Originally Posted by [URL="http://www.pprune.org/members/148503-melmothtw
melmothtw[/URL]"]Apologies, but I just don't get the argument that the A-10 should be retired because it has the highest 'blue on blue' kill rate.
Originally Posted by [URL="http://www.pprune.org/members/66636-billhicksrules
BillHicksRules[/URL]"]Melmoth,
You are not missing anything at all.
It is a false argument and those "deploying" it know fine well.
It is the equivalent of Pro-Gun supporters arguing that people are killed by cars so lets leave everything as is after each spree killing that could have been avoided.
Who is making that claim?
Certainly not me - go back and re-read my posts if you think I am.
PN claimed the A-10 didn't have a history of "blue-on-blue" and I provided information to refute his statement.
Of course the A-10 has a high rate - most of its work is done in close proximity to friendly forces, that's what it does best: kill people who are shooting at friendly forces.
Sometimes you will miss - and the lower-tech your aircraft the greater chance of missing in the wrong direction. On the other hand, the further from the target the weapon is launched the the greater the chance of a malfunction causing a fatal miss - so there is a balance there, as the A-10 usually gets in close (but not so often any more).
The real point against the A-10 is simply what Lonewolf_50 discussed - with the reductions in the budget something has to go, and the A-10 has the more-limited role - a role that can be done almost as well by other assets (like the F-35 or attack helos or UAVs), while the A-10 cannot at all do the other roles (like air-air combat or penetrating strike against a functioning ADS) that the F-35 can.