When will everyone realize that you don't have to go low and slow to perform CAS?
Answer niggers
stupid fuck.
Don't even have to go low and slow to do gun runs either
Low, slow, kill everything below M8
C = Close
>>29277029
if you need to hit highly mobile and multiple targets and do not have the ability to call in a missile strike because you don't have a laser, low, slow, and high loiter time are rather important to providing CAS
>>29277029
It's all about raising ground troops morale as a portable airshow and making sick clipz for dem youtubes man.
>>29277498
Missiles can very much do that though
>>29277540
But why waste a missile on a bunch of sand niggers?
It's either the BRRRTT or you use some rocket pods like the Reds did
>>29277568
BRRRT is overkill on goatfuckers in small tents
>>29277029
When you realize CAS without C is just Ass.
>>29279644
>>29277444
"Close means the plane must be close!"
That's like if danger close barrages requires artillery guns to be 50m away from the target you dumb shits.
>>29277878
So you want to use million dollar missiles instead?
Anyhow, this was the best CAS plane ever made. Too bad it's in mothballs with no replacement.
>>29277029
I've really be wondering lately how much a modern A-10 would cost if it were built today. People rave about how cheap it supposedly is, but how cheap is it really? Sure it was cheap when they built them initially, but that's because they went for the cheapest avionics possible. That wouldn't be acceptable today. (Hell, it wasn't acceptable back then, pilots demanded better avionics and the entire thing was rewired to make it a better plane)
Say the McCain/McSally mafia get their wish and the Air Force is given a new requirement that they must maintain a certain number of A-10's (or planes of a very similar design) for close air support. Minimum requirements are that the plane MUST contain a 30x173mm Gatling cannon and room for at least 1000 rounds of ammunition. Plane must also feature two jet engines with similar placement as the A-10's. Another requirement is an armored cockpit and multiple redundant systems to allow the plane to absorb hits and keep flying.
>>29279700
Yeah the thing is, sure you can fire a missile and say you 'did CAS' and in fact most CAS is done that way.
But if you do NOT have the ability to come in low and slow and do it the hard way when required, you may be able to say you 'did CAS' but you can't say you are fully competent at CAS.
>>29280190
There is literally no requirement for CAS to take place low to the ground.
>>29280197
Can't you understand English?
No one said that. I said the exact opposite.
The definition of CAS does not imply that all CAS actions take place at low altitude. The reality of CAS does mean that *some* missions will have to be done at low altitude however. A plane that is not equipped to carry out those low altitude missions may be sometimes useful for CAS but it's certainly not a full-time CAS specialist.
I dont think it gets any clearer than that.
>>29280260
>The reality of CAS does mean that *some* missions will have to be done at low-altitude however.
Such as?
>>29280275
kamikaze strikes
>>29277029
Because you can support your own forces with 2 ton bombs dropped from 30000 feet that entirely accidentally takes out a company or two of own forces due to blast radius.
However infantry doesn't really count so sure, just go ahead. It is not as if infantry losses have any meaning anymore.
>>29280459
>Small diameter bombs don't exist
>>29280459
>MkI eyeball doesn't cause more blue on blue than any other system
>notably as deployed on A-10s
>>29277029
ayo its roger making it happen from my thinkpad edge e530c
so first of all OP really incisive question here. not only did you get into deep logistics issue but u made me think of probably the best rap band ever to try to free tibet (they almost did ppl forget that), the beast-eee-boys. thats back before millenials and cam newtom and drake and stuff - jesus christ
anyway to the subject of your question your completely right. CAS ("close area shooting") is not only not worse but in fact more better if your going fast. critics argue a few things which i will deconstruct shortly, they are basically
1. u should see what ur shooting at from like 5000 feet or whatever
2. u should see what ur firing missiles at from like 5000 feet or whatever
3. u need to be able to see ([probably] italian) pansies with there fancy little flares if theyre on ur team
a lot of this has to do what we who study military armys call blue-on-blue contact, or as civilians refer to it "friendly fire" (you know some pussy british PR guy who was afraid he'd offend us after we shot his stupid troops thought of that) or as serious historians like me call it fartricide
their hypocrticial and totally misleading basis for this is "math can say anything" statistics that the a-10 "warthog" has killed more us soldiers than basically all of the other aircraft combined and most of it has been in CAS where the radios all get turned on at once and the forward air controller shits his pants and doesnt know what 2 do. but this is a very misleading stastici "statistics are funny things, theyre damn lies" - coolidge
what that fails to account for is imagine u punch a muslim in the face. now imagine you start running full sprint, and then punch a muslim in the face. which is better? thought so
the faster plane u use, the harder u hit. ITS CALLED PHYSICS. we could do that if those little non-marines (ooha) would learn to use their radios and stop basically calling in air strikes on themselves
>>29280469
Manly men in fighter aircrafts prefer manly bombs. Why small diameter??
>>29280503
Assuming you really see what is going on. And not bomb, you know, Canadian forces on the ground.
>>29280459
holy fucking strawman batman
>>29280591
Strawman? Ask the Canadians. Sorry, make that the widows after the Canadians that were bombed by allies to smithereens.
There is something called fog of war. It does not come up often on this Polynesian basket weaving board I'd admit but it is nevertheless quite real. And one way to lift that fog is to descend from 30000 feet altitude and see the target with your own eyes in the cross hairs.
>>29281111
as someone who has actually done visual low altitude bombing in a fighter, it's still hard to see who you're dropping/shooting if all you've got is the Mk 1 eyeball.
>>29279985
>So you want to use million dollar missiles instead?
>Paveway IIs around $22k
>JDAM kits around $25k apiece
>SDB-I $40k
>Current Mavericks ~$110k
>AGM-114 Hellfire $110k
>FGM-148 Javelins $246k
>>29282677
I read somewhere the cost of building and maintaining five a10s is roughly equivalent to an f35.
>>29282761
How does anybody know what the cost of building an A-10 would be in 2016? They haven't been built in a long time.
>>29282761
Meant this to reply to>>29280074
>>29277029
When will you realize that you can stop being such a faggot and just love that damn plane?
>>29282761
Only in '70s dollars without converting first.
>>29282781
In 94 they were 12 million per plane. Can't be too much inflation since then
>>29282677
This. Finally someone gets it.
>>29282849
*84
>>29282849
Thats flyaway, not maintaining.
Directly applying inflation to a cost in 1984 doesn't work anyway.
>>29282849
>>29282886
Oh, and thats an A-10A, which might as well be a P-47.
>>29282849
That's before they started bolting on all the fancy avionics and targeting system the A-10C needs, and before production of airframes and spare parts was halted. Maintenance gets increasingly expensive as you run out of parts, and the Air Force has mostly had to resort to cannibalizing decommissioned or destroyed A-10s to keep the current fleet running.
>>29282849
The A-10A sucked balls though. If more A-10's were built, they would be A-10C's at least, or possibly a newly conceived A-10D.
>>29282959
>A-10D
Theres no point whatsoever in sinking money into a dead platform.
They're worth running out the airframe's clock for a while, but not dedicating real resources to.
>>29282980
Hence the "IF"
I'm just pointing out that using the A-10's initial procurement price as a measuring stick is deceptive because IF more were made, they would cost a lot more, and not just because of inflation.
>>29279985
God and there was a really good plan on the table to un-mothball and upgrade them to be slick as fuck but nooooo fucking fighter jocks gotta fighter jock MUH F-22 MUH F-35.
>>29283052
If you're saying having the A-7F(?) would have replaced the need for the F-22, you're a straight up vegetable.
the F-35 also performs better as both a strike fighter and other roles as well, so why bother getting your panties in a twist over it
>>29283128
That's an A-6 numbnuts.
>>29283128
You are now aware that the F-35 was supposed to enter service in 2010. It is now 2016 and the plane STILL being treated for major deficiencies and it may not be combat ready until 2022. 12 years behind schedule.
>>29283155
And all we're going to use it for is blowing up goat fuckers and their mud huts. When we could have spent a fraction of it on drones or upgrading existing airframes.
>>29283155
>estimate made in the '90s before production even began right as the first prototypes were being rolled out
>holding this estimate as a deadline written in stone
It's like you've never seen a procurement process before.
>>29277568
>waste a missile blowing up the enemy
>waste
I think we disagree on the meaning of that word anon.
>>29277498
Literally zero aircraft that are capable of launching a missile don't have their own laser. Also, dem drones, man. Ultra high loiter time, high altitude, multiple missiles, laser accurate.
>>29280275
Escorting fleets of uparmored Gavins carrying their own CRAM protection
>>29283201
Lockheed shill plz, at this point you should be giving us free planes out of shame.
>Cost-plus
>>29283155
>Eurofighter took 9 years from first flight to adoption
>Gripen took 9 years from first flight to adoption
>Rafale took 15 years from first flight to adoption.
>F-35A, B, and C have and will take 9, 10, and 12 years respectively from first flight to adoption.
Holy shit it's like developing modern fighters takes a long time or something.
>>29283204
>Literally zero aircraft that are capable of launching a missile don't have their own laser.
Completely and utterly false.
>>29283213
And how exactly would that be better served by something low and slow with guns rather than a slow MQ-1 or MQ-9 at 20,000 MSL with Hellfires and 9 hours of playtime?
>>29283282
Currently in service by any major military? Name one.
>>29283304
F-22.
>>29283290
because you can't do CLOSE air support without the CLOSE
Also drones are going to keep being a failed concept until someone adds heavy armor(about like an MBT give or take) and a serious caliber gun. Say what you like, but the troops need a plane that will swoop in and strafe the enemy. A gatling in around 57mm caliber should be ideal.
>>29283362
(you)
>>29283317
Okay. You're technically right because I said, "a missile." I should have said, AGM. Hell, the F-22 can't even hold LGBs. The laser guidance kit for the GBU-16 adds nearly a foot and a half to the weapon’s length and a considerable amount to its girth. I'm fairly certain it wouldn't even fit because the F-22 isn't designed for that.
So on the literal point, I acquiesce. You are correct. However, if you're on the ground and you need a CAS and the only thing around is an F-22, you're pretty fucked anyway. And it also doesn't fit the slow and low criteria anyway.
I guess I should have said, "Any aircraft currently in service by the US military that is supporting a ground unit in a CAS/CCA role will have an integral laser designator."
We good?
>>29283362 That's not what CLOSE means. You should google "Danger Close" and then come back to the thread with the adults. See >>29279700
And yeah, I'm sure if Habbibi Al-Aziz and Muhummad Alahadeen Jumbari are shooting at me from the building down the street, I'd rather have someone strafe the building at 340kts with your 57mm would be way better than an AGM-114 R with a laser. Oh wait.
>>29283434
i think he's joking but i'm not sure anymore.
>>29283304
B-1B
F-15E
A-10
F-16
B-52
F-18 Hornet
F-18 Super Hornet
>>29283406
We good, I just like being obtuse
Also, really as far as I'm aware the F-35 is technically speaking the first aircraft to actually have a laser. Everything else gets that from a LITENING pod or equivalent.
>>29283445
all of those carry the SNIPER pod which has a laser.
try again.
>>29283460
>all of those carry the SNIPER pod
Precisely my point. They need external pods to add lase capability.
>>29283434
Wouldn't you want a November model missile tho
>>29283213
>carrying their own CRAM protection
Sounds like a good recipe for blue-on-blue.
>>29283468
they're integrated into the aircraft at this point. they're going to tell you at the step desk if you don't have a pod, not vice versa.
>>29283455
I don't know. I mean, the MQ-1(C) and MQ-9 both have LDRS in the payload. I assume RQ-170 does as well. I mean, it's technically external to the aircraft and it can fly without it but it isn't like anyone ever does. Because what would the point be?
>>29283246
That's nice but at the end of the day it is still too late. Eventually the various parties involved will reach the conclusion that they simply cannot wait any longer for new planes and they cannot stake so much money on a flawed aircraft. The orders for the F-35 will dissolve away into a mere trickle. The United States and Canada will end up buying super hornets instead. European nations with gravitate toward options like the Typhoon or the Gripen. Japan, Korea, and Australia will end up buying mostly F-15SE or Advanced Super Hornets.
>>29283520
and then they'll get BTFO by countries that did get the F-35
>>29283477
The Romeo replaces both the P4A and the N. I fired my first one two weeks ago. With the proper PIM codes, it can even do delayed fuse or airburst.
>>29283528
Oh shit are you a UAV fag?
>>29283501
But what does this have to do with eliminating the failed IFV concept and replacing all the Brads with light tanks that tow M113-based infantry trailers? They can tow multiple M113 trailers in sequence, like a train if you will.
Trains are the future. See pic for inspiration
>>29283528
And UAS still has a terrible PK.
UAVs need heavy armor, a cannon, and a pilot to take full advantage of the low speed
>>29283556
not unless you paint it HYPERSTEALTH ATACS MULTICAM US4CES
>>29283556
Trains can't glide, dipshit
>>29283550
I am.
>>29283569
Ahaha. K. I'll defer do your mountain of experience.
>>29283527
The F-35 will be around but not in large numbers. The whole thing is based on economies of scale so once people start reducing orders it becomes a feed-back loop.
The F-35 right now is based on faith. Countries are ordering it because the United States government has sworn, up and down, left and right, that it is gonna be the best fighter on the planet once all the bugs are fixed.
Once that illusion is pierced the house of cards will topple. Most likely, it will come from the Navy. They're already ordering more Super Hornets. They'll probably end up buying more. Other countries will see this and they'll see it as proof that the F-35 isn't worth the cash if the US navy is still buying Super Hornets.
And then poof, the emperor's clothes are gone.
>>29283596
I want to make a hardcore track that is nothing but bass, beat, and chopped-up snippets of different people saying "trains"
>>29283596
No problem pal
>>29283203
Its a waste in the military world. Its the same reason why the French switched to concrete packages for bomb ordinance in Libya. Those hi tech missiles are fucking expensive, and the only reason why most Americans don't care is because it keeps people hired.
>>29283618
Find better things to do with your time.
>>29283647
That's you? Yeah? What would you need to begin a MUM-T op and when LOI should you be in?
>>29283618
On a more serious note, is F/A-XX gonna be able to carry LRASM internally? Is an airborne VLO carrier for LRASM even a priority or can F-35s with NSM and Super Bugs with LRASM fill the role sufficiently for the next couple decades?
>>29283695
For what, full control? That's be LOI 4, but I don't really feel like doing your job on top of mine.
>>29283711
How much stuff can a stealth fighter carry outside of the cargo bay before stealth stops mattering? Is there a limit? I remember how when the F-22 was the new big thing the internal weapons bays were made out to be this incredibly crucial part of the design.
>>29283719
For MUM-T. Don't say you don't want to do my job when you don't know how to do yours. You should probably work on doing MUM-T during your next Gunnery Focus since you won't have OH-58s anymore. Unless you like ZSU-23s. In which case, have at it. Also, you should probably look into what the UAS PKs actually are.
>>29283786
Thank you for this post. I had to show it to my colleagues because it was so fucking funny. I went to the Boeing plant for Block III training years ago where we did LOI 2-4. We then did the FDOT&E at China Lake and NTC. Be content with what you do my friend, not mad.
>>29283812
>>29283786
>>29283719
>>29283695
>>29283647
>it just gets better and better
>>29283812
Wait, you did MUM-T years ago? YEARS ago? You realize that the UAS community is software driven and changes on a 6 month rotation, right? Like seriously, it changes that fast.
And it's not even what I do anymore. Last gunnery was my final hoorah. I'm about to be a 150U now.
>>29283867
Watch out guys, he's gonna be a walking warrant.
>>29279985
>So you want to use million dollar missiles instead?
Any country that can pay in dollars instead of blood has a moral obligation to do so. Truly America is the most fortunate nation to ever go to war. Why would you take that away?
>>29283867
Yes that's when we initially trained on it, we get the upgrades and the MTT training like everyone else. Every airframe in the fleet is software driven.
>>29283867
im not gonna lie you sound like a real douche
>>29282855
Gets what? That the F-35 typically fires far cheaper weapons than the A-10's signature Maverick?
>>29283214
>F-35 hasn't been Cost-plus since LRIP 3
>>29283923
fuck you faggot uavs are the best
