Giving a speech on BRRRRRRRT funding controversy tomorrow and looking for some helpful input.
Should we retire the A-10, and if so, what would you replace it with?
Pic definitely related.
>>27903802
The only reason they are considering retiring it is so the military-industrial complex can spend a few hundred billion more replacing something that works perfectly
>>27903802
Are you a congressman?
F-35's
What's that?
>>27903802
>Replace outdated tech
>With even more outdated tech
>>27903802
I think the A-10 should be retired and not replaced at all. But if you absolutely needed a dedicated attack plane, I think the Super Toucan would be the best option. The SEALs apparently though it was okay. Out of curiosity, why would you be giving a speech on weapons procurement?
>>27903841
Cheaper to fly, already in service so MX factor is largely accounted for, does the job equally well if not better, and to top it off you can field swarms of them for the upkeep cost of the A-10... what's not to like?
>>27903826
This.
The soldiers on the ground prefer A-10 CAS due to its effectiveness. Those who know, know the A-10 can only be replaced by a plane that is basically more or less the same but more modern.
The Generals who are chummy with big Military Industrial (probably looking at getting a deal closed for post military employment reasons) are for replacing the A-10. The politicians who are lobbied by big military industrial want to replace it.
The ones who want to keep it are those who rely on it and use it.
The only way I would be happy as a tax payer is if the air force put out a replacement contract for a ground-up replacement designed for the same role and same mission requirements.
F-35 is insufficient. The only thing that comes close is the F-15 strike eagle, but is more expensive to run than the A-10 per mission. Plus it doesn't have the loiter ability or outright effectiveness. It caught a lot of Taliban off guard with how fast they can respond, but that's it.
>>27903875
Fairchild-Republic is defunct. There is nowhere to buy more A-10s from.
>F-35 is insufficient.
Only because not enough have been made yet.
>>27903875
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I coordinated a sizable number of CAS missions during the Iraq War. I am the top coordinator of air-based missions in the entire U.S. military. The grunts would always call in, "hey, we need an A-10!" No, you do not decide what airplane you need. You need to tell me what you need done. Oh, you need a tank killed? Guess what? I've got an F-16 with JDAM on station. He will shit fury upon those around you. You do not need an A-10. Even if you think you do, you don't. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker.
The number of soldiers and marines who think they understand the CAS mission, but actually have no fucking idea what they're talking about, is absolutely staggering. Do your job. Let us do ours. I don't tell you what rifle you need, don't tell me what airplane I need. I don't tell your mother how to suck cocks, don't tell me I need an A-10. The A-10 is an out-moded and aging airframe. It needs to be retired. Furthermore, while it may be good at taking out insurgents in BFE, it is not able to take out a type-99 or a T-90 which can kill you in over seven hundred ways. And that's the existential threat right there; China. Not some pukes in the desert. The A-10 can't even do the job it was designed for anymore: killing tanks. It needs to be retired.
If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” request for an A-10 was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. An F-16 or B-1 will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, grunt.
>>27903802
Anytime someone proposes replacing the A-10 with the super tucano, they're admitting that they have zero understanding of the A-10 and its abilities, and even worse understanding of the (limitied) abilities of the tucano
>>27903871
>does the job equally well if not better
>I literally have no idea what I'm talking about
>>27903902
But that's not a Tucano brosepher.
>>27903871
Holy fuck you are delusional
>why let one plane do the job of many? lets have 30 pilots trained + maintenance costs for the same job
>>27903909
Explain how an aging, deteriorating and small fleet of A-10's can effectively outperform a much larger and less expensive armada of AT-6's or Super Tuc's in COIN operations pls.
The A-10 is useless at anything other than bombing sand people. People can herp and derp about "MUH BRRRRRRRT" but it can't survive on a modern battlefield and other aircraft already do the same job.
>>27903853
>Let's replace the A-10 with an even shittier plane because i dunno lel
>>27903909
>>27903919
>>27903934
I'm reading a lot of butthurt and not a single factual rebuttal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySuixFGIfbE
>>27903902
>>27903909
I don't think we need a dedicated attack plane at all. Modern fighter planes are versatile enough to handle air-to-ground missions. But if you absolutely need an attack plane, the Super Toucan is a cost-effective way to fill that role.
>>27903902
this. a tuc got shot down in Colombia by a .50 cal.
>>27903896
lmao, 9/10 would kek again
>>27903802
The A-10 is the only plane in the US arsenal that has both a psychological and physical effect on the battle field besides C-130 gunships. It gives our men and women fighting on the ground a boost in confidence and makes our enemies tremble in fear while also thinning their numbers by quite a bit. Basically it kills a bunch of bad guys and the ones that survive either want to run for it or outright quit fighting.
>>27903929
A single A-10 can destroy more targets, using a wider array of weapons, from multiple means of attack, and can carry out a wider range of missions than the very limited tucano.
It's almost as if you know absolutely nothing about the A-10 at all, other than the fact it has a big gun...
>>27903875
Can you provide a source for comparative loiter times? All I've been able to find is A-10 loiter times.
>>27904010
...for you
>>27903902
waiting on an explanation of what the A-10 can do that the tucano cant for cheaper
excepting the higher takeoff weight of the A-10, a bigger aircraft with lower top speed and higher stall speed.
>>27903896
I think >>27903875 was basically saying that it doesn't seem right to replace a plane with such a specific role with another that is merely adequate with no direct replacement in the pipeline.
>>27903986
same.
>>27904010
You fail to grasp the very simple point I'm making... A single A-10 can outperform a single turbo prop sure. But this is a numbers game. And when you can have hordes of Tuc's rotating on station, hell, even sending multiple ac with different combat configurations for the same operating cost of a single A-10, the hog looses every time because it can't be everywhere and do everything at once. A swarm of cropdusters outfitted properly could do the job.
>>27904047
A-10 wasn't originally designed for CAS, it was designed for tank hunting.
Is there some place we can find statistics on gun versus missile usage from A-10s?
>>27904059
but why should we replace something we already have that works perfectly fine?
>>27904010
the tucano is no pushover when it comes to armaments mang
also see >>27904059
all about the numbers
>>27903875
>Da boys on the ground love it!
I fucking cringe hard at this whenever someone says this. Do you really fucking think the US military is so unprofessional that they'd choose to put on a show for the grunts instead of a more effective JDAM or SDB?
>>27904047
I'll give you exactly ONE guess as to what airplane has been doing the majority of CAS in Afghanistan for years now while being cheaper and offering a wider variety of payloads and capable of staying on station for far longer while also covering a larger range at once.
>>27904010
>A single A-10 can destroy more targets, using a wider array of weapons, from multiple means of attack, and can carry out a wider range of missions than the very limited tucano.
No doubt. But that's where fighters come in. You would use fighter planes to go after any hard targets. The Super T would be saved for light air support and counter-insurgency roles........which is basically what the A-10 is allowed to do now.
Keep in mind that Fairchild Republic is defunct. There is no place to buy more A-10s. You'd have to develop a replacement. The Super Tucano means that you don't have to spend money developing a replacement. You can just buy new planes "off-the-shelf" and they'll fill the counter-insurgency role adequately. Fighters can handle everything else.
For what the A-10 does its horribly inefficient at it. Its still lugging around an outdated and oversized gun, which for what its now only capable of doing a 25mm or even 20mm can do just as well.
But the whole point of CAS is not doing gun runs, because no matter what you do it in youre exposed to ground fire. The argument that a Tucano can get shot down by ground fire applies to the A-10 too.
>>27903890
Dad is an aerospace engineer. Apparently Boeing is putting out contracts to replace the wings on the A-10s.
>>27904097
but you can't always route a fighter with ordinance for hard targets. when troops call for air support, the sooner the better
>>27904072
>why should we replace something we already have that works perfectly fine?
Do you think that air frames last forever? The A-10 is probably hardier than most aircraft, but it will still eventually fail.
>>27903853
COIN is not CAS
CAS aircraft have many features useful for COIN
COIN aircraft have very few features useful for CAS
>>27903932
>but it can't survive on a modern battlefield
Learn the differences between Contested airspace, Non Permissive airspace and Permissive airspace and we'll talk
>>27903960
That is fine while we're bombing sand niggers, now consider the idea of using Tucanos to attack groups of enemies with the ability to fight back with local AAA
>>27904043
The A-10 can operate in Non-permissive engagements where the Tucano would be down in seconds
Before anyone strawmans
Non-permissive meaning SEAD missions and enemy air assets are suppressed and you still have MANPADS, Vehicle mounted light SAM's and AAA assets in close proximity to your target.
CAS is not COIN
>>27904098
so if you're saying a 20mm with modern rounds can do that...then what can the avenger do with modern rounds? you seriously think we've been slouching on ammo development?
>>27904122
You can't always have an A-10 loitering above the battlefield either.
>>27904097
>Super Tucano
Please get this BR memeplane out of here.
Toucan sam got shot down by a .50 by some jungle niggers your plane is invalid.
>>27904135
>The A-10 can operate in Non-permissive engagements
HA HA HA HA HAAAAA
>>27903896
yeah, a B-1 would be great right up until they fuck up situational awareness via SAR, then JDAM your position by accident because they cant look out the cockpit and see whats going on
>>27903929
Not get shot down by small arms like Super Taco's already have.
>>27904097
>The Super T would be saved for light air support and counter-insurgency roles
This is the job of the reaper, which is better than the Super T in every way.
EVERY. WAY.
Higher range, better loiter, 2 more hardpoints, higher payload, both per hardpoints and overall, better optics, better radar packages, better everything.
>>27904147
>>27903802
Can't we run both?
>>27904059
And where do the savings go when Super Tuc's are downed by damage the A-10 would have either brushed aside or RTB'ed safelfy with.
The budget is suddenly spent of life insurance pay outs, retraining of a new pilot with 0 combat experience to replace what may have been a more experienced pilot, fully replacing the lost airframe and the hit to the reputation, and therefor recruitment and budget, of the USAF from losing aircraft to sandniggers
>>27903896
give this man an award
>>27904158
So if its just going to act as a JDAM truck why not use a drone with much, much longer loiter time?
If we're comparing the Super Tuc and A-10, both have service ceilings above small MANPADs but easily within reach of 'vehicle mounted SAMs'
>A10 payload - 7260kg
>super tucano payload - 1500kg
>you need 5 STs to do the job of one A-10
>A-10 unit cost - 18.8 million
>ST unit cost - 9 million
>9 million * 5 = 45 million
Nice meme plane you got there guys.
>>27904059
>But this is a numbers game.
Which means you have to take into account ground crews and pilots.
>>27904148
That's FAC's job, y'know, the guy on the ground.
>>27904153
Don't forget no pilot to get ransomed/held hostage/killed and have to retrain
>>27904184
I don't remember the last time I saw an aircraft taking off with anything more than a few bombs that was actually going out for strikes.
>>27904183
>So if its just going to act as 'insert strawman'
>>27904093
Thats fine in entirely safe airspace, ask Veitnam how it does when you use Strategic bombers for CAS against any form of defenses
>>27904135
>now consider the idea of using Tucanos to attack groups of enemies with the ability to fight back with local AAA
Both the A-10 and the A-29 would fail if they had to attack a group with competent AA. In that scenario, you'd need fighter planes. Either that, or just accept that you're gonna lose some people.
I like the Super Toucan because I believe it is a cost-effective way to fill the role of an attack plane for killing soft targets. I have no illusions that it would get murdered if it were ever sent into a real combat zone against an enemy with anti-aircraft weapons. But then, so would the A-10.
For hard targets, fighters should be the ones handling it. Or perhaps even bombers.
>>27904122
>but you can't always route a fighter with ordinance for hard targets. when troops call for air support
It is up to command to make sure that appropriate air assets are available when they are needed. Technology cannot replace the need for human beings to plan properly for contingencies.
>>27904201
If you don't know what a strawman is, you shouldn't mention the word. It makes you look retarded.
>>27904148
There have been three friendly-fire incidents involving A-10s and one friendly fire incident involving a B-1 since 2001.
>>27904208
Ask vietnam how it does when you use CAS aircraft for CAS against any form of defenses
>>27904199
This is a normal loadout, training munitions aside.
It would take several Tacos to carry this, let alone the weight of the gun.
>>27904191
This is true, but short of VDL, there is no exact way to be able to see exactly what the sensor operator is looking at, so why not have the guy who isnt flying over 10 grid zones at way higher altitude, and is actively able to both double check visibly with NVGs at anything ground ir mark as well as whatever grid he has derived at the time
>>27904135
>The A-10 can operate in Non-permissive engagements where the Tucano would be down in seconds
its almost as if you're trying to imply the tucano has no countermeasures
>>27904144
>>27904149
>trusting terrorists' claims
>same claim was refuted by columbian airforce
>>27904098
>The argument that a Tucano can get shot down by ground fire applies to the A-10 too.
>Super Tuc downed by .50
>A-10 can eat several 23mm rounds to vital areas
>>27904215
There was a B-1 friendly fire incident just last year
>>27904175
I seem to recall the only US a/c shot down in OIF was an A-10. Just sayin.
>>27904244
Hence why he said there has been ONE B-1 friendly fire incident since 2001. IS English your first language?
>>27904234
>it's not possible to get GPS coordinates for an area away from you with a simple hand held device
Are you living in the 70s? Do you not realize how this has been done for years now?
>>27904223
>>27904208
>Refering to a war that ended 40 fucking years ago
>>27903950
>maintenance costs for 30 planes and pilot training + salary for 30 pilots
>not a factual rebuttal
baka desu senpai
>>27904244
That would be the single incident attributed to the B-1.
>>27904243
Neither the A-10 or the A-29 should be operating in any area where AA is present. They're both too slow to survive. That's what fighters are for.
>>27904214
>Make claim no one said.
>Argue against it.
>N-No I didn't strawman!
Speaking of someone making themselves look retarded.
>>27904251
I will never rely solely FS calc on a DAGR for my tgt location on a 9-line unless that tgt is way the hell away
>>27904271
Well its kind of hard to pinpoint exactly what was said when the rebuttal was an image with no fucking comment, dingus
If the idea was that the A-10 can operate in non-permissive environments by only utilizing JDAMs, there are better assets for that. If that wasn't the point, you have to use words for people to understand your stupid opinions
Thats not a strawman. End yourself.
>>27904135
that is not the definition of non-permissive airspace.
>>27903919
While i don't fully agree with the guy you are replying to, that post you made was completely retarded. He was talking about reduced operating costs, not the possibility of more planes for the same cost.
>>27904246
I seem to recall the only US a/c shot down in ODF/OAF was a pair of F-16's and an F-117. Just sayin.
>>27904208
Just fine when ROE opens up enough and you've flattened all the strategic threats that you can have a bomber act as CAS.
>>27904153
>This is the job of the reaper, which is better than the Super T in every way.
Okay then. Like I said, I don't think the A-10 needs a replacement at all. It can simply be retired without any direct replacement. But if you absolutely needed a direct replacement for the A-10, the Super Tucano would be a cost-effective way to fill that role without breaking the bank on development costs. The A-29 can be purchased off the shelf for a reasonable price.
>>27904285
>claim A-10's cannot operate in non-permissive environment
>get shown an example of something that lets an A-10 operate in a non-permissive environment
>goalpost moving ensues
>>27904315
>but easily within reach of 'vehicle mounted SAMs'
Neither can operate in a non-permissive envrionment.
The actual definition of one, not some made-up bullshit based around Shilkas because thats what happens in DCS
Still not a strawman, either. Want to say "Ad Hominem" and complete the fedora trifecta for argument theory?
>>27904315
are you saying tucanos cant use JDAMs? because they can
>>27904231
Or half a Strike Eagle.
Plus, y'know, a radar, better crew workload, BVR missiles, energy advantage, etc.
>>27904328
oh and about 4x the gas too, let's not forget that.
plus afterburners so you can respond to a TIC within the hour instead of within the day.
>>27904081
>black dot in the sky
>ALLAH ACKBAR [gunfire intensifies]
>aircraft flying low
>ALLAH ACKBAR [running for cover intensifies]
Which do you think is more noticeable for soldiers on the ground?
>>27904338
Probably some goatherder getting vaporized by a 500lb bomb
>>27904234
>>27904276
everybody's ROVER capable these days. plus you can do a target talk on using a SNIPER pod on a B-1.
>>27904315
how does a laser JDAM allow an A-10 to not die against a SA-19 or a SA-6?
>>27904327
>are you saying tucanos cant use JDAMs?
It hasn't happened yet.
>>27904238
>its almost as if you're trying to imply the tucano has no countermeasures
It's almost as if you're implying the A-10 isn't carrying nearly a 1/2 ton of armor on vital components has multiple redundancy in the Hydraulics and has literally dozens of other features to ensure it survivability, as well as carry more countermeasure than the Super Tuc.
>>27904246
One plane was shot down, welp better scrap all the planes and give up on air power then.
>>27904253
Point me to a more recent one that has had any form of conflict that hasn't been a curbstomp due to the technological gap between the forces
>>27904270
Literally whut?
Fighters are Fighters, they attack aircraft. Attackers are Attackers, they attack ground targets.
These are what craft are designed for.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're only partially retarded and assume you meant multiroles. and there is a reason for the term "Jack of all trades, Master of none" existing, or would you also posit that the F-18 out performs the F-15
>>27904338
>black dot in the sky
>aircraft flying low
Which do you think is easier to shoot down?
>>27904250
Those guys lose track of the FLOT a lot more than when there is an actual fratricide incident, I will grant you there are more cases of A-10 fratricide, I will argue that the amount of CAS missions carried out by A-10s far outnumber the amount of CAS by B-1
>>27904359
how does a laser JDAM allow an >insert aircraft< to not die against a SA-19 or a SA-6?
>>27904363
>Point me to a more recent one that has had any form of conflict that hasn't been a curbstomp due to the technological gap between the forces
Yeah, that doesn't make it any more relevant.
>It's almost as if you're implying the A-10 isn't carrying nearly a 1/2 ton of armor on vital components has multiple redundancy in the Hydraulics and has literally dozens of other features to ensure it survivability, as well as carry more countermeasure than the Super Tuc.
and yet one got destroyed by an Igla's 1kg warhead
almost like aircraft should rely on energy and speed to avoid being blown the fuck out of the sky, rather than being a tank, because the latter doesn't work.
>>27904347
When you can get ROVER signal depending on the terrain and weather, and what receiver you are using
>>27904371
By operating at a high enough altitude to allow their speed and kinematics to avoid SAMs with a much higher success rate than an aircraft using turbofans
>>27904370
and you'd be wrong about percentages.
>>27904371
yeah, my point exactly. shoot a HARM at it or just get the army to hit it with an artillery strike.
>>27904363
>Fighters are Fighters, they attack aircraft.
This isn't 1955. Fighters do a whole more than just "attack aircraft." Modern fighters are a versatile weapons platform that can handle a wide range of missions, including air-to-ground.
>>27903802
if there was ever a time to replace the a10 it would've been after the gulf war
>>27904346
All of the goatherder's buddies would still be shooting at the soldiers, so they would definitely notice it.
>>27904389
>weather
good thing the A-10 has a weather-penetrating radar set on board so they can see through the same clouds... oh wait.
plus you ROVER to the jet. and if in doubt just tell them "north side of the road, building northwest corner, southeastern corner of that building second floor, etc." type SNIPER talkons. just don't be an idiot and say "you see the building with the red truck?"
>>27904391
dude everybody's got turbofans. the A-10 has high bypass and no reheat though.
>>27904370
The A-10 performed 19% of all CAS in Afghanistan. In comparison, the F-16 flew 33% of CAS missions in Afghanistan and only had a single friendly-fire incident.
>>27904391
Just like in Serbia.
>>27904337
Yeah. Know an F-15 pilot. Said they got called to do some missions in an area that were usually left to other planes. Said they killed a lot of Taliban since the Taliban in that area were used to a fairly consistent response time bracket and caught them off guard.
>>27904385
>and yet one got destroyed by an Igla's 1kg warhead
>almost like aircraft should rely on energy and speed to avoid being blown the fuck out of the sky, rather than being a tank, because the latter doesn't work.
As did an F-16C
It's almost as if 1 example doesn't make an ironclad rule, because pretending that it does just makes you look retarded
>>27904418
What percentage of both aircraft's CAS were danger close?
>>27904371
The SA-19 is an obsolete peace of shit.
The SA-6 is too complicated for any sand people to use.
>>27904433
let's be honest here, Scott O'Grady was an idiot who should have had his wings pulled and i don't know why he's ever held up as an example at SERE school (along with random Japanese holdouts in the pacific islands in the 60's and 70's) of what to do.
>>27904398
So tell me how with these amazing fighters can deal with A2G munitions when not designed to use them, Because I sure would love to know what special powers the F-22 has
Incidentally That pic you linked, Omnirole = Multirole you pleb
>>27904433
Except the Pentagon clearly believes that the A-10 has inferior survivability in comparison to faster aircraft.
>>27903802
>Replace the A-10
It's being replaced by multiroles. The Air Force wants to retire it because they want to buy a bunch of F35s and not retire all their F16s.
>>27904418
To be fair, the F-16 performs every mission the USAF dose because they have a billion of the fucking things.
One of the most versatile and successful platforms ever, but gets nothing like the iconic status of the A-10.
>>27904441
the only thing newer than a SA-19 is a SA-22.
>>27904453
well F-22s have dropped SDBs on ISIS so it seems they're doing just fine.
also wtf is an "omnirole"
>>27904472
>Except the Pentagon clearly believes that the A-10 has inferior survivability in comparison to faster aircraft.
Yet despite this they constantly choose to keep it in service for longer each time the review comes up
>>27904472
>dat selective highlighting
anti-access environments exclude most aircraft
>>27904453
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/166820/usaf-belatedly-describes-first-f_22-airstrikes-in-june.html
>>27904453
Dude. Practically any fighter can drop an assortment of air-to-ground weapons these days. I only used the Rafale image because I think it perfectly demonstrates the innate versatility of a modern fighter plane. There really isn't any concrete reason to have a dedicated manned subsonic attack plane when you have multirole fighters like this at your disposal.
>>27904480
If you are going to chime in, at least try to have an educated opinion.
>>27904499
because Congress keeps passing laws forcing the Pentagon to keep it or come up with more bullshit reviews to justify getting rid of it (hey if you gave the Air Force unlimited money they'd keep the damn things)
>>27904480
The F-16 can do anything an A-10 should do, but an A-10 can only do 1 thing an F-16 can.
>>27904488
>also wtf is an "omnirole"
>Omni is a Latin prefix meaning "all" or "every"
You tell me genius
>>27904294
>and to top it off you can field swarms of them for the upkeep cost of the A-10... what's not to like?
>>27903802
>Should we retire the A-10,
Yes. Even in an environment like Gulf War 1, where American military forces clearly outmatched the opponent, the A-10 took a considerable number of casualties due to ground SAMs.
Crew survivability rate was good, but a damaged bird is one less bird in the air. It's better not to even get hit in the first place. Advances in missile technology and tracking have simply made the plane more of a death-trap.
It was built for the purposes of stalling a Warsaw Pact tank blitz over the German border by lofting a 30mm cannon airborne. It's now obsolete at all of those functions; it lacks the speed or stealth to infiltrate or evade ground AA, the 30mm GAU-8 can no longer reliably top attack most tanks and requires the jet to get dangerously close, and it is outlasted in the loiter mission by drones and/or high-flying aircraft with better fuel efficiency.
Sure, you can see it from the ground and it *might* raise the spirits of your troops a bit, but having an accurate and precise JDAM come down on your target is also a really big morale booster.
>and if so, what would you replace it with?
For missions in permissive airspace, drones. For the modern battlefield roles the F-15E and F-16 are already doing the lion's share of tactical interdiction, and the F-35 will continue in that role.
>>27904529
>The F-16 can do anything an A-10 should do
Things that are not true.
>>27904533
so it's the same damn thing as multirole but you're a dipshit? great thanks.
>>27904488
And the A-10 has also fired Sidewinders with no issue, your point?
It doesn't change the fact that to specialize in something you always lose capacity on the other end of the scale, the trend of Multirole aircraft will disappear very quickly if used against a competent enemy.
>also wtf is an "omnirole"
Look at the picture of the Rafale you linked.
>>27904417
The A-10s are lower and are more often below the cloud deck, and at night, those talk ons are going to be a pain in the ass than just throwing up ir and having the pilot lean over and see where you are pointing, on top of them being much closer and having better sensor clarity
>>27904499
That's ONLY because of the unfortunate delays with the production of the F-35. Once enough F-35's are in operational service, the A-10 will finally get its (proudly earned) retirement.
>>27904522
The only reason the Air Force was going to retire A-10's was congress cutting their funding, so having congress restore funding for A-10's makes it a wash.
Couldnt Apaches and Cobras fill the role of CAS?Multi-roles and UAVs provide the larger munitions and attack helicopters get in close. Those helicopters are also directly connected to their respective branches. Theres no need to go through the Air Force.
>>27904529
You almost have it backwards there, chief. The A-10 can employ all the weapons the F-16 can, from the deck all the way up.
The F-16 can drop PGM's safely from angels high, and not much else. Itss use in mavs is also considerably less accurate and more taxing on the pilot, compared to how much more easily the A-10 can use them.
Literally the only thing the A-10 can't do, that an F-16 can, is air to air
The tucano is a good budget plane for counter insurgency, recon and basically any opponent who does not have either
A) MANPADs
B) AA guns
OP you must be stupid to suggest this, anyone who suggests this is stupid. As soon as someone gets a lock or a bead on this thing, it's fucked.
It's not going to be able to get out of range before it dumps it's flares, it's not travelling as fast because it's a prop so it's more liable to get shot down by AA fire
YOU
ARE
DUMB
SON
DIFFERENT ROLES, DIFFERENT PLANES NIGGUH
>>27904540
>It was built for the purposes of stalling a Warsaw Pact tank blitz over the German border by lofting a 30mm cannon airborne.
Stop with the meme.
The A-10 was built to perform CAS and escort helicopters based on America's experiences in Vietnam.
>>27904482
Sid Vicious is iconic, but he was a poor musician.
>>27904545
it fires Sidewinders by uncaging the seeker nugget and hoping for the best as it comes off the rail.
>>27904546
what if the cloud deck's in the tens of feet? and you do realize a SNIPER pod is IR right?
>>27904559
the bullshit is it always goes like this:
"hey we're cutting your budget"
"ok we're gonna retire this old jet that's we can't afford to keep around anymore and is gonna get BTFO in a shooting war"
"NO MUH BRRT MUH GRUNT SUPPORT KEEP IT THE 3 YEARS I SPENT AS A LOGISTICS OFFICER IN 1975 BEFORE I GOT ELECTED MAKES ME THE MILITARY EXPERT OK ALSO YOU GOTTA KEEP THE IOWA CLASS"
"wat. are you gonna give me cash to keep this old thing flying?"
"NO MUH MEME JET 4EVA"
>>27904570
that's a pretty big thing to not be able to do.
oh yeah... how about break the sound barrier? or really just fly faster than 300 knots...
>>27904568
short ranges give them different criteria for use
>>27904590
And the IR pods will not see through any real cloud cover
>>27904362
>yet
whats your point? its happening
>>27904391
supertucano has a turboprop
there is a difference
>>27904385
>carry more countermeasure
it also has larger heat and radar signature
>>27904608
well then the A-10's useless. but guess what's not totally useless? that's right, the F-16, F-35, F-15E, B-1, hell even the fucking BUFF because of this magic invention called radar that goes through clouds.
>>27904617
>air to ground munitions that are guided by radar
What sorcery is this?
>>27904617
Try using radar to pinpoint a target, you cant even see people are light structures, not ideal for a danger close mission
>>27904604
>this weak trolling
>>27904654
The A-10 is incapable of even reaching Mach 1. much less exceeding it.
I think all the F22/F35 shitposting is really cute
Americans are trying soooooooooooooooooo hard to justify all the setbacks and spending, and by the time the programme is actually operational and all the problems ironed out; yeah maybe they'll have a nice aircraft but they could have designed like three other more specialized aircraft which perform the job 100X better
Stay keked americans
>>27904640
see pic.
>>27904645
yeah obviously it's not ideal but at least you can do a radar fix, update your EGI, and pickle a JDAM based off of that.
>>27903802
Is it bad to be turned on by such a sexy beast?
>>27904609
>it also has larger heat and radar signature
Yes, a larger radar signature is a side effect of a much larger aircraft
As for the heat signature, that is the reason behind the A-10's Engine position Direct exhaust locks are shrouded, from a grounded angle by both the Horizontal and vertical controls.
Where as the exhausts on a prop plane are forward and make the Exhaust plume much more visible from side aspects
don't kid yourself that any modern AA missile would fail to lock onto either of them though
>>27904676
>i don't know how R&D works, nor the timeline of the f-35
>>27904676
>britbong
Designated ski slopes.
>>27904676
>Designing three separate aircraft
That's basically what the F-35 is, you retard.
>>27904681
Thats true, I'll admit my experience with CAS is very niche compared to the regular variety of mission types, so I am really biased to close in night CAS situations
>>27904683
>don't kid yourself that any modern AA
I dont
but jesus man you're really underselling the capabilities of the toucano
>>27904751
No, I'm just realistic.
The Tuc is a briliant aircraft for COIN, but it is not suitable as a CAS aircraft.
That is not to say It could not perform CAS if no other craft where availiable, only that most aircraft would out perform it due to performance, payload and survivability differences
>>27903802
You should only replace it with an aircraft that can serve the same role.
Nothing else can deliver the sheer amount of devastation to unarmored and lightly armored targets.
>>27904776
In order to replace the A-10 you'd need to buy 280 aircraft. I don't think there is any aircraft out there that you can off-the-shelf 280 planes and get the same value as the Super Tucano. And you wouldn't have to pay development costs at all. I think the money could be better spent elsewhere, but if you absolutely gotta have a new plane to replace the A-10 when it retires, you could do a whole lot worse for the money than the A-29 Super Tucano.
>>27904816
this
>>27904683
No, the reason the engines are mounted up there is to protect them from ground fire frontally, as well as reduce the likelihood of FOD damage.
>>27904816
When the A-10 retires the F-35 will be taking it's place, likely ignoring it's stealth profile and mounting hardpoints to give it the payload it needs
>>27904805
Attack helicopters do that better
>>27904845
>>27904805
>Attack helicopters do that better
He's right, you know.
>>27904886
>131nm combat radius
>>27904844
And it would still be more stealthy and more capable and more versatile than the A-10.
>>27904696
>What is being out of schedule
>What is being out of budget
>What was not having the gun working halfway through last year (Still probably an issue)
Excuses, nothing more
>>27904700
nah m8 try again not a brit
>>27904719
More like three similar aircraft and none of them does their job really well in anything
>>27904338
SOLDIERS DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT FANCY GUN RUNS
THEY GIVE A FUCK ABOUT COMING HOME ALIVE
BOMBS DELIVER MORE CAS ON TARGET FASTER AND MORE ACCURATELY
The A-10 is making niggers mad and thats a good thing. Stay mad niggers.
![F11-71896[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5vsOpEb.jpg "F11-71896[1].jpg")
>>27904951
>More like three similar aircraft and none of them does their job really well in anything
Yeah. Because they're still building them. Once they're operational, they'll be able to perform a wide variety of mission profiles very well, including Close Air Support.
>join the air force in hopes of one day piloting the a10
>now stuck in this faggot plane staring at its faggot propeller all day.
>>27904540
Now that is one sexy fucking aircraft
10/10 would arouse me again
hey guys whats up
>>27905035
I dunno, your airframe buckling under the shockwaves of that 105 yet?
>>27904951
>I don't know what the F-35's schedule was
>I don't know what the F-35's budget has been
>I still think the "gun dun werk"
Speaking of excuses.
>>27903802
Clearly this
>>27904953
>THEY GIVE A FUCK ABOUT COMING HOME ALIVE
So you acknowledge they value having 'all' of the opposition stop firing at them instead of just the specific target of a bomb.
>>27904886
>sand
>retreating blade stalls
>crashing into mountain sides
>limited range
>so much better, guys
>>27903896
when a meme actually causes you to change your opinion
9.5/10
>>27904346
>spending millions of dollars to take out goat herders
>>27904951
Figured it would start in this thread.
Oh well, let's get it started, shall we?
>>27905071
so a 500 lb bomb doesn't make people stop fighting when their buddies get turned into hair teeth and eyeballs for a couple hundred yards?
I think some of the reason why people love the A-10 so much are related to why it is becoming obsolescent.
It's an attack plane in the WW2 through Vietnam mold, so its job is naturally awe-inspiring. The whole reason we have an emotional thing about it is because it was designed to fly into danger and deliver a beating from close range. This is badass because it is dangerous and daring. But USAF, like any sane organization, prefers to reduce danger.
The US public can't stomach heavy losses anymore. As long as guided weapons were rare and expensive, Air Force put up with the risks and the losses caused by engaging at low altitude. They lost a ton of strike aircraft in Vietnam. Expensive airframes lost, expensive pilots killed. Now that PGMs are bread and butter, they don't want to keep being badass when they could just be practical. Practical in this case means slinging guided bombs from a stealthy fast jet at a safe altitude.
Low and slow close attack is still covered by helos, that are arguably better at the job but have their own disadvantages as well. Also losing them is cheaper.
tl;dr dangerous = awesome. Air Force doesn't want to be awesome when it doesn't have to.
>>27905071
How does a gun run stop everyone from firing but a huge fucking explosion doesn't?
>>27905116
>>27905134
not when they eventually figure out you only drop 1 $5million dollar bomb at a time and not staying around to kill everyone
>literally tactical propeller planes
bueno
>>27905178
>Aircraft can only carry one bomb.
>>27905178
a JDAM is like $25k. to put it in perspective, that's probably half the cost of the fuel in the jet at that moment.
Recommend they bring the F14 out of retirement and have them breed with the A10s to create the ultimate aircraft.
>>27905178
The USA has a $650 Billion military budget. The cost of an individual missile or bomb means nothing and is not worthy of concern in a combat situation.
>>27905199
sandniggers= cheap obsolete shit that hasnt been scrapped yet
actual fighting force= JDAM all day
>>27905134
>jihadi fireteams causing problems
>L-JDAM'd mk.82 slams into the ground, aimed at a point in the middle of the men
>Mohammed has no head, Hakeem got frag through the heart and bled out in seconds, Amir got thrown 300m by the blast and crumpled when he hit the ground, Omar was impaled by his own rifle
>the dust settles
>gunfire resumes
>headless Moe on the PKM, Hakeem is ghostly pale but still shooting, Omar is trying to get his AK out from his belly
>Amir is seen walking around looking for a weapon
Zombies.
>>27905203
> F14
> retirement
Anon... I have some news...
>>27903802
who are you giving the speech too?
>>27905215
it's important in a protracted war.
>>27905224
the only way you get a bomb any cheaper is if you don't have any guidance on it. and that's not going to happen these days unless we just have a grid square we want to flatten and want to drag every single bomber in Global Strike Command out for a gang bang of iron.
>>27905239
kek'd heartily
>>27905250
again
Sandniggers= obsolete shit collecting dust you havent scrapped or sold off yet
actual combat force= JDAMS up the ass
>>27905250
The US has fought the longest war ever, more or less, using PGM including a hell of a lot of Hellifre missiles that cost four times as much as a JDAM.
It's not like these are Standard 3's or something. They don't cost very much.
>>27905250
>it's important in a protracted war.
I'm sorry. Did I say $650 Billion? I meant $650 Billion per year. Plenty of money for buying more missiles. The individual cost of a single missile or bomb simply does not matter in a combat situation.
>>27905224
more like
sandniggers = JDAM all day
actual fighting force = JDAM, JDAM-ER, L-JDAM, Paveway, WCMD/SFW, SDB I and II, HARM, and more
>>27905286
>RIM-161 Standard 3
>24 million
>each
HOLY FUCK.
Are they made of unicorn bone?
>>27905292
>>27905309
sandniggers are just there to literally absorb resources by being a target until you kill them by spending more resources
its like flushing sentient cockroaches down the toilet with a limited water supply
>>27905292
>>27905286
if we have to stop Soviet tanks coming across the Fulda gap, the economics of war matter. but yeah for this it doesn't matter.
>>27905269
what do you think a JDAM is? you literally strap a guidance package to a 'Nam era iron bomb and put it on a jet.
>>27905309
this dude gets it. plus more fun stuff like the GBU-28, BLU 109, etc. since other countries might have some tough nuts to crack.
>>27905250
Assuming a 1.5 second burst at 3,900 rounds per minute and $35 per 30mm shell, it costs slightly more than $3,400 per trigger pull of the GAU-8.
>>27905269
JDAM is literally a guidance system for old ass munitions.
>>27905318
Was there a point to this post?
>>27905352
avoid sandniggers, they're a waste of energy
>>27905352
racism.
>>27905344
Yeah, but it's mostly on Mk 80's that only cost a few thousand dollars. The cost of the gravity bomb isn't worth worrying about.
If it had to be replaced, this.
>>27905331
The gun fires either 1 or 2 second bursts, 50 or 120 shells.
At 1,150 rounds in the drum, that's 23 or 9.5 bursts.
>>27905479
So basically an F-35 with worse RCS, no fancy EO vision, but better range?
>>27905134
>How does a gun run stop everyone from firing but a huge fucking explosion doesn't?
You are getting drawn into the meme.
Its not the 'gun run', its having a plane persistently flying near you. A black dot in the sky does not have this effect.
lets get some of the nazi planes with the 75mm cannon
>>27905533
I split the difference.
>>27905568
It doesn't persistently fly near you. It orients itself for a gun run, performs the run, then reorients itself to perform another run as needed.
>>27905568
if we want show of force, an AC-130 has better loiter and a B-1 low on full burners is a hell of a racket and makes everybody else's head go down.
the A-10 is fairly quiet.
>>27905568
A black dot is much harder to shoot down.
>>27905239
>jihadi fireteams causing problems
>L-JDAM'd mk.82 slams into the ground, aimed at a point in the middle of the men
>Mohammed has no head, Hakeem got frag through the heart and bled out in seconds, Amir got thrown 300m by the blast and crumpled when he hit the ground, Omar was impaled by his own rifle
>the dust settles
>gunfire resumes from the surrounding blocks
>Abdul on the PKM, Wahdat is ghostly pale but still shooting, Afiya fires his AK in the air to remember his fallen comrade
>Mubdai is seen walking around looking for a weapon
>>27905609
Neither the AC-130 or B-1 are built to take any ground fire, which is why one is normally only flown at night and the other normally doesn't fly low.
>>27905629
bzzzzzt LAME!
>>27903802
Why not just buy more AC-130s? I haven't heard anything bad about the AC-130. Is it effective? Can it fill the role of the A-10?
>>27905607
What you described is persistently near you.
>>27905642
>getting shot
>good design choice/tactics
pick one.
Just speaking from experience, I'd pick an A-10 over any other fixed wing aircraft to provide CAS; given its loiter time, armaments, and intimidation factor.
The people in this thread who are saying shows of force are ineffective are retarded, and have no been in a gunfight in their life. I've listened to radio traffic of insurgents hiding/running/praying when A-10s show up. You don't get that from other aircraft, aside from the Apache.
But, whatever. Keep pumping up multirole shit, that yes can do the job, but not nearly as well. Also, to the guys crapping on the A-10s gun, you're most likely retarded and should strongly consider celibacy.
I'd venture that nobody in this thread has ever been on the verge of being overrun. The A-10 has saved a lot of lives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WIsmvTtMNc
>>27905645
Read up on Spirit 03.
>>27905679
dude i don't tell you how to hump a radio and kick down doors, don't tell me how to make fuzzy green pixels lots of smaller fuzzy green pixels.
you want the A-10 go and get Congress to fund it and all the other shit we need. you don't mind if it comes from the 75th's training budget, right?
I don't understand this Super Tucano meme.
Why is a BR-plane so popular here?
pls help
>>27905679
fake Ricky
sincerely, DOUK
>>27905704
Fuck you I didn't ask for these feels.
>>27905672
I will pick
>designing an aircraft for the circumstances it might encounter / appropriate tactics
>>27905714
Same reason A-10 is popular, it fits the badass image of old-school low&slow strike.
>>27905119
>>27905733
so make it fast (and therefore with enough energy on the jet) to get it out of trouble and not get shot in the first place?
glad we're in agreement as to why the A-10 is outdated since we're not killing tanks in the Fulda Gap anymore.
how hard could it be to build some cheap aircraft for COIN missions
Under 10 million each
3-4 people in it, can loiter all day, etc
>>27905609
AC-130 is a 200 million dollar plane
Goddamn tucanofags always shitting in threads like this.
>>27905714
F-35 fanboys and A-10 fanboys being baited into sperging at each other.
A vicious cycle of memes and partisan dipshittery that makes discussing either aircraft's values all the more difficult.
>>27905657
Except for when it's miles away on approach or turning around. Plus once it starts combat maneuvers it's ability to stick around drops rapidly.
>>27905629
>jihadi fireteams causing problems
>30mm slams into the ground, aimed at a point in the middle of the men
>Mohammed has no head, Hakeem got a hole in his torso, Amir crumpled into ground beef, Omar was impaled on his own rifle as he dove for cover
>the dust settles
>gunfire resumes from the surrounding blocks
>Abdul on the PKM, Wahdat is ghostly pale but still shooting, Afiya fires his AK in the air to remember his fallen comrade
>Mubdai is seen walking around looking for a weapon
>>27905710
Not sure how I'm telling you to do your job, just making a personal observation.
The Army has offered to pick up the A-10 twice(?) now though, which the AF vehemently refuses all the while trying to kill it.
>>27905726
Eh?
>>27905728
Could have turned down the request too. Absolute shame.
>>27905815
because i blow shit up from the air for a living.
and the Army said something along the lines of "yeah we're gonna be sad to see it go but we're dealing with budget cuts too and we understand"
>>27905815
>The Army has offered to pick up the A-10 twice
You mean the Air Force offered it to the Army and was turned down, right?
>>27905812
>jihadi fireteams causing problems
>30mm slams into the ground, aimed at a point in the middle of the men
>Mohammed has no head, Hakeem got a hole in his torso, Amir crumpled into ground beef, Omar was impaled on his own rifle as he dove for cover
>the dust settles
>the surrounding blocks are silent
>Abdul ran east, Wahdat ran west and Afiya is hiding in a nearby stairwell
>Mubdai is seen on his knees praying
>>27905815
>The Army has offered to pick up the A-10 twice(?) now though
The Army has never asked for the A-10.
>>27905876
>>27905812
>improbable scenarios
This kid actually thinks a gun run will take out more men than a bomb. Just wow.
>>27905876
>The Army has never asked for the A-10.
Not outright, but in the 90s there was a lot of talk about making it an organic Army/Marine Corp asset. There was a paper presented to the House Armed Services Committee about it.
why don't they just make new A-10's with better engines and electronics?
>>27903802
>>27905876
>The Army has never asked for the A-10.
yeah this is what i'm talking about. Ricky i love you bro but you're not a SME on airpower. stocking bombs/AGMs, training how to fight ACM, maintaining airframes, maintaining Sidewinders (you gonna go with Helium or Nitrogen to cool it?), integrating into strike packages/the overall air war, deconflicting, etc. is just not an Army competency anymore (and hasn't remotely been one since like 1926) and picking up the A-10 for meme reasons/"MUH BRRRRT" is just a stupid idea. it's the type of idea like "pop rocks and coke will make you explode" based on a limited/naive view of stuff.
>>27905932
the Air Force has always been more forward thinking and focus on technology-based solutions than the Marines and the Army. just the basis of how they (and the Navy for that matter) fight war. they probably could see the writing on the wall for the anti-armor role of the A-10 and didn't forsee a protracted low-intensity conflict to make the "CAS can only be done with a giant gun in a slow jet" meme.
>>27905950
>technology-based solutions
more like money based solutions
desu
>>27905938
Because anything with enough engine wouldn't be an A-10.
>>27905902
Who are you quoting, because neither said that.
>>27905950
>you're not a SME on airpower
Can't recall ever saying I was. I said if I'm in the shit and I had a choice between certain sets of fixed wing aircraft, I'd go with the A-10.
>stocking bombs/AGMs, training how to fight ACM, maintaining airframes, maintaining Sidewinders (you gonna go with Helium or Nitrogen to cool it?), integrating into strike packages/the overall air war, deconflicting, etc. is just not an Army competency anymore (and hasn't remotely been one since like 1926) and picking up the A-10 for meme reasons/"MUH BRRRRT" is just a stupid idea.
Never espoused anything contrary to that, or stated I have any knowledge of it.
All I ever said was that based on my experience, I'd prefer to have an A-10 over other fixed wing air assets supporting me. I'm a SOTACC grad, I've directed air assets against actual targets on the ground, etc.
Those were the only claims ever made. I would much rather have an A-10 providing my CAS than an F-15, 16, 18, etc. That's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.
>>27905932
And this is what I'm referring to.
>>27903802
The A-10 Heavy Destroyer...Six 20mm gatling cannons around the nose cone inline engine as well as the two Micky mouse ears.
>>27903875
Except for British troops who constantly get shot up by their own A-10's
>>27904093
Oh my God, imagine putting a pair of GAU-8/A Avenger's on the underside of this baby.
>>27904138
This is like a 9mm is just as good as 40 S&W argument.
>>27904398
The rafale is a fucking awesome bomb truck
