The F-35 Lightning II is the primary replacement for the A-10

The F-35 Lightning II is the jet the U.S. Air Force is using to replace the A-10 Warthog, a plane that has been in service since 1976. The A-10 was built specifically to fly low and slow, firing a massive 30mm cannon at tanks and ground targets. The F-35 is faster, carries more advanced sensors, and can hit targets from much farther away — but it does not do the same job in the same way.

This replacement has been controversial because the A-10 pilots and ground troops who work with them argue the older plane is better at close air support — flying near friendly forces to protect them from enemy fire. The F-35 costs more than three times as much per unit and was designed as a multi-role fighter, meaning it does air-to-air combat, air-to-ground strikes, and reconnaissance all in one airframe. The Air Force has been retiring A-10s gradually since the 2010s, with the last squadrons expected to transition to the F-35 by the mid-2020s.

Key Takeaways

  • The F-35 Lightning II is replacing the A-10 Warthog across U.S. Air Force squadrons, though the transition has taken more than a decade.
  • The A-10 was designed for one mission — low-altitude close air support with a powerful cannon — while the F-35 is a multi-role fighter that handles air combat, ground strikes, and surveillance.
  • The F-35 can engage targets from farther away and carries more advanced radar and targeting systems, but some military personnel argue it is less effective at protecting troops on the ground.
  • The Air Force has kept some A-10 squadrons active longer than originally planned because of concerns about the F-35's readiness and cost.

How the A-10 and F-35 do their jobs differently

The A-10 Warthog was built around a single weapon: the GAU-8 Avenger, a 30mm rotary cannon that fires 3,900 rounds per minute. The plane flies at about 300 miles per hour and can operate from short, unprepared airstrips. Pilots sit in a heavily armored cockpit designed to survive hits from anti-aircraft fire. The entire aircraft was engineered to loiter over a battlefield, identify targets visually, and attack them with guns or missiles at close range.

The F-35 is a stealth fighter that travels at speeds over Mach 1.6 (faster than sound). It relies on radar, infrared sensors, and data-sharing networks to find and engage targets from 15 to 25 miles away, often without the pilot seeing the target directly. It carries missiles and bombs in internal bays to reduce its radar signature. The F-35 is designed to operate from standard military bases and to work as part of a networked air defense system where multiple aircraft share information in real time.

For troops on the ground, the difference matters. An A-10 can show up quickly, circle overhead, and provide when ready fire support while staying in radio contact with ground commanders. An F-35 is faster and more survivable in contested airspace, but it cannot loiter as long and relies on pre-planned targets or data fed from other sensors. The two planes solve different problems, and the military is betting that the F-35's advantages outweigh what the A-10 did well.

Why the Air Force chose the F-35 over building a new close air support plane

The Air Force decided to retire the A-10 and transition to the F-35 for three main reasons: cost, versatility, and the changing nature of modern combat. Maintaining the A-10 fleet costs money, and the planes are aging — some have been in service for nearly 50 years. Building a brand-new close air support aircraft would cost billions and take years to develop, test, and field.

The F-35 was already in development as a replacement for multiple older fighters across the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. Using one aircraft type instead of several reduces training costs, maintenance complexity, and spare parts inventory. The Air Force also believed that future conflicts would involve adversaries with modern air defenses, making a slow, low-flying plane like the A-10 too vulnerable. The F-35's stealth design and sensor fusion — the ability to combine data from many sources into one picture — were seen as essential for survival.

Congress and military leadership also viewed the F-35 as a long-term investment that would keep the Air Force competitive for decades. The plane can be upgraded with new software and weapons without replacing the airframe, whereas the A-10 is a fixed design from the 1970s.

The debate over whether the F-35 is actually better at close air support

Pilots and ground troops who have worked with the A-10 have raised serious concerns about the F-35 as a replacement. The main criticism is that the F-35 cannot do what the A-10 does: stay over a battlefield for hours, respond when ready to requests from troops on the ground, and deliver accurate fire in complex terrain where friendly forces are nearby. Close air support requires the pilot to see the target, confirm it is not a civilian or friendly position, and attack within seconds.

The F-35's reliance on pre-planned targets and remote data means it is slower to adapt to changing situations. Its internal weapons bays limit how much ammunition it can carry compared to an A-10 loaded with missiles and a full cannon magazine. The F-35 also costs roughly $80 million per aircraft, while the A-10 costs about $20 million. For the same budget, the Air Force could buy and operate four A-10s instead of one F-35.

Supporters of the F-35 counter that modern close air support will happen in environments where the A-10 would be shot down when ready. They argue that stealth, speed, and networked sensors are more valuable than loitering time and a big gun. The debate remains unresolved, and the Air Force has extended A-10 service in some units while continuing the transition to the F-35 in others.

What other countries are doing instead of retiring their close air support planes

The United States is not the only military facing this decision. Several allied nations have chosen different paths. Sweden and South Africa have upgraded their older close air support aircraft with modern avionics and weapons instead of replacing them entirely. Germany and Italy have kept their Tornado fighter-bombers in service longer than originally planned, partly because they perform close air support missions that newer multi-role fighters handle less effectively.

Some countries have invested in armed helicopters and drones as alternatives to fixed-wing close air support. The U.S. military has also expanded its use of armed drones like the MQ-9 Reaper for persistent surveillance and strikes, which can loiter longer than any manned aircraft. However, drones require clear weather and cannot engage in dogfights if enemy fighters appear, so they complement rather than replace manned aircraft.

The timeline for A-10 retirement and F-35 transition

The Air Force announced plans to retire the A-10 in 2014, with a target date of 2019. That important date has been pushed back multiple times. As of 2024, the Air Force still operates A-10 squadrons and has not set a firm date for complete retirement. The delay reflects both budget constraints and the F-35's slower-than-expected readiness for combat operations.

The transition is happening unevenly across the service. Some Air Force bases have already transitioned their A-10 squadrons to F-35s, while others continue flying A-10s. The Air National Guard, which operates A-10s for domestic and overseas missions, has also begun transitioning to the F-35, though at a slower pace than active-duty squadrons. Full retirement of the A-10 fleet is now expected sometime in the mid-to-late 2020s, though that date has shifted before and could shift again.

How the F-35 is being adapted for ground support missions

The Air Force has made changes to F-35 training and tactics to improve its close air support capability. Pilots now train specifically for low-altitude flying and rapid target engagement. The F-35's sensor fusion system — which combines data from radar, infrared, and other sources — has been upgraded to help pilots identify targets faster and share information with ground troops more effectively.

The F-35 can carry external weapons pods that increase its payload, though this reduces its stealth advantage. The Air Force has also developed new procedures for coordinating F-35 strikes with ground forces, using data networks to pass target information more quickly. These adaptations do not make the F-35 an A-10, but they are designed to make it more effective at the missions the A-10 performed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the A-10 completely gone from the Air Force?

No. As of 2024, the Air Force still operates A-10 squadrons, and the Air National Guard continues to fly them. The Air Force has not retired the entire fleet yet, though it has been gradually reducing the number of active A-10 units since the 2010s. Some squadrons have transitioned to the F-35, while others continue flying the A-10.

Can the F-35 do everything the A-10 did?

The F-35 can perform air-to-ground strikes and close air support, but it does so differently. It cannot loiter as long, cannot carry as much ammunition, and relies more on sensors and networks than on visual identification. For some missions, the F-35 is more capable; for others, the A-10's design is better suited to the task.

Why does the A-10 have such a big gun?

The 30mm cannon was designed to penetrate the armor of Soviet tanks during the Cold War. The gun fires so many rounds per second that it can destroy a tank in a short burst. Modern tanks are harder to kill with guns, which is one reason the Air Force believes missiles and standoff weapons are more effective today.

How much does an F-35 cost compared to an A-10?

An F-35 costs roughly $80 million per aircraft, while an A-10 costs about $20 million. The F-35 is also more expensive to operate and maintain per flight hour, though the Air Force argues that its longer service life and upgrade potential make it a better long-term investment.

Could the Air Force have built a new close air support plane instead?

Possibly, but it would have taken 10 to 15 years and cost billions of dollars. The Air Force chose to use the F-35, which was already in development, to save time and money. Some military analysts argue that a dedicated close air support aircraft would have been worth the cost, but that decision was not made.