more?
Modern missiles can turn a full 180 degrees after launch to the target. They can also - I mean I know this is a recent development so bear with me adjust their course in flight to track a target traveling perpendicular to them. I know it's incredible, but it's true.
The only sure way to beat a missile is to firstly know what's been fired at you. AAIR? TV? Active or semi active radar? Laser guided?
Then you know your countermeasures and you also know what kind of legs it has. IR seekers are short range, so turn and climb until it runs out of fuel. Semi-active are being guided by the firing plane initially, so force it to break off by firing your own missile at it before the missile goes active. Active are long ranged so you best hope you have enough distance to turn, climb and run. If you've got a TV guided missile chasing you, you dun fucked up, and unless you've got R-60s to shoot it down and balls the size of the Ticonderoga, you might as well eject now. Also good luck ever realizing it's been fired at you until it hits. That's what happens when you piss off the US Navy.
Oh, I forgot to mention laser. If you've got a laser guided missile that's been fired at your plane, you're probably fighting ISIS in a stolen 40s jet. Have another beer and ignore it.
>They can also... adjust their course in flight to track a target traveling perpendicular to them
I don't believe it. Missiles move way too fast to turn that hard. The final 100m to target would, assuming the target is always turning so as to be at 90 degrees to the direction of the missile, incur more Gs than a missile could handle without falling apart or tumbling over.
With regards to that casino, would it be possible to guide a missile into a hotel room of the pilot's choosing? This is where I'm sketchy on the idea of single pilot bombers. I mean, the pilot needs to fly the plane at the same time the missile needs guiding.
>incur more Gs than a missile could handle
AIM-120s can pull 40G at 3000 MPH. That means a roughly 15000ft turn radius.
If you're at 90 degrees to the missile when it's 100 feet away from you, then yes, it's going to miss. The fact that it was going to miss was already decided at least 5 seconds ago. Otherwise it would've continued adjusting its course to intercept you.
Some mavericks also have a mode known as force correlate which allow it to home onto a specific part of a large object like a window of a building.
Have you heard of autopilot, anon?
A: Set the autopilot to fly level
B: Range your target - this is the part where you see the landscape flying past at 700mph
C: Fix the camera in place
D: Adjust it and zoom in until you have an accurate fix
E: Authorization to fire
F: Track it as necessary, or not
G: No more target
>Since the line of sight is not in general co-linear with the missile velocity vector, the applied acceleration does not necessarily preserve the missile kinetic energy. In practice, in the absence of engine throttling capability, this type of control may not be possible
So it isn't foolproof.
Not that guy, but I guess you can't read. Let me translate that for you:
>when the missile's fuel runs out, it won't have enough momentum to continue making course adjustments and tracking
or even simpler
>when it runs out of fuel it stops flying
What it actually means is that a missile with no throttling capability is not infallible. Since most missiles are rocket powered, they can't slow down or speed up as the equation requires for them to hit their target in some circumstances. The equation may also require the missile to make adjustments to it's velocity (direction) that it can't achieve, in some circumstances. A target traveling at sufficient speed perpendicular to the missile could create these circumstances.
>the A-10 has its gun, and its a very big auotcannnon, and its a very agile subsonic aircraft that is really versatile as CAS. It can fly low and get very good battlefield awareness, and can clear treelines, kill tanks, blow out buildings, all with the same gun.
Spoken like a true fudd.
Predators (the little brother of Reaper) saved the day in the Battle of Takur Ghar - F-15s and F-16s couldn't strike an Al Qaeda stronghold that had a dozen or two Rangers pinned down (they were using either CCIP or GPS guidance for 500lb bombs). Someone decided to finally use the Hellfires on the Predator and that allowed the Rangers to fight their way to victory.
>180 rounds of 25mm has the same capability as 1,174 rounds of 30mm
Because while the American armament lobby is a fucking retarded mob of money hungry leeches, they're not THAT stupid to put to sleep the only piece of hardware that is capable of laying immense amounts of harm and fear for literal spare change in military budget terms.
As long as the main enemy is goat fuckers, the A-10 is perfect for the job. Only /k/ is retarded enough to consider wasting precious airframe hours out of irreplaceable B-1's instead of using airframes that in any case will be scrapped in case of a major conflict.
Has to do with balancing the center of gravity while making space for the central landing gear. Also the firing barrel is at 9 o'clock, which is aligned with the centerline of the aicraft.
>Fit M230 or similar system (120lb, lets say 150lb for mount)
>Other hardpoints used for ammunition storage
>Now have a 33-35+ hour endurance / loiter time air asset with the weight limit to carry more than 2,500 rounds with room to spare
>This shits all over the A-10
a) 
b) all blue on blue happened because it was PRECISELY aimed un blues, not because rounds strayed from the target. That's not the A-10 to blame, but America and their habit of hitting friendlies.
Except that its not? Drones currently are useful as recon and to nail targets from far away with missiles. If you leave them hovering close to the target with a flimsy little cannon they're in a dangerous situation.
> If you leave them hovering close to the target with a flimsy little cannon they're in a dangerous situation.
Anything that is capable of hitting an MQ-9 at the ranges an M230 can engage from accurately (~1,500–1,700 m) is going to shit all over an A-10C just as easily.
Its literally the cannon fitted to an Apache. It does absolutely fine, especially when you're not limited to a few seconds of gun-run.
>is going to shit all over an A-10C just as easily.
No, just no.
>It does absolutely fine
On a fucking Apache it does. Also: send in an Apache, then? You know, that thing that also carries missiles.
>especially when you're not limited to a few seconds of gun-run.
The A-10 can do dozens of a "few second" of gun runs, regarding the effectiveness of the much, much, MUCH more powerful guns... you can look videos by yourself.
Don't try to force drones into roles they're not suited for. Yet. In the future maybe, right now it's fucking stupid.
>No, just no.
Cool argument, really convinced me with that solid argument. An Igla will fuck up an A-10, and has.
>On a fucking Apache it does. Also: send in an Apache, then? You know, that thing that also carries missiles.
Why is 30mm from an Apache with FLIR any more deadly than from a drone with FLIR firing exactly the same round? The MQ-9 also fires missiles, and bombs, and is cheaper. Thats the entire point.
>The A-10 can do dozens of a "few second" of gun runs, regarding the effectiveness of the much, much, MUCH more powerful guns... you can look videos by yourself.
At a time, I mean. It takes time to re-orient and go in for another, which is disorienting unless you're going in for the same angle every time. Meanwhile the Cannon is engaging constantly.
It also stays on station for more than 10 times the length of time. THE most important factor in CAS/COIN.
I'm not sure why you're so salty about drones. COIN is what they're perfectly suited for.
Maybe its because it runs the vast majority of CAS sorties where such errors are easier to do, genius?
Guess what missile has the highest ratio of blue on blue in bvr combat? The AMRAAM. Do you ever see people claiming that the AMRAAM should be put out of service?
I haven't read the thread, but is this actually news? I don't really follow all the shit about the A-10, but I knew it wasn't going out of service, since I work in a GE Aviation plant and they ramped up production of A-10 engine parts back around September-October.
I don't think its really a camera in the traditional sense of the word.
>I assume you think tanks and carriers are obsolete as well.
Exactly. PGM is a whole new ballgame. Especially when delivered by a stealthy, fast, high-flying platform with sensor fusion.
That's why the army is so hot for the A-10. They understand that the F-35 will make half the Army obsolete, too. why bother with Abrams, Bradleys, and Strykers when you can just have more F-35s?
was it yet mentioned that F-35 is useless for CAS while in stealth mode? it can carry only two bombs in internal stores.
with external stores mounted it becomes an f-16, only worse.
They've already done the improvement that removes the weakest component of the A-10.
Why does it even matter? A-10fags love to claim that the A-10 is the only platform which can perform cas missions. And it turns out that the A-10 doesn't even perform the majority of CAS missions.
>Coalition and other
Oh shit, that's mostly Tornados isn't it? Why are we having swingwings doing CAS?
>with external stores mounted it becomes an f-16, only worse.
>Carries more fuel and weapons
>more integrated sensors
Kind of deceptive. Its purely sorties. If you start talking about individual strikes rather than takeoff/landings, the B1 would pull ahead due to massive payload and loiter.
Send them to Taiwan. They can strafe Mainland China's landing craft.
Aircraft imprint on certain mindset onto the men who fly them. Sure, the F-15, F-16, and F-18 can all perform CAS missions, but at the end of the day, those pilots see themselves as fighter pilots. That's an important part of their self-image. Most of their training centers around preparing for air-to-air combat, even though nearly all the missions they'll ever fly will be air-to-ground! Those guys are cocky sons-of-bitches who see themselves as the people getting all the real work done. To them, the guys on the ground are just grunts that they occasionally have to babysit.
Warthog pilots are different. They don't have any fantasies about killing MiGs with sidewinder missiles. They know the strengths and weaknesses of their aircraft well. For a warthog pilot, protecting the troops on the ground isn't a burden, it's their core mission. Every time they go out, they know that fellow soldiers are depending on them. 100% of their training centers around preparing for different CAS scenarios. They know how to read the battlefield and direct the proper amount of force in the proper direction.
Basically I want as much dakka as possible like that WW2 bomber with like eight machine guns pointing out the nose.
So is there anyway to build a plane that has at least two 35mm auto cannons?
Can't... uh.... something something the BRRRRT.
What rhymes with BRRT that makes sense?
>all of these niggers and women who don't know what the fuck they are doing
This is affirmative action that the libfags wanted at its best. Also the plane looks more complicated than even the F-22 to re-arm. Also that gun is a big waste of money, especially compared to the F-35s 25mm cannons, that can also destroy tanks.
Only if your goal is to slaughter wedding parties and random people whom you have no idea as to their identities. Did nobody read the Drone Papers? Less than one in ten deaths are actual intended targets and the US says that any other deaths are legitimate kills by virtue of it being a drone strike. That's right, even if you have never so much as had a negative thought about America, if you are collateral in a drone strike, you are BY DEFINITION an enemy combatant.
>A: Set the autopilot to fly level
>B: Range your target - this is the part where you see the landscape flying past at 700mph
>C: Fix the camera in place
>D: Adjust it and zoom in until you have an accurate fix
>E: Get blown out of the sky because you were doing non-piloting shit instead of flying your plane
>G: Enemy looks for next target
Firstly, no acceleration preserves the missile's kinetic energy. So that statement is just incidental.
But yes, assuming you're outside the NEZ when a missile is fired at you, it's still possible to kinematically defeat a missile. If you're inside the NEZ, you're pretty much SOL and you better pray to fucking god that your countermeasures work.
Missiles generally run out of propellant around 3 seconds after launch, and then effectively coast/glide to the target (newer ones have dual-thrust motors that maintain a low residual level of thrust after the initial burst, but this is still effectively just a slightly-powered glide to the target). But at mach 3+, momentum can still carry you a LOOOOONG fucking way.
Apaches were the first coalition aircraft to hit Iraqi targets in Desert Storm - and they were actually performing SEAD to open the door for other aircraft.
Don't underestimate the effectiveness of NoE in contested airspace.
>Today I learned that 2 hour loiter time > 9 hour loiter time.
Different scenarios desire different solutions. If you can field 3x as many drones as A-10s, you can be providing nearly constant ISR for platoons, etc out in the field. If you can see the ambush before it hits you, you can avoid needing all that BRRRT in the first place.
Likewise, 1500 rounds of 30mm don't matter if they don't hit the target. Not saying they wouldn't, but >50% of those rounds will have no physical effect on the enemy. Meanwhile, Reapers and hellfires have the precision to fly directly right into an RPG sitting on the ground.
I'm not the same guy that said that drones are objectively better and I'm hesitant to say that definitively, but they are most definitely an effective solution, and one that could replace the A-10 (either more efficiently or slightly less efficiently).
That's 99.9% the fault of intel / command. Those drones weren't shooting guys shooting US forces in combat, they were following people in cars, watching them walk into buildings and then blowing up the building on the basis that ground intel and prior air recon said that only bad guys were in there.
Have Reapers flying over US troops in contact with guys running around with AK's and RPGs and it's pretty hard to kill civilians.
>If you can field 3x as many drones as A-10s, you can be providing nearly constant ISR for platoons, etc out in the field.
Dat satcom bandwidth doe
US is gonna be putting more sats up regardless to take advantage of drones, F-35s and new fighter satcom upgrades anyway. There's also LOS airborne comms relays you could use if the pilots are at an airbase within the country or nearby. They're looking at making a Global Hawk variant be a high bandwidth comms node.
>During Operation Desert Storm on 17 January 1991, eight AH-64As guided by four MH-53 Pave Low IIIs destroyed part of Iraq's radar network in the operation's first attack, allowing aircraft to evade detection. The Apaches each carried an asymmetric load of Hydra 70 flechette rockets, Hellfires, and one auxiliary fuel tank.
The only compelling reason to call it obsolete is that the BRRRRT is no longer up to snuff for its intended purpose against the front-line shit that -modern- militaries field.
Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of the fighting that we've done since the end of WW2 has been asymmetrical against enemies who usually field shitty soviet old hand-me-downs.
Those shitty old soviet hand-me-downs that almost exclusively make up the forces of every shitty little middle-eastern power that we might want to curbstomp any time soon are exactly what the A10 was made to decimate back in the day when those shitty old hand-me-downs were the Soviet Union's top shelf front-of-the-line shit.
You know RWRs and such don't suddenly stop working because you're on autopilot.
Granted, it does take a lot of attention to the screen to line up a ground-attack bomb, but if you're doing that while you're being targeted you deserve everything you get.
>You will never completely remove a modern IADs with just SEAD/DEAD.
You may not completely remove it but you sure as shit better be able to fuck the "I" part of IADS to high-hell without ground units...