Why don't we just build more A-10's?
They're virtually perfect at what they do. Maybe just revamp the electronics a little and call it good.
They're useless outside of asymmetrical warfare. Not worthmaking new airframe for.
>>28080749
They're not versatile enough to be worth building more. We can keep using the ones we have because, hey, we already have them, might as well use them, but there isn't really any compelling reason to acquire more. Don't worry, the Hog will still be around until 2028. It still has plenty more work to do before it gets retired.
>>28080749
Unless a country has the balls to start a non nuclear global conflict, then the A-10 is not good anymore at its true role.
If WW3 did break out against USSR back when hog was conceived, then it would have destroyed T-72s. However with new asymmetrical warfare, we can't do much anymore.
>>28080886
>>28080843
But with the never-ending stream of bullshit going down in the middle-east, the only real air role left is close air support, and our newer aircraft are absolutely shit at that. There are no factories or bridges or airfields that you can simply send strike bombers into: these are random people living amongst civilians who occasionally decide to come out and shoot at things. Platforms like the F-35 are too fast, too vulnerable, and too lightly armed to perform CAS.
Like why are we focusing so much on air to air combat these days? Air engagements are pretty much unheard of these days.
>>28080984
Best CAS plane coming through.
the tools to make the airplane parts are not available anymore.
it would cost almost as much as developing it again and take forever.
>>28080984
>implying every war that the US will ever fight will be kebab wars in the middle east
>imblying that terrorist sympathizers are innocent
>implying a F-35 is vulnerable to snackbar AA
>>28080749
i would love to see them try to add stealth tech to it.
and maybe like sweep the wings
The A-10 is useless against current tanks. The gatling gun, as cool as it is, will not penetrate their armor, and a modern tank's targeting system would be able to smack the A-10 right out of the sky with its main cannon.
>>28080749
Because ~280 is enough for what we use them for.
>>28081015
Who would we hypothetically fight with an airforce that wouldn't be decimated in a matter of hours by more capable air superiority fighters?
China and Russia are both nuclear armed, so that's out of the question since it would be global armageddon anyway.
>>28081014
>the tools to make the airplane parts are not available anymore.
>aircraft are being re-winged
I think people are confusing the F-14 with the A-10.
>They're virtually perfect at what they do.
Burning shitloads of fuel doing something that a modernized Skyraider could do just as easily?
>>28081044
>ARMA 3 A-164 PILOT DETECTED
>Stealth Tech on a CAS Jet
stop my sides could be used as a railgun projectile.
CAS aircraft are built to be flying tanks. and carry MASSIVE payloads. Think about some items, If you try to sealth the intakes, the fan blades will still give it away, all of its ordance is carried on hard points. Even if you added conformal weapon bays that have stealth, then its capabilities will be severely destroyed. Plus the muzzle of that GAU will be a dead give away.
>>28081051
>a modern tank's targeting system would be able to smack the A-10 right out of the sky with its main cannon
I'm going to call bullshit on that one.
>>28081051
The gun was never the A-10's primary anti-tank weapon.
>>28081051
someone has been playing too much BF4
>>28081133
Been doing it since desert combat. It's no harder than knocking down a blackhawk with an RPG
>>28081081
Does anyone have a fullsize of the Raptor in this pic? It's fucking beautiful.
>>28080749
Because declaring something obsolete, then initiating a multi-billion dollar aerospace project is what makes the most money for all the contracting groups and big aerospace companies.
>>28081143
>says tank in BF2 is as equal to IRL tank.
Tanks main role is ground to ground Armored combat. Not aiming for the sky and bein a badass. Even in game, it takes none of the targeting system.
>>28081143
source or bullshit
>>28081107
You are confusing CAS missions with an aircraft designed to be able to operate at low altitudes in permissive environments.
>>28081147
This is the image I used.
>>28081107
>and carry MASSIVE payloads.
The A-10 can't carry anymore than the Hornet can.
>>28081196
My bad. I usually combine the two because one kinda leads to another. I know CAS may be done by other aircraft. But you simply cannot "stealthify" a very survivable aircraft without some sacrifice.
>>28080749
>pulled off the the front line in the Gulf War
>perfect
nigger apply yourself
>>28081209
I was over exaggerating to make a point.
>>28081113
That just invalidates the A-10 even more because every aircraft can carry more and bigger ordnance and deliver it faster.
>>28081219
>A-10
>very survivable
>Can literally get killed by manpads, the most common and simple AA weapon out there.
>>28081207
Thanks anon
>>28081209
>things I made up
>>28081255
its not my fault that sand niggers are being such asymmetric fighters.....
BUT WAIT A MINUTE
>>28081252
Not really but by all means continue telling yourself that.
>>28081255
manpads are not the most common AA weapon out there
>>28081291
>Hornet
>Can carry 8050 kg of ordinance over 11 hardpoints
>A-10
>Can carry 7260 kg of ordinance over 11 hardpoints
Hornet wins.
>>28081342
anons never count the weight of their guns
>>28081312
B1B does the A-10's job 1000x better and shows in the fact the B1 has gotten a shit ton more CAS missions than A-10s have
>>28081358
Both the A-10 and the Hornet have internal cannons. They don't carry guns. The gun is built into the plane itself. It doesn't count as ordinance. Besides, its not like the gun itself would ever be considered ordinance. The gun shoots bullets, not bombs.
>>28081413
> A-10's Job 1000x better
The B-1B was a low level penetration bomber.
The only reason it got more CAS missions was due to it having a massive GPS guided bomb load.
>>28081358
Do they ever remove the cannons?
>>28081451
And a better loiter time than traditional tactical air combined with a phenomenal dash speed when shit is hitting the fan and CAS is needed post-haste
>>28081413
>the B1 has gotten a shit ton more CAS missions than A-10s have
Why such an obvious lie?
>>28081421
They built the plane around the gun.
>>28081421
>>28081456
I am enjoying these attempts to dismiss weight of carried weaponry.
>>28081506
I'm just not sure what the point of talking about it is. I don't think payload that is permanently spent on one thing counts as payload.
>>28081421
>Besides, its not like the gun itself would ever be considered ordinance. The gun shoots bullets, not bombs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_ordnance
>Aircraft ordnance or ordnance (in the context of military aviation) is weapons (e.g. bombs, missiles, rockets and gun ammunition) used by aircraft.
>gun ammunition
Greetings friends. I will be providing all of your Hellfire needs this evening.
>>28080749
We have a better chance of the A-10 production lines being brought back than pick related
>>28081466
It is slower than most high altitude CAS aircraft.
>>28081085
China may be nuclear armed, but their future satellite states sure won't be. I would bet anything this is the long term battleground the military is preparing for, fighting Chinese proxy governments in Africa and Central America. From what I can see we just want to be done with putting money into the Middle East and getting nothing back.
>>28081536
>It is slower than most high altitude CAS aircraft.
Uh... no.
>>28081476
>Eighty percent of CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been conducted not by the A-10, but by an array of other aircraft, including AC-130’s, F-15E’s, F-16’s, MQ-1’, B-52’s, and yes, the B-1.
>As for the B-1, it is not an insult to anyone’s intelligence to point out that 40% of the weapons tonnage dropped in Afghanistan came from the B1, in over 10,000 CAS-oriented sorties—and there is just no way the A-10 could have done this.
>>28081618
>40% of the weapons tonnage dropped in Afghanistan came from the B1
Also most of the collateral damage :^)
>>28081536
>B1
>Slow
>>28081564
>mach 1.25
>>28081618
>less than half the CAS sorties of an A-10
>>28081694
For a plane as big as the B-1 that's pretty darn fast. The god-tier loiter time combined with god-tier payload is the real prize, however.
>>28081694
the numbers the military releases are intentional down played. The same way a tall basketball player will intentionally call themselves a few inches short so it throws off the other team.
>>28081618
>>28081051
>and a modern tank's targeting system would be able to smack the A-10 right out of the sky with its main cannon.
>>28081694
>Expecting to hit mach 2 with a fighter burdened with external stores
>Expecting to go supersonic at all
>>28081760
Well duh, the B-1 can actually do mach 3 with a full payload.
>>28081633
Nice backpedaling. You can, of course, actually support this assertion, right?
>>28081780
That b8 is fucking trash man
not even the slav Tu-160 niggerjack can't hit mach 3. it can however hit mach 2 at altitude.
>>28081777
Tell us which aircraft used for high altitude CAS can and cannot break the sound barrier with an external load.
>>28081803
>stop responding to my hyperbole with hyperbole
>>28081618
>>28081764
USAF buying modern F-16s for CAS when? Screw the A-10 and B-1, the Viper's sexy as fuck.
>mfw people are disrespecting the BRRRRT in this thread
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/12/ac-130-to-get-laser-guns-air-launched-drones-heithold/
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/12/03/afsoc-leveraging-lessons-ac-130j-laser/76723364/
pew pew
>>28081831
not everyone spins around while mounting the GAU
>>28081831
It's a good plane. There is no reason to stop using it. But there isn't any reason to buy more, either. The B1 is a superior CAS plane, that's all we're trying to say.
>>28081051
Potentially yeah with the right terrain and conditions but this isn't indarside 2.
>>28081831
your meme'ing is part of the problem
>>28081856
You do not speak for the thread.
>>28081851
The two iterations of the AC-130 we're going to continue using have a 30mm + hardpoints + launch tubes or 30mm + ramp mounted 105mm + hardpoints + launch tubes.
>>28081881
I say he does.
>>28081893
You mean door mounted 105mm, aren't the Griffin tubes on the ramp?
>>28081893
>>28081945
Question: Why is the AC-130 so important to the Air Force in comparison to the A-10? Is it because Special Operations teams use it? The AC gets a new version pretty regularly.
>>28081540
why will we fight Chinese proxies
This is a sebenza-tier thread.
>>28081010
Underr8d poast
>>28081015
Holy fuck be more of an assblasted amerifat
>>28081984
>The AC gets a new version pretty regularly.
6 variants in almost 50 years?
>>28081775
A-10, nah, Hind, yes. But that is if the hind is flying predictably and the gunner is damn near god tier.
>>28082020
>that lack of an actual argument
speaking of booty blasted
If it was truly necessary to fly slow and low
You'd have to make the aircraft stealth to both radar and IR
But even then, it wouldn't be for CAS, it would be for hunting enemy vehicles or recon.
Still, you would have to be accepting that you will be losing lots of them, like choppers.
If it could be built for under say, 40 million, it would probably be fine.
>>28082055
show of force requires being seen
>>28082070
Exploding bombs can be seen.
>>28082070
>You want a show of force anon? I got you covered family
>>28082115
>>28082088
>actually dropping bombs for show of force
you already dun fucked up
>>28082220
>Dropping bombs isn't the most effective way to destroy the enemy.
>>28082236
worked in vietnam, iraq, and afghanistan, right?
~victories~ determined by the amount of people killed through bombing!
>>28082088
>>28082115
When your squad is getting picked off by enemy fire, do you really want a show of force or something that's going to make them stop killing your friends? Low, slow, CAS is the only way to do that.
>Superior tank buster coming through
>>28082250
>worked in vietnam
Yeah looks like it
>>28082250
Setting aside that all 3 of those were military victories, the anon doesn't realize dropping bombs comes after a show of force failed.
>>28082220
>Implying the show of force was the bombing run
No, the show of force is the supersonic low altitude sprint through the valley after reducing a different group of durkas to a messy hole in the ground.
>>28082260
The best way to get somebody to stop shooting is to kill them with bombs. A person who is dead cannot fire a gun.
>>28082294
Did you actually read the posts that were being responded to?
>>28082294
I always assumed the show of force was turning the target area into a cratered moonscape
>>28082299
if your targets are conveniently grouped up
>>28082310
Nope
>fite me fgt
>Bone is best
>A show of force is a military operation intended to warn or intimidate an opponent and to showcase one's own capability or will to act if provoked.
Is it that hard of a concept to understand?
>>28082329
>You can only make one pass.
>Implying you don't just keep flying in a circle around the target, dropping a cluster bomb or JDAM every time they dare poke their head out.
>>28082329
If they're not conveniently grouped up, a gun run would be even worse. With the absurd payloads the B-1B can carry it could literally throw a single bomb at every combatant for most firefights nowadays.
>this entire thread based on the assumption that the air force uses a strategic bomber for squad support
Yeah, and I bet the marines issue every squad a destroyer too, right?
>>28082352
I can't think of any way to better intimidate an opponent than a supersonic low-altitude penetration run.
>>28082381
>implying we'd need a strategic bomber to provide CAS
Just about everything else in the inventory does the A-10's job better. If the war's low intensity enough for the A-10 to be feasible, then we've got enough B-1s sitting around that we very much could use them for squad support.
If it gets past that, then you start sending out Strike Eagles, Super Hornets, and F-16s.
>>28082378
When they finally get their upgraded racks fielded
>144x SDB II
One hundred and forty fucking four GPS guided munitions... Each can have a separate target.
>>28082381
Of course there aren't enough strategic bombers to go around. That's what these babies are for.
>>28081775
maybe if the A-10 was flying in a straight line and then stalled? and was about 5 degrees above horizon and 1 mi out?
But yeah, that's a blatant lie.
>>28081808
F-15E, F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F, F-16CM... bombs and other stores slow you down a lot. you might be able to crack M1.0001
>>28081984
there are like 15-20 AC-130's on active duty right now. it's not very many. and up until now (with the AC-130J (yes, the one that some idiot managed to depart to the point where it was inverted)) they've all been basically cobbled together with whatever guns and avionics the AF's got lying around. the Pilot's side-facing HUD is pulled from a F-15, the howitzer is from the Army, they're using a Bushmaster 30mm cannon now, etc.
>>28082260
who on the ground really cares if the bomb dropper is a pred with a hellfire, a F-15E or F-16 dropping a GBU 38, a B-1, or an A-10 as long as the guy's dead?
and low slow CAS is hardly the only way to do that.
>>28082398
I can't think of any way to better intimidate an opponent than BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT
>>28083281
>Only lasts for 10 seconds max
>As opposed to a bombing run which can last for 30 minutes straight.
>>28083330
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT
>>28083330
by 10 seconds you mean 23 strafing runs at 1 second bursts
>>28083281
i can't think of a better way to intimidate an opponent than killing them and destroying them in battle.
maybe i just live in the real world.
