Sure, it’s ugly – really, really ugly. But the A-10 Thunderbolt II – the “Warthog” – is the kind of ugly that puts fear into the hearts of our enemies. And that’s why it’s good the Pentagon has canceled its plans to mothball the aircraft – for now.

“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,” the Air Force Times reported.

The A-10 is the nation’s most effective and most fearsome close air support and ground attack weapon.

A recent document from the House Armed Services Committee argued the A-10 is invaluable, evidenced even more so by its recent deployment against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria as part of Operation Inherent Resolve.

As that document stated, “Rigorous oversight, endorsements from soldiers and Marines about the protection only the A-10 can provide, and repeated deployments in support of OIR have persuaded many members from both parties that the budget-driven decision to retire the A-10 is misguided.”

The Air Force’s bean counters had said the A-10 is too expensive to operate, and that it could be replaced by fighter jets such as the F-16, F-15E, and, eventually, Lockheed Martin’s (LMT) new F-35 fighter.

But as the Bloomberg news service pointed out last year: “The A-10, originally intended to destroy Soviet tanks, is better suited to close-in missions than fighters designed for air-to-air combat. A titanium ‘bathtub’ that wraps around the bottom of its cockpit gives the Warthog better protection against ground fire. It can fly as slowly as 300 knots (345 mph) without risk of stalling, compared with 450 knots for an F-16 or F-35.”

And its fearsome Gatling gun provides unmatched firepower.

Defense analyst Tony Carr wrote recently that fighters – particularly the F-35, the A-10’s intended replacement – are not an effective substitute for the A-10.

“As it stands, the F-35 will, by 2020, have zero capability to stop an armored vehicle, zero capability to illuminate or mark a target and a very modest ability to engage a moving target,” Carr wrote. “It’ll also have only a razor thin ability to strafe targets close to friendly forces. Upon making its vaunted debut, the F-35 won’t even have the CAS (close air support) weapon and sensor capability legacy fighters had by the middle of the last decade. That’s right – we’re breaking the bank to pay for something that will have less capability.”

As U.S. Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., said last week, “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. McSally, for the record, is a retired Air Force colonel and the first American woman to fly in combat.

She knows what she’s talking about when she says the A-10’s “arrival on the battlefield signals survival for our troops and annihilation for our enemies.”

Congress should keep the A-10.